I’m back again today to continue examining Spurgeon’s “Defense of Calvinism.” Spurgeon writes the following regarding the atonement:
“Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, ‘It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself,’ they say, ‘to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.’ I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then HE INTENDED TO SAVE THOSE WHO WERE LOST BEFORE HE DIED. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then HE DIED FOR SOME WHO WERE IN HELL BEFORE HE CAME INTO THIS WORLD, for doubtless THERE WERE EVEN THEN MYRIADS THERE WHO HAD BEEN CAST AWAY BECAUSE OF THEIR SINS. Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, HOW DEPLORABLY HAS HE BEEN DISAPPOINTED, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the MOST MONSTROUS INIQUITY THAT COULD EVER HAVE BEEN IMPUTED to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!” (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Defense of Calvinism.” Quoted in the book “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented (Second Edition)” by David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004)
Yes, you read Spurgeon’s words above right—if Christ died for every man, then He died for men who were already citizens of Hell. But there are a few problems with this statement: first, it disregards the time the Father chose for the Incarnation of the Son. Read these words from Galatians:
4 But when the completion of the time came, God sent His Son, (D) born of a woman, (E) born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:4-5, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The Lord chose to send His Son at the time that pleased Him. It is not up to me to question that He sent His Son after two thousand years or so had passed. The point is, He did it because it was a part of His plan.
Next, Spurgeon overlooks the fact that the saints of the Old Testament were approved in the same way that the New Testament saints were approved: by faith in the Lord.
Hebrews 4 tells us that the Israelites received the same message as present believers:
1 Therefore, while the promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear so that none of you should miss it. [a] 2 For we also have received the good news just as they did; but the message they heard did not benefit them, since they were not united with those who heard it in faith (A) [b] 3 (for we who have believed enter the rest), in keeping with what [c] He has said:
So I swore in My anger,
they will not enter My rest. (B) (C)
And yet His works have been finished since the foundation of the world, 4 for somewhere He has spoken about the seventh day in this way:
And on the seventh day
God rested from all His works. (D) (E)
5 Again, in that passage [He says], They will never enter My rest. (F) 6 Since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news did not enter because of disobedience, (G) 7 again, He specifies a certain day— today —speaking through David after such a long time, as previously stated:
Today if you hear His voice,
do not harden your hearts. (H) (I)
8 For if Joshua (J) had given them rest, He would not have spoken later about another day. 9 A Sabbath rest remains, therefore, for God's people. 10 For the person who has entered His rest has rested from his own works, just as God did from His. (K) 11 Let us then make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall into the same pattern of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:1-11, HCSB).
As Hebrews 4 shows us, the Israelites received the SAME GOOD NEWS—but they did not obtain the promise because of unbelief. So they didn’t hear a different message than us! Contrary to modern thought, we are no more special or prized than God’s Israel of the Old Testament. And Paul tells us to be cautious lest we, like national Israel, experience God’s wrath (Romans 11:17-24).
In Hebrews 4:5, we are told that the Jews failed to enter the Promised Land—and thus, “it remains for some to enter it…” The same rest that they were supposed to enter is now open to us to enter it. What this tells us is that, while we tend to think of the Promised Land as just physical territory, the Promised Land was Heaven. For the writer of Hebrews says the following about Abraham leaving his home:
9 By faith he stayed as a foreigner in the land of promise, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, co-heirs of the same promise. (H) 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. (Hebrews 11:9-10, HCSB)
So, while Abraham did enter the “land of promise,” the physical territory that God desired to give him, he anticipated a different territory altogether: a heavenly one. This is why the writer of Hebrews says, “He was looking forward to the city that has foundations, WHOSE ARCHITECT AND BUILDER IS GOD.” And what territory is this? Heaven. Paul described our immortal form in this manner:
1 For we know that if our earthly house, (A) a tent, (B) [a] is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house [b] not made with hands, (C) eternal in the heavens. (2 Corinthians 5:1, HCSB).
The new incorruption will be made by God, just as the heavenly territory has been built by God. He promised to go away to prepare a place for us—and He promised to return to take us to be with Him (John 14:2-3).
Last but not least, Hebrews 11 gives us “The Roll Call of Faith,” which shows us all the faithful gone on before us who pleased God by faith.
Let’s examine the Old Testament saints:
4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain [did]. By this he was approved as a righteous man, because God approved his gifts, and even though he is dead, he still speaks through this. (C) 5 By faith, Enoch was taken away so that he did not experience death, and he was not to be found because God took him away. (D) For prior to his transformation he was approved, having pleased God. (E) 6 Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him. 7 By faith Noah, after being warned about what was not yet seen, in reverence built an ark to deliver his family. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. (F) 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed and went out to a place he was going to receive as an inheritance; he went out, not knowing where he was going. (G) 9 By faith he stayed as a foreigner in the land of promise, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, co-heirs of the same promise. (H) 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. (I) 11 By faith even Sarah herself, when she was barren, received power to conceive offspring, even though she was past the age, since she [e] considered that the One who had promised was faithful. (J) 12 And therefore from one man—in fact, from one as good as dead—came offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as innumerable as the grains of sand by the seashore. (K) 13 These all died in faith without having received the promises, but they saw them from a distance, (L) greeted them, and confessed that they were foreigners and temporary residents on the earth. (M) 14 Now those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been remembering that land they came from, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But they now aspire to a better land—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them. (N) (Hebrews 11:4-16, HCSB).
From Abel forward, faith was always required. Notice that in Genesis 4 we are told that “The Lord had regard FOR ABEL and his offering” (Gen. 4:4b, HCSB). Verse 13 tells us that the roll call of faith “DIED IN FAITH without having received the promises.” They embraced the promises of God even though they didn’t live to see them fulfilled. Because of their faith, however, “God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.” They will receive the reward for their faith and endurance. Even Noah became “an heir of the righteousness that is by faith.”
We know that they received the same message (as we’re told from Hebrews 4), and that, like us, they had to respond to it in faith. But how can those of the Old Testament have received the same message if Christ hadn’t come to earth in the Incarnation yet? Peter answers this superbly:
10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets (AB) who prophesied about the grace that would come to you searched and carefully investigated. 11 They inquired into what time or what circumstances [e] the Spirit of Christ (AC) within them was indicating when He testified in advance (AD) to the messianic sufferings (AE) [f] and the glories (AF) that would follow. [g] 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you concerning things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you (AG) by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. (1 Peter 1:10-12, HCSB)
The prophets had “the Spirit of Christ within them” when they prophesied of Christ’s sufferings and His glory. The Old Testament is full of references to Christ’s suffering and glory. For instance, there are the Suffering Servant passages of Isaiah 52-53. Psalm 22 is another regarding Christ’s sufferings. And Peter’s sermons in Acts are full of Old Testament prophecy concerning Christ. So within the Old Testament writers, the Spirit lived and used them to testify of Christ, the One who was to come.
In short, the Old Testament humanity heard the same message that we hear—except they heard of what was TO COME, we hear of what HAS ALREADY COME!
So when Spurgeon says that Christ couldn’t have died for all because of those who already died in their sins, I have to respond that those who died in wickedness made their choice—against God and His righteous standard. Their spending eternity in Hell, then, is the consequence of their choices.
To conclude this post, I would like to use some of the narrative of Luke 16 regarding the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The rich man lived in luxury, while Lazarus sat at the gate, eating crumbs and begging for mercy. But when the two died, Lazarus ended up in heaven while the rich man went to hell. The rich man, understanding how wrong he was, finally wants to help his relatives who are still alive:
27 " 'Father,' he said, 'then I beg you to send him to my father's house— 28 because I have five brothers—to warn (AL) them, so they won't also come to this place of torment.'
29 "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; (AM) they should listen to them.' (Luke 16:27-29, HCSB)
The Old Testament humanity had the prophets to listen to, who foretold of Christ and His suffering and glory. If that didn’t do it, nothing else would. Today we have those called by God to teach and preach the Word; if we don’t listen to the Word, then nothing else will do—even if someone should rise from the dead and tell us that it is all true.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Spurgeon's Lapse, Part I
For the last few days, I’ve been reading “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented” by authors David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. The book is mostly composed of an explanation of each of the five tenets of Calvinism, followed by Scriptural justification. At the end of the book, however, are appendices. I read one of them tonight, called “A Defense of Calvinism” by the great preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Spurgeon commits an “Arminian blunder” (an inconsistent Calvinist remark) when he writes the following:
“Then, in the fullness of time, He purchased me with His blood: He let His heart run out in one deep gaping wound for me, long ere I loved Him. Yea, WHEN HE FIRST CAME TO ME, DID I NOT SPURN HIM? When He knocked at the door, and ASKED for entrance, DID I NOT DRIVE HIM AWAY, AND DO DESPITE TO HIS GRACE? Ah, I CAN REMEMBER THAT I FULL OFTEN DID SO until, at last, by the power of HIS EFFECTUAL GRACE, He said, ‘I MUST, I WILL COME IN,’ and then HE TURNED MY HEART, AND MADE ME LOVE HIM” (Steele, Thomas, & Quinn, “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented.” Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004, page 175).
Spurgeon is telling here of just how he came to faith in Christ. Notice that he asks the question, “When He [Christ] first came to me, DID I NOT SPURN HIM?” Here is the definition of the word “spurn”:
intransitive verb 1 obsolete a : stumble b : kick 1a
2 archaic : to reject something disdainfully transitive verb 1 : to tread sharply or heavily upon : trample
2 : to reject with disdain or contempt : scorn
synonyms: decline
According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (as quoted above), to “spurn” involves a rejection of something. And rejection is an open decision to NOT choose something. One chooses against it. As is clearly seen, choice is involved in rejection.
The next question of Spurgeon’s is, “When He knocked at the door, and ASKED FOR ENTRANCE, did I not DRIVE HIM AWAY and DO DESPITE TO HIS GRACE?”
The Lord knocked at the door of Spurgeon’s heart, and ASKED for entrance—He did not force Himself into Spurgeon’s heart. He did not break the door down; He simply opened it and asked that Spurgeon let Him in. This is the same thing a guest does. A guest does not kick the door in to gain entrance—he knocks and waits for the homeowner to open the door and allow entrance.
Here’s a definition of the word “ask”:
transitive verb 1 a : to call on for an answer b : to put a question about c : SPEAK, UTTER
2 a : to make a request of b : to make a request for
3 : to call for : REQUIRE
4 : to set as a price
5 : INVITEintransitive verb 1 : to seek information
2 : to make a request
3 : LOOK —often used in the phrase ask for trouble
There are a few definitions given by Merriam Webster here that I like most: “TO CALL for” and to “invite.” The Lord “calls” for all to come to Himself:
28 "Come to Me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. (B) 29 All of you, take up My yoke and learn from Me, (C) because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for yourselves. (Matthew 11:28-29, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
And the Lord did the same thing in the parable of the Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22:
8 "Then he told his slaves, 'The banquet is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. (E) 9 Therefore, go to where the roads exit the city and invite everyone you find to the banquet. (F) ' 10 So those slaves went out on the roads and gathered everyone they found, both evil and good. The wedding banquet was filled with guests. (Matthew 22:8-10, HCSB).
Everyone the King’s servants could find was “invited” to the banquet. Notice that, earlier in the chapter, prior to verse 8, those who were “invited” to the banquet refused to come—all for various reasons. So there were guests invited who were allowed to REFUSE the invitation! No one was DRAGGED into the banquet unwillingly!
Spurgeon said that, when the Lord came to him and called him, he refused the invitation—he “drove Him away” and “did despite unto His grace.” The Lord knocked on the door of his heart for entrance; but, instead of knocking down the door, the Lord KNOCKED. And when He knocked, Spurgeon “answered the door” and “drove Him away,” sent the Lord packing. He told the Lord, “go away”—and went back inside. Not only did he drive the Lord away; he also “did despite to His grace.” What does this phrase mean?
I also looked up the word “despite” in Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:
1: the feeling or attitude of despising : CONTEMPT 2: MALICE, SPITE 3 a: an act showing contempt or defiance b: DETRIMENT, DISADVANTAGE.
I like definition number 3a: “An act showing CONTEMPT or DEFIANCE.” When Spurgeon says that he “did despite to His grace,” this means that he trampled it, he “spat on it,” he cared nothing for it and wanted nothing of it. What does it mean to show “contempt”?
b: lack of respect or reverence for something2: the state of being despised3: willful disobedience to or open disrespect of a court, judge, or legislative body.
Definition 1b tells us that contempt is “lack of respect or reverence for something.” So when the Lord invited Spurgeon into His family, initially, he had no reverence for the Lord or His invitation. He was a bit like Pharaoh when Moses first went to him and told him the words of the Lord:
2 But Pharaoh responded, "Who is the LORD that I should obey Him by letting Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and what's more, I will not let Israel go." (Exodus 5:2, HCSB)
Pharaoh responded, “Who is the LORD…?” essentially, he was saying, “Who does the Lord think He is?” The name of the LORD didn’t even shock Pharaoh or cause him to tremble. And this was Spurgeon’s response when the Lord came knocking on the door of his heart.
But the last definition of the word “contempt” above is number 3—“WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE to or OPEN DISRESPECT” of something. When a person is said to have WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE, this indicates an inner intention to rebel against something. So the desire to rebel stems from the person; and the person is allowed to rebel. Spurgeon CHOSE to rebel.
However, he states that at one point, the Lord decides to get through to him and so “MADE me to love Him.” So the only way Spurgeon comes to Christ is that Christ “MAKES” Spurgeon come to Himself. The problem with Spurgeon’s assessment of his conversion is that, initially, he is allowed to REJECT the Spirit of Grace. Is Spurgeon saying that God allows the person to reject Him, and “kick” against Him? I think he is.
This what makes the Calvinist assessment so hard to reconcile: when mankind is in sin, he does what HE DESIRES to do; but, when he accepts Christ, now the Lord MAKES HIM do what the Lord wants him to do! If the person can do what he desires before Christ, why can’t he do what Christ desires AFTER CHRIST? The Calvinist acknowledges that man does his own thing BEFORE CHRIST; but at the moment of conversion and after Christ, the Spirit FORCES people to do things, MAKES them confess their sins, and MAKES them do His bidding.
Spurgeon’s lapse in his “Defense” is that he actually recalls a time when he rebelled against the Lord’s plea to be saved. In the Calvinist system, however, God is not one who KNOCKS, but one who INVADES and PLUNDERS!
I will cover more on Spurgeon’s Lapse in my next post.
“Then, in the fullness of time, He purchased me with His blood: He let His heart run out in one deep gaping wound for me, long ere I loved Him. Yea, WHEN HE FIRST CAME TO ME, DID I NOT SPURN HIM? When He knocked at the door, and ASKED for entrance, DID I NOT DRIVE HIM AWAY, AND DO DESPITE TO HIS GRACE? Ah, I CAN REMEMBER THAT I FULL OFTEN DID SO until, at last, by the power of HIS EFFECTUAL GRACE, He said, ‘I MUST, I WILL COME IN,’ and then HE TURNED MY HEART, AND MADE ME LOVE HIM” (Steele, Thomas, & Quinn, “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented.” Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004, page 175).
Spurgeon is telling here of just how he came to faith in Christ. Notice that he asks the question, “When He [Christ] first came to me, DID I NOT SPURN HIM?” Here is the definition of the word “spurn”:
intransitive verb 1 obsolete a : stumble b : kick 1a
2 archaic : to reject something disdainfully transitive verb 1 : to tread sharply or heavily upon : trample
2 : to reject with disdain or contempt : scorn
synonyms: decline
According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (as quoted above), to “spurn” involves a rejection of something. And rejection is an open decision to NOT choose something. One chooses against it. As is clearly seen, choice is involved in rejection.
The next question of Spurgeon’s is, “When He knocked at the door, and ASKED FOR ENTRANCE, did I not DRIVE HIM AWAY and DO DESPITE TO HIS GRACE?”
The Lord knocked at the door of Spurgeon’s heart, and ASKED for entrance—He did not force Himself into Spurgeon’s heart. He did not break the door down; He simply opened it and asked that Spurgeon let Him in. This is the same thing a guest does. A guest does not kick the door in to gain entrance—he knocks and waits for the homeowner to open the door and allow entrance.
Here’s a definition of the word “ask”:
transitive verb 1 a : to call on for an answer
2 a : to make a request of
3 : to call for : REQUIRE
4 : to set as a price
5 : INVITEintransitive verb 1 : to seek information
2 : to make a request
3 : LOOK —often used in the phrase ask for trouble
There are a few definitions given by Merriam Webster here that I like most: “TO CALL for” and to “invite.” The Lord “calls” for all to come to Himself:
28 "Come to Me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. (B) 29 All of you, take up My yoke and learn from Me, (C) because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for yourselves. (Matthew 11:28-29, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
And the Lord did the same thing in the parable of the Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22:
8 "Then he told his slaves, 'The banquet is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. (E) 9 Therefore, go to where the roads exit the city and invite everyone you find to the banquet. (F) ' 10 So those slaves went out on the roads and gathered everyone they found, both evil and good. The wedding banquet was filled with guests. (Matthew 22:8-10, HCSB).
Everyone the King’s servants could find was “invited” to the banquet. Notice that, earlier in the chapter, prior to verse 8, those who were “invited” to the banquet refused to come—all for various reasons. So there were guests invited who were allowed to REFUSE the invitation! No one was DRAGGED into the banquet unwillingly!
Spurgeon said that, when the Lord came to him and called him, he refused the invitation—he “drove Him away” and “did despite unto His grace.” The Lord knocked on the door of his heart for entrance; but, instead of knocking down the door, the Lord KNOCKED. And when He knocked, Spurgeon “answered the door” and “drove Him away,” sent the Lord packing. He told the Lord, “go away”—and went back inside. Not only did he drive the Lord away; he also “did despite to His grace.” What does this phrase mean?
I also looked up the word “despite” in Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:
1: the feeling or attitude of despising : CONTEMPT 2: MALICE, SPITE 3 a: an act showing contempt or defiance b: DETRIMENT, DISADVANTAGE.
I like definition number 3a: “An act showing CONTEMPT or DEFIANCE.” When Spurgeon says that he “did despite to His grace,” this means that he trampled it, he “spat on it,” he cared nothing for it and wanted nothing of it. What does it mean to show “contempt”?
b: lack of respect or reverence for something2: the state of being despised3: willful disobedience to or open disrespect of a court, judge, or legislative body.
Definition 1b tells us that contempt is “lack of respect or reverence for something.” So when the Lord invited Spurgeon into His family, initially, he had no reverence for the Lord or His invitation. He was a bit like Pharaoh when Moses first went to him and told him the words of the Lord:
2 But Pharaoh responded, "Who is the LORD that I should obey Him by letting Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and what's more, I will not let Israel go." (Exodus 5:2, HCSB)
Pharaoh responded, “Who is the LORD…?” essentially, he was saying, “Who does the Lord think He is?” The name of the LORD didn’t even shock Pharaoh or cause him to tremble. And this was Spurgeon’s response when the Lord came knocking on the door of his heart.
But the last definition of the word “contempt” above is number 3—“WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE to or OPEN DISRESPECT” of something. When a person is said to have WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE, this indicates an inner intention to rebel against something. So the desire to rebel stems from the person; and the person is allowed to rebel. Spurgeon CHOSE to rebel.
However, he states that at one point, the Lord decides to get through to him and so “MADE me to love Him.” So the only way Spurgeon comes to Christ is that Christ “MAKES” Spurgeon come to Himself. The problem with Spurgeon’s assessment of his conversion is that, initially, he is allowed to REJECT the Spirit of Grace. Is Spurgeon saying that God allows the person to reject Him, and “kick” against Him? I think he is.
This what makes the Calvinist assessment so hard to reconcile: when mankind is in sin, he does what HE DESIRES to do; but, when he accepts Christ, now the Lord MAKES HIM do what the Lord wants him to do! If the person can do what he desires before Christ, why can’t he do what Christ desires AFTER CHRIST? The Calvinist acknowledges that man does his own thing BEFORE CHRIST; but at the moment of conversion and after Christ, the Spirit FORCES people to do things, MAKES them confess their sins, and MAKES them do His bidding.
Spurgeon’s lapse in his “Defense” is that he actually recalls a time when he rebelled against the Lord’s plea to be saved. In the Calvinist system, however, God is not one who KNOCKS, but one who INVADES and PLUNDERS!
I will cover more on Spurgeon’s Lapse in my next post.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Foreknowledge and Predetermination
In my last post, I asked the question, “if this [special] people are known ‘before the creation of the world,’ does this mean that God PREDETERMINED who they would be?” I am here now to answer this question.
But to do so, we must define three terms. Robert Picirilli defines these terms:
“1. CertaintyThe certainty of a future event means, simply, the fact that it will occur. Certainty, as I am using it, means its ‘factness,’ its ‘eventness’ in the future. If God is omniscient, it follows logically that all things that occur are certainly foreknown by God. Everything that happens is certain and known as such by God from all eternity” (Robert Picirilli, “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future,”. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Issue 43, no. 2, June 2000, page 262.).
I looked up the word “certain” in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary and saw the following definitions:
1: FIXED, SETTLED 2: of a specific but unspecified character, quantity, or degree3 a: DEPENDABLE, RELIABLE b: known or proved to be true : INDISPUTABLE 4 a: INEVITABLE b: incapable of failing : DESTINED —used with a following infinitive 5: assured in mind or action .
Of particular interest to me is definition 4b—“destined.” I clicked on the word “destined” and got the following definitions:
1: to decree beforehand : PREDETERMINE2 a: to designate, assign, or dedicate in advance;the younger son was destined for the priesthood; a trait that destines them to failure; b: to direct, devise, or set apart for a specific purpose or place
So it seems at first glance that every “choice” humans make has already been PLANNED or PREDETERMINED by God.
However, this is where Scripture casts the final “say-so”:
12 Blessed is a man who endures trials, [a] because when he passes the test he will receive the crown (J) of life that He [b] has promised to those who love Him. (K)
13 No one undergoing a trial should say, "I am being tempted by God." For God is not tempted by evil, [c] and He Himself doesn't tempt anyone. 14 But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires. 15 Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death. (L)
16 Don't be deceived, my dearly loved brothers. (M) 17 Every generous act and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights; with Him there is no variation or shadow cast by turning. (James 1;12-17, HCSB)
Scripture tells us that “He [God] doesn’t tempt anyone. God doesn’t use sin and evil by which to tempt or “trick” anyone into sin. This is why James continues with the words, “DON’T BE DECEIVED, my dearly loved brothers. EVERY GENEROUS ACT AND EVERY PERFECT GIFT IS FROM ABOVE…” Every bad thing does not come from God—but every good thing does. Notice that, when someone is tempted, they shouldn’t even blame the Devil: “But each person is tempted WHEN HE IS DRAWN AWAY AND ENTICED BY HIS OWN EVIL DESIRES” (James 1:14, HCSB). When temptation comes and gives birth to sin (and sin to death), then man is responsible for sin—not God!
Because of this, we have to come to grips with the fact that God has foreknowledge but man chooses to do evil (for instance) of his own accord—for God cannot be charged with sin. I will clear this up soon.
Now, on to our other two terms. This is what Picirilli says about “contingency”:
“A contingency is anything that really can take place in more than one way. For an event to be contingent, it must not be the INEVITABLE or UNAVOIDABLE product of natural law or of the necessitating influence of God…certainty relates to the ‘factness’ of an event, to WHETHER IT WILL BE OR NOT; contingency relates to its NATURE as free or inevitably caused by some other force. I am saying, therefore, that the same event can be both certain and contingent at the same time…” (262).
Picirilli goes on to give an example of him coming to a crossroads and choosing which direction to take. The fact that he will have to turn is certain; but his choice of which direction to take is up for debate (for there are two directions, and initially, he hasn’t taken either road). Now, in the mind of God, Picirilli has already taken his direction—but in the present time, Picirilli has yet to make a decision. Although God knows which direction He will choose, God is not gonna cause him in any way to make a certain direction. God’s knowledge does not directly impact his decision.
And the same thing goes for us. The contingency of an event relates to what the choice will be based upon two or more options. The certainty of an event states that the person will make a turn; but the contingency gives the options. The certainty of an event does not NECESSITATE that I know what turns will be available.
A good example of foreknowledge versus predetermination can be seen in the case of Hezekiah in the book of Isaiah. These words are recorded in Isaiah 38:
1 In those days Hezekiah became terminally ill. (A) The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz came and said to him, "This is what the LORD says: 'Put your affairs in order, (B) [a] for you are about to die; you will not recover.' " [b]
2 Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD. 3 He said, "Please, LORD, remember how I have walked before You faithfully and wholeheartedly, (C) and have done what is good in Your sight." (D) And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah: 5 "Go and tell Hezekiah that this is what the LORD God of your ancestor David says: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Look, I am going to add 15 years to your life. (E) [c] 6 And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city. (F) 7 This is the sign to you (G) from the LORD that the LORD will do what [d] He has promised: [e] 8 I am going to make the sun's shadow that goes down on Ahaz's stairway return by 10 steps." (H) So the sun's shadow [f] went back the 10 steps it had descended. (Isaiah 38:1-8, HCSB).
We learn in Isaiah 38 that Hezekiah was near the point of death. According to Isaiah, the Lord told Hezekiah that he was soon to die. The Lord told Hezekiah, ‘You will not recover.’ In other words, it seemed INEVITABLE that Hezekiah was gonna die. But then, on account of the news, Hezekiah turned to the wall and prayed for the Lord to heal him; it is only after he prays that the Lord tells Isaiah to go tell Hezekiah that 15 more years were added to his life.
Although the Lord told Hezekiah, “You will not recover,” the Lord changed His answer to Hezekiah and granted him longer life than previously expected.
Here we see the Lord’s foreknowledge—the Lord knew that He would add fifteen years to Hezekiah’s life. In addition to years to his life, the Lord also told Hezekiah, “And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city.” The Lord’s sign to Hezekiah was the sun’s shadow regressing 10 degrees.
What I treasure most about the passage of Hezekiah’s prayer is that the Lord doesn’t make Hezekiah do anything; instead, Hezekiah’s response to his soon death is that he turns to God and prays, reminding the Lord of his walk before Him (not that the Lord needed reminding). But Hezekiah brings before God his faithfulness to the Lord and the Lord responds positively to Hezekiah’s request. Unlike the god of the Calvinists, the God of Scripture does not just order around His creation and dictate orders to them; instead, He gives them the ability to choose whether to follow or rebel—and then punishes them or rewards them accordingly. The Lord interacts with His creatures in a very dynamic way.
Regarding contingency, Hezekiah figured that he had another choice in the matter: while the Lord had told him he would die, he believed that if he appealed to the Lord in prayer, that there was the POSSIBILITY that his life could be spared. The Lord gave Hezekiah the fact of death—however, the Lord later reversed that decision. Now the Lord knew that He was gonna reverse the decision—however, the Lord works in time and space, constructs He made for human life. As a result, while God knows everything, He reacts to man’s actions in time and space—which means that, while He knows all, He gives man the power to choose his actions. The fact that God changes such decisions shows that the Lord desires to interact with His creatures such that, when they pray, He answers them in ways only known by Him.
The last term to be investigated is “necessity”:
“Necessary events are those that can transpire in just one way because they are caused by some other force and therefore must inevitably be the way they are. For such events there were causes leading to the event that allowed no freedom of choice, causes that NECESSARILY produced the event. These are cause-effect events, where the cause can issue in no other result than the effect” (262, 263).
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary has an interesting definition of “necessary”:
“determined or produced by the previous condition of things.”
So a prior condition CAUSES the event in question. This is indeed a cause-effect idea. For instance, if I push my glass of milk off of the table, then the effect will be that the glass will fall to the floor and the milk will spill. Or, if I spill the milk on the table, then the milk is gonna spread across the table. With the Calvinist, they believe that, since God knows everything, He must CAUSE everything that happens; however, God is not the “previous condition” of events— FREE WILL is the previous CONDITION of an event. For example, in the example where my milk spills all across the table, this was caused by me knocking over my glass of milk, not God ordaining it. God’s knowledge is NOT an action—while God knows everything, knowledge doesn’t imply culpability. God gave me choice regarding things like what liquid I would drink (milk, soda, water, etc.), the glass I would choose, and whether I would drink all the milk or spill it. It is on the basis of these choices that I knock over the milk; and when I do, the responsibility lies with me for so doing. What is necessary is my free will—without it, I can’t do any action. However, the action produced by my free will choices cannot be blamed on God…for God doesn’t push over the milk—I do.
It’s fascinating how, in the discussion of free will and sovereignty, Calvinists claim God causes everything; and yet, in our everyday lives, we are the direct causes of so many things!! Shouldn’t everyday experience in human nature give us a clue into the free will God has given us? If it doesn’t, nothing will.
I will continue my discussion of Robert Picirilli’s article “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future” in my next post. In addition, I will continue my work on whether the “special people” that Christ will receive as an inheritance are PREDETERMINED by God.
But to do so, we must define three terms. Robert Picirilli defines these terms:
“1. CertaintyThe certainty of a future event means, simply, the fact that it will occur. Certainty, as I am using it, means its ‘factness,’ its ‘eventness’ in the future. If God is omniscient, it follows logically that all things that occur are certainly foreknown by God. Everything that happens is certain and known as such by God from all eternity” (Robert Picirilli, “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future,”. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Issue 43, no. 2, June 2000, page 262.).
I looked up the word “certain” in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary and saw the following definitions:
1: FIXED, SETTLED 2: of a specific but unspecified character, quantity, or degree
Of particular interest to me is definition 4b—“destined.” I clicked on the word “destined” and got the following definitions:
1: to decree beforehand : PREDETERMINE2 a: to designate, assign, or dedicate in advance;the younger son was destined for the priesthood; a trait that destines them to failure; b: to direct, devise, or set apart for a specific purpose or place
So it seems at first glance that every “choice” humans make has already been PLANNED or PREDETERMINED by God.
However, this is where Scripture casts the final “say-so”:
12 Blessed is a man who endures trials, [a] because when he passes the test he will receive the crown (J) of life that He [b] has promised to those who love Him. (K)
13 No one undergoing a trial should say, "I am being tempted by God." For God is not tempted by evil, [c] and He Himself doesn't tempt anyone. 14 But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires. 15 Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death. (L)
16 Don't be deceived, my dearly loved brothers. (M) 17 Every generous act and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights; with Him there is no variation or shadow cast by turning. (James 1;12-17, HCSB)
Scripture tells us that “He [God] doesn’t tempt anyone. God doesn’t use sin and evil by which to tempt or “trick” anyone into sin. This is why James continues with the words, “DON’T BE DECEIVED, my dearly loved brothers. EVERY GENEROUS ACT AND EVERY PERFECT GIFT IS FROM ABOVE…” Every bad thing does not come from God—but every good thing does. Notice that, when someone is tempted, they shouldn’t even blame the Devil: “But each person is tempted WHEN HE IS DRAWN AWAY AND ENTICED BY HIS OWN EVIL DESIRES” (James 1:14, HCSB). When temptation comes and gives birth to sin (and sin to death), then man is responsible for sin—not God!
Because of this, we have to come to grips with the fact that God has foreknowledge but man chooses to do evil (for instance) of his own accord—for God cannot be charged with sin. I will clear this up soon.
Now, on to our other two terms. This is what Picirilli says about “contingency”:
“A contingency is anything that really can take place in more than one way. For an event to be contingent, it must not be the INEVITABLE or UNAVOIDABLE product of natural law or of the necessitating influence of God…certainty relates to the ‘factness’ of an event, to WHETHER IT WILL BE OR NOT; contingency relates to its NATURE as free or inevitably caused by some other force. I am saying, therefore, that the same event can be both certain and contingent at the same time…” (262).
Picirilli goes on to give an example of him coming to a crossroads and choosing which direction to take. The fact that he will have to turn is certain; but his choice of which direction to take is up for debate (for there are two directions, and initially, he hasn’t taken either road). Now, in the mind of God, Picirilli has already taken his direction—but in the present time, Picirilli has yet to make a decision. Although God knows which direction He will choose, God is not gonna cause him in any way to make a certain direction. God’s knowledge does not directly impact his decision.
And the same thing goes for us. The contingency of an event relates to what the choice will be based upon two or more options. The certainty of an event states that the person will make a turn; but the contingency gives the options. The certainty of an event does not NECESSITATE that I know what turns will be available.
A good example of foreknowledge versus predetermination can be seen in the case of Hezekiah in the book of Isaiah. These words are recorded in Isaiah 38:
1 In those days Hezekiah became terminally ill. (A) The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz came and said to him, "This is what the LORD says: 'Put your affairs in order, (B) [a] for you are about to die; you will not recover.' " [b]
2 Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD. 3 He said, "Please, LORD, remember how I have walked before You faithfully and wholeheartedly, (C) and have done what is good in Your sight." (D) And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah: 5 "Go and tell Hezekiah that this is what the LORD God of your ancestor David says: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Look, I am going to add 15 years to your life. (E) [c] 6 And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city. (F) 7 This is the sign to you (G) from the LORD that the LORD will do what [d] He has promised: [e] 8 I am going to make the sun's shadow that goes down on Ahaz's stairway return by 10 steps." (H) So the sun's shadow [f] went back the 10 steps it had descended. (Isaiah 38:1-8, HCSB).
We learn in Isaiah 38 that Hezekiah was near the point of death. According to Isaiah, the Lord told Hezekiah that he was soon to die. The Lord told Hezekiah, ‘You will not recover.’ In other words, it seemed INEVITABLE that Hezekiah was gonna die. But then, on account of the news, Hezekiah turned to the wall and prayed for the Lord to heal him; it is only after he prays that the Lord tells Isaiah to go tell Hezekiah that 15 more years were added to his life.
Although the Lord told Hezekiah, “You will not recover,” the Lord changed His answer to Hezekiah and granted him longer life than previously expected.
Here we see the Lord’s foreknowledge—the Lord knew that He would add fifteen years to Hezekiah’s life. In addition to years to his life, the Lord also told Hezekiah, “And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city.” The Lord’s sign to Hezekiah was the sun’s shadow regressing 10 degrees.
What I treasure most about the passage of Hezekiah’s prayer is that the Lord doesn’t make Hezekiah do anything; instead, Hezekiah’s response to his soon death is that he turns to God and prays, reminding the Lord of his walk before Him (not that the Lord needed reminding). But Hezekiah brings before God his faithfulness to the Lord and the Lord responds positively to Hezekiah’s request. Unlike the god of the Calvinists, the God of Scripture does not just order around His creation and dictate orders to them; instead, He gives them the ability to choose whether to follow or rebel—and then punishes them or rewards them accordingly. The Lord interacts with His creatures in a very dynamic way.
Regarding contingency, Hezekiah figured that he had another choice in the matter: while the Lord had told him he would die, he believed that if he appealed to the Lord in prayer, that there was the POSSIBILITY that his life could be spared. The Lord gave Hezekiah the fact of death—however, the Lord later reversed that decision. Now the Lord knew that He was gonna reverse the decision—however, the Lord works in time and space, constructs He made for human life. As a result, while God knows everything, He reacts to man’s actions in time and space—which means that, while He knows all, He gives man the power to choose his actions. The fact that God changes such decisions shows that the Lord desires to interact with His creatures such that, when they pray, He answers them in ways only known by Him.
The last term to be investigated is “necessity”:
“Necessary events are those that can transpire in just one way because they are caused by some other force and therefore must inevitably be the way they are. For such events there were causes leading to the event that allowed no freedom of choice, causes that NECESSARILY produced the event. These are cause-effect events, where the cause can issue in no other result than the effect” (262, 263).
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary has an interesting definition of “necessary”:
“determined or produced by the previous condition of things.”
So a prior condition CAUSES the event in question. This is indeed a cause-effect idea. For instance, if I push my glass of milk off of the table, then the effect will be that the glass will fall to the floor and the milk will spill. Or, if I spill the milk on the table, then the milk is gonna spread across the table. With the Calvinist, they believe that, since God knows everything, He must CAUSE everything that happens; however, God is not the “previous condition” of events— FREE WILL is the previous CONDITION of an event. For example, in the example where my milk spills all across the table, this was caused by me knocking over my glass of milk, not God ordaining it. God’s knowledge is NOT an action—while God knows everything, knowledge doesn’t imply culpability. God gave me choice regarding things like what liquid I would drink (milk, soda, water, etc.), the glass I would choose, and whether I would drink all the milk or spill it. It is on the basis of these choices that I knock over the milk; and when I do, the responsibility lies with me for so doing. What is necessary is my free will—without it, I can’t do any action. However, the action produced by my free will choices cannot be blamed on God…for God doesn’t push over the milk—I do.
It’s fascinating how, in the discussion of free will and sovereignty, Calvinists claim God causes everything; and yet, in our everyday lives, we are the direct causes of so many things!! Shouldn’t everyday experience in human nature give us a clue into the free will God has given us? If it doesn’t, nothing will.
I will continue my discussion of Robert Picirilli’s article “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future” in my next post. In addition, I will continue my work on whether the “special people” that Christ will receive as an inheritance are PREDETERMINED by God.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Predestination in Ephesians, Part I
“For the first time Scripture gives the timing of election. God ‘chose us in him [Christ] before the creation of the world’ (Eph. 1:4). The Father chose His people before creation…when Paul says that God chose us before creation, he underlines God’s purpose in election. We didn’t exist before the foundation of the world and therefore could contribute nothing to election. Paul teaches the same truth in 2 Timothy 1:9 when he writes that God’s grace ‘was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time’” (Peterson & Williams, “Why I Am Not An Arminian,” page 57).
Scripture does indeed present us with a time, as it does in the book of Revelation. We’ve already seen that those whose names are not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life will fall down and worship the beast. We’ve also seen the church at Sardis, for example, only had a few people in the ENTIRE CHURCH whom the Lord said would be victorious and reign with Him (because they had maintained righteousness despite trials and tribulations). He told the rest of the church at Sardis to repent and return to their original state—or else He would do away with them. But for those who would come out victorious, their names would never be erased from the Book of Life. It’s still hard to believe that the Lord vowed to erase the church’s name from the Book of Life—but it is, after all, the Lord’s Book; one can hardly tell Him what to do with it…
This is what Peterson and Williams have to say regarding Ephesians 1:
“As clearly as anywhere in the Bible, Ephesians 1 teaches that GOD CHOSE HIS PEOPLE FOR SALVATION BECAUSE OF HIS LOVE AND SOVEREIGN WILL. GOD’S LOVE, HIS GRACE, IS THE BASIS OF ELECTION. ‘In LOVE he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ…to the praise of his glorious grace’ (Eph. 1:4-5; italics added).
Because the Father set his affection upon a MULTITUDE OF HUMAN BEINGS, HE CHOSE TO ADOPT THEM AS HIS CHILDREN” (Robert A. Peterson & Michael D. Williams, “Why I Am Not An Arminian,” page 57).
Peterson and Williams argue (from the quote above) that God’s love, DEMONSTRATED BY HIS GRACE, is what makes election possible. But if this is true, then hasn’t God shone His love UPON ALL MEN?
“In fact, we labor and strive for this, because we have put our hope in the living God, WHO IS THE SAVIOR OF EVERYONE, especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Notice that the group singled out from everyone (or “all men”) is “those who believe.” The living God is not the Savior of those HE HANDPICKED to believe, but of “those who believe,” who choose to profess faith in Christ. God is the Savior of every man; so, if this is true, then salvation must be available for all, thereby making God’s love (and grace) available for every man, woman, boy, and girl. If this doesn’t win the day, how about this Scriptural reference?
“For the grace of God has appeared, with salvation FOR ALL PEOPLE” (Titus 2:11, HCSB).
If God’s love was shown through His grace, then, since His grace was given to all through salvation (as Titus 2:11 tells us), God’s love was given to everyone. I’ll set up the syllogism here:
a. God’s love was shown through His grace (according to Peterson and Williams).
b. God’s grace is available to all men (Titus 2:11).
c. Therefore, God’s love is for all men.
If God’s love (and grace) are available for all, then how could God ever select one person over another WITHOUT requiring faith in either? How could one be selected over another apart from faith in the work of Christ? If Sally doesn’t accept Christ, then she is guilty because she refused to accept Him (not because Christ didn’t elect her). And the same goes for any other person.
Peterson and Williams then begin to attack the Arminian position:
“What does Paul mean when he says that God ‘chose us in Him’ (Eph. 1:4), that ‘in Him we were also chosen’ (Eph. 1:11)? Jack Cottrell summarizes the Arminian view: ‘[God] foreknows whether an individual will meet the conditions for salvation which he has sovereignly imposed…this is the import of Eph. 1:4, which says that ‘He chose us in Him’—in Christ.’ Is this correct?
Paul often (not always) uses ‘in Christ’ and ‘in him’ to signify union with Christ. At least six times in Ephesians 1, for example, this is the case: in Ephesians 1:1, 3, 6,7,9, and 13. And when Paul twice says God chose us ‘in Him’ (Eph. 1:4, 11), ‘in Him’ refers to union with Christ. What is the difference between Paul’s regular use of ‘in Christ’ and his use of it to refer to election? THE DIFFERENCE LIES IN THE TIME FACTOR. When speaking of election, Paul says God chose us in Christ BEFORE CREATION (Eph. 1:4). The other times that Paul uses this phrase he speaks of God’s actually joining people to Christ in history.
God’s choosing us ‘in Him before the creation of the world’ (Eph. 1:4, 11) refers to union with Christ before creation. The words cannot speak of actual union with Christ BECAUSE WE DIDN’T EXIST BEFORE WE WERE CREATED. Rather, they speak OF GOD’S PLANNING TO JOIN US TO CHRIST. The meaning of the whole expression God ‘chose us in Him before the creation of the world’ is that God NOT ONLY ELECTED A PEOPLE FOR HIMSELF; HE ALSO PLANNED THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY WOULD BE SAVED; HE PLANNED TO JOIN THEM TO HIS SON AND HIS SAVING BENEFITS” (58).
Peterson and Williams make it clear that the time factor is the reason why God picks people—because He plans their salvation BEFORE time began. However, is it possible that the time factor could show us God’s FOREKNOWLEDGE?
This is what David tells us of God’s foreknowledge in the book of Psalms:
“Lord, you have searched me and known me. You know WHEN I SIT DOWN AND WHEN I STAND UP; You understand my thoughts FROM FAR AWAY. You observe my travels and my rest; You are aware of ALL MY WAYS. BEFORE A WORD IS ON MY TONGUE, You know all about it, LORD.
For it was You who created my inward parts; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, because I have been remarkably and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, and I know [this] very well.
My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret, when I was formed in the depths of the earth. YOUR EYES SAW ME WHEN I WAS FORMLESS; ALL [MY] DAYS WERE WRITTEN IN YOUR BOOK AND PLANNED BEFORE A SINGLE ONE OF THEM BEGAN” (Psalm 139:1-4, 13-16, HCSB).
In verse 2 of Psalm 139, David said, “You understand my thoughts from far away.” Even before David’s thoughts came to his mind, God already knew what David was going to think. And when he said, “Before a word is on my tongue, you know all about it, Lord,” he was acknowledging that God also knew what he was going to say BEFORE he said it! According to the Apologetics Bible (Holman Christian Standard):
“God knows not only every move we make in our daily routines, but also the motives behind our actions. The expression ‘from far away’ can be temporal or spatial; in this context it is probably temporal—BEFOREHAND, and not from a distance (see v.4)” (Apologetics Study Bible, page 906).
So God knows all of these things beforehand! This sounds like quite the Sovereign Lord. In my estimation, this doesn’t sound like a God whose power is compromised because of the choices of man—but a God who will bring all His purposes to pass IN SPITE OF man’s terrible choices. As Paul wrote in Romans 8:28, “all things WORK TOGETHER FOR GOOD for them that love God…” All things are not GOOD, and all things are not ORDAINED by God, but all things will TURN OUT or WORK OUT for good. The end result or goal is good for the children of God.
Verse 16 is a verse of great dispute. When David says that God saw him when he was formless, this means that God saw him in existence and knew he would be born BEFORE he was conceived in his mother’s womb. This once again, serves as a testimony to the foreknowledge of God. When it says “all my days were written in Your book and planned before a single one of them began,” David is saying that God knew everything about the number of his days before they started. God already knew the number of years of David’s life as well as what his days would involve, what he would do, where he would go, and so forth. Once again, we see that David’s days (as are ours) are already recorded in the Lord’s book before they even start; however, does this mean that God has planned EVERY SINGLE ACT in EVERY SINGLE DAY? For instance, did God plan that I would wear a red shirt and brown corduroys this morning when I woke up to get dressed? I will say that God knew it—He knows everything. But am I gonna go so far as to say that God PREDETERMINED for me to wear a red shirt and brown corduroys? Probably not. This, however, takes nothing away from the choices I make—or God’s sovereignty and knowledge. God knows that I was gonna choose a red shirt—but I don’t believe He PLANNED that I would wear a red shirt.
I do agree with Peterson and Williams, however, when they say that God not only elected a people to Himself, but also elected the means by which He would bring this people to Himself.
Let’s see what Scripture has to say about God bringing a people to Himself:
“He [Christ] gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for Himself A SPECIAL PEOPLE, eager to do good works” (Titus 2:14, HCSB).
“For we are His creation—created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10, HCSB).
Notice with Ephesians 2, the emphasis is on the good works being prepared beforehand, NOT the people! Titus 2:14 tells us that there will be a people as Christ’s inheritance that will be cleansed from their sins. Once again, however, we see that “good works” are mentioned. If you look back at Ephesians 2:10, we were created as His workmanship IN CHRIST JESUS for good works. It is by union with Him and Him ONLY, that we can do good works. In our original state, we were “dead in…trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1, HCSB).
However, if this people are known “before the creation of the world,” does this mean that God PREDETERMINED who they would be? Or did God KNOW who they would be? I think there is a difference between predetermination and foreknowledge—and this I will discuss in my next post.
Scripture does indeed present us with a time, as it does in the book of Revelation. We’ve already seen that those whose names are not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life will fall down and worship the beast. We’ve also seen the church at Sardis, for example, only had a few people in the ENTIRE CHURCH whom the Lord said would be victorious and reign with Him (because they had maintained righteousness despite trials and tribulations). He told the rest of the church at Sardis to repent and return to their original state—or else He would do away with them. But for those who would come out victorious, their names would never be erased from the Book of Life. It’s still hard to believe that the Lord vowed to erase the church’s name from the Book of Life—but it is, after all, the Lord’s Book; one can hardly tell Him what to do with it…
This is what Peterson and Williams have to say regarding Ephesians 1:
“As clearly as anywhere in the Bible, Ephesians 1 teaches that GOD CHOSE HIS PEOPLE FOR SALVATION BECAUSE OF HIS LOVE AND SOVEREIGN WILL. GOD’S LOVE, HIS GRACE, IS THE BASIS OF ELECTION. ‘In LOVE he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ…to the praise of his glorious grace’ (Eph. 1:4-5; italics added).
Because the Father set his affection upon a MULTITUDE OF HUMAN BEINGS, HE CHOSE TO ADOPT THEM AS HIS CHILDREN” (Robert A. Peterson & Michael D. Williams, “Why I Am Not An Arminian,” page 57).
Peterson and Williams argue (from the quote above) that God’s love, DEMONSTRATED BY HIS GRACE, is what makes election possible. But if this is true, then hasn’t God shone His love UPON ALL MEN?
“In fact, we labor and strive for this, because we have put our hope in the living God, WHO IS THE SAVIOR OF EVERYONE, especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Notice that the group singled out from everyone (or “all men”) is “those who believe.” The living God is not the Savior of those HE HANDPICKED to believe, but of “those who believe,” who choose to profess faith in Christ. God is the Savior of every man; so, if this is true, then salvation must be available for all, thereby making God’s love (and grace) available for every man, woman, boy, and girl. If this doesn’t win the day, how about this Scriptural reference?
“For the grace of God has appeared, with salvation FOR ALL PEOPLE” (Titus 2:11, HCSB).
If God’s love was shown through His grace, then, since His grace was given to all through salvation (as Titus 2:11 tells us), God’s love was given to everyone. I’ll set up the syllogism here:
a. God’s love was shown through His grace (according to Peterson and Williams).
b. God’s grace is available to all men (Titus 2:11).
c. Therefore, God’s love is for all men.
If God’s love (and grace) are available for all, then how could God ever select one person over another WITHOUT requiring faith in either? How could one be selected over another apart from faith in the work of Christ? If Sally doesn’t accept Christ, then she is guilty because she refused to accept Him (not because Christ didn’t elect her). And the same goes for any other person.
Peterson and Williams then begin to attack the Arminian position:
“What does Paul mean when he says that God ‘chose us in Him’ (Eph. 1:4), that ‘in Him we were also chosen’ (Eph. 1:11)? Jack Cottrell summarizes the Arminian view: ‘[God] foreknows whether an individual will meet the conditions for salvation which he has sovereignly imposed…this is the import of Eph. 1:4, which says that ‘He chose us in Him’—in Christ.’ Is this correct?
Paul often (not always) uses ‘in Christ’ and ‘in him’ to signify union with Christ. At least six times in Ephesians 1, for example, this is the case: in Ephesians 1:1, 3, 6,7,9, and 13. And when Paul twice says God chose us ‘in Him’ (Eph. 1:4, 11), ‘in Him’ refers to union with Christ. What is the difference between Paul’s regular use of ‘in Christ’ and his use of it to refer to election? THE DIFFERENCE LIES IN THE TIME FACTOR. When speaking of election, Paul says God chose us in Christ BEFORE CREATION (Eph. 1:4). The other times that Paul uses this phrase he speaks of God’s actually joining people to Christ in history.
God’s choosing us ‘in Him before the creation of the world’ (Eph. 1:4, 11) refers to union with Christ before creation. The words cannot speak of actual union with Christ BECAUSE WE DIDN’T EXIST BEFORE WE WERE CREATED. Rather, they speak OF GOD’S PLANNING TO JOIN US TO CHRIST. The meaning of the whole expression God ‘chose us in Him before the creation of the world’ is that God NOT ONLY ELECTED A PEOPLE FOR HIMSELF; HE ALSO PLANNED THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY WOULD BE SAVED; HE PLANNED TO JOIN THEM TO HIS SON AND HIS SAVING BENEFITS” (58).
Peterson and Williams make it clear that the time factor is the reason why God picks people—because He plans their salvation BEFORE time began. However, is it possible that the time factor could show us God’s FOREKNOWLEDGE?
This is what David tells us of God’s foreknowledge in the book of Psalms:
“Lord, you have searched me and known me. You know WHEN I SIT DOWN AND WHEN I STAND UP; You understand my thoughts FROM FAR AWAY. You observe my travels and my rest; You are aware of ALL MY WAYS. BEFORE A WORD IS ON MY TONGUE, You know all about it, LORD.
For it was You who created my inward parts; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, because I have been remarkably and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, and I know [this] very well.
My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret, when I was formed in the depths of the earth. YOUR EYES SAW ME WHEN I WAS FORMLESS; ALL [MY] DAYS WERE WRITTEN IN YOUR BOOK AND PLANNED BEFORE A SINGLE ONE OF THEM BEGAN” (Psalm 139:1-4, 13-16, HCSB).
In verse 2 of Psalm 139, David said, “You understand my thoughts from far away.” Even before David’s thoughts came to his mind, God already knew what David was going to think. And when he said, “Before a word is on my tongue, you know all about it, Lord,” he was acknowledging that God also knew what he was going to say BEFORE he said it! According to the Apologetics Bible (Holman Christian Standard):
“God knows not only every move we make in our daily routines, but also the motives behind our actions. The expression ‘from far away’ can be temporal or spatial; in this context it is probably temporal—BEFOREHAND, and not from a distance (see v.4)” (Apologetics Study Bible, page 906).
So God knows all of these things beforehand! This sounds like quite the Sovereign Lord. In my estimation, this doesn’t sound like a God whose power is compromised because of the choices of man—but a God who will bring all His purposes to pass IN SPITE OF man’s terrible choices. As Paul wrote in Romans 8:28, “all things WORK TOGETHER FOR GOOD for them that love God…” All things are not GOOD, and all things are not ORDAINED by God, but all things will TURN OUT or WORK OUT for good. The end result or goal is good for the children of God.
Verse 16 is a verse of great dispute. When David says that God saw him when he was formless, this means that God saw him in existence and knew he would be born BEFORE he was conceived in his mother’s womb. This once again, serves as a testimony to the foreknowledge of God. When it says “all my days were written in Your book and planned before a single one of them began,” David is saying that God knew everything about the number of his days before they started. God already knew the number of years of David’s life as well as what his days would involve, what he would do, where he would go, and so forth. Once again, we see that David’s days (as are ours) are already recorded in the Lord’s book before they even start; however, does this mean that God has planned EVERY SINGLE ACT in EVERY SINGLE DAY? For instance, did God plan that I would wear a red shirt and brown corduroys this morning when I woke up to get dressed? I will say that God knew it—He knows everything. But am I gonna go so far as to say that God PREDETERMINED for me to wear a red shirt and brown corduroys? Probably not. This, however, takes nothing away from the choices I make—or God’s sovereignty and knowledge. God knows that I was gonna choose a red shirt—but I don’t believe He PLANNED that I would wear a red shirt.
I do agree with Peterson and Williams, however, when they say that God not only elected a people to Himself, but also elected the means by which He would bring this people to Himself.
Let’s see what Scripture has to say about God bringing a people to Himself:
“He [Christ] gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for Himself A SPECIAL PEOPLE, eager to do good works” (Titus 2:14, HCSB).
“For we are His creation—created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10, HCSB).
Notice with Ephesians 2, the emphasis is on the good works being prepared beforehand, NOT the people! Titus 2:14 tells us that there will be a people as Christ’s inheritance that will be cleansed from their sins. Once again, however, we see that “good works” are mentioned. If you look back at Ephesians 2:10, we were created as His workmanship IN CHRIST JESUS for good works. It is by union with Him and Him ONLY, that we can do good works. In our original state, we were “dead in…trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1, HCSB).
However, if this people are known “before the creation of the world,” does this mean that God PREDETERMINED who they would be? Or did God KNOW who they would be? I think there is a difference between predetermination and foreknowledge—and this I will discuss in my next post.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Predestination in Romans, Part I
Throughout my series on Predestination from the book “Why I Am Not An Arminian” by Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, I have taken the concept of predestination discussed in the Gospel of John, Acts, and Revelation. Now, I will discuss the concept according to Paul in his epistle to the Romans. Peterson and Williams write the following:
“…’foreknew’ in Romans 8:29 has God as subject and His people as object. The words ‘know’ and ‘foreknow’ have a broad range of meaning in Scripture, and sometimes ‘foreknow’ means knowing facts beforehand. But that is not its meaning in Romans 8:29. Paul does not say that God foreknows certain facts (which of course he does; he knows all facts); instead he says that he foreknows certain people…when Paul says, ‘God foreknew’ people in Romans 8:29, therefore, he means that God PLANNED TO ENTER INTO A SAVING PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM, TO SET HIS LOVE UPON THEM” (Peterson & Williams, “Why I Am Not An Arminian,” page 55).
There is a problem, however, with Peterson’s and Williams’ analysis. The problem is found when you consider that they seem to combine the two factors of Romans 8:29 into one. In the quote above, I have capitalized the authors’ words regarding God’s plans for “those he foreknew.” The reason why I did this is because Peterson and Williams seem to argue for predestination—but leave out foreknowledge: “God planned to enter into a saving personal relationship with them, to set his love upon them.”
Look at Romans 8:29. The first phrase is, “For those He foreknew…” What is the “for” there for? What is the significance of the “for” in verse 29? The answer is found in Romans 8:28, where Paul begins his argument concerning God’s children. The reason why verse 29 happens is because verse 28 tells us that all things God works out in the end for good. However, what do we do with “those He foreknew?” Paul doesn’t mention this title in verse 28, so why is it there? “Those He foreknew” describes the children of God mentioned in verse 28—who are referred to there as “those who love God” and “those who are called according to His purpose.”
Yes, as Peterson and Williams argue it, God chose to set His love first. As 1 John 4:19 says, “We love Him because HE FIRST LOVED US.” However, we are not FORCED to love Him because He first loved us. God, granting free moral agency to mankind, allows us to choose whether or not we will reciprocate God’s love. So, regarding “those He foreknew,” these are the ones God knew would “love Him” return. This is why they are called “those who love God”—because, while the Lord foreknew ALL of mankind, not all will choose to love Him back. God also called these people to a heavenly calling; however, just like Abraham, we too, must answer the call to labor in the Lord’s Service.
1 John 3:16 tells us that God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son; the purpose for so doing was to allow anyone who believes in Him to have eternal life.
And then come the wonderful words of John 3:17—
“For God sent not His Son into the world to CONDEMN the world, but that THE WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED.”
So God’s purpose for sending His Son was to save THE WORLD, not just a limited few or a special group, and bring them to Himself. If the Lord chose anyone to save, it was ALL OF THE WORLD.
Peterson and Williams are right that “those He foreknew” refers to those God planned to enter into a saving relationship with; however, they’re wrong when it comes to whether or not that group is the world or a few. Peterson and Williams are gonna argue that God only intended to save a select few—those that He picks. The problem with this interpretation is that Paul says in Romans 8:28 that all things work out for the good of THOSE WHO LOVE GOD. God does plan good things for these persons, but these people HAVE RESPONDED TO GOD IN LOVE, which is only possible because of the Father’s act of love at Calvary, where He offered up His one and only Son to die for the sins of the world. God has not arbitrarily selected people to place His love upon.
Verse 29 says, “For those He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers” (Romans 8:29, Holman Christian Standard Bible). For those He knew would love Him in return (before the foundation of the world), He planned for those who love Him to grow into the image of His Son (become imitators of Christ). And how are we to conform to the image of Christ? Paul tells us earlier in Romans 8:
“The Spirit Himself testifies together with our Spirit that we are God’s children, and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—SEEING THAT WE SUFFER WITH HIM SO THAT WE MAY ALSO BE GLORIFIED WITH HIM” (Romans 8:16-17, HCSB).
There is a condition to glorification noted here—that condition is that believers suffer. So, contrary to the Calvinist idea of verse 30, that glorification is GUARANTEED, Paul here gives a condition of glorification—that it will only come about through suffering. Paul says the exact same thing in Philippians:
“[My goal] is to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, ASSUMING THAT I WILL SOMEHOW REACH THE RESURRECTION FROM AMONG THE DEAD. NOT THAT I HAVE ALREADY REACHED [the goal] OR AM ALREADY FULLY MATURE, but I make every effort to take hold of it BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE BEEN TAKEN HOLD OF BY CHRIST JESUS. Brothers, I DO NOT CONSIDER MYSELF TO HAVE TAKEN HOLD OF IT. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and reaching forward to what is ahead, I pursue as my goal the prize promised by God’s heavenly call in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:10-14, HCSB).
Notice that Paul’s desire was to have “the fellowship of His [Christ] sufferings” and to thereby be “conformed to His death” in order to “reach the resurrection from among the dead.” The key to being raised with Christ, or being glorified with Christ, was to SUFFER WITH CHRIST! Paul states here in Philippians 3 that he did not “consider…to have taken hold of it.” Paul didn’t believe he had obtained it yet—and it behooves us to think the same way: “Therefore, all who are mature SHOULD THINK THIS WAY” (Phil. 3:15, HCSB).
For this post, two other comments should be made: one refers to the importance of suffering in sanctification (and hopefully, glorification) and the issue of election in Scripture. The first issue concerns the importance of suffering in sanctification (and glorification). Read these words from the apostle Paul:
“Therefore, since we have been declared righteous BY FAITH, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Also THROUGH HIM, we have obtained access BY FAITH into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice IN HOPE OF THE GLORY OF GOD” (Romans 5:1-2, HCSB).
Here the apostle Paul tells us that faith in the work of Christ has brought us peace, access to grace, and the glorification. Notice that the rejoicing is not due to OBTAINING the glory of God—but the HOPE that we will do so (final attainment of glorification). Glorification is that which is TO COME, not that which already IS. Yet, for the believer who perseveres, the hope of glory is NOW as well as TO COME.
But there is also something else to take joy in:
“And not only that, but we also rejoice IN OUR AFFLICTIONS, because we know that affliction produces ENDURANCE, endurance produces PROVEN CHARACTER, and proven character produces HOPE. THIS HOPE DOES NOT DISAPPOINT, because God’s love has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (Rom. 5:3-5, HCSB).
Notice that believers are to rejoice in their afflictions because OF THE GOOD that the afflictions produce. The afflictions are not good in and of themselves—but they are used to produce good in the believer. I believe this is what Paul was talking about with Romans 8:28 when he wrote,
“We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God: those who are called according to His purpose.”
We rejoice in our afflictions, our sufferings, because “we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him” (8:17). It is the suffering that leads to glory, NOT the guarantee itself.
Notice the fruit of afflictions in Romans 5: endurance, proven character, and hope. The afflictions themselves allow us “to be conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29). And it is a result of this growing conformation to Christ’s image that makes us yearn for eternal glorification:
“For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now. And not only that, but WE OURSELVES who have the Spirit as the firstfruits—WE ALSO GROAN within ourselves, EAGERLY WAITING for adoption, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODIES. Now IN THIS HOPE WE WERE SAVED, yet hope that is seen is not hope, because WHO HOPES FOR WHAT HE SEES? But if we hope for what we do not see, WE EAGERLY WAIT FOR IT WITH PATIENCE” (Romans 8:22-25, HCSB).
Notice that we as believers “eagerly wait” for our bodies to be redeemed, transformed (v. 23), and we were saved in the HOPE of redemption but must wait for it “eagerly” and “with patience” (v. 25). Patience serves then, as a condition of perseverance. We not only need FAITH, but also PATIENCE, or what we call PERSEVERANCE, if we plan to obtain our bodily redemption and eternal transformation.
Romans 5 and 8 make many interesting connections in Paul’s theology. What we do know from the apostle Paul, though, is that he was a strong believer in what 1 Thessalonians 5:8 calls “the hope of salvation.” While a believer has been saved, he or she has been saved “in hope” (Rom. 8:24), which means that the salvation itself is a FUTURE event (“will be saved,” from Romans 10:9). As a result, we can have confidence in our final salvation because “this hope does not disappoint” (Rom. 5:5); nevertheless, we can also throw away our confidence, and thereby lose our reward (that being eternal life):
“So don’t throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For YOU NEED ENDURANCE, so that after you have done God’s will, you may receive what was promised.
‘For in yet a very little while, the Coming One will come and not delay.
But My righteous one will live by faith;
And if he draws back,
My soul has no pleasure in him.’
But we are not those who draw back and ARE DESTROYED, but those who have faith and OBTAIN LIFE” (Hebrews 10:35-39, HCSB).
Those who draw back, who DO NOT ENDURE, are those who “are destroyed,” those who forfeit eternal life. Only those who have faith and ENDURE “obtain life,” that is, to receive what was promised (Hebrews 10:36).
“…’foreknew’ in Romans 8:29 has God as subject and His people as object. The words ‘know’ and ‘foreknow’ have a broad range of meaning in Scripture, and sometimes ‘foreknow’ means knowing facts beforehand. But that is not its meaning in Romans 8:29. Paul does not say that God foreknows certain facts (which of course he does; he knows all facts); instead he says that he foreknows certain people…when Paul says, ‘God foreknew’ people in Romans 8:29, therefore, he means that God PLANNED TO ENTER INTO A SAVING PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM, TO SET HIS LOVE UPON THEM” (Peterson & Williams, “Why I Am Not An Arminian,” page 55).
There is a problem, however, with Peterson’s and Williams’ analysis. The problem is found when you consider that they seem to combine the two factors of Romans 8:29 into one. In the quote above, I have capitalized the authors’ words regarding God’s plans for “those he foreknew.” The reason why I did this is because Peterson and Williams seem to argue for predestination—but leave out foreknowledge: “God planned to enter into a saving personal relationship with them, to set his love upon them.”
Look at Romans 8:29. The first phrase is, “For those He foreknew…” What is the “for” there for? What is the significance of the “for” in verse 29? The answer is found in Romans 8:28, where Paul begins his argument concerning God’s children. The reason why verse 29 happens is because verse 28 tells us that all things God works out in the end for good. However, what do we do with “those He foreknew?” Paul doesn’t mention this title in verse 28, so why is it there? “Those He foreknew” describes the children of God mentioned in verse 28—who are referred to there as “those who love God” and “those who are called according to His purpose.”
Yes, as Peterson and Williams argue it, God chose to set His love first. As 1 John 4:19 says, “We love Him because HE FIRST LOVED US.” However, we are not FORCED to love Him because He first loved us. God, granting free moral agency to mankind, allows us to choose whether or not we will reciprocate God’s love. So, regarding “those He foreknew,” these are the ones God knew would “love Him” return. This is why they are called “those who love God”—because, while the Lord foreknew ALL of mankind, not all will choose to love Him back. God also called these people to a heavenly calling; however, just like Abraham, we too, must answer the call to labor in the Lord’s Service.
1 John 3:16 tells us that God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son; the purpose for so doing was to allow anyone who believes in Him to have eternal life.
And then come the wonderful words of John 3:17—
“For God sent not His Son into the world to CONDEMN the world, but that THE WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED.”
So God’s purpose for sending His Son was to save THE WORLD, not just a limited few or a special group, and bring them to Himself. If the Lord chose anyone to save, it was ALL OF THE WORLD.
Peterson and Williams are right that “those He foreknew” refers to those God planned to enter into a saving relationship with; however, they’re wrong when it comes to whether or not that group is the world or a few. Peterson and Williams are gonna argue that God only intended to save a select few—those that He picks. The problem with this interpretation is that Paul says in Romans 8:28 that all things work out for the good of THOSE WHO LOVE GOD. God does plan good things for these persons, but these people HAVE RESPONDED TO GOD IN LOVE, which is only possible because of the Father’s act of love at Calvary, where He offered up His one and only Son to die for the sins of the world. God has not arbitrarily selected people to place His love upon.
Verse 29 says, “For those He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers” (Romans 8:29, Holman Christian Standard Bible). For those He knew would love Him in return (before the foundation of the world), He planned for those who love Him to grow into the image of His Son (become imitators of Christ). And how are we to conform to the image of Christ? Paul tells us earlier in Romans 8:
“The Spirit Himself testifies together with our Spirit that we are God’s children, and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—SEEING THAT WE SUFFER WITH HIM SO THAT WE MAY ALSO BE GLORIFIED WITH HIM” (Romans 8:16-17, HCSB).
There is a condition to glorification noted here—that condition is that believers suffer. So, contrary to the Calvinist idea of verse 30, that glorification is GUARANTEED, Paul here gives a condition of glorification—that it will only come about through suffering. Paul says the exact same thing in Philippians:
“[My goal] is to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, ASSUMING THAT I WILL SOMEHOW REACH THE RESURRECTION FROM AMONG THE DEAD. NOT THAT I HAVE ALREADY REACHED [the goal] OR AM ALREADY FULLY MATURE, but I make every effort to take hold of it BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE BEEN TAKEN HOLD OF BY CHRIST JESUS. Brothers, I DO NOT CONSIDER MYSELF TO HAVE TAKEN HOLD OF IT. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and reaching forward to what is ahead, I pursue as my goal the prize promised by God’s heavenly call in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:10-14, HCSB).
Notice that Paul’s desire was to have “the fellowship of His [Christ] sufferings” and to thereby be “conformed to His death” in order to “reach the resurrection from among the dead.” The key to being raised with Christ, or being glorified with Christ, was to SUFFER WITH CHRIST! Paul states here in Philippians 3 that he did not “consider…to have taken hold of it.” Paul didn’t believe he had obtained it yet—and it behooves us to think the same way: “Therefore, all who are mature SHOULD THINK THIS WAY” (Phil. 3:15, HCSB).
For this post, two other comments should be made: one refers to the importance of suffering in sanctification (and hopefully, glorification) and the issue of election in Scripture. The first issue concerns the importance of suffering in sanctification (and glorification). Read these words from the apostle Paul:
“Therefore, since we have been declared righteous BY FAITH, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Also THROUGH HIM, we have obtained access BY FAITH into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice IN HOPE OF THE GLORY OF GOD” (Romans 5:1-2, HCSB).
Here the apostle Paul tells us that faith in the work of Christ has brought us peace, access to grace, and the glorification. Notice that the rejoicing is not due to OBTAINING the glory of God—but the HOPE that we will do so (final attainment of glorification). Glorification is that which is TO COME, not that which already IS. Yet, for the believer who perseveres, the hope of glory is NOW as well as TO COME.
But there is also something else to take joy in:
“And not only that, but we also rejoice IN OUR AFFLICTIONS, because we know that affliction produces ENDURANCE, endurance produces PROVEN CHARACTER, and proven character produces HOPE. THIS HOPE DOES NOT DISAPPOINT, because God’s love has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (Rom. 5:3-5, HCSB).
Notice that believers are to rejoice in their afflictions because OF THE GOOD that the afflictions produce. The afflictions are not good in and of themselves—but they are used to produce good in the believer. I believe this is what Paul was talking about with Romans 8:28 when he wrote,
“We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God: those who are called according to His purpose.”
We rejoice in our afflictions, our sufferings, because “we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him” (8:17). It is the suffering that leads to glory, NOT the guarantee itself.
Notice the fruit of afflictions in Romans 5: endurance, proven character, and hope. The afflictions themselves allow us “to be conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29). And it is a result of this growing conformation to Christ’s image that makes us yearn for eternal glorification:
“For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now. And not only that, but WE OURSELVES who have the Spirit as the firstfruits—WE ALSO GROAN within ourselves, EAGERLY WAITING for adoption, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODIES. Now IN THIS HOPE WE WERE SAVED, yet hope that is seen is not hope, because WHO HOPES FOR WHAT HE SEES? But if we hope for what we do not see, WE EAGERLY WAIT FOR IT WITH PATIENCE” (Romans 8:22-25, HCSB).
Notice that we as believers “eagerly wait” for our bodies to be redeemed, transformed (v. 23), and we were saved in the HOPE of redemption but must wait for it “eagerly” and “with patience” (v. 25). Patience serves then, as a condition of perseverance. We not only need FAITH, but also PATIENCE, or what we call PERSEVERANCE, if we plan to obtain our bodily redemption and eternal transformation.
Romans 5 and 8 make many interesting connections in Paul’s theology. What we do know from the apostle Paul, though, is that he was a strong believer in what 1 Thessalonians 5:8 calls “the hope of salvation.” While a believer has been saved, he or she has been saved “in hope” (Rom. 8:24), which means that the salvation itself is a FUTURE event (“will be saved,” from Romans 10:9). As a result, we can have confidence in our final salvation because “this hope does not disappoint” (Rom. 5:5); nevertheless, we can also throw away our confidence, and thereby lose our reward (that being eternal life):
“So don’t throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For YOU NEED ENDURANCE, so that after you have done God’s will, you may receive what was promised.
‘For in yet a very little while, the Coming One will come and not delay.
But My righteous one will live by faith;
And if he draws back,
My soul has no pleasure in him.’
But we are not those who draw back and ARE DESTROYED, but those who have faith and OBTAIN LIFE” (Hebrews 10:35-39, HCSB).
Those who draw back, who DO NOT ENDURE, are those who “are destroyed,” those who forfeit eternal life. Only those who have faith and ENDURE “obtain life,” that is, to receive what was promised (Hebrews 10:36).
Monday, June 29, 2009
Predestination in Acts, Part II
“Paul and Barnabas’s ministry in Pisidian Antioch on the first missionary journey is met alternatively by faith in their message (Acts 13:42-44, 47-49) and persecution (Acts 13:45-46, 50-51). As a result the apostles are up (Acts 13:42-44), down (Acts 13:45-46), up (Acts 13:47-49) and down (Acts 13:50-51). In the midst of the vacillating responses, the Gentiles turn to the Lord. ‘When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and ALL WHO WERE APPOINTED FOR ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED’ (Acts 13:48). Luke presents A DIVINE CLASSIFICATION OR APPOINTMENT TO ETERNAL LIFE. AND THAT APPOINTMENT TO ETERNAL LIFE PRECEDES FAITH ON THE PART OF THE BELIEVERS- ‘all who were appointed for eternal life believed’” (Robert A. Peterson & Michael D. Williams, “Why I Am Not An Arminian,” page 52).
Peterson and Williams use their clever tricks here again with Acts 13:48. But, as the evidence will show, they are wrong on this text in Acts as well.
I looked up this verse in my Apologetics Study Bible, produced by the Holman Christian Standard publishing company. They interpreted the verse as thus: “And all who HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.” However, there is a problem with the HCSB: the issue of the verbs.
To figure out what to do with this verse, I decided to look the verse up in my “Reader’s Greek New Testament,” produced by Zondervan. I’ll produce the verse here so that you can get an idea of the problem caused by the Holman Christian Standard rendering:
Akouonta de ta ethne exairon kai edoksazon ton logon tou kuriou kai episteusan hosoi esan tetagmenoi eis zoen aionion;
The words “hosoi esan tetagmenoi eis zoen aionion” are translated (reading from left to right), “as many were appointed into (or to) life eternal.” I want us to go back, though, and look at the beginning of the verse.
The words “akounta de ta ethne exairon kai edoksazon ton logon tou kuriou kai episteusan” are translated as “hearing but the Gentiles rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord and believed.” When we arrange words in a proper English order, we get the following: “but the Gentiles hearing [the Word] rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord and believed.”
What you have in the early part of verse 48 is the proper order in which salvation is appropriated to the believer: first, the Gentiles “heard” the word; then, they rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord; last but not least, they believed. Their hearing the Word caused them to rejoice and glorify the Word of the Lord (for they understood the Word after hearing it); then, as a result of understanding how wonderful the Word is, they then believed the Gospel—and were appointed to eternal life.
Peterson and Williams would like to have us believe that people are given eternal life BEFORE they believe—but this simply isn’t true! Understand these words from the apostle Paul:
“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ” (Romans 10:17, HCSB).
In the context of Romans 10, Paul is discussing the issue of the Jews who have not achieved righteousness through the law, and the Gentiles who have achieved righteousness by faith (Rom. 9:30). Israel’s problem, though, doesn’t seem to be that they haven’t heard the message, but rather that they did not respond properly to it:
“But I ask, ‘Did they not hear?’ Yes, they did:
Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.
But I ask, ‘Did Israel not understand?’ First, Moses said:
I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that lacks understanding.
And Isaiah says boldly:
‘I was found by those who were not looking for Me; I revealed Myself to those who were not asking for Me.’
But to Israel he says: ‘All day long I have spread out My hands to a DISOBEDIENT AND DEFIANT PEOPLE’” (Romans 10:18-21, HCSB).
Israel’s problem had nothing to do with whether or not she was ELECTED to be saved or given eternal life; rather, Israel’s problem was that she was “disobedient and defiant” (as Romans 10 illustrates). So, while Israel did indeed hear the message, she did not respond to the message by professing faith. Instead, she revolted against it, still trying to do things her own way—by works of the law.
Listen to what Paul has to say to the Ephesians in the midst of a chapter discussing
their election IN CHRIST:
“In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation—in Him WHEN YOU BELIEVED—were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Ephesians 1:13,
HCSB).
First, the Ephesians heard the word of truth, the gospel; then they believed in what they heard from the Word—and, as a result, they believed and were saved. And what was the evidence of their salvation? “when you believed—were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.” They were not sealed IN HIM until AFTER THEY BELIEVED, not before!
The problem with Peterson and Williams’ assessments of Acts is that it disagrees with the rest of Scripture. And in the event that one’s individual interpretation disagrees with the rest of Scripture, then he or she must go back and change their own interpretation to match the voice of Scripture. This is indeed the key to UNDERSTANDING (or standing under) the Word of God.
Now, back to the Greek text itself. The first part of Acts 13:48 tells us that the Gentiles heard the Word, rejoiced, glorified the Word, and believed. But the Greek text then says, “hosoi esan tetagmenoi zoen aionion.” The words “esan tetagmenoi” translate to “were had been appointed.” The word “tetagmenoi” is a perfect passive participle. The passive participle translates to a past tense verb—for example, “believed.” This is the basic passive participle. If the verb is a perfect passive, this means that the passive tense is attached to a perfect tense. The perfect tense translates in English to “has” or “have”. The perfect passive translates to “had been.” In this case, the word “tetagmenoi” translates to “having been appointed.”
But the problem comes in when you have to consider the verb before “tetagmenoi”—the word “esan.” The word “esan” is an imperfect verb, meaning “were.” The verb is a passive tense of the verb “to be” (usually written as “is”). So the text reads “were having been appointed.” In cases like this, when you have a passive verb meeting another passive verb, one of the passives must yield to the other. Because “were” is vital to this verse, then “having been appointed” must be changed accordingly. The best way to combine these two verbs is to translate the phrase as “were appointed.”
To say then, that these people “were appointed” before they believed is to do the text a terrible disgrace. Take the following example:
“All those who caught the swine flu were admitted to the hospital.”
Would I interpret this verse to mean “all those who were admitted to the hospital caught the flu” and state that only after the patients were admitted to the hospital that they caught the swine flu? Of course not! Yet, this what Peterson and Williams do to the text: they claim that those who believe were appointed to believe BEFORE they did, which is not what Scripture teaches. Even with Ephesians 1, we see that it is only AFTER THEY BELIEVED that they were sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit. If the effects happen AFTER the belief instead of before, then we are not inclined to believe that God has handpicked those who would believe in Him.
Acts 13:48 shows us a “cause and effect” plot: first, the Gentiles accept the Word, hear it, and rejoice in its truth—then they believe and are appointed to eternal life. It is usually a good rule of thumb to match interpretations with the known factors in Scripture. Peterson and Williams, though, stick to a presupposition. We can all stand to benefit from their mistake…
Peterson and Williams use their clever tricks here again with Acts 13:48. But, as the evidence will show, they are wrong on this text in Acts as well.
I looked up this verse in my Apologetics Study Bible, produced by the Holman Christian Standard publishing company. They interpreted the verse as thus: “And all who HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.” However, there is a problem with the HCSB: the issue of the verbs.
To figure out what to do with this verse, I decided to look the verse up in my “Reader’s Greek New Testament,” produced by Zondervan. I’ll produce the verse here so that you can get an idea of the problem caused by the Holman Christian Standard rendering:
Akouonta de ta ethne exairon kai edoksazon ton logon tou kuriou kai episteusan hosoi esan tetagmenoi eis zoen aionion;
The words “hosoi esan tetagmenoi eis zoen aionion” are translated (reading from left to right), “as many were appointed into (or to) life eternal.” I want us to go back, though, and look at the beginning of the verse.
The words “akounta de ta ethne exairon kai edoksazon ton logon tou kuriou kai episteusan” are translated as “hearing but the Gentiles rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord and believed.” When we arrange words in a proper English order, we get the following: “but the Gentiles hearing [the Word] rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord and believed.”
What you have in the early part of verse 48 is the proper order in which salvation is appropriated to the believer: first, the Gentiles “heard” the word; then, they rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord; last but not least, they believed. Their hearing the Word caused them to rejoice and glorify the Word of the Lord (for they understood the Word after hearing it); then, as a result of understanding how wonderful the Word is, they then believed the Gospel—and were appointed to eternal life.
Peterson and Williams would like to have us believe that people are given eternal life BEFORE they believe—but this simply isn’t true! Understand these words from the apostle Paul:
“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ” (Romans 10:17, HCSB).
In the context of Romans 10, Paul is discussing the issue of the Jews who have not achieved righteousness through the law, and the Gentiles who have achieved righteousness by faith (Rom. 9:30). Israel’s problem, though, doesn’t seem to be that they haven’t heard the message, but rather that they did not respond properly to it:
“But I ask, ‘Did they not hear?’ Yes, they did:
Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.
But I ask, ‘Did Israel not understand?’ First, Moses said:
I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that lacks understanding.
And Isaiah says boldly:
‘I was found by those who were not looking for Me; I revealed Myself to those who were not asking for Me.’
But to Israel he says: ‘All day long I have spread out My hands to a DISOBEDIENT AND DEFIANT PEOPLE’” (Romans 10:18-21, HCSB).
Israel’s problem had nothing to do with whether or not she was ELECTED to be saved or given eternal life; rather, Israel’s problem was that she was “disobedient and defiant” (as Romans 10 illustrates). So, while Israel did indeed hear the message, she did not respond to the message by professing faith. Instead, she revolted against it, still trying to do things her own way—by works of the law.
Listen to what Paul has to say to the Ephesians in the midst of a chapter discussing
their election IN CHRIST:
“In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation—in Him WHEN YOU BELIEVED—were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Ephesians 1:13,
HCSB).
First, the Ephesians heard the word of truth, the gospel; then they believed in what they heard from the Word—and, as a result, they believed and were saved. And what was the evidence of their salvation? “when you believed—were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.” They were not sealed IN HIM until AFTER THEY BELIEVED, not before!
The problem with Peterson and Williams’ assessments of Acts is that it disagrees with the rest of Scripture. And in the event that one’s individual interpretation disagrees with the rest of Scripture, then he or she must go back and change their own interpretation to match the voice of Scripture. This is indeed the key to UNDERSTANDING (or standing under) the Word of God.
Now, back to the Greek text itself. The first part of Acts 13:48 tells us that the Gentiles heard the Word, rejoiced, glorified the Word, and believed. But the Greek text then says, “hosoi esan tetagmenoi zoen aionion.” The words “esan tetagmenoi” translate to “were had been appointed.” The word “tetagmenoi” is a perfect passive participle. The passive participle translates to a past tense verb—for example, “believed.” This is the basic passive participle. If the verb is a perfect passive, this means that the passive tense is attached to a perfect tense. The perfect tense translates in English to “has” or “have”. The perfect passive translates to “had been.” In this case, the word “tetagmenoi” translates to “having been appointed.”
But the problem comes in when you have to consider the verb before “tetagmenoi”—the word “esan.” The word “esan” is an imperfect verb, meaning “were.” The verb is a passive tense of the verb “to be” (usually written as “is”). So the text reads “were having been appointed.” In cases like this, when you have a passive verb meeting another passive verb, one of the passives must yield to the other. Because “were” is vital to this verse, then “having been appointed” must be changed accordingly. The best way to combine these two verbs is to translate the phrase as “were appointed.”
To say then, that these people “were appointed” before they believed is to do the text a terrible disgrace. Take the following example:
“All those who caught the swine flu were admitted to the hospital.”
Would I interpret this verse to mean “all those who were admitted to the hospital caught the flu” and state that only after the patients were admitted to the hospital that they caught the swine flu? Of course not! Yet, this what Peterson and Williams do to the text: they claim that those who believe were appointed to believe BEFORE they did, which is not what Scripture teaches. Even with Ephesians 1, we see that it is only AFTER THEY BELIEVED that they were sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit. If the effects happen AFTER the belief instead of before, then we are not inclined to believe that God has handpicked those who would believe in Him.
Acts 13:48 shows us a “cause and effect” plot: first, the Gentiles accept the Word, hear it, and rejoice in its truth—then they believe and are appointed to eternal life. It is usually a good rule of thumb to match interpretations with the known factors in Scripture. Peterson and Williams, though, stick to a presupposition. We can all stand to benefit from their mistake…
Predestination in Acts, Part I
“In Corinth on his second missionary journey, Paul, discouraged by Jewish opposition, stops preaching in the synagogue and turns to the Gentiles (Acts 18:5-8). The Lord speaks to Paul in a vision one night telling him to continue preaching the gospel (Acts 18:9). God promises the apostle, ‘I have many people in this city’ (Acts 18:10). Paul obediently stays on in Corinth for eighteen months ministering the Word of God (Acts 18:11). Luke teaches that people in Corinth BELONGED TO GOD EVEN BEFORE THEY BELIEVED THE GOSPEL. Again we see God’s election of people to salvation. Interestingly, although some claim that an emphasis on God’s sovereignty in salvation hinders evangelism, that emphasis encouraged Paul to continue preaching” (Robert A. Peterson & Michael D. Williams, “Why I Am Not An Arminian,” pp. 52-53).
Robert Peterson and Michael Williams attempt here to do what they’ve done throughout all of the Gospel of John as well as Revelation: hide certain details about the text.
In Acts 18, they write regarding verse 10, “God promises the apostle, ‘I have many people in this city.’” The problem with this, however, is that they leave out the earlier part of verse 10:
“For I AM WITH YOU, and NO ONE WILL LAY A HAND ON YOU TO HURT YOU, because I have many people in this city” (Holman Christian Standard Bible).
So the reason why the Lord tells Paul that He has many people in the city is so that Paul would be assured that “no one will lay a hand” on him. This is why in Acts 18:9, the Lord tells Paul, “Don’t be afraid, but KEEP ON SPEAKING AND DON’T BE SILENT.” There would be people in the city who would believe the gospel and profess faith in Christ. As a result of the gospel, Paul would have friends amongst the unbelievers in the city.
As we see, the Lord’s words to Paul about not keeping silent had to do with Paul’s fear of losing his life—not primarily about those who would believe the gospel, although the new converts would be protection for Paul. We do read in verse 11 that “he stayed there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.”
If we look back to the early verses of Acts 18, we find that in Corinth, the Jews refuse to believe the gospel:
“When Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with preaching the message and solemnly testified to the Jews that the Messiah is Jesus. But WHEN THEY RESISTED and BLASPHEMED, he shook out his clothes and told them, ‘Your blood is on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles’” (Acts 18:5-6, HCSB).
Notice that the Jews “resisted and blasphemed” in response to the gospel message. Just like those Jews of Acts 7 who heard Stephen preach, these Jews resist Paul’s preaching of the gospel as well. To the Calvinist I pose the question, if we have in Acts TWO INSTANCES (chapters 7 and 18) where people are resisting the gospel, then how is it that there can be a concept of “Irresistible Grace”? And to make matters worse, how is it that Christians, after getting saved, can RESIST the Spirit of Grace (if grace is irresistible)?
As I said earlier, the Lord told Paul about many people of His in the city because this would serve as proof that Paul would be protected by the Lord.
We have one more passage to tackle in Acts: Acts 13. And that is what my next post will be all about.
Robert Peterson and Michael Williams attempt here to do what they’ve done throughout all of the Gospel of John as well as Revelation: hide certain details about the text.
In Acts 18, they write regarding verse 10, “God promises the apostle, ‘I have many people in this city.’” The problem with this, however, is that they leave out the earlier part of verse 10:
“For I AM WITH YOU, and NO ONE WILL LAY A HAND ON YOU TO HURT YOU, because I have many people in this city” (Holman Christian Standard Bible).
So the reason why the Lord tells Paul that He has many people in the city is so that Paul would be assured that “no one will lay a hand” on him. This is why in Acts 18:9, the Lord tells Paul, “Don’t be afraid, but KEEP ON SPEAKING AND DON’T BE SILENT.” There would be people in the city who would believe the gospel and profess faith in Christ. As a result of the gospel, Paul would have friends amongst the unbelievers in the city.
As we see, the Lord’s words to Paul about not keeping silent had to do with Paul’s fear of losing his life—not primarily about those who would believe the gospel, although the new converts would be protection for Paul. We do read in verse 11 that “he stayed there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.”
If we look back to the early verses of Acts 18, we find that in Corinth, the Jews refuse to believe the gospel:
“When Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with preaching the message and solemnly testified to the Jews that the Messiah is Jesus. But WHEN THEY RESISTED and BLASPHEMED, he shook out his clothes and told them, ‘Your blood is on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles’” (Acts 18:5-6, HCSB).
Notice that the Jews “resisted and blasphemed” in response to the gospel message. Just like those Jews of Acts 7 who heard Stephen preach, these Jews resist Paul’s preaching of the gospel as well. To the Calvinist I pose the question, if we have in Acts TWO INSTANCES (chapters 7 and 18) where people are resisting the gospel, then how is it that there can be a concept of “Irresistible Grace”? And to make matters worse, how is it that Christians, after getting saved, can RESIST the Spirit of Grace (if grace is irresistible)?
As I said earlier, the Lord told Paul about many people of His in the city because this would serve as proof that Paul would be protected by the Lord.
We have one more passage to tackle in Acts: Acts 13. And that is what my next post will be all about.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Predestination in Revelation, Part II
Today I’m gonna continue my series on Predestination in Revelation. I’ve been tackling Peterson and Williams’ book titled, “Why I Am Not An Arminian,” and investigating their misunderstandings of biblical passages. I’m hanging around their aforementioned verses in the book of Revelation because they quote them as referring to God’s spiritual protection upon His people. However, as we will see, the spiritual protection of believers comes through their faith and endurance—and both of these will be needed for the time on earth of which Revelation 13 speaks.
I’ll print the main verses here:
1 And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea. (A) He [a] had 10 horns and seven heads. On his horns were 10 diadems, (B) and on his heads were blasphemous names. (C) [b] 2 The beast I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like a bear's, and his mouth was like a lion's mouth. (D) The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. 3 One of his heads appeared to be fatally wounded, [c] but his fatal wound was healed. The whole earth was amazed and followed the beast. (E) [d] 4 They worshiped the dragon (F) because he gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? (G) Who is able to wage war against him?"
5 A mouth was given to him to speak boasts and blasphemies. (H) He was also given authority to act [e] [f] for 42 months. (I) 6 He began to speak [g] blasphemies against God: to blaspheme His name and His dwelling—those who dwell in heaven. 7 And he was permitted to wage war against the saints and to conquer them. He was also given authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation. (J) 8 All those who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name was not written from the foundation of the world in the book [h] of life (K) of the Lamb who was slaughtered. (L) [i]
9 If anyone has an ear, he should listen: (M)
10 If anyone is destined for captivity,
into captivity he goes.
If anyone is to be killed [j] with a sword,
with a sword he will be killed. (N)
Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints. (Revelation 13: 1-10, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The chapter itself refers to the beast of Revelation, the one whom the dragon will give power to the beast. The dragon will be the beast’s serpent—and everyone will bow down to the best. Notice the praise given to the beast: “Who is like the beast? Who is able to wage war against him?” These words parallel those ascribed to the Lord in Exodus:
LORD, who is like You among the gods?
Who is like You, glorious in holiness,
revered with praises, performing wonders? (Exodus 15:11, HCSB)
Moses and the Israelites praised God for His victory over the Egyptians at the Red Sea; but in Revelation, “everyone whose name was not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered” would praise and worship the beast (Rev. 13:8).
But in verses 9 and 10, we have something entirely different from what we would expect. Peterson and Williams may not have seen it, but it is pretty evident to most:
9 If anyone has an ear, he should listen: (M)
10 If anyone is destined for captivity,
into captivity he goes.
If anyone is to be killed [j] with a sword,
with a sword he will be killed. (N)
Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints. (Rev. 13:9-10, HCSB)
Here the Spirit tells us to listen to what He is saying. What is He saying? He’s already told us that those whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life will worship the beast. Their lives will be spared because they worship him and are useful to him. But what about the believers? Will Christians be spared? No. To see this, go back to Revelation 13:7—the beast was given authority not just over every tongue, tribe, and nation, but “he was permitted to wage war against the saints and conquer them” (13:7a). This means that all power and authority on earth belongs to him at this point in the book. With all this power, he is now allowed to harm the saints of God—something that, evidently, wasn’t apparent through the earlier chapters of the book. With this power EVEN OVER THE SAINTS, the beast will now have his way with them. And what exactly do the saints have to look forward to?
They will be killed with the sword and taken into captivity: “if anyone is destined for captivity, into captivity he goes. If anyone is to be killed with a sword, with a sword he will be killed” (Rev. 13:10).
Revelation 13:10 parallels an Old Testament passage regarding God’s people. God promised to punish Old Testament Israel for her sins against God, her constant turning away from the One true living God. This is what the Lord gave Israel for her punishment:
“Then the Lord said to me: “Even if Moses and Samuel should stand before Me, My compassions would not [reach out] to these people. Send them from My presence, and let them go. If they ask you: Where will we go? You must tell them: ‘This is what the LORD says:
Those [destined] for death, to death;
Those [destined] for the sword, to the sword.
Those [destined] for famine, to famine;
Those [destined] for captivity, to captivity’” (Jeremiah 15:1-2, HCSB).
Because of Israel’s sin, God would let her experience “four kinds of judgment” (Jer. 15:3). However, this is placed in the context of Revelation 13, where God’s people, those who have been faithful, will endure harsh persecution because they REFUSE to bow down to the beast. Instead of the saints being persecuted for rebelling against God (which the Israelites did), they will now be punished for REBELLING AGAINST THE BEAST, and refusing to bow down and worship him!
The end of Revelation 13:10 is the part I want to emphasize:
“Here is the endurance and faith of the saints.”
Despite the persecution, Christians are called to maintain their faith and endurance (or perseverance).
Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams would like to make readers believe that, no matter what, believers are spiritually protected. However, John in Revelation disagrees. To him, those who profess faith in Christ will be SPIRITUALLY VULNERABLE during the reign of the beast. Because of the power and authority given to him, every saint will be “under the microscope,” exposed to the world. And why? because the beast wants EVERYONE to worship him; and if he doesn’t have his way, then believers can expect to go to their deaths.
John states it here that those who profess faith will have to maintain FAITH AND ENDURANCE through this difficult time, a time that the world has yet to see. Whether or not a person endures is all based on that person: will the tribulation on the earth MAKE or BREAK the saints? That will all be revealed in time. However, we have Jesus words about the one who reigns victoriously with Him in the end:
“The victor will be dressed in white clothes, and I will NEVER ERASE HIS NAME FROM THE BOOK OF LIFE, but will acknowledge his name before My Father and before His angels” (Rev. 3:5, HCSB). I pray that we will inherit this promise.
I’ll print the main verses here:
1 And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea. (A) He [a] had 10 horns and seven heads. On his horns were 10 diadems, (B) and on his heads were blasphemous names. (C) [b] 2 The beast I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like a bear's, and his mouth was like a lion's mouth. (D) The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. 3 One of his heads appeared to be fatally wounded, [c] but his fatal wound was healed. The whole earth was amazed and followed the beast. (E) [d] 4 They worshiped the dragon (F) because he gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? (G) Who is able to wage war against him?"
5 A mouth was given to him to speak boasts and blasphemies. (H) He was also given authority to act [e] [f] for 42 months. (I) 6 He began to speak [g] blasphemies against God: to blaspheme His name and His dwelling—those who dwell in heaven. 7 And he was permitted to wage war against the saints and to conquer them. He was also given authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation. (J) 8 All those who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name was not written from the foundation of the world in the book [h] of life (K) of the Lamb who was slaughtered. (L) [i]
9 If anyone has an ear, he should listen: (M)
10 If anyone is destined for captivity,
into captivity he goes.
If anyone is to be killed [j] with a sword,
with a sword he will be killed. (N)
Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints. (Revelation 13: 1-10, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The chapter itself refers to the beast of Revelation, the one whom the dragon will give power to the beast. The dragon will be the beast’s serpent—and everyone will bow down to the best. Notice the praise given to the beast: “Who is like the beast? Who is able to wage war against him?” These words parallel those ascribed to the Lord in Exodus:
LORD, who is like You among the gods?
Who is like You, glorious in holiness,
revered with praises, performing wonders? (Exodus 15:11, HCSB)
Moses and the Israelites praised God for His victory over the Egyptians at the Red Sea; but in Revelation, “everyone whose name was not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered” would praise and worship the beast (Rev. 13:8).
But in verses 9 and 10, we have something entirely different from what we would expect. Peterson and Williams may not have seen it, but it is pretty evident to most:
9 If anyone has an ear, he should listen: (M)
10 If anyone is destined for captivity,
into captivity he goes.
If anyone is to be killed [j] with a sword,
with a sword he will be killed. (N)
Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints. (Rev. 13:9-10, HCSB)
Here the Spirit tells us to listen to what He is saying. What is He saying? He’s already told us that those whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life will worship the beast. Their lives will be spared because they worship him and are useful to him. But what about the believers? Will Christians be spared? No. To see this, go back to Revelation 13:7—the beast was given authority not just over every tongue, tribe, and nation, but “he was permitted to wage war against the saints and conquer them” (13:7a). This means that all power and authority on earth belongs to him at this point in the book. With all this power, he is now allowed to harm the saints of God—something that, evidently, wasn’t apparent through the earlier chapters of the book. With this power EVEN OVER THE SAINTS, the beast will now have his way with them. And what exactly do the saints have to look forward to?
They will be killed with the sword and taken into captivity: “if anyone is destined for captivity, into captivity he goes. If anyone is to be killed with a sword, with a sword he will be killed” (Rev. 13:10).
Revelation 13:10 parallels an Old Testament passage regarding God’s people. God promised to punish Old Testament Israel for her sins against God, her constant turning away from the One true living God. This is what the Lord gave Israel for her punishment:
“Then the Lord said to me: “Even if Moses and Samuel should stand before Me, My compassions would not [reach out] to these people. Send them from My presence, and let them go. If they ask you: Where will we go? You must tell them: ‘This is what the LORD says:
Those [destined] for death, to death;
Those [destined] for the sword, to the sword.
Those [destined] for famine, to famine;
Those [destined] for captivity, to captivity’” (Jeremiah 15:1-2, HCSB).
Because of Israel’s sin, God would let her experience “four kinds of judgment” (Jer. 15:3). However, this is placed in the context of Revelation 13, where God’s people, those who have been faithful, will endure harsh persecution because they REFUSE to bow down to the beast. Instead of the saints being persecuted for rebelling against God (which the Israelites did), they will now be punished for REBELLING AGAINST THE BEAST, and refusing to bow down and worship him!
The end of Revelation 13:10 is the part I want to emphasize:
“Here is the endurance and faith of the saints.”
Despite the persecution, Christians are called to maintain their faith and endurance (or perseverance).
Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams would like to make readers believe that, no matter what, believers are spiritually protected. However, John in Revelation disagrees. To him, those who profess faith in Christ will be SPIRITUALLY VULNERABLE during the reign of the beast. Because of the power and authority given to him, every saint will be “under the microscope,” exposed to the world. And why? because the beast wants EVERYONE to worship him; and if he doesn’t have his way, then believers can expect to go to their deaths.
John states it here that those who profess faith will have to maintain FAITH AND ENDURANCE through this difficult time, a time that the world has yet to see. Whether or not a person endures is all based on that person: will the tribulation on the earth MAKE or BREAK the saints? That will all be revealed in time. However, we have Jesus words about the one who reigns victoriously with Him in the end:
“The victor will be dressed in white clothes, and I will NEVER ERASE HIS NAME FROM THE BOOK OF LIFE, but will acknowledge his name before My Father and before His angels” (Rev. 3:5, HCSB). I pray that we will inherit this promise.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Predestination in Revelation, Part I
I’ve finished my series on predestination in the Gospel of John. Today I’m gonna start with our continuing study of predestination from a different book altogether—the Book of Revelation. And, by the way, I’m still marinating in the book “Why I Am Not An Arminian” by Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams.
“A theme from Revelation that pertains to the doctrine of election is ‘the book of life’ (Rev. 3:5; 17:8; 20:12, 15) or ‘the Lamb’s book of life’ (Rev. 13:8; 21:27). This book serves as the census register of the city of God. The names of the saints were enrolled ‘in the book of life from the creation of the world’ (Rev. 17:8). The chief use of that book is TO ASSURE THOSE LISTED THEREIN OF GOD’S SPIRITUAL PROTECTION (Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; 21;27) Although Arminians sometimes claim that predestination does not result in salvation, the passages mentioning the book of life disprove that claim. That is because those whose names are written in the book from creation (Rev. 17:8) will be spared the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15) and will enter the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:27)” (Robert A. Peterson & Michael D. Williams, “Why Am I Not An Arminian,” page 53).
To tackle the claim made by Calvinists (specifically the one above), I am gonna deal with the statement in bold: that the names are written in the book of life “TO ASSURE THOSE LISTED THEREIN OF GOD’S SPIRITUAL PROTECTION.”
Let’s start with Revelation 3:5—
“In the same way, the victor will be dressed in white clothes, and I will never erase his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before My Father and before His angels” (Rev. 3:5, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
These words are the words of Christ. We know this because Jesus says just prior to this that “I will come like a thief” (a thief in the night- Rev. 3:3), and “you have a few people in Sardis who have not defiled their clothes, and they will walk WITH ME IN WHITE, because they are worthy” (Rev. 3:4). In addition, look at verse 5. Jesus says to those who overcome, “I will never erase his name from the book of life, but will ACKNOWLEDGE his name before My Father and before His angels.”
Notice that the person speaking CAN erase names from the book of life. Who else could do this but Christ alone?
“Then I saw in the right hand of the One seated on the throne a scroll with writing on the inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals. I also saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?’ But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or even to look in it. And I cried and cried because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or even to look in it.
Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Stop crying. Look! The Lion from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has been victorious so that He may open the scroll and its seven seals. Then I saw one like a slaughtered lamb standing between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent into all the earth. He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne.
When He took the scroll, the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and golden bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song:
‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals; because YOU WERE SLAUGHTERED, AND YOU REDEEMED PEOPLE FOR GOD BY YOUR BLOOD from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:2-9, HCSB).
Secondly, Jesus says in the above passage of Revelation 3 that He would acknowledge the victorious one before His Father and the angels. Jesus says something similar to this in the Gospels:
“Therefore, everyone who will ACKNOWLEDGE Me before men, I will also acknowledge him before My Father in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:32, HCSB).
The last thing I wanna point out about the context concerns Jesus words of “coming like a thief” from Revelation 3:3. Jesus references Himself as a thief in Revelation 16:
“Look, I am coming LIKE A THIEF. Blessed is the one who is alert and remains clothed so that he may not go naked, and they see his shame” (Rev. 16:15, HCSB).
As context reveals, Jesus is the One speaking in Revelation 3 to the church at Sardis.
According to Peterson and Williams, predestination results in salvation (from their quote above), and they believe Revelation 3 proves that. But it doesn’t.
First, notice the condition of the church at Sardis:
“I know your works; you have a REPUTATION FOR BEING ALIVE, but YOU ARE DEAD. Be alert and strengthen what remains, WHICH IS ABOUT TO DIE, for I have not found your WORKS COMPLETE BEFORE MY GOD. Remember therefore what YOU HAVE RECEIVED and heard; KEEP IT, and REPENT” (Rev. 3:1b-3a).
The church at Sardis had a reputation for being a living church, a name for good works. They were well-known for righteousness. This, then, does not sound like a church that NEVER BELIEVED in Christ! I say this now because the rest of the context will demonstrate the necessity of this statement.
In addition, “what remains” at the church at Sardis is “about to die.” Don’t you find this a little puzzling, that their reputation for good works is without merit, that they are described as “dead” and that “what remains” is “about to die”? What is this regarding “about to die?” The context refers to their works. Jesus says it in the reference above that “I have not found your works COMPLETE before My God.” The church at Sardis has not done all it could do, has not done nearly enough as a church with a reputation for good works. Although they have clearly been saved, their work has not testified to their salvation. In the next statement above, Jesus says, “Remember therefore what you HAVE RECEIVED and HEARD; KEEP IT, and REPENT.” Not only did they hear the truth, they received the truth, welcomed the truth. Jesus said that the only way for them to be pleasing in His sight was to KEEP IT, and repent of their slothfulness. As we can see, “what remains” is “about to die.”
So this church is on the edge of spiritual apostasy, walking away from Christ. Their faith in Christ is about to die, about to wane completely, and the Lord tells them to repent right away of this and go back to what they were before their lapse in their spiritual walk. What will happen if they don’t repent?
“But if you are not alert, I WILL COME LIKE A THIEF, and you have no idea at what hour I will come AGAINST YOU” (Rev. 3:3, HCSB).
Jesus’ reference to Himself as a thief matches His words to the disciples in Luke 12:
“Those slaves the master will find alert when he comes will be blessed. I assure you: He will get ready, have them recline at the table, then come and serve them. If he comes in the middle of the night, or even near dawn, and finds them alert, those slaves are blessed. But know this: if the homeowner had known at what hour the THIEF was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also be ready, because the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect” (Luke 12:37-40, HCSB).
Luke 12 continues where Christ gives the parable of the faithful servant put in charge of the household until the master returns; but once the master goes off, the slave responds, “My Master is delaying his coming, and starts to beat the male and female slaves, and to eat and drink and get drunk” (Lk. 12:45).When the master returns, “He will cut him to pieces and ASSIGN HIM A PLACE WITH THE UNBELIEVERS” (Lk. 12:46).
So when Jesus tells the church at Sardis that He would return like a thief in the night, He wasn’t joking. If He found that they had not repent and continued in good works, they too, would be assigned a place with the unbeliever.
The church at Sardis, then, consisted of those who had believed in the gospel and had become part of the body of Christ; but all that could “go up in smoke” if they had not remained faithful when the Lord returned.
But verse 4 is refreshing:
“But you have a FEW PEOPLE IN SARDIS who have not defiled their clothes, and they will walk with Me in white, because they are worthy. In the same way, the victor will be dressed in white clothes, and I will never erase his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before My Father and before His angels” (Rev. 3:4-5, HCSB).
Despite the sad condition of the church at Sardis, there were a few who had continued to persevere despite the majority. The Lord doesn’t promise to destroy the entire church—just the majority that had given in to spiritual laziness.
But the verse we are to center in on is verse 5: why would the Lord have to write and promise never to “erase” names from the book of life? Because the majority of this church had begun to lose faith and walk away from Christ. And if they didn’t get their act together, their names WOULD BE BLOTTED OUT of the book of life (in contrast to those who had remained undefiled, whose names would never be taken out of the book).
Some people could say, “Well, see, those whose names would be taken out of the book of life were unbelievers to begin with.” But evidence within Revelation itself disproves this statement:
“All those who live on the earth will worship him [the beast], EVERYONE WHOSE NAME WAS NOT WRITTEN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD in the book of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered” (Rev. 13:8, HCSB).
Peterson and Williams claim that the book of life is “to assure those listed therein of God’s spiritual protection,” but Revelation 3 (unlike Revelation 13:8) refers to those who ARE in the book of life who COULD BE BLOTTED OUT of it if they don’t repent of their sin. Those of Revelation 13:8 have NEVER had their names in the book of life; those in Revelation 3 HAVE THEIR NAMES in the book of life, but “what remains” is “about to die” because they are “dead,” according to Christ Himself.
So the names in the book of life were not GUARANTEED to be protected—just those that persevered. Jesus says that only those “who have not defiled their clothes…will walk with Me in white, BECAUSE THEY ARE WORTHY” (Rev. 3:4, HCSB). The few that had remained faithful to God qualified to walk with Him in white as victors.
Revelation 3, then, is written to the church at Sardis to wake them up from their sinful, dead slumber. If they didn’t, their names would be blotted out of the Lamb’s book of life— those who had endured faithfully would overcome and reign with the Lamb. Contrary to Peterson and Williams, however, protection was not guaranteed—it came with the condition of perseverance. And this is the problem with unconditional election—it acts as if eternity is already guaranteed! But it is only to be appropriated PROVIDED that the believer endure to the end. As Jesus Himself said it in Matthew 24, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13, English Standard Version).
“A theme from Revelation that pertains to the doctrine of election is ‘the book of life’ (Rev. 3:5; 17:8; 20:12, 15) or ‘the Lamb’s book of life’ (Rev. 13:8; 21:27). This book serves as the census register of the city of God. The names of the saints were enrolled ‘in the book of life from the creation of the world’ (Rev. 17:8). The chief use of that book is TO ASSURE THOSE LISTED THEREIN OF GOD’S SPIRITUAL PROTECTION (Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; 21;27) Although Arminians sometimes claim that predestination does not result in salvation, the passages mentioning the book of life disprove that claim. That is because those whose names are written in the book from creation (Rev. 17:8) will be spared the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15) and will enter the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:27)” (Robert A. Peterson & Michael D. Williams, “Why Am I Not An Arminian,” page 53).
To tackle the claim made by Calvinists (specifically the one above), I am gonna deal with the statement in bold: that the names are written in the book of life “TO ASSURE THOSE LISTED THEREIN OF GOD’S SPIRITUAL PROTECTION.”
Let’s start with Revelation 3:5—
“In the same way, the victor will be dressed in white clothes, and I will never erase his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before My Father and before His angels” (Rev. 3:5, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
These words are the words of Christ. We know this because Jesus says just prior to this that “I will come like a thief” (a thief in the night- Rev. 3:3), and “you have a few people in Sardis who have not defiled their clothes, and they will walk WITH ME IN WHITE, because they are worthy” (Rev. 3:4). In addition, look at verse 5. Jesus says to those who overcome, “I will never erase his name from the book of life, but will ACKNOWLEDGE his name before My Father and before His angels.”
Notice that the person speaking CAN erase names from the book of life. Who else could do this but Christ alone?
“Then I saw in the right hand of the One seated on the throne a scroll with writing on the inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals. I also saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?’ But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or even to look in it. And I cried and cried because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or even to look in it.
Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Stop crying. Look! The Lion from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has been victorious so that He may open the scroll and its seven seals. Then I saw one like a slaughtered lamb standing between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent into all the earth. He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne.
When He took the scroll, the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and golden bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song:
‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals; because YOU WERE SLAUGHTERED, AND YOU REDEEMED PEOPLE FOR GOD BY YOUR BLOOD from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:2-9, HCSB).
Secondly, Jesus says in the above passage of Revelation 3 that He would acknowledge the victorious one before His Father and the angels. Jesus says something similar to this in the Gospels:
“Therefore, everyone who will ACKNOWLEDGE Me before men, I will also acknowledge him before My Father in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:32, HCSB).
The last thing I wanna point out about the context concerns Jesus words of “coming like a thief” from Revelation 3:3. Jesus references Himself as a thief in Revelation 16:
“Look, I am coming LIKE A THIEF. Blessed is the one who is alert and remains clothed so that he may not go naked, and they see his shame” (Rev. 16:15, HCSB).
As context reveals, Jesus is the One speaking in Revelation 3 to the church at Sardis.
According to Peterson and Williams, predestination results in salvation (from their quote above), and they believe Revelation 3 proves that. But it doesn’t.
First, notice the condition of the church at Sardis:
“I know your works; you have a REPUTATION FOR BEING ALIVE, but YOU ARE DEAD. Be alert and strengthen what remains, WHICH IS ABOUT TO DIE, for I have not found your WORKS COMPLETE BEFORE MY GOD. Remember therefore what YOU HAVE RECEIVED and heard; KEEP IT, and REPENT” (Rev. 3:1b-3a).
The church at Sardis had a reputation for being a living church, a name for good works. They were well-known for righteousness. This, then, does not sound like a church that NEVER BELIEVED in Christ! I say this now because the rest of the context will demonstrate the necessity of this statement.
In addition, “what remains” at the church at Sardis is “about to die.” Don’t you find this a little puzzling, that their reputation for good works is without merit, that they are described as “dead” and that “what remains” is “about to die”? What is this regarding “about to die?” The context refers to their works. Jesus says it in the reference above that “I have not found your works COMPLETE before My God.” The church at Sardis has not done all it could do, has not done nearly enough as a church with a reputation for good works. Although they have clearly been saved, their work has not testified to their salvation. In the next statement above, Jesus says, “Remember therefore what you HAVE RECEIVED and HEARD; KEEP IT, and REPENT.” Not only did they hear the truth, they received the truth, welcomed the truth. Jesus said that the only way for them to be pleasing in His sight was to KEEP IT, and repent of their slothfulness. As we can see, “what remains” is “about to die.”
So this church is on the edge of spiritual apostasy, walking away from Christ. Their faith in Christ is about to die, about to wane completely, and the Lord tells them to repent right away of this and go back to what they were before their lapse in their spiritual walk. What will happen if they don’t repent?
“But if you are not alert, I WILL COME LIKE A THIEF, and you have no idea at what hour I will come AGAINST YOU” (Rev. 3:3, HCSB).
Jesus’ reference to Himself as a thief matches His words to the disciples in Luke 12:
“Those slaves the master will find alert when he comes will be blessed. I assure you: He will get ready, have them recline at the table, then come and serve them. If he comes in the middle of the night, or even near dawn, and finds them alert, those slaves are blessed. But know this: if the homeowner had known at what hour the THIEF was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also be ready, because the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect” (Luke 12:37-40, HCSB).
Luke 12 continues where Christ gives the parable of the faithful servant put in charge of the household until the master returns; but once the master goes off, the slave responds, “My Master is delaying his coming, and starts to beat the male and female slaves, and to eat and drink and get drunk” (Lk. 12:45).When the master returns, “He will cut him to pieces and ASSIGN HIM A PLACE WITH THE UNBELIEVERS” (Lk. 12:46).
So when Jesus tells the church at Sardis that He would return like a thief in the night, He wasn’t joking. If He found that they had not repent and continued in good works, they too, would be assigned a place with the unbeliever.
The church at Sardis, then, consisted of those who had believed in the gospel and had become part of the body of Christ; but all that could “go up in smoke” if they had not remained faithful when the Lord returned.
But verse 4 is refreshing:
“But you have a FEW PEOPLE IN SARDIS who have not defiled their clothes, and they will walk with Me in white, because they are worthy. In the same way, the victor will be dressed in white clothes, and I will never erase his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before My Father and before His angels” (Rev. 3:4-5, HCSB).
Despite the sad condition of the church at Sardis, there were a few who had continued to persevere despite the majority. The Lord doesn’t promise to destroy the entire church—just the majority that had given in to spiritual laziness.
But the verse we are to center in on is verse 5: why would the Lord have to write and promise never to “erase” names from the book of life? Because the majority of this church had begun to lose faith and walk away from Christ. And if they didn’t get their act together, their names WOULD BE BLOTTED OUT of the book of life (in contrast to those who had remained undefiled, whose names would never be taken out of the book).
Some people could say, “Well, see, those whose names would be taken out of the book of life were unbelievers to begin with.” But evidence within Revelation itself disproves this statement:
“All those who live on the earth will worship him [the beast], EVERYONE WHOSE NAME WAS NOT WRITTEN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD in the book of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered” (Rev. 13:8, HCSB).
Peterson and Williams claim that the book of life is “to assure those listed therein of God’s spiritual protection,” but Revelation 3 (unlike Revelation 13:8) refers to those who ARE in the book of life who COULD BE BLOTTED OUT of it if they don’t repent of their sin. Those of Revelation 13:8 have NEVER had their names in the book of life; those in Revelation 3 HAVE THEIR NAMES in the book of life, but “what remains” is “about to die” because they are “dead,” according to Christ Himself.
So the names in the book of life were not GUARANTEED to be protected—just those that persevered. Jesus says that only those “who have not defiled their clothes…will walk with Me in white, BECAUSE THEY ARE WORTHY” (Rev. 3:4, HCSB). The few that had remained faithful to God qualified to walk with Him in white as victors.
Revelation 3, then, is written to the church at Sardis to wake them up from their sinful, dead slumber. If they didn’t, their names would be blotted out of the Lamb’s book of life— those who had endured faithfully would overcome and reign with the Lamb. Contrary to Peterson and Williams, however, protection was not guaranteed—it came with the condition of perseverance. And this is the problem with unconditional election—it acts as if eternity is already guaranteed! But it is only to be appropriated PROVIDED that the believer endure to the end. As Jesus Himself said it in Matthew 24, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13, English Standard Version).
The Remonstrance Returns: A Response to Michael D. Williams' Article, "The Five Points of Arminianism" by Deidre M. Richardson
“The will of God cannot, according to Arminius, circumscribe human choices such that any particular choice is metaphysically necessary. Divine determination of any degree or stripe is a violation of the integrity of the human free will. To be free, the will must be free from all coercion. The integrity of the autonomous creature is the one irreducible theological principle of Arminius’s thought…if it is appropriate to speak of a doctrine of sovereignty here, it appears that it can only be the sovereignty OF THE HUMAN WILL. In Arminian thinking, God can only get his way IF HE HAPPENS TO BE TRAVELING IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS WE ARE.”
First, I would like to applaud Michael Williams for completing his work, “Why I Am Not An Arminian.” Roger Olson praises him highly for his remarks regarding Arminians—that they are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However, in this essay, I will critique Williams’ analyses of the five points of Arminianism and show why, scripturally, Williams’ Calvinist leanings cannot be correct.
Arminian Article One states:
“That God by an eternal and immutable decree has in Jesus Christ his Son determined before the foundation of the world to save out of the fallen sinful human race those in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ who by the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe in this his Son Jesus Christ and persevere in this faith and obedience of faith to the end; and on the other hand to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and condemn (them) as alienate from Christ—according to the word of the holy gospel in John 3:36, ‘He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life, and whosoever is disobedient to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,’ and also other passages of the Scriptures.”
Regarding Article One, Williams writes:
“While the intention here is to reject any notion of salvation by works, a salvation by merit, Arminius’s doctrine of election through foreseen faith cannot fully escape the allegation that merit is intrinsic to his understanding of salvation. John Frame states the Calvinist analysis here most succinctly: ‘The Arminian wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that faith has no merit, but he also wants to say that our faith somehow motivates God to save us, that God chooses us on the basis of our choosing him. But if faith motivates God to save us, then it must have merit in his eyes’.”
The first error Williams makes in his assessment of Arminius (a typical Calvinist attack) is that he labels faith as a work (“merit is intrinsic to his[Arminius] understanding of salvation”). Read what the apostle Paul writes regarding faith:
“This is the message of faith that we proclaim: IF you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Let’s look at this passage. First, note that Paul calls the message “the message of FAITH” that “we PROCLAIM.” The message is ALL ABOUT FAITH! This is what Paul preached, no matter where he went, regardless of who he met. For Arminius, faith was central to salvation—for faith in the work of Christ is what is required, as Romans 10:8-9 demonstrates. Next, note that Paul says, “IF you confess with your mouth,” and “IF you believe in your heart” (the word “if” serving as the initial word for both actions). The text does not tell us that God has decided to save some and damn others. If anyone confesses and believes, he or she is saved. Salvation comes through these two steps—confession and belief; and there are no others to perform.
Paul also speaks of faith (as distinguished from merit) earlier in the book of Romans:
“What should we say then? Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness—namely THE RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT COMES FROM FAITH. But Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has not achieved the law. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PURSUE IT BY FAITH, but as if it were by works" (Rom. 9:30, NASB)
Paul contrasts the Jew and the Gentile here: the Gentiles have received righteousness without the works of the law, while the Jews have gotten nothing for their human efforts—because they were still trying to “earn” their salvation through the law.
Paul gives us an interesting statement: “the righteousness that comes from faith.” The Gentiles have received God’s righteousness THROUGH FAITH. Faith then, is not a work, for the text does not say “the righteousness OF faith,” but “the righteousness that COMES FROM faith.” It is not the faith that makes a believer righteous—it is the work of Christ that a believer RECEIVES by faith that makes the believer righteous. Paul explains this to the Corinthians:
“He[God] made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
We have an opportunity to become righteous because He “traded places” with us—while He hung on the cross, we went free. He became the sin that we committed so we could become the righteousness God demanded.
Now, with 2 Corinthians 5:21, let’s approach the John Frame quote:
‘The Arminian wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that faith has no merit, but he also wants to say that our faith somehow motivates God to save us, that God chooses us on the basis of our choosing him. But if faith motivates God to save us, then it must have merit in his eyes’.
I’ve never read where an Arminian ever said that our faith motivates God to save us. Williams (nor Frame) have paid attention to Arminius’ Article One: it clearly states that those who believe “by the grace of the Holy Spirit” will be saved. Our faith can’t motivate God to save us because it takes God’s GRACE before we can ever come to faith!! Our faith, then, is DEPENDENT upon God’s grace, not INDEPENDENT of it. If faith could be demonstrated independently, then grace would not be needed. This hypothetical independence of faith is of the semi-Pelagian heresy, which Arminians do not believe. Read the words of Roger Olson (quoting Arminius):
“In his LAPSED AND SINFUL state, man is NOT CAPABLE, of and by himself, either to THINK, to will, OR to do that which is really good; but it is NECESSARY FOR HIM TO BE REGENERATED AND RENEWED IN HIS INTELLECT…by God in Christ THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT, that he MAY BE QUALIFIED rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good…BUT YET NOT WITHOUT THE CONTINUED AIDS OF DIVINE GRACE.”
So our faith does not motivate God. God gives grace independent of whether or not we are motivated to choose Him.
However, while God’s grace is first applied before faith can even become possible, the Lord DOES expect us to come to Him with faith. The writer of Hebrews states:
“Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.”
If we don’t have faith we cannot please the Lord. Our coming to Christ is of null effect if we don’t have faith. Notice that this verse is in the midst of Hebrews 11, the famous chapter so dubbed as “The Role Call of Faith.” Those who were accepted in God’s sight were those whose faith was supplemented by works. The existence of faith is predicated on what we do. It shows whether or not we really believe what we say we do. Look at Hebrews 11:6 again—it says that the Lord rewards “THOSE WHO SEEK HIM.” This tells us that God does not “pull” people like a magnet into the Kingdom of God. The Lord does not force people to accept Him, or put some secret “force” behind them that makes them do what is right. No—He extends the invitation to come receive His righteousness by faith—and whether or not we come is up to us.
Frame’s last statement is puzzling: that, if faith must come prior to salvation, then it must have merit in God’s eyes. It very well may have merit; but even our faith is given by God Himself:
“For by the grace given to me, I tell everyone among you not to think of himself more highly then he should think. Instead, think sensibly, AS GOD HAS DISTRIBUTED A MEASURE OF FAITH TO EACH ONE.”
Everyone has been given a measure of faith. Because everyone has faith, and faith comes from God, then God has extended His kindness to ALL. So everyone has been given faith by which to please Him.
Article Two:
“That in agreement with this Jesus Christ the Savior of the world died for all men and every man, so that he merited reconciliation and forgiveness of sin for all through the death of the cross; yet so that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer—also according to the word of the gospel of John 3:16, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’ And the first epistle of John 2:2, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins; and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world.’”
Regarding Article Two, Williams writes that the article was written against the Calvinist position, “in conformity with Arminius’s notion of a GENERAL DECREE OF REDEMPTION (which compels me to say only that Christ died for sins).”
But Christ did die for the sins of the whole world. I am a believer and have faith in Christ, but Christ did not die just for me, or for a special group—but for all. As Paul wrote in Romans,
6 For while we were still helpless, at the appointed moment, (K) Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For rarely will someone die for a just person—though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die. 8 But God proves (L) His own love for us (M) in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us!
In the midst of our sin, Christ gave His life for us. Were believers the only sinners at that time? No—we stood condemned ALONG WITH ALL THE WORLD in sin. The Arminian can still say that Christ died for him, but not only for him. As 1 John 2:2 tells us (Arminius quoted this in his second Article), “He is the propitiation for our sins; AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS, BUT ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.” Who did John write this letter to? The believers. What evidence is there?
“Dear friends, WE ARE GOD’S CHILDREN NOW…”
“I am writing to you, little children, BECAUSE YOUR SINS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN ON ACCOUNT OF HIS NAME. I am writing to you, fathers, because YOU HAVE COME TO KNOW THE ONE WHO IS FROM THE BEGINNING…I have written to you, children, BECAUSE YOU HAVE COME TO KNOW THE FATHER.”
Therefore, when John says that Christ didn’t die for our sins, he is telling us that MORE THAN JUST THE BELIEVER is involved—the sinner is as well.
Article Three:
“That man does not have saving faith of himself nor by the power of his own free will, since he in the state of APOSTASY and sin cannot of and through himself think, will or do any good which is truly good (such as is especially saving faith); but that it is necessary that he be regenerated by God, in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, affections or will, and all powers, in order that he may rightly understand, meditate upon, will, and perform that which is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John 15:5, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’”
Look back at the first words of Article Three:
“That man does not have saving faith of himself nor by the power of his own free will, SINCE HE IS IN THE STATE OF APOSTASY AND SIN…”
Before someone comes to Christ, he or she “is in the state of apostasy.” Wait a minute! Before Christ, we’re in APOSTASY? But, we aren’t saved! We haven’t had a chance to walk away, have we?
This is where Romans 5 comes to the rescue:
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because ALL SINNED.”
So we strayed from God IN ADAM! Adam was the representative of the human race, and his sin we all were partakers of. We shared in the transgression—all of humanity, despite the fact that we weren’t born yet, or hadn’t done any wrong (“those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression,” Rom. 5:14, HCSB).
The word “apostasy” comes from the Greek verb “aposteisontai,” meaning “to depart.” So when Arminius writes that we are in “apostasy and sin,” he is saying that, not only are we unbelievers before we accept Christ, but that we are in such a state BECAUSE WE ABANDONED CHRIST ONCE BEFORE—IN ADAM, in the Garden.
Williams asks the question, “But how does this third article fit with Arminius’s OPTIMISTIC VIEW of human free will and his SYNERGISTIC view of redemption WHICH INSISTED THAT MAN’S ACCEPTANCE OF THE GOSPEL IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR REGENERATION?” We read of Arminius’s answer in Article Four:
“That this grace of God is the commencement, progression, and completion of all good, also in so far that regenerate man cannot, apart from this prevenient or assisting, awakening, consequent and cooperating grace, think, will or do the good or resist any temptation to evil; so that all good works or activities which can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE MODE OF THIS GRACE, IT IS NOT IRRESISTIBLE, since it is written concerning many that they resisted the Holy Spirit. Acts 7 and elsewhere in many places.”
While everything good the believer does is attributed to the grace of God, grace is not irresistible—this means that people can resist this grace and choose not to accept it. Arminius doesn’t leave us to wonder whether or not the Spirit can be resisted. He gives us an example of Spirit resistance in Acts 7:
“You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always RESISTING the Holy Spirit; as your forefathers did, so do you.”
In Acts 7 Stephen is preaching a long sermon at the “Freedman’s Synagogue, composed of BOTH Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia” (Acts 6:9). It is after they hear part of his sermon that they began to accuse him of speaking blasphemy against God (Acts 6:11-14).
Arminius believes that the Spirit of Grace can be resisted. Williams’ answer?
“At the end of the article, we read that grace can be resisted by the recalcitrant human will. Grace is not efficacious as in the Augustinian and Calvinist sense that by God’s power his grace effects its goal, namely, the redemption of sinners such that their redemption comes by no power of their own but is due solely to the power and work of the triune God...here in the Remonstrance, however, GRACE IS NOT CAUSAL BUT MERELY PERSUASIVE IN NATURE…the call of the gospel is not YOU WILL but rather YOU SHOULD.”
Although Williams labels Arminianism as possessing a “synergistic” view of redemption, this in and of itself is not true. No one is arguing that the work of salvation is solely the work of the Lord—only the Lord could save us from our sins (we were unable to do so).
“In Him we have REDEMPTION through HIS BLOOD, the forgiveness of our trespasses, ACCORDING TO THE RICHES OF HIS GRACE, that He lavished on us WITH ALL WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING.”
Why would the Lord give us grace IF we didn’t need to accept Him THROUGH FAITH? After all, Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that it takes both grace and faith to receive salvation.
However, what Arminius (and his followers) are saying is that, while the redemption has been wrought by God alone, it is not IMPARTED to a person UNTIL that person receives it BY FAITH. There is no other way to receive the work.
Secondly, Arminius does not possess optimism about free will—rather, he has a realistic view of human free will:
“That man does not have saving faith of himself nor by the power of his own free will, since he in the state of APOSTASY and sin cannot of and through himself think, will or do any good which is truly good (such as is especially saving faith); but that it is necessary that he be regenerated by God, in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, affections or will, and all powers, in order that he may rightly understand, meditate upon, will, and perform that which is truly good, according to the word of Christ…”
Arminius argues here that it is NECESSARY for a man to be changed by the Holy Spirit. Notice that when the man is regenerated, he is not only given the ability to meditate and will those things that are good, but he is also “renewed in understanding.” This is confirmed by the apostle Paul:
“Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his practices and have put on the new man, WHO IS BEING RENEWED IN KNOWLEDGE ACCORDING TO THE IMAGE OF HIS CREATOR.”
When we have come to faith because of God’s Holy Spirit, then we receive a new man. And the new man is “being renewed in knowledge.” This tells us that the old man had “his practices,” things he did because of his old nature. But the new man now has a choice—he is not an automaton, doing what he is forced to do, as if some “secret impulse” is guiding him towards righteousness. No—he is now freed to CHOOSE whether to do the deeds of his flesh, or to do the deeds that accompany someone possessing the Spirit of God.
The one who puts on the new man is seeing his knowledge renewed, or “made new again,” which implies that at one point, his knowledge was complete (ours was complete in the Garden of Eden). The knowledge is being renewed, even as the image of God, planted on humanity, is being renewed. The image is being made anew, so that one can begin to “see” clearly the things of God and discern what is right and wrong. Why would God give us this knowledge IF we didn’t have a responsibility to make an educated choice that would be most pleasing to God?
The next charge made by Michael Williams is that Arminians assert that “grace is not causal but PERSUASIVE.” However the charge was made, Williams is right. Arminians are not going to say that grace is causal. Grace is there as an aid, the lens through which the believer “sees” God (“the door” according to John 10), but grace is not going to MAKE the believer walk to “the door”[Christ] and open it[receive salvation]. Paul talks about the persuasive nature of the gospel:
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may be repaid for what he has done in the body, whether good or bad. Knowing, then, the fear of the Lord, we PERSUADE people.”
In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul makes the point that everyone will stand before Christ to be judged in the end—for everything that they have done. Why are we to be judged, IF, as the Calvinist says, God has already chosen some to be saved and others to be damned? Notice, too, that Paul said that he and others PERSUADE all people. What does the word “persuade” mean? This is what I gathered, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary online:
“To move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a BELIEF, position, or COURSE OF ACTION.”
So when Paul writes that he and others PERSUADE men, he is stating the fact that, while God’s grace is there for every man, that grace is not CAUSAL—it doesn’t move people to belief. Only by employing man’s rational component, his intellect and reason, can a person receive salvation by faith. If grace were causal, there would be no need to persuade men—for grace would win them over, whether or not it was against their will or intellect.
Grace IS PERSUASIVE; for, if it were CAUSAL, what would be the need for faith? Both grace and faith are needed in order to receive salvation. If the Calvinists have it their way, Ephesians 2:8 will read, “Now by grace are ye saved; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” If it is just grace, and grace is given to every man (as Scripture tells us), then God would ELECT EVERYONE TO SALVATION! However, God doesn’t pick EVERYONE to be saved; why? Because of faith, belief. And God knows, as well as we do, that some will accept the faith while others reject it. God doesn’t handpick everyone to be saved, and He doesn’t handpick SOME to be saved; He allows everyone to receive salvation by grace through faith. And whether or not one receives it is up to them.
Paul also tells us how a sinner comes to salvation in Christ:
“’For EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord WILL BE SAVED.’ But how can they call on Him in whom THEY HAVE NOT BELIEVED? And how can they believe without HEARING ABOUT HIM? And how can they hear WITHOUT A PREACHER? And how can they preach unless they are sent?...but ALL DID NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has BELIEVED our message?’ So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ. But I ask, ‘Did they not hear?’ Yes, they did:
‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.’
But I ask, ‘Did Israel not understand?’ First, Moses said:
‘I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that lacks understanding.’
And Isaiah says boldly:
‘I was found by those who were not looking for Me; I revealed Myself to those who were not asking for Me.’
But to Israel he says: ‘All day long I have spread out My hands to a disobedient and DEFIANT people.’”
First, for someone to accept the Gospel, he or she has to hear the Word from a preacher (Rom.10:14), who is sent (Rom. 10:15); then, once the Gospel has been preached, the sinner has to make a choice based on what they heard. Based on their hearing, they have to choose whether or not to believe. And once they believe, they then call on the name of the Lord and are saved (Rom. 10:13).Why would Paul go through this process IF everyone was elected, some to eternal life and others to eternal reprobation and torment?
But, Paul asks, “Have they not heard?” In other words, a person would surely believe if they heard the message, right? To this answer, Paul quotes Psalm 19:4. This Psalm discusses the general revelation of God as well as His Word. Paul says, yes, they have heard the message because Scripture foretells that they would.
If Israel heard the message, then, did they understand it (understanding being next in the process of belief)? Paul quotes from Deut. 32:21 to let them know that “a nation that lacks understanding,” in this case, the Gentiles (context of Romans), would come to faith—while the nation that had understanding (the Israelites) wouldn’t come to faith because of their unbelief.
In verse 26, Paul uses Isaiah 65 to say that “those who were not looking for Me,” i.e., the Gentiles (those for whom salvation was not given originally) would find the Messiah.
In verse 27, the Lord has an altogether different response for Israel: although they have heard the message and have fully understood it, they have become a “disobedient and defiant people,” who refuse to believe. Notice that the Lord says, “ALL DAY LONG I HAVE SPREAD OUT MY HANDS” to such people.
Michael Williams responds to Article Four:
“…the Arminian notion of prevenient grace DE FACTO nullifies the doctrine of depravity that was affirmed in the last article. The spiritual inability spoken of in the third article becomes an empty shell, a purely hypothetical notion. If all people have sufficient free will that they are able to respond believingly to the gospel, then when or where does anyone exist who lives under the conditions described in the article on the Fall—that is, devoid of ‘the power of his own free will’ and ‘in the state of apostasy and sin?’ What was lost in the third article—the freedom of the will—is reinstated in the fourth.”
Williams is wrong, once again. Article 3 tells us that
“That man does not have saving faith of himself nor by the power of his own free will, since he in the state of APOSTASY and sin cannot of and through himself think, will or do any good which is truly good (such as is especially saving faith); but that it is necessary that he be regenerated by God, in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, affections or will, and all powers, in order that he may rightly understand, meditate upon, will, and perform that which is truly good, according to the word of Christ…”
The third article of Arminianism tells us that the man “in the state of apostasy and sin” cannot bring himself to saving faith. However, look back at Article Four. Article Four is not talking about the same thing as article three. Article Three is talking about that a man cannot come to saving faith APART FROM the grace given to him by God. However, in order for man to make a choice of whether to accept or reject, his will must be “freed” so that he can make a decision. Once his will is freed to make a decision, the choice is up to him. This is what we call “Grace through faith”—grace is supplied so that FAITH IS POSSIBLE!
There are quite a few passages of Scripture that show the connection between grace and faith, but I’ll provide two:
23for(A) all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24(B) and are justified(C) by his grace as a gift,(D) through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God(E) put forward as(F) a propitiation(G) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in(H) his divine forbearance he had passed over(I) former sins.
8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift—
Notice that in both examples, grace comes BEFORE faith. What is faith? Faith is defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary online as:
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction.
I also looked up a definition for the word “belief”:
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
Both definitions use the word “conviction” when talking about faith. And what does it mean to be convince someone? to overcome by argument.
So, someone who is convinced comes to faith because of a powerful argument or strong evidence attesting to the truthfulness of something.
To say it best, faith is what happens when I use my intellect and reason to examine the Gospel for myself and see whether or not Christ really came to earth as God in the flesh, Immanuel, and whether or not He really did die for the sins of the whole world (including my sin). Being saved is not some mental relaxation process where my mind isn’t engaged in the Good News about Christ. If it is, then I should question why my intellect was even given to me in the first place. The Calvinist would like to have us believe that grace pulls “the elect” along a tidal wave, whose end is salvation and glory; however, if this is so, then man is no more than a machine—and God becomes the “machine operator” who pushes certain buttons to get certain reactions. We become His puppets, and He becomes abusive and rapist. Remember what I stated earlier about the image of God being renewed? Let’s read it again:
“Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his practices and have put on the new man, WHO IS BEING RENEWED IN KNOWLEDGE ACCORDING TO THE IMAGE OF HIS CREATOR.”
Because the new man is renewed (made new) IN KNOWLEDGE, it seems as if the Lord doesn’t just throw our minds out of the window. Contrary to Calvinist thought, the Lord can still (and does) use our minds for His glory, once we “awaken” out of the “slumber” of sin and apostasy and by faith accept Him as Lord and Savior. The God image that we bear starts to be restored day-by-day once we accept Christ. God, then, doesn’t eliminate the image of Himself that we bear, nor does He do away with our faculties that were given to us BY VIRTUE OF being created in His image and having His likeness. God particularly restores the mind once grace is accepted because of the pivotal role of mankind in God’s plan. Let’s go back to see how important the mind of man was:
19 So the LORD God formed out of the ground each wild animal and each bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it. (S) And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the sky, and to every wild animal;
Man is so pivotal to God’s plan in the world that man was allowed to demonstrate His intellect in the Garden of Eden. Adam didn’t have to wonder how he got all the knowledge he had to name the animals—for God implanted the knowledge in Adam when He created him. Adam, bearing an intellect because His Creator does, was able to act in his role as “lord” (lowercase) over the earth—by naming the animals. And as the human head of creation, Adam gets to name his wife Eve as well.
If the intellect and will were of such pivotal importance in the Garden of Eden, why would they be ANY LESS IMPORTANT when man professes faith in Christ? If the image of God is being restored in man every day, and that image was connected with the intellect and will, then why wouldn’t the intellect and will be restored also? Calvinism portrays human beings as animals who live off of instinct—but we were made for more than this! As the crowning creation of all God made, WE have been given a mind and will LIKE GOD so as to be able to do things the rest of creation cannot do. And “eliminating” these in salvation, when God has created us to be in fellowship with Him, is to place mankind among the beasts of the field and the creatures that crawl on the earth.
Let’s read Arminius’s Article Five:
“That those who are incorporated into Jesus Christ and thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit have abundant strength to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh and to obtain the victory; it being well understood (that this is) through the assistance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends the hand, and—if only they are prepared for welfare and desire his help and are not negligent—keeps them standing, so that by no cunning or power of Satan can they be led astray or plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the word of Christ, John 10, ‘No one shall pluck them out of my hands.’ But whether they can through negligence fall away from the first principle of their life in Christ, again embrace the present world, depart from the pure doctrine once given to them, lose the good conscience, and neglect grace, MUST FIRST BE MORE CAREFULLY DETERMINED FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES before we shall be able to teach this with the full persuasion of our heart.”
Williams responds to Article Five with the following:
“It is expected because it fits the Arminian dictum of the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE HUMAN FREE WILL. Human choice, even a choice which consists of negligence in the things of God, is determinative. Free will trumps all else, even the grace of God. When man has veto power over the redemptive work of God, the power of determination is always in the hands of man and never in God’s…Perseverance in the faith may be enabled by grace, but IT IS FINALLY DEPENDENT UPON OUR OWN ACHIEVEMENTS AND STRIVINGS.”
Arminius believed perseverance was important for the believer. While he believed someone could neglect their relationship with Christ, he didn’t go so far as to say that someone could depart from the faith. Arminius believed that to make this point would require greater study of the Word of God. Another article will be needed to examine this tenet of Arminianism, but for now, one verse of Scripture will suffice:
“Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the latter times some WILL DEPART FROM THE FAITH, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons...”
The Greek word for “will depart” is “aposteisontai”; its parent word is “aphistamai,” which can mean “to go away,” “to desert, to withdraw from one,” or “TO FALL AWAY, TO BECOME FAITHLESS.”
Our English word “apostasy,” is a derivative of the Greek word. Looking up the English word “apostasy,” I got these definitions:
1 : renunciation of a religious faith
2 : abandonment of a previous loyalty : DEFECTION
Looking up the word “defection,” I got the following:
: conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty (as to a person, cause, or doctrine)
Apostasy, therefore, involves a “conscious abandonment,” a decision of the will to walk away from something. It is an intentional departing from what one has known (in this case, the Christian faith).
The evidence is in the Greek, but Arminius left this question open.
So Williams and other Calvinists can assert that Arminians praise free will as the center of their theology, but linguistically, willful abandonment and departure from the faith seem to be an apparent reality.
It is my hope that after this long study, it has been shown that the Calvinist attacks on Arminius’s Five Points is unwarranted. While I respect Michael Williams for his work on “Why I Am Not an Arminian,” I think his work left me confident about being one.
ENDNOTES
(1) Williams, Michael D. “The Five Points of Arminianism.” Presbyterion 30/1 (Spring 2004):26.
(2)While the five points of Arminianism are contained in other sources, I will cite Williams’ work where he prints them (will be so throughout this article).Williams, “Five Points,” page 27.
(3)Ibid., 28.
(4) Romans 10:8b-9 (Holman Christian Standard Bible). All verses in this article will come from this version unless otherwise stated.
(5)Rom.9:30-32.
(6)2 Corinthians 5:21.
(7)Olson, Roger.”Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: IVP, 2006, page 42. Here he quotes from Arminius’s “Works,” this one being “A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius.”
(8)Hebrews 11:6.
(9)Rom. 12:3.
(10)Williams, “Five Points,” page 29.
(11)Ibid.
(12)Rom. 5:6-8.
(13)1 John 3:2.
(14)1 Jn. 2:12-14.
(15)Williams, “Five Points,” page 29.
(16)Rom.5:12.
(17)Williams, “Five Points,” page 29.
(18)Ibid.
(19)Acts 7:51 (HCSB).
(20)Ibid.
(21)Ephesians 1:7.
(22)Ibid.
(23)Colossians 3:9-10.
(24)2 Corinthians 5:10-11.
(25)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persuade
(26)Romans 10:13-21.
(27)Rom.10:27, HCSB.
(28)Williams, 31.
(29)Rom. 3:23-25, ESV.
(30)Eph. 2:8, HCSB.
(31)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
(32)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
(33)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convinced
(34)Colossians 3:9-10, HCSB.
(35)Gen.2:19-20, HCSB.
(36)Williams, 32.
(37)Ibid.
(38)1 Timothy 4:1, HCSB.
(39)
(40)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostasy
(41)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defection
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Brand, Chad Owen, E. Ray Clendenen, Paul Copan, and J.P. Moreland, eds. The Apologetics Study Bible. Holman Christian Standard Bible. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007.
(2) Olson, Roger.”Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: IVP, 2006.
(3) Williams, Michael D. “The Five Points of Arminianism.” Presbyterion 30/1 (Spring 2004).
(4) www.laparola.net/greco
(5) www.merriamwebster.com
First, I would like to applaud Michael Williams for completing his work, “Why I Am Not An Arminian.” Roger Olson praises him highly for his remarks regarding Arminians—that they are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However, in this essay, I will critique Williams’ analyses of the five points of Arminianism and show why, scripturally, Williams’ Calvinist leanings cannot be correct.
Arminian Article One states:
“That God by an eternal and immutable decree has in Jesus Christ his Son determined before the foundation of the world to save out of the fallen sinful human race those in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ who by the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe in this his Son Jesus Christ and persevere in this faith and obedience of faith to the end; and on the other hand to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and condemn (them) as alienate from Christ—according to the word of the holy gospel in John 3:36, ‘He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life, and whosoever is disobedient to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,’ and also other passages of the Scriptures.”
Regarding Article One, Williams writes:
“While the intention here is to reject any notion of salvation by works, a salvation by merit, Arminius’s doctrine of election through foreseen faith cannot fully escape the allegation that merit is intrinsic to his understanding of salvation. John Frame states the Calvinist analysis here most succinctly: ‘The Arminian wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that faith has no merit, but he also wants to say that our faith somehow motivates God to save us, that God chooses us on the basis of our choosing him. But if faith motivates God to save us, then it must have merit in his eyes’.”
The first error Williams makes in his assessment of Arminius (a typical Calvinist attack) is that he labels faith as a work (“merit is intrinsic to his[Arminius] understanding of salvation”). Read what the apostle Paul writes regarding faith:
“This is the message of faith that we proclaim: IF you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Let’s look at this passage. First, note that Paul calls the message “the message of FAITH” that “we PROCLAIM.” The message is ALL ABOUT FAITH! This is what Paul preached, no matter where he went, regardless of who he met. For Arminius, faith was central to salvation—for faith in the work of Christ is what is required, as Romans 10:8-9 demonstrates. Next, note that Paul says, “IF you confess with your mouth,” and “IF you believe in your heart” (the word “if” serving as the initial word for both actions). The text does not tell us that God has decided to save some and damn others. If anyone confesses and believes, he or she is saved. Salvation comes through these two steps—confession and belief; and there are no others to perform.
Paul also speaks of faith (as distinguished from merit) earlier in the book of Romans:
“What should we say then? Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness—namely THE RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT COMES FROM FAITH. But Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has not achieved the law. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PURSUE IT BY FAITH, but as if it were by works" (Rom. 9:30, NASB)
Paul contrasts the Jew and the Gentile here: the Gentiles have received righteousness without the works of the law, while the Jews have gotten nothing for their human efforts—because they were still trying to “earn” their salvation through the law.
Paul gives us an interesting statement: “the righteousness that comes from faith.” The Gentiles have received God’s righteousness THROUGH FAITH. Faith then, is not a work, for the text does not say “the righteousness OF faith,” but “the righteousness that COMES FROM faith.” It is not the faith that makes a believer righteous—it is the work of Christ that a believer RECEIVES by faith that makes the believer righteous. Paul explains this to the Corinthians:
“He[God] made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
We have an opportunity to become righteous because He “traded places” with us—while He hung on the cross, we went free. He became the sin that we committed so we could become the righteousness God demanded.
Now, with 2 Corinthians 5:21, let’s approach the John Frame quote:
‘The Arminian wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that faith has no merit, but he also wants to say that our faith somehow motivates God to save us, that God chooses us on the basis of our choosing him. But if faith motivates God to save us, then it must have merit in his eyes’.
I’ve never read where an Arminian ever said that our faith motivates God to save us. Williams (nor Frame) have paid attention to Arminius’ Article One: it clearly states that those who believe “by the grace of the Holy Spirit” will be saved. Our faith can’t motivate God to save us because it takes God’s GRACE before we can ever come to faith!! Our faith, then, is DEPENDENT upon God’s grace, not INDEPENDENT of it. If faith could be demonstrated independently, then grace would not be needed. This hypothetical independence of faith is of the semi-Pelagian heresy, which Arminians do not believe. Read the words of Roger Olson (quoting Arminius):
“In his LAPSED AND SINFUL state, man is NOT CAPABLE, of and by himself, either to THINK, to will, OR to do that which is really good; but it is NECESSARY FOR HIM TO BE REGENERATED AND RENEWED IN HIS INTELLECT…by God in Christ THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT, that he MAY BE QUALIFIED rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good…BUT YET NOT WITHOUT THE CONTINUED AIDS OF DIVINE GRACE.”
So our faith does not motivate God. God gives grace independent of whether or not we are motivated to choose Him.
However, while God’s grace is first applied before faith can even become possible, the Lord DOES expect us to come to Him with faith. The writer of Hebrews states:
“Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.”
If we don’t have faith we cannot please the Lord. Our coming to Christ is of null effect if we don’t have faith. Notice that this verse is in the midst of Hebrews 11, the famous chapter so dubbed as “The Role Call of Faith.” Those who were accepted in God’s sight were those whose faith was supplemented by works. The existence of faith is predicated on what we do. It shows whether or not we really believe what we say we do. Look at Hebrews 11:6 again—it says that the Lord rewards “THOSE WHO SEEK HIM.” This tells us that God does not “pull” people like a magnet into the Kingdom of God. The Lord does not force people to accept Him, or put some secret “force” behind them that makes them do what is right. No—He extends the invitation to come receive His righteousness by faith—and whether or not we come is up to us.
Frame’s last statement is puzzling: that, if faith must come prior to salvation, then it must have merit in God’s eyes. It very well may have merit; but even our faith is given by God Himself:
“For by the grace given to me, I tell everyone among you not to think of himself more highly then he should think. Instead, think sensibly, AS GOD HAS DISTRIBUTED A MEASURE OF FAITH TO EACH ONE.”
Everyone has been given a measure of faith. Because everyone has faith, and faith comes from God, then God has extended His kindness to ALL. So everyone has been given faith by which to please Him.
Article Two:
“That in agreement with this Jesus Christ the Savior of the world died for all men and every man, so that he merited reconciliation and forgiveness of sin for all through the death of the cross; yet so that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer—also according to the word of the gospel of John 3:16, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’ And the first epistle of John 2:2, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins; and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world.’”
Regarding Article Two, Williams writes that the article was written against the Calvinist position, “in conformity with Arminius’s notion of a GENERAL DECREE OF REDEMPTION (which compels me to say only that Christ died for sins).”
But Christ did die for the sins of the whole world. I am a believer and have faith in Christ, but Christ did not die just for me, or for a special group—but for all. As Paul wrote in Romans,
6 For while we were still helpless, at the appointed moment, (K) Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For rarely will someone die for a just person—though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die. 8 But God proves (L) His own love for us (M) in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us!
In the midst of our sin, Christ gave His life for us. Were believers the only sinners at that time? No—we stood condemned ALONG WITH ALL THE WORLD in sin. The Arminian can still say that Christ died for him, but not only for him. As 1 John 2:2 tells us (Arminius quoted this in his second Article), “He is the propitiation for our sins; AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS, BUT ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.” Who did John write this letter to? The believers. What evidence is there?
“Dear friends, WE ARE GOD’S CHILDREN NOW…”
“I am writing to you, little children, BECAUSE YOUR SINS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN ON ACCOUNT OF HIS NAME. I am writing to you, fathers, because YOU HAVE COME TO KNOW THE ONE WHO IS FROM THE BEGINNING…I have written to you, children, BECAUSE YOU HAVE COME TO KNOW THE FATHER.”
Therefore, when John says that Christ didn’t die for our sins, he is telling us that MORE THAN JUST THE BELIEVER is involved—the sinner is as well.
Article Three:
“That man does not have saving faith of himself nor by the power of his own free will, since he in the state of APOSTASY and sin cannot of and through himself think, will or do any good which is truly good (such as is especially saving faith); but that it is necessary that he be regenerated by God, in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, affections or will, and all powers, in order that he may rightly understand, meditate upon, will, and perform that which is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John 15:5, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’”
Look back at the first words of Article Three:
“That man does not have saving faith of himself nor by the power of his own free will, SINCE HE IS IN THE STATE OF APOSTASY AND SIN…”
Before someone comes to Christ, he or she “is in the state of apostasy.” Wait a minute! Before Christ, we’re in APOSTASY? But, we aren’t saved! We haven’t had a chance to walk away, have we?
This is where Romans 5 comes to the rescue:
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because ALL SINNED.”
So we strayed from God IN ADAM! Adam was the representative of the human race, and his sin we all were partakers of. We shared in the transgression—all of humanity, despite the fact that we weren’t born yet, or hadn’t done any wrong (“those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression,” Rom. 5:14, HCSB).
The word “apostasy” comes from the Greek verb “aposteisontai,” meaning “to depart.” So when Arminius writes that we are in “apostasy and sin,” he is saying that, not only are we unbelievers before we accept Christ, but that we are in such a state BECAUSE WE ABANDONED CHRIST ONCE BEFORE—IN ADAM, in the Garden.
Williams asks the question, “But how does this third article fit with Arminius’s OPTIMISTIC VIEW of human free will and his SYNERGISTIC view of redemption WHICH INSISTED THAT MAN’S ACCEPTANCE OF THE GOSPEL IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR REGENERATION?” We read of Arminius’s answer in Article Four:
“That this grace of God is the commencement, progression, and completion of all good, also in so far that regenerate man cannot, apart from this prevenient or assisting, awakening, consequent and cooperating grace, think, will or do the good or resist any temptation to evil; so that all good works or activities which can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE MODE OF THIS GRACE, IT IS NOT IRRESISTIBLE, since it is written concerning many that they resisted the Holy Spirit. Acts 7 and elsewhere in many places.”
While everything good the believer does is attributed to the grace of God, grace is not irresistible—this means that people can resist this grace and choose not to accept it. Arminius doesn’t leave us to wonder whether or not the Spirit can be resisted. He gives us an example of Spirit resistance in Acts 7:
“You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always RESISTING the Holy Spirit; as your forefathers did, so do you.”
In Acts 7 Stephen is preaching a long sermon at the “Freedman’s Synagogue, composed of BOTH Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia” (Acts 6:9). It is after they hear part of his sermon that they began to accuse him of speaking blasphemy against God (Acts 6:11-14).
Arminius believes that the Spirit of Grace can be resisted. Williams’ answer?
“At the end of the article, we read that grace can be resisted by the recalcitrant human will. Grace is not efficacious as in the Augustinian and Calvinist sense that by God’s power his grace effects its goal, namely, the redemption of sinners such that their redemption comes by no power of their own but is due solely to the power and work of the triune God...here in the Remonstrance, however, GRACE IS NOT CAUSAL BUT MERELY PERSUASIVE IN NATURE…the call of the gospel is not YOU WILL but rather YOU SHOULD.”
Although Williams labels Arminianism as possessing a “synergistic” view of redemption, this in and of itself is not true. No one is arguing that the work of salvation is solely the work of the Lord—only the Lord could save us from our sins (we were unable to do so).
“In Him we have REDEMPTION through HIS BLOOD, the forgiveness of our trespasses, ACCORDING TO THE RICHES OF HIS GRACE, that He lavished on us WITH ALL WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING.”
Why would the Lord give us grace IF we didn’t need to accept Him THROUGH FAITH? After all, Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that it takes both grace and faith to receive salvation.
However, what Arminius (and his followers) are saying is that, while the redemption has been wrought by God alone, it is not IMPARTED to a person UNTIL that person receives it BY FAITH. There is no other way to receive the work.
Secondly, Arminius does not possess optimism about free will—rather, he has a realistic view of human free will:
“That man does not have saving faith of himself nor by the power of his own free will, since he in the state of APOSTASY and sin cannot of and through himself think, will or do any good which is truly good (such as is especially saving faith); but that it is necessary that he be regenerated by God, in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, affections or will, and all powers, in order that he may rightly understand, meditate upon, will, and perform that which is truly good, according to the word of Christ…”
Arminius argues here that it is NECESSARY for a man to be changed by the Holy Spirit. Notice that when the man is regenerated, he is not only given the ability to meditate and will those things that are good, but he is also “renewed in understanding.” This is confirmed by the apostle Paul:
“Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his practices and have put on the new man, WHO IS BEING RENEWED IN KNOWLEDGE ACCORDING TO THE IMAGE OF HIS CREATOR.”
When we have come to faith because of God’s Holy Spirit, then we receive a new man. And the new man is “being renewed in knowledge.” This tells us that the old man had “his practices,” things he did because of his old nature. But the new man now has a choice—he is not an automaton, doing what he is forced to do, as if some “secret impulse” is guiding him towards righteousness. No—he is now freed to CHOOSE whether to do the deeds of his flesh, or to do the deeds that accompany someone possessing the Spirit of God.
The one who puts on the new man is seeing his knowledge renewed, or “made new again,” which implies that at one point, his knowledge was complete (ours was complete in the Garden of Eden). The knowledge is being renewed, even as the image of God, planted on humanity, is being renewed. The image is being made anew, so that one can begin to “see” clearly the things of God and discern what is right and wrong. Why would God give us this knowledge IF we didn’t have a responsibility to make an educated choice that would be most pleasing to God?
The next charge made by Michael Williams is that Arminians assert that “grace is not causal but PERSUASIVE.” However the charge was made, Williams is right. Arminians are not going to say that grace is causal. Grace is there as an aid, the lens through which the believer “sees” God (“the door” according to John 10), but grace is not going to MAKE the believer walk to “the door”[Christ] and open it[receive salvation]. Paul talks about the persuasive nature of the gospel:
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may be repaid for what he has done in the body, whether good or bad. Knowing, then, the fear of the Lord, we PERSUADE people.”
In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul makes the point that everyone will stand before Christ to be judged in the end—for everything that they have done. Why are we to be judged, IF, as the Calvinist says, God has already chosen some to be saved and others to be damned? Notice, too, that Paul said that he and others PERSUADE all people. What does the word “persuade” mean? This is what I gathered, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary online:
“To move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a BELIEF, position, or COURSE OF ACTION.”
So when Paul writes that he and others PERSUADE men, he is stating the fact that, while God’s grace is there for every man, that grace is not CAUSAL—it doesn’t move people to belief. Only by employing man’s rational component, his intellect and reason, can a person receive salvation by faith. If grace were causal, there would be no need to persuade men—for grace would win them over, whether or not it was against their will or intellect.
Grace IS PERSUASIVE; for, if it were CAUSAL, what would be the need for faith? Both grace and faith are needed in order to receive salvation. If the Calvinists have it their way, Ephesians 2:8 will read, “Now by grace are ye saved; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” If it is just grace, and grace is given to every man (as Scripture tells us), then God would ELECT EVERYONE TO SALVATION! However, God doesn’t pick EVERYONE to be saved; why? Because of faith, belief. And God knows, as well as we do, that some will accept the faith while others reject it. God doesn’t handpick everyone to be saved, and He doesn’t handpick SOME to be saved; He allows everyone to receive salvation by grace through faith. And whether or not one receives it is up to them.
Paul also tells us how a sinner comes to salvation in Christ:
“’For EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord WILL BE SAVED.’ But how can they call on Him in whom THEY HAVE NOT BELIEVED? And how can they believe without HEARING ABOUT HIM? And how can they hear WITHOUT A PREACHER? And how can they preach unless they are sent?...but ALL DID NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has BELIEVED our message?’ So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ. But I ask, ‘Did they not hear?’ Yes, they did:
‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.’
But I ask, ‘Did Israel not understand?’ First, Moses said:
‘I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that lacks understanding.’
And Isaiah says boldly:
‘I was found by those who were not looking for Me; I revealed Myself to those who were not asking for Me.’
But to Israel he says: ‘All day long I have spread out My hands to a disobedient and DEFIANT people.’”
First, for someone to accept the Gospel, he or she has to hear the Word from a preacher (Rom.10:14), who is sent (Rom. 10:15); then, once the Gospel has been preached, the sinner has to make a choice based on what they heard. Based on their hearing, they have to choose whether or not to believe. And once they believe, they then call on the name of the Lord and are saved (Rom. 10:13).Why would Paul go through this process IF everyone was elected, some to eternal life and others to eternal reprobation and torment?
But, Paul asks, “Have they not heard?” In other words, a person would surely believe if they heard the message, right? To this answer, Paul quotes Psalm 19:4. This Psalm discusses the general revelation of God as well as His Word. Paul says, yes, they have heard the message because Scripture foretells that they would.
If Israel heard the message, then, did they understand it (understanding being next in the process of belief)? Paul quotes from Deut. 32:21 to let them know that “a nation that lacks understanding,” in this case, the Gentiles (context of Romans), would come to faith—while the nation that had understanding (the Israelites) wouldn’t come to faith because of their unbelief.
In verse 26, Paul uses Isaiah 65 to say that “those who were not looking for Me,” i.e., the Gentiles (those for whom salvation was not given originally) would find the Messiah.
In verse 27, the Lord has an altogether different response for Israel: although they have heard the message and have fully understood it, they have become a “disobedient and defiant people,” who refuse to believe. Notice that the Lord says, “ALL DAY LONG I HAVE SPREAD OUT MY HANDS” to such people.
Michael Williams responds to Article Four:
“…the Arminian notion of prevenient grace DE FACTO nullifies the doctrine of depravity that was affirmed in the last article. The spiritual inability spoken of in the third article becomes an empty shell, a purely hypothetical notion. If all people have sufficient free will that they are able to respond believingly to the gospel, then when or where does anyone exist who lives under the conditions described in the article on the Fall—that is, devoid of ‘the power of his own free will’ and ‘in the state of apostasy and sin?’ What was lost in the third article—the freedom of the will—is reinstated in the fourth.”
Williams is wrong, once again. Article 3 tells us that
“That man does not have saving faith of himself nor by the power of his own free will, since he in the state of APOSTASY and sin cannot of and through himself think, will or do any good which is truly good (such as is especially saving faith); but that it is necessary that he be regenerated by God, in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, affections or will, and all powers, in order that he may rightly understand, meditate upon, will, and perform that which is truly good, according to the word of Christ…”
The third article of Arminianism tells us that the man “in the state of apostasy and sin” cannot bring himself to saving faith. However, look back at Article Four. Article Four is not talking about the same thing as article three. Article Three is talking about that a man cannot come to saving faith APART FROM the grace given to him by God. However, in order for man to make a choice of whether to accept or reject, his will must be “freed” so that he can make a decision. Once his will is freed to make a decision, the choice is up to him. This is what we call “Grace through faith”—grace is supplied so that FAITH IS POSSIBLE!
There are quite a few passages of Scripture that show the connection between grace and faith, but I’ll provide two:
23for(A) all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24(B) and are justified(C) by his grace as a gift,(D) through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God(E) put forward as(F) a propitiation(G) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in(H) his divine forbearance he had passed over(I) former sins.
8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift—
Notice that in both examples, grace comes BEFORE faith. What is faith? Faith is defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary online as:
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction.
I also looked up a definition for the word “belief”:
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
Both definitions use the word “conviction” when talking about faith. And what does it mean to be convince someone? to overcome by argument.
So, someone who is convinced comes to faith because of a powerful argument or strong evidence attesting to the truthfulness of something.
To say it best, faith is what happens when I use my intellect and reason to examine the Gospel for myself and see whether or not Christ really came to earth as God in the flesh, Immanuel, and whether or not He really did die for the sins of the whole world (including my sin). Being saved is not some mental relaxation process where my mind isn’t engaged in the Good News about Christ. If it is, then I should question why my intellect was even given to me in the first place. The Calvinist would like to have us believe that grace pulls “the elect” along a tidal wave, whose end is salvation and glory; however, if this is so, then man is no more than a machine—and God becomes the “machine operator” who pushes certain buttons to get certain reactions. We become His puppets, and He becomes abusive and rapist. Remember what I stated earlier about the image of God being renewed? Let’s read it again:
“Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his practices and have put on the new man, WHO IS BEING RENEWED IN KNOWLEDGE ACCORDING TO THE IMAGE OF HIS CREATOR.”
Because the new man is renewed (made new) IN KNOWLEDGE, it seems as if the Lord doesn’t just throw our minds out of the window. Contrary to Calvinist thought, the Lord can still (and does) use our minds for His glory, once we “awaken” out of the “slumber” of sin and apostasy and by faith accept Him as Lord and Savior. The God image that we bear starts to be restored day-by-day once we accept Christ. God, then, doesn’t eliminate the image of Himself that we bear, nor does He do away with our faculties that were given to us BY VIRTUE OF being created in His image and having His likeness. God particularly restores the mind once grace is accepted because of the pivotal role of mankind in God’s plan. Let’s go back to see how important the mind of man was:
19 So the LORD God formed out of the ground each wild animal and each bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it. (S) And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the sky, and to every wild animal;
Man is so pivotal to God’s plan in the world that man was allowed to demonstrate His intellect in the Garden of Eden. Adam didn’t have to wonder how he got all the knowledge he had to name the animals—for God implanted the knowledge in Adam when He created him. Adam, bearing an intellect because His Creator does, was able to act in his role as “lord” (lowercase) over the earth—by naming the animals. And as the human head of creation, Adam gets to name his wife Eve as well.
If the intellect and will were of such pivotal importance in the Garden of Eden, why would they be ANY LESS IMPORTANT when man professes faith in Christ? If the image of God is being restored in man every day, and that image was connected with the intellect and will, then why wouldn’t the intellect and will be restored also? Calvinism portrays human beings as animals who live off of instinct—but we were made for more than this! As the crowning creation of all God made, WE have been given a mind and will LIKE GOD so as to be able to do things the rest of creation cannot do. And “eliminating” these in salvation, when God has created us to be in fellowship with Him, is to place mankind among the beasts of the field and the creatures that crawl on the earth.
Let’s read Arminius’s Article Five:
“That those who are incorporated into Jesus Christ and thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit have abundant strength to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh and to obtain the victory; it being well understood (that this is) through the assistance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends the hand, and—if only they are prepared for welfare and desire his help and are not negligent—keeps them standing, so that by no cunning or power of Satan can they be led astray or plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the word of Christ, John 10, ‘No one shall pluck them out of my hands.’ But whether they can through negligence fall away from the first principle of their life in Christ, again embrace the present world, depart from the pure doctrine once given to them, lose the good conscience, and neglect grace, MUST FIRST BE MORE CAREFULLY DETERMINED FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES before we shall be able to teach this with the full persuasion of our heart.”
Williams responds to Article Five with the following:
“It is expected because it fits the Arminian dictum of the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE HUMAN FREE WILL. Human choice, even a choice which consists of negligence in the things of God, is determinative. Free will trumps all else, even the grace of God. When man has veto power over the redemptive work of God, the power of determination is always in the hands of man and never in God’s…Perseverance in the faith may be enabled by grace, but IT IS FINALLY DEPENDENT UPON OUR OWN ACHIEVEMENTS AND STRIVINGS.”
Arminius believed perseverance was important for the believer. While he believed someone could neglect their relationship with Christ, he didn’t go so far as to say that someone could depart from the faith. Arminius believed that to make this point would require greater study of the Word of God. Another article will be needed to examine this tenet of Arminianism, but for now, one verse of Scripture will suffice:
“Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the latter times some WILL DEPART FROM THE FAITH, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons...”
The Greek word for “will depart” is “aposteisontai”; its parent word is “aphistamai,” which can mean “to go away,” “to desert, to withdraw from one,” or “TO FALL AWAY, TO BECOME FAITHLESS.”
Our English word “apostasy,” is a derivative of the Greek word. Looking up the English word “apostasy,” I got these definitions:
1 : renunciation of a religious faith
2 : abandonment of a previous loyalty : DEFECTION
Looking up the word “defection,” I got the following:
: conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty (as to a person, cause, or doctrine)
Apostasy, therefore, involves a “conscious abandonment,” a decision of the will to walk away from something. It is an intentional departing from what one has known (in this case, the Christian faith).
The evidence is in the Greek, but Arminius left this question open.
So Williams and other Calvinists can assert that Arminians praise free will as the center of their theology, but linguistically, willful abandonment and departure from the faith seem to be an apparent reality.
It is my hope that after this long study, it has been shown that the Calvinist attacks on Arminius’s Five Points is unwarranted. While I respect Michael Williams for his work on “Why I Am Not an Arminian,” I think his work left me confident about being one.
ENDNOTES
(1) Williams, Michael D. “The Five Points of Arminianism.” Presbyterion 30/1 (Spring 2004):26.
(2)While the five points of Arminianism are contained in other sources, I will cite Williams’ work where he prints them (will be so throughout this article).Williams, “Five Points,” page 27.
(3)Ibid., 28.
(4) Romans 10:8b-9 (Holman Christian Standard Bible). All verses in this article will come from this version unless otherwise stated.
(5)Rom.9:30-32.
(6)2 Corinthians 5:21.
(7)Olson, Roger.”Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: IVP, 2006, page 42. Here he quotes from Arminius’s “Works,” this one being “A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius.”
(8)Hebrews 11:6.
(9)Rom. 12:3.
(10)Williams, “Five Points,” page 29.
(11)Ibid.
(12)Rom. 5:6-8.
(13)1 John 3:2.
(14)1 Jn. 2:12-14.
(15)Williams, “Five Points,” page 29.
(16)Rom.5:12.
(17)Williams, “Five Points,” page 29.
(18)Ibid.
(19)Acts 7:51 (HCSB).
(20)Ibid.
(21)Ephesians 1:7.
(22)Ibid.
(23)Colossians 3:9-10.
(24)2 Corinthians 5:10-11.
(25)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persuade
(26)Romans 10:13-21.
(27)Rom.10:27, HCSB.
(28)Williams, 31.
(29)Rom. 3:23-25, ESV.
(30)Eph. 2:8, HCSB.
(31)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
(32)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
(33)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convinced
(34)Colossians 3:9-10, HCSB.
(35)Gen.2:19-20, HCSB.
(36)Williams, 32.
(37)Ibid.
(38)1 Timothy 4:1, HCSB.
(39)
(40)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostasy
(41)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defection
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Brand, Chad Owen, E. Ray Clendenen, Paul Copan, and J.P. Moreland, eds. The Apologetics Study Bible. Holman Christian Standard Bible. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007.
(2) Olson, Roger.”Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: IVP, 2006.
(3) Williams, Michael D. “The Five Points of Arminianism.” Presbyterion 30/1 (Spring 2004).
(4) www.laparola.net/greco
(5) www.merriamwebster.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)