“Likewise, in 1 Kings 23:10-12 David consulted the Lord about whether Saul was going to descend upon Keilah, and the Lord responded, ‘He will descend.’ He consulted again, about whether the men of Keilah, who had received nothing but kindness from David, were going to hand him and the men with him over into the hands of Saul. And the Lord responded, ‘They will hand you over.’ Notice, God knew these two future contingents, which depended on human choice, and He revealed them to David. YET THEY NEVER HAVE EXISTED AND NEVER WILL EXIST IN REALITY, and thus they do not exist in eternity either” (Luis De Molina, “Divine Foreknowledge: Part IV of the ‘Concordia.’ Translated by Alfred J. Freddoso. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1988, page 117).
For the last two days, I’ve been reading through Luis de Molina’s Part IV of his “Concordia.” Part IV is the only portion of the Concordia that has been translated, but it’s all that’s needed. Having read over half of Part IV, I can tell you that Molina gives enough information regarding “Molinism” as a system in Part IV. He leaves no stone unturned...
Today, though, I’m back to tackle some of the evidence for middle knowledge that Molina uses in his Concordia: the story of David, Saul, and the men of Keilah.
Molina cites the passage as “1 Kings 23:10-12,” but Freddoso (translator of the Concordia) provides a footnote with these words:
“1 Sam. 23:10-12. Molina, of course, uses the Vulgate rather than Hebrew titles for the historical books of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew 1 and 2 Samuel correspond to the Vulgate 1 and 2 Kings...” (117).
For us, then, the reference will be 1 Samuel 23:10-12. The text is as follows:
“Then David said, ‘O Lord God of Israel, Your servant has certainly heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah to destroy the city for my sake.
Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as Your servant has heard? O Lord God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.’ And the Lord said, ‘He will come down.’
Then David said, ‘Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?’ And the Lord said, ‘They will deliver you.’
So David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah and went wherever they could go. Then it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah; so he halted the expedition” (1 Sam. 23:10-13, NKJV).
I can remember that the first time I read this passage referenced for middle knowledge was when I read Bruce Ware’s “God’s Greater Glory.” Ware argues for a compatibilist middle knowledge, incorporating middle knowledge into his Calvinistic theology. When I read the example of David escaping the hand of Saul by the knowledge the Lord provided, I realized that I had to affirm middle knowledge into my system. The knowledge God provided had to be incorporated into my system somewhere, right?
But what about the system of Molinism? Well, that’s another story. 1 Samuel 23:10-13 teaches me about God’s knowledge, but it doesn’t say anything about God actualizing one set of actions instead of another set of actions, and that God placed David into the circumstances he was in, knowing that David would choose to escape. God did know that David would escape (He foreknows all things, including those things that COULD happen---in this case, “could” involved the men of Keilah handing David over to Saul); however, this did not involve the Lord desiring that David “run for his life” or that Saul would capture David. Instead, what we find is “certainty” of events, not “necessity.”
Why is there not a trace of necessity in 1 Sam. 23:10-13? Necessity is not found in the passage because although God tells David that the men of Keilah would hand him over, it does not come to fruition: “Then it was told Saul that DAVID HAD ESCAPED from Keilah; so he halted the expedition” (1 Sam. 23:13).
What we find in the declaration of the Lord is “certainty” (it would happen), not “necessity” (it must happen, or that it would infallibly happen). Therefore, the Lord’s declaration of events to David must be considered as “counterfactuals,” knowledge that is “counter to fact” or “contrary to fact” (i.e., information of events that do not come true). Although the men of Keilah did not get the opportunity to hand David over, such knowledge from God was useful for David, who used the information to plan his next move (his escape from Keilah).
David was able to “change the course” of events in his life (and Saul’s) by utilizing the God-given knowledge of Saul’s future plans. Notice here that there is no predetermination. If this passage taught predetermination or foreordination, then David would never have escaped (seeing that God’s knowledge of the men of Keilah capturing David would come to pass). Up until the moment David escapes, what God tells David is true: Saul will certainly come for David in Keilah. However, David decides to flee, and what once was a possibility no longer is (the men of Keilah will not get to hand David over to Saul).
Let me get right to the point: does 1 Samuel 23:10-13 support Molinism? No. However, the passage does show us that humans have genuine libertarian freedom...and that this power of choice is so powerful that it can change the course of events in a given situation. It seems that, in the final analysis, God does not place individuals in certain situations to “get them to do what He desires,” but instead allows them to be self-determining and determine their own circumstances. Instead of affirming predeterminism, the passage itself affirms true libertarian freedom. And, on the theological scoreboard, this biblical evidence awards one more point to Classical Arminianism.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Achilles' Heel
“Molinism provides a better model for understanding how simultaneously God’s decree of election is unconditional while His rejection of the unbeliever is conditional.
God’s omniscient foreknowledge is THE ACHILLES’ HEEL for most Arminian presentations of election. If God has exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, then conditional election does not really remove the unconditional nature of God’s decisions. If God knows that a certain man will freely accept the gospel while the man’s brother freely will not, and yet God decides to create both of them anyway, then this is a mysterious, sovereign, and unconditional determination on the part of God” (Kenneth Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pp.153-154).
My former professor provides a very stellar charge here against Arminianism...and for that reason, I have to answer it. After all, I am a Classical Arminian---so I have to come to the aid of the theological viewpoint I hold so dear.
It is my belief that there is an unconditional determination in God that explains why two brothers are created and respond differently to Christ. But the question that we should ask ourselves is, “What is this unconditional determination?” Keathley does not attempt in his work to explain what this possibly could be, but I think that the biblical text shows us what this unconditional determination is.
Let’s look at Psalm 8:
“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor: YOU HAVE MADE HIM TO HAVE DOMINION OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIS FEET, all sheep and oxen----even the beasts of the field, the birds of the air; and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas” (Ps. 8:3-8, NKJV).
God decided from the beginning to give man dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). Man’s decisions over all of God’s work would be honored. We see this when God gives the animals to Adam “to see what he would call then. AND WHATEVER ADAM CALLED EACH LIVING CREATURE, THAT WAS ITS NAME” (Gen. 2:19, NKJV).
And why did God do this? Because He wanted to. The Trinity decided to give man His image and likeness. There was nothing outside of God that made Him do this; He did it because He freely chose to do so. This is the unconditional determination of God regarding man. Man would have reign over the earth not because he deserved it, or because God was “forced” to give him reign, but because God wanted to!
And the same goes for those who are born into the world, whether or not they accept Him. God has decided to grant them life and the power of choice. God does not discriminate between those who will accept Him and those who will not...this is so everyone can see the goodness of God. After all, this is the same God who “makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).
But this unconditional predetermination of God, while truly “unconditional” (disregarding actions of those who believe and those who will not), actually works against Keathley’s statement about the elect and the unbeliever. Why does God allow both the believer and the unbeliever to be born, and not refuse life to the unbeliever? Because God is committed to the free will choices of His creatures. Even in the Garden, when man sinned, God (although He had the power to wipe away the sin in the Garden) refused to do so. And why? there was an unconditional determination in God that man would have dominion over the earth and would be self-determining. If God had stepped in and overturned Adam and Eve’s decision, He would have been “denying Himself,” inconsistent with His own decree of human self-determination. And then, God would be accused of inconsistency and unfaithfulness to His own character and nature.
Think back to the Garden. Was man “unconditionally elected” to remain in the Garden without sin? Nope. Man’s judgment from God (whether good or bad) was CONDITIONAL upon man’s obedience---whether or not he obeyed. Because Adam and Eve disobeyed, they deserved the punishment they received.
But the Bible doesn’t stop there. Paul tells us in Romans that we deserved the same condemnation as Adam and Eve:
“just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because ALL SINNED” (Rom. 5:12, NKJV).
According to Romans, all sinned in Adam. Every human that will ever be born, through biological union with Adam, sinned as Adam did. God’s judgment was just on humanity, since humanity willingly sinned against God and His Law.
So Christ came and died for the sins of the world in order to reconcile us back to God. Paul tells us the greatness of the work of Christ:
“For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more THOSE WHO RECEIVE ABUNDANCE OF GRACE AND OF THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS will reign in life THROUGH THE ONE, JESUS CHRIST” (Rom. 5:17, NKJV).
It is those who receive God’s grace and His gift that receive life. But this undermines Keathley’s view of “unconditional election.” If God’s grace and gift must be received in order to be appropriated, then election to salvation must be “conditional,” based upon the recipient.
Keathley believes that election is “unconditional,” but look at all the references he makes to faith as the condition for salvation:
“The overcoming grace model is consistent with the CONDITIONALITY OF SALVATION...the convicting work of the Holy Spirit accompanies the preaching of the gospel and ENABLES A RESPONSE that a lost person does not intrinsically have the ability to give. THIS INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO ACCEPT THE GOSPEL” (129).
“Sometimes Scripture simply says that SALVATION ITSELF IS OBTAINED BY FAITH. Jesus told the woman who washed His feet with her tears, ‘YOUR FAITH HAS SAVED YOU’ (Luke 7:50). Paul told the Philippian jailor, ‘BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS, AND YOU WILL BE SAVED’ (Acts 16:31). He declared, ‘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’ (Rom. 10:9; cf. 1 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 2:8-9). EXERCISING FAITH ‘RESULTS’ IN SALVATION...In these verses Paul...plainly states that THE CONDITION TO SALVATION IS FAITH” (120, 121).
“In addition to teaching that the benefits of Christ are conditional, the Bible also spells out that the various aspects of salvation ARE NOT RECEIVED UNTIL WE PLACE OUR TRUST IN THE SON OF GOD. For example, Scripture declares that A PERSON IS JUSTIFIED UPON BELIEVING IN CHRIST...and the Bible does not teach that only justification is contingent upon faith. It teaches that all aspects of salvation ARE RECEIVED THROUGH THE INSTRUMENT OF FAITH” (120).
“...the Bible does not merely present faith as the evidence of regeneration or effectual call but AS THE CONDITION TO RECEIVING SALVATION. SALVATION IS BY FAITH...Scripture repeatedly presents the benefits of Christ as CONTINGENT UPON FAITH...why isn’t Paul a universalist? Because in the preceding verse (Rom. 5:18-19) he declares that THERE IS A CONDITION FOR RECEIVING SALVATION----THE CONDITION OF FAITH. The benefits of Christ are bestowed on ‘those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness’ (Rom. 5:17)” (119).
All through the last few quotes, I have shown you that Ken Keathley argues for faith as the condition for salvation. Why then, would he turn around and argue that election to salvation is “unconditional”?
Let me set up a syllogism for the dilemma here:
a. Election is unconditional (Keathley’s view).
b. Salvation comes by faith.
c. Therefore, faith is unconditional.
In this system, faith cannot be a condition for salvation; but this contradicts Keathley’s statements above---that “there is a condition for receiving salvation---the condition of faith” (119).
The only way for faith to not be a condition is for faith to be a “result” of salvation. If faith is a result of salvation, then faith comes AFTER salvation---which means that REGENERATION PRECEDES FAITH. The idea of regeneration before faith is something Keathley strongly disagrees with:
“One of the strongest indications that conversion precedes regeneration is the fact that the instrument used by the Holy Spirit to bring about regeneration is the Word of God. Peter declares that believers ‘have been born again---not of perishable seed but of imperishable---through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23; cf. Jas. 1:18, 21). How is this accomplished? Paul explains in Rom 10:17, ‘So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.’ Jesus teaches that it is the one who ‘hears My word and believes’ that ‘has passed from death to life’ (i.e., that one who believes the gospel is then born again, John 5:24)...regeneration is the act of the Holy Spirit whereby He imparts eternal life into a person, and the apostle John repeatedly declared that ETERNAL LIFE IS RECEIVED BY FAITH. THIS MEANS THAT ETERNAL LIFE (i.e., REGENERATION) IS NOT PRIOR TO CONVERSION” (121, 122).
The Molinist view of unconditional election of the saved and conditional election of the reprobate is inconsistent. If the reprobate are rejected because of their unbelief, then the elect must be accepted BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEF (which makes election to salvation conditional). If Molinism intends to survive as a viable theological position, then it will need to incorporate libertarian freedom into its view of election---the same way it has incorporated libertarian freedom into its view of grace (overcoming, yet resistible) and redemption (atonement is efficacious for those who believe).
God’s omniscient foreknowledge is THE ACHILLES’ HEEL for most Arminian presentations of election. If God has exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, then conditional election does not really remove the unconditional nature of God’s decisions. If God knows that a certain man will freely accept the gospel while the man’s brother freely will not, and yet God decides to create both of them anyway, then this is a mysterious, sovereign, and unconditional determination on the part of God” (Kenneth Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pp.153-154).
My former professor provides a very stellar charge here against Arminianism...and for that reason, I have to answer it. After all, I am a Classical Arminian---so I have to come to the aid of the theological viewpoint I hold so dear.
It is my belief that there is an unconditional determination in God that explains why two brothers are created and respond differently to Christ. But the question that we should ask ourselves is, “What is this unconditional determination?” Keathley does not attempt in his work to explain what this possibly could be, but I think that the biblical text shows us what this unconditional determination is.
Let’s look at Psalm 8:
“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor: YOU HAVE MADE HIM TO HAVE DOMINION OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIS FEET, all sheep and oxen----even the beasts of the field, the birds of the air; and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas” (Ps. 8:3-8, NKJV).
God decided from the beginning to give man dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). Man’s decisions over all of God’s work would be honored. We see this when God gives the animals to Adam “to see what he would call then. AND WHATEVER ADAM CALLED EACH LIVING CREATURE, THAT WAS ITS NAME” (Gen. 2:19, NKJV).
And why did God do this? Because He wanted to. The Trinity decided to give man His image and likeness. There was nothing outside of God that made Him do this; He did it because He freely chose to do so. This is the unconditional determination of God regarding man. Man would have reign over the earth not because he deserved it, or because God was “forced” to give him reign, but because God wanted to!
And the same goes for those who are born into the world, whether or not they accept Him. God has decided to grant them life and the power of choice. God does not discriminate between those who will accept Him and those who will not...this is so everyone can see the goodness of God. After all, this is the same God who “makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).
But this unconditional predetermination of God, while truly “unconditional” (disregarding actions of those who believe and those who will not), actually works against Keathley’s statement about the elect and the unbeliever. Why does God allow both the believer and the unbeliever to be born, and not refuse life to the unbeliever? Because God is committed to the free will choices of His creatures. Even in the Garden, when man sinned, God (although He had the power to wipe away the sin in the Garden) refused to do so. And why? there was an unconditional determination in God that man would have dominion over the earth and would be self-determining. If God had stepped in and overturned Adam and Eve’s decision, He would have been “denying Himself,” inconsistent with His own decree of human self-determination. And then, God would be accused of inconsistency and unfaithfulness to His own character and nature.
Think back to the Garden. Was man “unconditionally elected” to remain in the Garden without sin? Nope. Man’s judgment from God (whether good or bad) was CONDITIONAL upon man’s obedience---whether or not he obeyed. Because Adam and Eve disobeyed, they deserved the punishment they received.
But the Bible doesn’t stop there. Paul tells us in Romans that we deserved the same condemnation as Adam and Eve:
“just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because ALL SINNED” (Rom. 5:12, NKJV).
According to Romans, all sinned in Adam. Every human that will ever be born, through biological union with Adam, sinned as Adam did. God’s judgment was just on humanity, since humanity willingly sinned against God and His Law.
So Christ came and died for the sins of the world in order to reconcile us back to God. Paul tells us the greatness of the work of Christ:
“For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more THOSE WHO RECEIVE ABUNDANCE OF GRACE AND OF THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS will reign in life THROUGH THE ONE, JESUS CHRIST” (Rom. 5:17, NKJV).
It is those who receive God’s grace and His gift that receive life. But this undermines Keathley’s view of “unconditional election.” If God’s grace and gift must be received in order to be appropriated, then election to salvation must be “conditional,” based upon the recipient.
Keathley believes that election is “unconditional,” but look at all the references he makes to faith as the condition for salvation:
“The overcoming grace model is consistent with the CONDITIONALITY OF SALVATION...the convicting work of the Holy Spirit accompanies the preaching of the gospel and ENABLES A RESPONSE that a lost person does not intrinsically have the ability to give. THIS INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO ACCEPT THE GOSPEL” (129).
“Sometimes Scripture simply says that SALVATION ITSELF IS OBTAINED BY FAITH. Jesus told the woman who washed His feet with her tears, ‘YOUR FAITH HAS SAVED YOU’ (Luke 7:50). Paul told the Philippian jailor, ‘BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS, AND YOU WILL BE SAVED’ (Acts 16:31). He declared, ‘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’ (Rom. 10:9; cf. 1 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 2:8-9). EXERCISING FAITH ‘RESULTS’ IN SALVATION...In these verses Paul...plainly states that THE CONDITION TO SALVATION IS FAITH” (120, 121).
“In addition to teaching that the benefits of Christ are conditional, the Bible also spells out that the various aspects of salvation ARE NOT RECEIVED UNTIL WE PLACE OUR TRUST IN THE SON OF GOD. For example, Scripture declares that A PERSON IS JUSTIFIED UPON BELIEVING IN CHRIST...and the Bible does not teach that only justification is contingent upon faith. It teaches that all aspects of salvation ARE RECEIVED THROUGH THE INSTRUMENT OF FAITH” (120).
“...the Bible does not merely present faith as the evidence of regeneration or effectual call but AS THE CONDITION TO RECEIVING SALVATION. SALVATION IS BY FAITH...Scripture repeatedly presents the benefits of Christ as CONTINGENT UPON FAITH...why isn’t Paul a universalist? Because in the preceding verse (Rom. 5:18-19) he declares that THERE IS A CONDITION FOR RECEIVING SALVATION----THE CONDITION OF FAITH. The benefits of Christ are bestowed on ‘those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness’ (Rom. 5:17)” (119).
All through the last few quotes, I have shown you that Ken Keathley argues for faith as the condition for salvation. Why then, would he turn around and argue that election to salvation is “unconditional”?
Let me set up a syllogism for the dilemma here:
a. Election is unconditional (Keathley’s view).
b. Salvation comes by faith.
c. Therefore, faith is unconditional.
In this system, faith cannot be a condition for salvation; but this contradicts Keathley’s statements above---that “there is a condition for receiving salvation---the condition of faith” (119).
The only way for faith to not be a condition is for faith to be a “result” of salvation. If faith is a result of salvation, then faith comes AFTER salvation---which means that REGENERATION PRECEDES FAITH. The idea of regeneration before faith is something Keathley strongly disagrees with:
“One of the strongest indications that conversion precedes regeneration is the fact that the instrument used by the Holy Spirit to bring about regeneration is the Word of God. Peter declares that believers ‘have been born again---not of perishable seed but of imperishable---through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23; cf. Jas. 1:18, 21). How is this accomplished? Paul explains in Rom 10:17, ‘So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.’ Jesus teaches that it is the one who ‘hears My word and believes’ that ‘has passed from death to life’ (i.e., that one who believes the gospel is then born again, John 5:24)...regeneration is the act of the Holy Spirit whereby He imparts eternal life into a person, and the apostle John repeatedly declared that ETERNAL LIFE IS RECEIVED BY FAITH. THIS MEANS THAT ETERNAL LIFE (i.e., REGENERATION) IS NOT PRIOR TO CONVERSION” (121, 122).
The Molinist view of unconditional election of the saved and conditional election of the reprobate is inconsistent. If the reprobate are rejected because of their unbelief, then the elect must be accepted BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEF (which makes election to salvation conditional). If Molinism intends to survive as a viable theological position, then it will need to incorporate libertarian freedom into its view of election---the same way it has incorporated libertarian freedom into its view of grace (overcoming, yet resistible) and redemption (atonement is efficacious for those who believe).
Saturday, January 9, 2010
OSAS Arminians---Molinists in Disguise?
While reading Dr. Ken Keathley’s chapter titled “Eternal Life,” in his book “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach,” some confusing theological issues (in my mind, at least), started coming together. Things that never quite made sense to me began to make sense. One of those issues concerns “OSAS Arminians,” called “Once-Saved-Always-Saved Arminians.” OSAS Arminians stand out from their fellow Arminians because, unlike the remaining Arminians, OSASers believe in guaranteed perseverance of the saints. In other words, those who believe, the elect, will infallibly persevere. For the Arminian system, however, this is an inconsistency: in the five-point Arminian system, since grace is resistible and election is conditional upon faith, then perseverance is conditional upon the continued endurance in the race of life set before us. In other words, perseverance is conditional in that it is based upon the commitment of the believer. If the believer decides to fall away due to temptation (as did one of the soils in Luke 8), then that person has forfeited their inheritance in Christ (i.e., eternal life). To use biblical terminology, like Esau, they have forfeited their “birthright” to eternal life and “the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven” (Heb. 12:23, NKJV).
But there may be a slight possibility that OSAS Arminians have not thought through their theological system carefully enough: for, if the saints infallibly persevere, then ultimately, grace is “irresistible,” in some sense. Dr. Keathley would label grace in the Molinist system as “overcoming grace.” And I think OSAS Arminians should look into it. If the saints infallibly persevere, then God’s grace can only be resisted FOR SO LONG. There comes a time when God’s grace will win out, no matter how stubborn or self-willed a person’s heart may be...and at that point, they will want to do the things of God that they may be fighting against in this very moment. In short, OSASers may really believe in “overcoming grace,” not “resistible grace.” There is a difference between these two types of grace, and they need to be carefully distinguished.
OSASers then, by virtue of their views of perseverance (infallible) and grace (overcoming) could no longer identify themselves as “Arminians,” but as “Molinists.” But four-point Arminians should consider this: if grace is “ultimately” irresistible, and perseverance is infallible, then election is “unconditional” (those in the actualized world that God selected who believe WILL NECESSARILY BE SAVED). Arminians cannot become Molinist without paying a theologically high price for so doing.
Ken Keathley introduces in his chapter on eternal life what is called “The Means-of-Salvation view”:
“The Means-of-Salvation position contends that the New Testament is always referring to the gift of salvation when it speaks of the believer’s reward. Passages that exhort the elect to pursue crowns of life, glory, and righteousness are making reference to salvation itself, not to any subsequent reward that the believer may earn in addition to salvation...they also argue that obtaining eternal life requires not only continuing faith but also great effort from 2 Pet. 1:5-11...but Schreiner and Caneday argue that though the threats of damnation addressed to the saints are genuine, THE POSSIBILITY OF APOSTASY IS NOT...God uses means----including the warning passages---to fulfill His promise to save all who have trusted Jesus Christ as Savior” (Kenneth Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pp. 180-181).
Arminians take the warnings passages very seriously; but OSASers believe the same thing that Schreiner and Caneday do: that the warnings are simply to keep us in line when we look as if we are about to drift. According to the “Means-of-Salvation” view, the warnings are real, but a true believer can never fall away. However this works out for the OSASers, the bottom line is that their views very much match those of Molinists. According to Keathley, William Lane Craig argues that the “Means-of-Salvation” view is the Molinist view of perseverance:
“He [Craig] argues that the Means-of-Salvation position IMPLICITLY EMPLOYS MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE. Craig asks that if the believer’s will is so overwhelmed by God’s grace, then why does God give the warnings at all? And if the warnings themselves bring about perseverance, does this mean that the believer is capable of apostasy, even if he does not apostatize? HYPOTHETICALLY, at least, THE ELECT CAN FALL AWAY, BUT GOD, using middle knowledge, HAS CHOSEN TO ACTUALIZE A WORLD IN WHICH SCRIPTURAL WARNINGS WILL OPERATE AS MEANS TO KEEP HIS CHILDREN FROM APOSTASY. This is a novel understanding of perseverance, but it appears to be the view argued by those who hold to the Means-of-Salvation position” (186).
I think that the means-of-salvation view shows us the conflict believers and theologians have when it comes to interpreting the warning passages while upholding the preservation promises. As the Molinist view of perseverance, this view states that, since “God meticulously ‘sets the table’ so that humans freely choose what He had predetermined” (152), then believers will “freely choose” to persevere in the way God planned for them to. Since God has selected the world in which the elect would live (and God desires to preserve the elect), then God will see to it that humans persevere as He wants them to.
In all honesty, I can truly say that, before studying the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, I clearly held to a Molinist view of perseverance (although I didn’t know that view was the Molinist view). In fact, when a friend attempted to discuss the issue with me, I said, “Well, if a person is a believer, and God has changed their lives, then THEY WILL WANT TO REMAIN IN CHRIST.” Notice in that statement that I placed responsibility on the individual to persevere---while not arguing that God would “persevere” them. It is my belief that most Christians are Molinists and don’t even know it. As distinct from the Calvinist idea of perseverance, the Molinist view retains responsibility on the person. Calvinists such as Edwin Palmer, however, believe that believers will persevere because perseverance is really “the perseverance of Christ” (Edwin Palmer, “Five Points of Calvinism”). To the Calvinist, they will persevere BECAUSE CHRIST DID. Christ does not serve as the example of perseverance (Heb. 12:1-2), but as the ONE CHOSEN TO PERSEVERE FOR BELIEVERS!
Is it really possible, then, that OSASers could be true Molinists in disguise? I think so. Well, at last, I am relieved; four-point Arminians finally have a name by which to identify themselves...
But there may be a slight possibility that OSAS Arminians have not thought through their theological system carefully enough: for, if the saints infallibly persevere, then ultimately, grace is “irresistible,” in some sense. Dr. Keathley would label grace in the Molinist system as “overcoming grace.” And I think OSAS Arminians should look into it. If the saints infallibly persevere, then God’s grace can only be resisted FOR SO LONG. There comes a time when God’s grace will win out, no matter how stubborn or self-willed a person’s heart may be...and at that point, they will want to do the things of God that they may be fighting against in this very moment. In short, OSASers may really believe in “overcoming grace,” not “resistible grace.” There is a difference between these two types of grace, and they need to be carefully distinguished.
OSASers then, by virtue of their views of perseverance (infallible) and grace (overcoming) could no longer identify themselves as “Arminians,” but as “Molinists.” But four-point Arminians should consider this: if grace is “ultimately” irresistible, and perseverance is infallible, then election is “unconditional” (those in the actualized world that God selected who believe WILL NECESSARILY BE SAVED). Arminians cannot become Molinist without paying a theologically high price for so doing.
Ken Keathley introduces in his chapter on eternal life what is called “The Means-of-Salvation view”:
“The Means-of-Salvation position contends that the New Testament is always referring to the gift of salvation when it speaks of the believer’s reward. Passages that exhort the elect to pursue crowns of life, glory, and righteousness are making reference to salvation itself, not to any subsequent reward that the believer may earn in addition to salvation...they also argue that obtaining eternal life requires not only continuing faith but also great effort from 2 Pet. 1:5-11...but Schreiner and Caneday argue that though the threats of damnation addressed to the saints are genuine, THE POSSIBILITY OF APOSTASY IS NOT...God uses means----including the warning passages---to fulfill His promise to save all who have trusted Jesus Christ as Savior” (Kenneth Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pp. 180-181).
Arminians take the warnings passages very seriously; but OSASers believe the same thing that Schreiner and Caneday do: that the warnings are simply to keep us in line when we look as if we are about to drift. According to the “Means-of-Salvation” view, the warnings are real, but a true believer can never fall away. However this works out for the OSASers, the bottom line is that their views very much match those of Molinists. According to Keathley, William Lane Craig argues that the “Means-of-Salvation” view is the Molinist view of perseverance:
“He [Craig] argues that the Means-of-Salvation position IMPLICITLY EMPLOYS MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE. Craig asks that if the believer’s will is so overwhelmed by God’s grace, then why does God give the warnings at all? And if the warnings themselves bring about perseverance, does this mean that the believer is capable of apostasy, even if he does not apostatize? HYPOTHETICALLY, at least, THE ELECT CAN FALL AWAY, BUT GOD, using middle knowledge, HAS CHOSEN TO ACTUALIZE A WORLD IN WHICH SCRIPTURAL WARNINGS WILL OPERATE AS MEANS TO KEEP HIS CHILDREN FROM APOSTASY. This is a novel understanding of perseverance, but it appears to be the view argued by those who hold to the Means-of-Salvation position” (186).
I think that the means-of-salvation view shows us the conflict believers and theologians have when it comes to interpreting the warning passages while upholding the preservation promises. As the Molinist view of perseverance, this view states that, since “God meticulously ‘sets the table’ so that humans freely choose what He had predetermined” (152), then believers will “freely choose” to persevere in the way God planned for them to. Since God has selected the world in which the elect would live (and God desires to preserve the elect), then God will see to it that humans persevere as He wants them to.
In all honesty, I can truly say that, before studying the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, I clearly held to a Molinist view of perseverance (although I didn’t know that view was the Molinist view). In fact, when a friend attempted to discuss the issue with me, I said, “Well, if a person is a believer, and God has changed their lives, then THEY WILL WANT TO REMAIN IN CHRIST.” Notice in that statement that I placed responsibility on the individual to persevere---while not arguing that God would “persevere” them. It is my belief that most Christians are Molinists and don’t even know it. As distinct from the Calvinist idea of perseverance, the Molinist view retains responsibility on the person. Calvinists such as Edwin Palmer, however, believe that believers will persevere because perseverance is really “the perseverance of Christ” (Edwin Palmer, “Five Points of Calvinism”). To the Calvinist, they will persevere BECAUSE CHRIST DID. Christ does not serve as the example of perseverance (Heb. 12:1-2), but as the ONE CHOSEN TO PERSEVERE FOR BELIEVERS!
Is it really possible, then, that OSASers could be true Molinists in disguise? I think so. Well, at last, I am relieved; four-point Arminians finally have a name by which to identify themselves...
God's Eternal Plan
“Even the sinful acts of men are included in this plan. They are foreseen, permitted, and have their exact place. They are controlled and overruled for the divine glory. The crucifixion of Christ, which is admittedly the worst crime in all human history, had, we are expressly told, its exact and necessary place in the plan (Acts 2:23; 4:28). This particular manner of redemption IS NOT AN EXPEDIENT TO WHICH GOD WAS DRIVEN AFTER BEING DEFEATED AND DISAPPOINTED BY THE FALL OF MAN. Rather it is ‘according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord,’ Eph. 3:11. Peter tells us that Christ as a sacrifice for sin was ‘foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:20. Believers were ‘chosen in Him before the foundation of the world’ (or from eternity), Eph. 1:4...And if the crucifixion of Christ, or His offering up Himself as a sacrifice for sin, was in the eternal plan, then plainly THE FALL OF ADAM AND ALL OTHER SINS WHICH MADE THAT SACRIFICE NECESSARY WERE IN THE PLAN, NO MATTER HOW UNDESIRABLE A PART OF THAT PLAN THEY MAY HAVE BEEN” (Loraine Boettner, “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1932, page 24).
This morning I went to bed at about 4am, which is probably not the best time to fall asleep. In any case, my mind was dying to find something to absorb---so I grabbed Boettner’s book on “Predestination,” and started reading. Coming to the quote above in Boettner’s work, I found another great idea for a post at the Center for Theological Studies.
Notice two things about Boettner’s quote. First, he states that redemption itself “is not an expedient to which God was driven after being defeated and disappointed by the fall of man.” I would say that redemption was not God’s “back-up plan” or “plan B” after Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden; however, I would say that it was a response to the sin of man. Redemption itself was NOT God’s arbitrary pre-determined plan from the beginning of time. God presented Adam with a choice in the Garden---to eat or not to eat. It was Adam’s choice (and Eve’s) that led to the staining of God’s good creation. And it was this reason that Christ was sent. Notice what the angel Gabriel says to Joseph when he appears to Joseph in a dream:
“And she[Mary] will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV).
The Son of God was even given His name (Jesus) because His mission was to be the Savior of the world. And in verses 22 and 23 of Matthew 1, we are told that Jesus’ mission was foretold by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 7:14. His name “Immanuel” is Hebrew meaning “God with us.” God “tabernacled” among us with a specific mission.
John tells us the exact same thing:
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!” (John 1:29, NKJV)
Notice that Jesus is identified by John as Savior---He came to “take away the sin of the world.”
When Jesus is born in Luke 2, an angelic host announces the greatness of Jesus’ birth:
“Glory to God in the highest, AND ON EARTH PEACE, GOODWILL TOWARD MEN!” (Luke 2:14, quoting Isaiah 57:19)
But this becomes problematic for Boettner’s claim. In his view, God doesn’t send Jesus as a response to human sin and the fallen condition; no---Jesus is sent because God planned, from before time began, to save only a portion of humanity (those He “unconditionally” elected), and to damn the rest. He even quotes Ephesians to support his view; but Ephesians also shows us a gracious God who forgave us of a judgment we deserved:
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS, ACCORDING TO THE RICHES OF HIS GRACE WHICH HE MADE TO ABOUND TOWARD US IN ALL WISDOM AND PRUDENCE...” (Ephesians 1:7-8, NKJV)
Notice that Paul describes God’s grace as “the riches of His grace” and that “He made to abound,” to overflow, His grace toward those who believe. How could God be so gracious if He was the One that predetermined sin in the events of world history, if He is the One who “set the table” for the Fall? If God designed the Fall and then decided to save a portion of humanity, He wouldn’t be gracious. Instead, God would be a sadistic manipulator who would get twisted pleasure out of “toying” around with His creatures. The God of the Calvinists is not a God who is worthy to be praised!
Let’s look at three other passages which show us Jesus’ sacrifice as a response to the sin of man and man’s deserved judgment. One of these passages is Hebrews 2, Romans 3, and Isaiah 53.
First, we find these words in Hebrews 2:
“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, THAT HE MIGHT BE A MERCIFUL AND FAITHFUL HIGH PRIEST IN THINGS PERTAINING TO GOD, TO MAKE PROPITIATION FOR THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE” (Hebrews 2:14-17, NKJV).
Hebrews 2 focuses on Christ taking on flesh in order to be the “propitiation” or atoning sacrifice, for the sins of the world. His entire purpose for sharing in human flesh with humanity was “to destroy...the devil, and release those who...were...subject to bondage.” Humanity was subject to bondage. What bondage? Paul tells us in Romans that we were once “slaves of sin” (Rom. 6:20).
The next question becomes, “And why was humanity in bondage to sin?” Humanity was in bondage to sin because we all sinned in Adam (Rom. 5:12). 2 Corinthians 5 says it best:
“Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, NOT IMPUTING THEIR TRESPASSES TO THEM, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18-19, NKJV).
Whose “trespasses” created the sin that put Christ on the cross? The intended noun of “their” in 2 Cor. 5:19. And the subject of “their” is “the world.” The sins of the world, our sins, put Christ on the cross---not some predetermined good pleasure of God to give Jesus a thirty-something-year vacation on earth.
Now, let’s see what Romans 3 tells us:
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of THE ONE WHO HAS FAITH IN JESUS” (Rom. 3:23-26).
Who is the “all” of the excerpt from Rom. 3? Who committed the “sins” that God passed over? Who is the “one who has faith in Jesus”? The answer to all of these is “us,” or “humanity.” So humanity committed the sins that God had passed over. Although it seemed as if God had overlooked them, He hadn’t: He still required death as the penalty for sin. And He demonstrated that He hadn’t forgotten the debt when He sent His Son Jesus to be the atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind. God made humanity pay the debt, but we didn’t pay the debt---Jesus paid the debt because He took on human flesh. In this manner, human flesh paid the penalty (but it was done in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity and Godhead).
Now, at last, here is the declaration of the prophet Isaiah:
“Surely He [Jesus] has borne OUR griefs and carried OUR sorrows; yet we esteemed HIM stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for OUR transgressions, He was bruised for OUR iniquities; the chastisement for OUR peace was upon Him, and by His stripes WE are healed. All WE like sheep have gone astray, WE have turned, EVERY ONE, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of US ALL” (Isaiah 53:4-6, NKJV).
Here, the prophet Isaiah places the blame where it belongs. Jesus’ death did not come about because of some sordid, sick, and twisted pleasure of God---but because of the sordid, sick, and twisted sins of mankind. Notice the pronouns: “our” griefs, “our” sorrows, “our” transgressions, “our” iniquities, etc. Who sinned? We did! Humanity is the one who sinned and transgressed God’s law.
If humanity is responsible for sin, and Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind, then how is it that Boettner can assert that Jesus’ death was not in response to sin but to an arbitrary predetermined decree that God just designed on His own? It was in love that God gave His Son (John 3:16), not in sick, twisted pleasure to see Jesus tortured.
Nevertheless, this is the argument that must be made in a system that embraces unconditional predetermination (God plans the course of the world without conditions). If unconditional predetermination is true (God doesn’t consider giving His creatures free will, etc.), then God is the author of sin and evil---even if Boettner claims that God only “permits” it.
This morning I went to bed at about 4am, which is probably not the best time to fall asleep. In any case, my mind was dying to find something to absorb---so I grabbed Boettner’s book on “Predestination,” and started reading. Coming to the quote above in Boettner’s work, I found another great idea for a post at the Center for Theological Studies.
Notice two things about Boettner’s quote. First, he states that redemption itself “is not an expedient to which God was driven after being defeated and disappointed by the fall of man.” I would say that redemption was not God’s “back-up plan” or “plan B” after Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden; however, I would say that it was a response to the sin of man. Redemption itself was NOT God’s arbitrary pre-determined plan from the beginning of time. God presented Adam with a choice in the Garden---to eat or not to eat. It was Adam’s choice (and Eve’s) that led to the staining of God’s good creation. And it was this reason that Christ was sent. Notice what the angel Gabriel says to Joseph when he appears to Joseph in a dream:
“And she[Mary] will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV).
The Son of God was even given His name (Jesus) because His mission was to be the Savior of the world. And in verses 22 and 23 of Matthew 1, we are told that Jesus’ mission was foretold by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 7:14. His name “Immanuel” is Hebrew meaning “God with us.” God “tabernacled” among us with a specific mission.
John tells us the exact same thing:
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!” (John 1:29, NKJV)
Notice that Jesus is identified by John as Savior---He came to “take away the sin of the world.”
When Jesus is born in Luke 2, an angelic host announces the greatness of Jesus’ birth:
“Glory to God in the highest, AND ON EARTH PEACE, GOODWILL TOWARD MEN!” (Luke 2:14, quoting Isaiah 57:19)
But this becomes problematic for Boettner’s claim. In his view, God doesn’t send Jesus as a response to human sin and the fallen condition; no---Jesus is sent because God planned, from before time began, to save only a portion of humanity (those He “unconditionally” elected), and to damn the rest. He even quotes Ephesians to support his view; but Ephesians also shows us a gracious God who forgave us of a judgment we deserved:
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS, ACCORDING TO THE RICHES OF HIS GRACE WHICH HE MADE TO ABOUND TOWARD US IN ALL WISDOM AND PRUDENCE...” (Ephesians 1:7-8, NKJV)
Notice that Paul describes God’s grace as “the riches of His grace” and that “He made to abound,” to overflow, His grace toward those who believe. How could God be so gracious if He was the One that predetermined sin in the events of world history, if He is the One who “set the table” for the Fall? If God designed the Fall and then decided to save a portion of humanity, He wouldn’t be gracious. Instead, God would be a sadistic manipulator who would get twisted pleasure out of “toying” around with His creatures. The God of the Calvinists is not a God who is worthy to be praised!
Let’s look at three other passages which show us Jesus’ sacrifice as a response to the sin of man and man’s deserved judgment. One of these passages is Hebrews 2, Romans 3, and Isaiah 53.
First, we find these words in Hebrews 2:
“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, THAT HE MIGHT BE A MERCIFUL AND FAITHFUL HIGH PRIEST IN THINGS PERTAINING TO GOD, TO MAKE PROPITIATION FOR THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE” (Hebrews 2:14-17, NKJV).
Hebrews 2 focuses on Christ taking on flesh in order to be the “propitiation” or atoning sacrifice, for the sins of the world. His entire purpose for sharing in human flesh with humanity was “to destroy...the devil, and release those who...were...subject to bondage.” Humanity was subject to bondage. What bondage? Paul tells us in Romans that we were once “slaves of sin” (Rom. 6:20).
The next question becomes, “And why was humanity in bondage to sin?” Humanity was in bondage to sin because we all sinned in Adam (Rom. 5:12). 2 Corinthians 5 says it best:
“Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, NOT IMPUTING THEIR TRESPASSES TO THEM, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18-19, NKJV).
Whose “trespasses” created the sin that put Christ on the cross? The intended noun of “their” in 2 Cor. 5:19. And the subject of “their” is “the world.” The sins of the world, our sins, put Christ on the cross---not some predetermined good pleasure of God to give Jesus a thirty-something-year vacation on earth.
Now, let’s see what Romans 3 tells us:
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of THE ONE WHO HAS FAITH IN JESUS” (Rom. 3:23-26).
Who is the “all” of the excerpt from Rom. 3? Who committed the “sins” that God passed over? Who is the “one who has faith in Jesus”? The answer to all of these is “us,” or “humanity.” So humanity committed the sins that God had passed over. Although it seemed as if God had overlooked them, He hadn’t: He still required death as the penalty for sin. And He demonstrated that He hadn’t forgotten the debt when He sent His Son Jesus to be the atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind. God made humanity pay the debt, but we didn’t pay the debt---Jesus paid the debt because He took on human flesh. In this manner, human flesh paid the penalty (but it was done in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity and Godhead).
Now, at last, here is the declaration of the prophet Isaiah:
“Surely He [Jesus] has borne OUR griefs and carried OUR sorrows; yet we esteemed HIM stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for OUR transgressions, He was bruised for OUR iniquities; the chastisement for OUR peace was upon Him, and by His stripes WE are healed. All WE like sheep have gone astray, WE have turned, EVERY ONE, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of US ALL” (Isaiah 53:4-6, NKJV).
Here, the prophet Isaiah places the blame where it belongs. Jesus’ death did not come about because of some sordid, sick, and twisted pleasure of God---but because of the sordid, sick, and twisted sins of mankind. Notice the pronouns: “our” griefs, “our” sorrows, “our” transgressions, “our” iniquities, etc. Who sinned? We did! Humanity is the one who sinned and transgressed God’s law.
If humanity is responsible for sin, and Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind, then how is it that Boettner can assert that Jesus’ death was not in response to sin but to an arbitrary predetermined decree that God just designed on His own? It was in love that God gave His Son (John 3:16), not in sick, twisted pleasure to see Jesus tortured.
Nevertheless, this is the argument that must be made in a system that embraces unconditional predetermination (God plans the course of the world without conditions). If unconditional predetermination is true (God doesn’t consider giving His creatures free will, etc.), then God is the author of sin and evil---even if Boettner claims that God only “permits” it.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
"E is for Eternal Life"
“Fourth, there are rewards that are subsequent to salvation for the believer to win or lose. One of the great weaknesses of the Schreiner and Caneday proposal is the necessity to deny that there are any subsequent rewards available for the believer and that all promises of reward must be references to salvation itself. Their position is difficult to reconcile with many biblical passages. For example, 1 Cor. 3:12-15 speaks of the Christian’s work remaining while another Christian’s work burns. The believer whose work remains receives a reward while the other believer suffers loss. Schreiner and Caneday admit the passage teaches ‘some will be saved that have done shoddy work.’ This admission undermines the major plank of their position---that persevering in good works is a necessary means by which our salvation is completed. A better understanding of the role of works in believers’ lives is to hold that we will be judged and rewarded according to our service” (Kenneth Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pp. 189-190).
The passage of 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is one that I’ve encountered prior to the statement above. While I was reading Zondervan’s Counterpoints book titled “Four Views on Eternal Security,” this passage came up in Norman Geisler’s chapter on Moderate Calvinism. And now, it appears here, once again.
Something must be done with this verse. This verse has some significance as related to eternal reward, so believers must incorporate this text into whatever it is they believe about eternal life and the coming Kingdom.
Keathley points out this passage as a troublesome passage for Schreiner and Caneday; but there are other passages that pose problems for 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. One of these “trouble” passages would be 1 John 2:24-25---
“Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father: and this is the promise that He has promised us----eternal life” (1 John 2:24-25, NKJV).
We are told in 1 John 2 by John himself that there is one reward God has promised us, and that is eternal life. Now this is problematic if other rewards are promised as well.
So 1 Corinthians 3 poses a problem not necessarily for Schreiner and Caneday’s argument as it does for itself. After all, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is the only passage in the Bible that speaks of a reward being lost and the person still being saved.
There is no other passage in Scripture that speaks in this manner.
So what are we to do with 1 Cor. 3:12-15? When Paul talks about “the Day” manifesting every Christian’s work, he is talking about what will happen in the future. However, he cannot be talking about “eternal life” itself because the Christian whose work is destroyed “will be saved” (1 Cor. 3:15). I propose to the readership that Paul is talking about being rewarded for work pertaining to Christian ministry. The reward of 1 John 2 is eternal life, and this is based on our endurance in faith and holiness. This is why John tells us, “and now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming” (1 John 2:28, NKJV). The writer of Hebrews echoes this sentiment:
“Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Hebrews 10:35-36, NKJV).
Notice that Hebrews tells us we “may receive THE promise.” There is only one promise made to those who believe in Christ---and that is, eternal life.
Paul’s words refer to future reward in the new heaven and new earth. In order to experience life in the coming Kingdom, however, we must continue to have faith and perseverance (Rom. 8:24-25; Hebrews 11:6). Only those who receive eternal life first, will be given future reward for their service to Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 then, does not cancel out the importance of a passage like 1 John 2, or a passage such as Revelation 2:10 where Jesus tells the church of Smyrna that for their faithfulness they could receive “the crown of life.” What 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 does tell us is that, in the coming Kingdom, God’s faithful servants will be further rewarded. Faith and perseverance are required for eternal life; but future reward is based on work done in Christian ministry. Both are important in their own right---but future reward cannot come without faith and perseverance. Having “just faith” will not do.
The passage of 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is one that I’ve encountered prior to the statement above. While I was reading Zondervan’s Counterpoints book titled “Four Views on Eternal Security,” this passage came up in Norman Geisler’s chapter on Moderate Calvinism. And now, it appears here, once again.
Something must be done with this verse. This verse has some significance as related to eternal reward, so believers must incorporate this text into whatever it is they believe about eternal life and the coming Kingdom.
Keathley points out this passage as a troublesome passage for Schreiner and Caneday; but there are other passages that pose problems for 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. One of these “trouble” passages would be 1 John 2:24-25---
“Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father: and this is the promise that He has promised us----eternal life” (1 John 2:24-25, NKJV).
We are told in 1 John 2 by John himself that there is one reward God has promised us, and that is eternal life. Now this is problematic if other rewards are promised as well.
So 1 Corinthians 3 poses a problem not necessarily for Schreiner and Caneday’s argument as it does for itself. After all, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is the only passage in the Bible that speaks of a reward being lost and the person still being saved.
There is no other passage in Scripture that speaks in this manner.
So what are we to do with 1 Cor. 3:12-15? When Paul talks about “the Day” manifesting every Christian’s work, he is talking about what will happen in the future. However, he cannot be talking about “eternal life” itself because the Christian whose work is destroyed “will be saved” (1 Cor. 3:15). I propose to the readership that Paul is talking about being rewarded for work pertaining to Christian ministry. The reward of 1 John 2 is eternal life, and this is based on our endurance in faith and holiness. This is why John tells us, “and now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming” (1 John 2:28, NKJV). The writer of Hebrews echoes this sentiment:
“Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Hebrews 10:35-36, NKJV).
Notice that Hebrews tells us we “may receive THE promise.” There is only one promise made to those who believe in Christ---and that is, eternal life.
Paul’s words refer to future reward in the new heaven and new earth. In order to experience life in the coming Kingdom, however, we must continue to have faith and perseverance (Rom. 8:24-25; Hebrews 11:6). Only those who receive eternal life first, will be given future reward for their service to Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 then, does not cancel out the importance of a passage like 1 John 2, or a passage such as Revelation 2:10 where Jesus tells the church of Smyrna that for their faithfulness they could receive “the crown of life.” What 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 does tell us is that, in the coming Kingdom, God’s faithful servants will be further rewarded. Faith and perseverance are required for eternal life; but future reward is based on work done in Christian ministry. Both are important in their own right---but future reward cannot come without faith and perseverance. Having “just faith” will not do.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Faith and Work: Synonyms?
Happy New Year! How exciting it is to know that we’ve been blessed to experience another year. It is because of God’s gracious mercy that we have another chance to live, breathe, and love. I am truly blessed to be alive!
After finishing up this past Fall semester, I took a vacation home with family for about 10 days to relax, kick back, and catch up on some sleep and family time. How I needed it!! I also got to read William Lane Craig’s “Time and Eternity” as well as Gregory Ganssle’s “God and Time: Four Views.” Both books discussed the philosophy of time and philosophy of language. I was intellectually blessed by Craig’s arguments for a dynamic view of time. In addition, it was good to get some time away from my typical theology reading. I love theology with all my heart---but sometimes, a study or two in philosophy always enhances my understanding of God, His Word, and what His Word has to say to those who believe.
Before I get into my first post of 2010 (how exciting!), I would like to take this time to enlighten the readership about what to expect in 2010. This Spring, I will be taking up a theological project in the study of Molinism, a theological/philosophical system advocated by Luis Molina in the Middle Ages. As I’ve learned by reading, Molina was not the first one to advocate such a view, but was the first to produce a formal layout of the theological view itself. One of the books I will be covering on the subject of Molinism this Spring is titled “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach” by Kenneth Donald Keathley, PhD. Interestingly enough, Dr. Keathley teaches Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. I attend Southeastern Seminary and took Dr. Keathley this past Fall semester for my final theology course in the Master of Divinity degree. Let me just say that I have never met a more humble, gracious, and knowledgeable man than Dr. Keathley...and I count it an honor to have sat under him for an entire semester. I was blessed by every single class lecture I had under him.
I know, I know...you’re thinking that, since Dr. Keathley was my professor, and since I value his work so much, that I must be biased---right? Well, I am a little biased. I suppose that all theologians (including me) should just come out and be honest about our biases. Therefore, I will say it loud and clear--- “I’m biased!”
However, I would like to recommend Dr. Keathley’s book on Molinism to all who are interested in studying more about a view Dr. Keathley so eloquently espouses. I will cover Molinism here or there throughout the Spring semester. I will really dive into it in my posts here this coming summer, when I will have had a chance to also read Molina’s “Concordia, Pt. IV.”
Over Thanksgiving Break, I sat down with Dr. Keathley and inquired about what reading material on Molinism I should acquire. He recommended Luis Molina’s “Concordia, Pt. IV,” “Divine Providence: A Molinist Account” by Thomas Flint, Kirk R. MacGregor’s “A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology,” and Keathley’s book on “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” I recommend these books to my readership in the hopes that, by the summer, you all may know more than I know (I’m pretty sure of it), and be able to enhance my knowledge as well. My goal is to educate my readers---but I also embrace the possibility that I, too, may be enlightened by the readership.
In today’s post, though, I am gonna deal with Norman Geisler’s discussion of faith and work in his book, “Chosen But Free.” Now, I wanna say that I’ve discussed the idea of faith as a work here at CTS; and I have argued that faith is NOT a work. Whenever the Scripture writers discuss faith and work, they always contrast the two, never equate them. For instance, in Romans 4, Paul shows that Abraham “believed God” (Gen. 15) before he was circumcised; this demonstrates faith (“believing God”) before work (circumcision).
Geisler shows the problem of Calvinists with “faith” and “work”:
“This reasoning, however, involves an equivocation on the word ‘do.’ Faith is something we ‘do’ in the sense that it involves an act of our will prompted by God’s grace. However, faith is not something we ‘do’ in the sense of a meritorious work necessary for God to give us salvation. Rather, it is something we exercise to receive salvation because we could not do anything to obtain salvation” (Norman Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, Second Edition.” Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, 198).
The word “believe” in Scripture is a verb, as the word “repent” is also a verb. And verbs are, by basic definition, “action words.” To repent and believe requires the person to “do” something. However, what is efficacious in the process is Christ’s work, not the faith of the person. Paul writes in Romans 3:26-28 that
“he [Christ] might be JUST AND THE JUSTIFIER of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where is boasting then? IT IS EXCLUDED. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:26-28, NKJV).
While believing is an action, it is not a work of the law. And when Scripture speaks of works, Scripture is referring to the works of the law. By the way, the Mosaic Law was God’s Law given to His people so that they could obey it. However, Paul makes it clear in Romans 3 that no one can keep the entire Law, no matter how hard they try (Rom. 3:23).
However, “the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3) is “the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 10:5). And the righteousness of faith has always been the message of the Old Testament. In the same chapter of Romans 10, Paul quotes Isaiah 28:16---“For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11, quoting Isaiah 28:16). In Romans 10:13, Paul quotes Joel 2:32---“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Even the Old Testament proclaimed that faith was required for salvation!
Salvation, however, is not something we “earn.” Salvation in Scripture is labeled as a “gift” (Rom. 6:23), and the works of human beings, labeled “wages of sin” lead to death.
Paul asks the congregation in Romans 4,
“What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, BUT NOT BEFORE GOD” (Rom. 4:1-2, NKJV).
Abraham cannot be justified by works before God; but, if God justified Abraham by “faith,” and “faith” is a work, then God justified Abraham by works. This contradicts Romans 4:2-3!!
Last but not least, look at Romans 4:5---
“But to HIM WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES ON HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).
It is faith in the one who “justifies,” who did the work of justification (Christ justified us with His blood), that man can ever be saved. Without Jesus’ work on the cross, we would still be yet in our sins--- no matter how great the faith!
The most comforting part of all of this (to me, at least) is that Geisler quotes a Calvinist who affirms what Geisler (and I) affirm here:
“J. Gresham Machen, himself a strong Calvinist, emphatically denied that faith is a kind of good work: ‘the faith of man, rightly conceived, CAN NEVER STAND IN OPPOSITION to the completeness with which salvation depends upon God: IT CAN NEVER MEAN THAT MAN DOES PART WHILE GOD MERELY DOES THE REST; for the simple reason that faith consists not in doing something but in receiving something’” (Norman Geisler, “Appendix Five: Is Faith A Gift Only To The Elect?” from “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, Second Edition.” Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 198).
According to Machen, “faith consists...in receiving something,” that is, “the gift of God,” which is “eternal life” (Rom. 6:23).
Think about Christmas, the holiday that just passed us. At Christmas, we received gifts from family and friends; but did we “earn” any of those gifts? Did we “deserve” those gifts? Were the gifts we received really “IOUs” in disguise? If they were, then they were wages (what jobs pay for work done). If they were not “IOUs,” then the gifts were not given according to merit. They were not “earned,” but freely given. Therefore, we did nothing to earn those gifts. And when you and I extended our hands to take those gifts we were given, did we do any “work” to receive those gifts? No, we did not! If we “earned” those gifts, then Calvinists should uphold their theology in practice and give their gifts back!!
Everyone knows that no one person “earned” their gifts when they took them from the hands of family and friends this Christmas. And if we didn’t do any “work” to receive gifts, then what would make Calvinists think that professing faith is a work, and that repenting and believing the gospel is a form of “works-righteousness”?
I think it’s a nice touch to have Calvinists like J. Gresham Machen admit that faith is not a work. It just places one more “seal of approval” on Classical Arminian theology...
After finishing up this past Fall semester, I took a vacation home with family for about 10 days to relax, kick back, and catch up on some sleep and family time. How I needed it!! I also got to read William Lane Craig’s “Time and Eternity” as well as Gregory Ganssle’s “God and Time: Four Views.” Both books discussed the philosophy of time and philosophy of language. I was intellectually blessed by Craig’s arguments for a dynamic view of time. In addition, it was good to get some time away from my typical theology reading. I love theology with all my heart---but sometimes, a study or two in philosophy always enhances my understanding of God, His Word, and what His Word has to say to those who believe.
Before I get into my first post of 2010 (how exciting!), I would like to take this time to enlighten the readership about what to expect in 2010. This Spring, I will be taking up a theological project in the study of Molinism, a theological/philosophical system advocated by Luis Molina in the Middle Ages. As I’ve learned by reading, Molina was not the first one to advocate such a view, but was the first to produce a formal layout of the theological view itself. One of the books I will be covering on the subject of Molinism this Spring is titled “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach” by Kenneth Donald Keathley, PhD. Interestingly enough, Dr. Keathley teaches Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. I attend Southeastern Seminary and took Dr. Keathley this past Fall semester for my final theology course in the Master of Divinity degree. Let me just say that I have never met a more humble, gracious, and knowledgeable man than Dr. Keathley...and I count it an honor to have sat under him for an entire semester. I was blessed by every single class lecture I had under him.
I know, I know...you’re thinking that, since Dr. Keathley was my professor, and since I value his work so much, that I must be biased---right? Well, I am a little biased. I suppose that all theologians (including me) should just come out and be honest about our biases. Therefore, I will say it loud and clear--- “I’m biased!”
However, I would like to recommend Dr. Keathley’s book on Molinism to all who are interested in studying more about a view Dr. Keathley so eloquently espouses. I will cover Molinism here or there throughout the Spring semester. I will really dive into it in my posts here this coming summer, when I will have had a chance to also read Molina’s “Concordia, Pt. IV.”
Over Thanksgiving Break, I sat down with Dr. Keathley and inquired about what reading material on Molinism I should acquire. He recommended Luis Molina’s “Concordia, Pt. IV,” “Divine Providence: A Molinist Account” by Thomas Flint, Kirk R. MacGregor’s “A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology,” and Keathley’s book on “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” I recommend these books to my readership in the hopes that, by the summer, you all may know more than I know (I’m pretty sure of it), and be able to enhance my knowledge as well. My goal is to educate my readers---but I also embrace the possibility that I, too, may be enlightened by the readership.
In today’s post, though, I am gonna deal with Norman Geisler’s discussion of faith and work in his book, “Chosen But Free.” Now, I wanna say that I’ve discussed the idea of faith as a work here at CTS; and I have argued that faith is NOT a work. Whenever the Scripture writers discuss faith and work, they always contrast the two, never equate them. For instance, in Romans 4, Paul shows that Abraham “believed God” (Gen. 15) before he was circumcised; this demonstrates faith (“believing God”) before work (circumcision).
Geisler shows the problem of Calvinists with “faith” and “work”:
“This reasoning, however, involves an equivocation on the word ‘do.’ Faith is something we ‘do’ in the sense that it involves an act of our will prompted by God’s grace. However, faith is not something we ‘do’ in the sense of a meritorious work necessary for God to give us salvation. Rather, it is something we exercise to receive salvation because we could not do anything to obtain salvation” (Norman Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, Second Edition.” Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, 198).
The word “believe” in Scripture is a verb, as the word “repent” is also a verb. And verbs are, by basic definition, “action words.” To repent and believe requires the person to “do” something. However, what is efficacious in the process is Christ’s work, not the faith of the person. Paul writes in Romans 3:26-28 that
“he [Christ] might be JUST AND THE JUSTIFIER of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where is boasting then? IT IS EXCLUDED. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:26-28, NKJV).
While believing is an action, it is not a work of the law. And when Scripture speaks of works, Scripture is referring to the works of the law. By the way, the Mosaic Law was God’s Law given to His people so that they could obey it. However, Paul makes it clear in Romans 3 that no one can keep the entire Law, no matter how hard they try (Rom. 3:23).
However, “the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3) is “the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 10:5). And the righteousness of faith has always been the message of the Old Testament. In the same chapter of Romans 10, Paul quotes Isaiah 28:16---“For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11, quoting Isaiah 28:16). In Romans 10:13, Paul quotes Joel 2:32---“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Even the Old Testament proclaimed that faith was required for salvation!
Salvation, however, is not something we “earn.” Salvation in Scripture is labeled as a “gift” (Rom. 6:23), and the works of human beings, labeled “wages of sin” lead to death.
Paul asks the congregation in Romans 4,
“What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, BUT NOT BEFORE GOD” (Rom. 4:1-2, NKJV).
Abraham cannot be justified by works before God; but, if God justified Abraham by “faith,” and “faith” is a work, then God justified Abraham by works. This contradicts Romans 4:2-3!!
Last but not least, look at Romans 4:5---
“But to HIM WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES ON HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).
It is faith in the one who “justifies,” who did the work of justification (Christ justified us with His blood), that man can ever be saved. Without Jesus’ work on the cross, we would still be yet in our sins--- no matter how great the faith!
The most comforting part of all of this (to me, at least) is that Geisler quotes a Calvinist who affirms what Geisler (and I) affirm here:
“J. Gresham Machen, himself a strong Calvinist, emphatically denied that faith is a kind of good work: ‘the faith of man, rightly conceived, CAN NEVER STAND IN OPPOSITION to the completeness with which salvation depends upon God: IT CAN NEVER MEAN THAT MAN DOES PART WHILE GOD MERELY DOES THE REST; for the simple reason that faith consists not in doing something but in receiving something’” (Norman Geisler, “Appendix Five: Is Faith A Gift Only To The Elect?” from “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, Second Edition.” Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 198).
According to Machen, “faith consists...in receiving something,” that is, “the gift of God,” which is “eternal life” (Rom. 6:23).
Think about Christmas, the holiday that just passed us. At Christmas, we received gifts from family and friends; but did we “earn” any of those gifts? Did we “deserve” those gifts? Were the gifts we received really “IOUs” in disguise? If they were, then they were wages (what jobs pay for work done). If they were not “IOUs,” then the gifts were not given according to merit. They were not “earned,” but freely given. Therefore, we did nothing to earn those gifts. And when you and I extended our hands to take those gifts we were given, did we do any “work” to receive those gifts? No, we did not! If we “earned” those gifts, then Calvinists should uphold their theology in practice and give their gifts back!!
Everyone knows that no one person “earned” their gifts when they took them from the hands of family and friends this Christmas. And if we didn’t do any “work” to receive gifts, then what would make Calvinists think that professing faith is a work, and that repenting and believing the gospel is a form of “works-righteousness”?
I think it’s a nice touch to have Calvinists like J. Gresham Machen admit that faith is not a work. It just places one more “seal of approval” on Classical Arminian theology...
Saturday, December 26, 2009
"The Fact That Not All Are Saved"
“The God of Scripture is able to save perfectly and completely all He desires to save: the fact that not all are saved leads inexorably to the truth of divine election. Therefore, CBF [“Chosen But Free” by Norman Geisler] denies this divine truth and instead replaces it with the idea of ‘determinately knowing’ already reviewed in chapter two" (James White, “The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s ‘Chosen But Free’”. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000, pages 99-100).
There are two problems with White’s quote that I desire to tackle. The first involves his quote regarding God: “The God of Scripture is able to save...all He desire to save.” Is God able to save everyone He wants to save? YES. The Bible is unwavering in its view of God as the Almighty Sovereign...
However, the Bible tells us something different about WHO God actually saves (than White and other Calvinists). While God desires ‘all’ (everyone) to be saved, He does not save everyone. Why? According to White, God doesn’t want to save everyone. To the contrary, Scripture has something different to say:
“Therefore, He is also able to save to the uttermost (completely) THOSE WHO COME TO GOD THROUGH HIM, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25, NKJV).
God will save, but He will save under ONE CONDITION: that we come to God by grace through faith in Christ. This is the way God has, in His Sovereignty, chosen to save some and not others.
In Hebrews 5:9, we are told that those who receive eternal salvation are “all who obey Him.” Obedience is the condition by which some are saved and others are not. In addition, Paul calls faith “the obedience” in Romans 1:5 (NKJV calls it “obedience to the faith”), demonstrating that to obey Christ is to have faith in Him. Jesus’ words in John chapters 3 and 5 testify to belief as the condition for eternal life:
John 3:15---“whoever believes”
John 3:16---“whoever believes”
John 3:18---“he who believes...is not condemned”
John 5:24---“he who hears My word and believes”
John 5:40---“you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life”
Further chapters in John show the same thing:
John 6:29---“this is the work of God, that you BELIEVE in Him whom He sent.”
John 6:40---“everyone who sees the Son and BELIEVES IN HIM...”
John 6:47---“he who BELIEVES in Me”
John the Baptist tells of belief in Christ (3:36), and even John’s prologue talks about those who believe being “as many as received Him...those who believe in His name” (1:12). Last but not least, John challenges his audience in chapter 20:
“But these [things] are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that BELIEVING you may have life in His name” (20:31).
I picked John’s Gospel as justification because the Gospel itself tends to be the favorite of Calvinists. And yet, there is so much Scripture pertaining to hearing His Word and believing in Him. I wonder what Calvinists say about these Scriptures? Hmmm...
Next, White claims that, because all do not come to Christ, Christ does not desire everyone to be saved. According to White, general revelation shows us truth about God: that God does not desire the salvation of everyone. However, Scripture also gives us truth about ourselves as human beings (Rom. 1:18-32), and the fact that many do not come to Christ is not because Christ doesn’t want them...but rather, they do not want Christ:
“because, although THEY KNEW GOD, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful...” (Rom. 1:18ff)
The heart of the matter is that, while man knows the truth, he refuses to live according to it. Instead, he “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). He chooses to live his life as though he were ignorant. As a result, God gives him over to his desire---if he wants to live as though he is depraved (1:28) in mind, then so be it; he will act as such.
James White and fellow Calvinists desire to place responsibility on God. But if God truly does desire the gospel to be preached to “every creature” (Mark 16:15), not just a select few, then doesn’t this imply universal opportunity for salvation? Surely it does! And it is this, coupled with the world-wide voice of creation (Rom. 10:17-18, Ps. 19:4) that testifies to a God who calls all people, every person, to Himself---while refusing to make them come...
There are two problems with White’s quote that I desire to tackle. The first involves his quote regarding God: “The God of Scripture is able to save...all He desire to save.” Is God able to save everyone He wants to save? YES. The Bible is unwavering in its view of God as the Almighty Sovereign...
However, the Bible tells us something different about WHO God actually saves (than White and other Calvinists). While God desires ‘all’ (everyone) to be saved, He does not save everyone. Why? According to White, God doesn’t want to save everyone. To the contrary, Scripture has something different to say:
“Therefore, He is also able to save to the uttermost (completely) THOSE WHO COME TO GOD THROUGH HIM, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25, NKJV).
God will save, but He will save under ONE CONDITION: that we come to God by grace through faith in Christ. This is the way God has, in His Sovereignty, chosen to save some and not others.
In Hebrews 5:9, we are told that those who receive eternal salvation are “all who obey Him.” Obedience is the condition by which some are saved and others are not. In addition, Paul calls faith “the obedience” in Romans 1:5 (NKJV calls it “obedience to the faith”), demonstrating that to obey Christ is to have faith in Him. Jesus’ words in John chapters 3 and 5 testify to belief as the condition for eternal life:
John 3:15---“whoever believes”
John 3:16---“whoever believes”
John 3:18---“he who believes...is not condemned”
John 5:24---“he who hears My word and believes”
John 5:40---“you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life”
Further chapters in John show the same thing:
John 6:29---“this is the work of God, that you BELIEVE in Him whom He sent.”
John 6:40---“everyone who sees the Son and BELIEVES IN HIM...”
John 6:47---“he who BELIEVES in Me”
John the Baptist tells of belief in Christ (3:36), and even John’s prologue talks about those who believe being “as many as received Him...those who believe in His name” (1:12). Last but not least, John challenges his audience in chapter 20:
“But these [things] are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that BELIEVING you may have life in His name” (20:31).
I picked John’s Gospel as justification because the Gospel itself tends to be the favorite of Calvinists. And yet, there is so much Scripture pertaining to hearing His Word and believing in Him. I wonder what Calvinists say about these Scriptures? Hmmm...
Next, White claims that, because all do not come to Christ, Christ does not desire everyone to be saved. According to White, general revelation shows us truth about God: that God does not desire the salvation of everyone. However, Scripture also gives us truth about ourselves as human beings (Rom. 1:18-32), and the fact that many do not come to Christ is not because Christ doesn’t want them...but rather, they do not want Christ:
“because, although THEY KNEW GOD, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful...” (Rom. 1:18ff)
The heart of the matter is that, while man knows the truth, he refuses to live according to it. Instead, he “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). He chooses to live his life as though he were ignorant. As a result, God gives him over to his desire---if he wants to live as though he is depraved (1:28) in mind, then so be it; he will act as such.
James White and fellow Calvinists desire to place responsibility on God. But if God truly does desire the gospel to be preached to “every creature” (Mark 16:15), not just a select few, then doesn’t this imply universal opportunity for salvation? Surely it does! And it is this, coupled with the world-wide voice of creation (Rom. 10:17-18, Ps. 19:4) that testifies to a God who calls all people, every person, to Himself---while refusing to make them come...
Friday, December 25, 2009
God's Freedom
“It seems that Dr. Geisler’s position leads inevitably to the latter: that in the final analysis, man is the one that actively, willfully, freely determines what takes place in the human realm. God’s ‘sovereignty,’ if we can use the term, is limited to giving the gift of freedom...God’s “responsibility” is limited to giving men freedom: NOWHERE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS DO WE SEE ANY EMPHASIS AT ALL UPON GOD’S FREEDOM. While it is definitional in Geisler’s view that man be free, it does not seemingly follow that when it comes to actions in time, it is definitional that God be free as well” (James White, “The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s ‘Chosen But Free’”. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000, pages 60-61).
According to James White, Geisler’s discussion of man and free will does not involve God’s freedom whatsoever. However, how was man given the freedom he has? He was given his freedom from God. And why did God give it? Well, as Calvinists are quick to state, God did it unconditionally---He was not bound to anyone or anything OUTSIDE OF HIMSELF that forced His hand or obligated Him to give man free will. The Lord decided to do this because He wanted to!
I do want to pause here for a moment and say that I think White is right: I think God’s freedom should be discussed. Don’t get me wrong---I’m not siding with White in regards to Calvinist theology; I think that Calvinism deprives man of his God-given dignity and privilege. However, he is right to require theologians to account for God’s freedom in man’s responsibility. If theologians do not start to address this, man’s freedom will begin to look like self-proclaimed autonomy and cultural accommodation!
Although I think James White is right in his point about God’s freedom, I still think his view of man’s responsibility is wrong. There is biblical evidence of God’s freedom in bestowing freedom and responsibility upon man. In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; LET THEM HAVE DOMINION...over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Gen. 1:26, NKJV).
In verse 29, God tells the couple (Adam and Eve), “See, I HAVE GIVEN YOU every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; TO YOU IT SHALL BE FOR FOOD” (Gen. 1:29, NKJV). God gave the plants to the animals for food as well---but God first talks to the human couple and mentions what He has done for them. And why did God do it? Because He wanted to. He was not forced to do it.
Here we see a consensus of all three Trinitarian persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the granting of privileges to God’s human creation. God is not coerced into doing this, hence, God’s freedom is present within the first chapter of Genesis.
In Genesis 1:28, God gives the couple explicit instructions: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28, NKJV).
The word here for “subdue” is “katakurieusate.” This Greek word is a compound word consisting of two words, “kata” (over) and “kurieusate” (to be lord, an imperative). Adam and Eve were “lords” over the earth; and what “lord” exists that does not have power? This is why wives are told in Scripture to “submit to your own husbands, AS TO THE LORD” (Eph. 5:22). While husbands are not “God,” they are “lord” of the home (Gen. 3:16, 1 Peter 3:6) and are to be respected as such. Because husbands are “lord” of the home, they have power in the home that the wife or the children do not have.
God’s freedom consists in His decisions to grant His image as well as certain privileges to His human creation. Not only is this the case with responsibility in the Garden, but also our responsibility to repent and believe the gospel (see my work on Romans 9-11).
I agree with White in the sense that more theologians need to discuss God’s freedom. However, I don’t think that God’s freedom NECESSITATES Him choosing some and damning others. While Arminians believe in the freedom of God (both Classical and “Open Theists”), they differ with Calvinists in the nature of God’s freedom; Arminians stress that God’s freedom resulted in Him granting salvation to all who believe, while Calvinists believe that God picks and chooses some for salvation and others for reprobation. Regardless of which side we fall on, we must be willing to assess the beliefs of the other side and match them up with the Scriptures.
According to James White, Geisler’s discussion of man and free will does not involve God’s freedom whatsoever. However, how was man given the freedom he has? He was given his freedom from God. And why did God give it? Well, as Calvinists are quick to state, God did it unconditionally---He was not bound to anyone or anything OUTSIDE OF HIMSELF that forced His hand or obligated Him to give man free will. The Lord decided to do this because He wanted to!
I do want to pause here for a moment and say that I think White is right: I think God’s freedom should be discussed. Don’t get me wrong---I’m not siding with White in regards to Calvinist theology; I think that Calvinism deprives man of his God-given dignity and privilege. However, he is right to require theologians to account for God’s freedom in man’s responsibility. If theologians do not start to address this, man’s freedom will begin to look like self-proclaimed autonomy and cultural accommodation!
Although I think James White is right in his point about God’s freedom, I still think his view of man’s responsibility is wrong. There is biblical evidence of God’s freedom in bestowing freedom and responsibility upon man. In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; LET THEM HAVE DOMINION...over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Gen. 1:26, NKJV).
In verse 29, God tells the couple (Adam and Eve), “See, I HAVE GIVEN YOU every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; TO YOU IT SHALL BE FOR FOOD” (Gen. 1:29, NKJV). God gave the plants to the animals for food as well---but God first talks to the human couple and mentions what He has done for them. And why did God do it? Because He wanted to. He was not forced to do it.
Here we see a consensus of all three Trinitarian persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the granting of privileges to God’s human creation. God is not coerced into doing this, hence, God’s freedom is present within the first chapter of Genesis.
In Genesis 1:28, God gives the couple explicit instructions: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28, NKJV).
The word here for “subdue” is “katakurieusate.” This Greek word is a compound word consisting of two words, “kata” (over) and “kurieusate” (to be lord, an imperative). Adam and Eve were “lords” over the earth; and what “lord” exists that does not have power? This is why wives are told in Scripture to “submit to your own husbands, AS TO THE LORD” (Eph. 5:22). While husbands are not “God,” they are “lord” of the home (Gen. 3:16, 1 Peter 3:6) and are to be respected as such. Because husbands are “lord” of the home, they have power in the home that the wife or the children do not have.
God’s freedom consists in His decisions to grant His image as well as certain privileges to His human creation. Not only is this the case with responsibility in the Garden, but also our responsibility to repent and believe the gospel (see my work on Romans 9-11).
I agree with White in the sense that more theologians need to discuss God’s freedom. However, I don’t think that God’s freedom NECESSITATES Him choosing some and damning others. While Arminians believe in the freedom of God (both Classical and “Open Theists”), they differ with Calvinists in the nature of God’s freedom; Arminians stress that God’s freedom resulted in Him granting salvation to all who believe, while Calvinists believe that God picks and chooses some for salvation and others for reprobation. Regardless of which side we fall on, we must be willing to assess the beliefs of the other side and match them up with the Scriptures.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
On Losing Salvation, Part I: Trashy Theology or Cherished Concept?
I am finished reading Norman Geisler’s work “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election.” After finishing the book, my curiosity drove me to read through some of the appendices. And one of the sections I wanted to read was titled “Appendix Four: Answering Objections to Free Will.” I noticed a statement Calvinists use in their attacks on self-determinism (free will allows man to make his own choices of his own choosing):
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (Norman L. Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election,” Second Edition. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 185).
I think it’s safe to say that most of the evangelical world believes that salvation comes by faith in Christ alone. While God is solely responsible for salvation’s existence, God does not select human beings for faith--- rather, He allows all who desire to be saved to come to Him by faith. Our faith, like Abraham’s, is what God counts as righteousness, not our works (Romans 4).
So “salvation is not dependent on man but God,” if by this statement Calvinists mean that God did the work of salvation. I would disagree with them when they say that God chooses people to be saved and damns others. In the words of Norman Geisler, “There are no conditions for God’s GIVING of salvation; it is wholly of grace. But THERE IS ONE (AND ONLY ONE) CONDITION FOR RECEIVING THIS GIFT---TRUE SAVING FAITH” (Chosen But Free, 185).
While God gives salvation of His own desire to do so, He bestows it upon those who come to Him by faith in Christ. The Lord gives salvation of Himself, and we receive salvation by faith in Him. There is nothing contradictory about the “give-and-take” relationship regarding salvation between God and man.
However, Calvinists do not stop there in their assessment of salvation. They go further:
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (185).
Since salvation is dependent on God (who gives it), it cannot be lost by man (who receives it). There is a problem here, though, regarding giving and receiving the gift of salvation. If a person gives a gift and I receive it, once I receive the gift, it is MY responsibility to guard the gift. The giver of the gift no longer has the right to “guard” the gift for me. The giver no longer has responsibility for the gift. No matter what happens to the gift, I am now responsible for it (since the gift is now in my possession). The giver of the gift cannot give me the gift and keep the gift at the same time, guard the gift for me, etc. Once the gift has been given to me, I am to keep the gift and put it to good use.
This is no different with salvation and the Christian life. Peter tells us that we are “stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10)and that we are to work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12). If this is true, then we are supposed to guard the grace that we have been given, whether it be spiritual gifts or the gift of salvation. God is not responsible for guarding that gift for us. We are responsible to Him and accountable in the end for what we have done with what God has given us.
Matthew 25 is probably the most outstanding chapter in all of Scripture that addresses this truth. Starting in verse 14, Jesus tells the parable of a man who goes into a country far away, and leaves his money in the hands of his servants. He gives to one five talents, to another two talents, and to another one talent. After a time, the master returns and calls each of the servants to come report on what they’ve done with the money. The first one gives a good report---he takes his five talents and makes five more. The second one also does well---he takes his two talents and makes two more. Both of these servants receive a “well done” (vv.21, 23).
What about the third servant? Well, he hid his master’s money in the ground. When he came before the master, he had an excuse:
“Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours” (vv.24, 25; NKJV).
The master was so outraged with the servant that he not only took the talent the servant had (v.28), but he also cast the lazy servant into “outer darkness” (v.30).
The parable itself is about the Lord, who is our Master. We are His servants, and the money represents the “talents” and abilities He has given us. For those of us who use our talents, we will be rewarded; but for those who abuse our talents and throw them away, we will suffer eternal punishment (v. 46).
Someone may very well say, “That’s all fine and good...but how does the parable of the talents connect with salvation?” Salvation itself is also a gift (Rom. 6:23), and we are charged not to neglect it (Hebrews 2:1-4). If we do, we will have to answer to God for how we wasted His grace. This is why the writer of Hebrews wrote,
“Therefore DO NOT CAST AWAY YOUR CONFIDENCE, which has great reward. For YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Heb. 10:35-36, NKJV).
The word for “cast away” (NKJV translation) in the Greek is “apoballo,” which means “to throw away, to take off, to lose.” The writer is saying that we should not throw away our assurance. And how can we do that? By not enduring: “for you HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE.” Our assurance comes with our endurance. Without endurance, we have no assurance of our faith in the end.
Losing salvation is viewed by many to be the most ridiculous teaching ever passed on in the church. However, I think there is more biblical evidence for it than has been previously believed. The early church fathers certainly believed that one could only have PRESENT assurance of salvation (not final or future) and Calvin himself argued that God does not always bestow grace forever upon a person: “Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure forever” (Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 11). In addition, he believed that God only gives “present mercy” to some (Book 3, Chap. 2, par. 11).
I will cover more on “losing salvation” in my next post.
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (Norman L. Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election,” Second Edition. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 185).
I think it’s safe to say that most of the evangelical world believes that salvation comes by faith in Christ alone. While God is solely responsible for salvation’s existence, God does not select human beings for faith--- rather, He allows all who desire to be saved to come to Him by faith. Our faith, like Abraham’s, is what God counts as righteousness, not our works (Romans 4).
So “salvation is not dependent on man but God,” if by this statement Calvinists mean that God did the work of salvation. I would disagree with them when they say that God chooses people to be saved and damns others. In the words of Norman Geisler, “There are no conditions for God’s GIVING of salvation; it is wholly of grace. But THERE IS ONE (AND ONLY ONE) CONDITION FOR RECEIVING THIS GIFT---TRUE SAVING FAITH” (Chosen But Free, 185).
While God gives salvation of His own desire to do so, He bestows it upon those who come to Him by faith in Christ. The Lord gives salvation of Himself, and we receive salvation by faith in Him. There is nothing contradictory about the “give-and-take” relationship regarding salvation between God and man.
However, Calvinists do not stop there in their assessment of salvation. They go further:
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (185).
Since salvation is dependent on God (who gives it), it cannot be lost by man (who receives it). There is a problem here, though, regarding giving and receiving the gift of salvation. If a person gives a gift and I receive it, once I receive the gift, it is MY responsibility to guard the gift. The giver of the gift no longer has the right to “guard” the gift for me. The giver no longer has responsibility for the gift. No matter what happens to the gift, I am now responsible for it (since the gift is now in my possession). The giver of the gift cannot give me the gift and keep the gift at the same time, guard the gift for me, etc. Once the gift has been given to me, I am to keep the gift and put it to good use.
This is no different with salvation and the Christian life. Peter tells us that we are “stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10)and that we are to work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12). If this is true, then we are supposed to guard the grace that we have been given, whether it be spiritual gifts or the gift of salvation. God is not responsible for guarding that gift for us. We are responsible to Him and accountable in the end for what we have done with what God has given us.
Matthew 25 is probably the most outstanding chapter in all of Scripture that addresses this truth. Starting in verse 14, Jesus tells the parable of a man who goes into a country far away, and leaves his money in the hands of his servants. He gives to one five talents, to another two talents, and to another one talent. After a time, the master returns and calls each of the servants to come report on what they’ve done with the money. The first one gives a good report---he takes his five talents and makes five more. The second one also does well---he takes his two talents and makes two more. Both of these servants receive a “well done” (vv.21, 23).
What about the third servant? Well, he hid his master’s money in the ground. When he came before the master, he had an excuse:
“Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours” (vv.24, 25; NKJV).
The master was so outraged with the servant that he not only took the talent the servant had (v.28), but he also cast the lazy servant into “outer darkness” (v.30).
The parable itself is about the Lord, who is our Master. We are His servants, and the money represents the “talents” and abilities He has given us. For those of us who use our talents, we will be rewarded; but for those who abuse our talents and throw them away, we will suffer eternal punishment (v. 46).
Someone may very well say, “That’s all fine and good...but how does the parable of the talents connect with salvation?” Salvation itself is also a gift (Rom. 6:23), and we are charged not to neglect it (Hebrews 2:1-4). If we do, we will have to answer to God for how we wasted His grace. This is why the writer of Hebrews wrote,
“Therefore DO NOT CAST AWAY YOUR CONFIDENCE, which has great reward. For YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Heb. 10:35-36, NKJV).
The word for “cast away” (NKJV translation) in the Greek is “apoballo,” which means “to throw away, to take off, to lose.” The writer is saying that we should not throw away our assurance. And how can we do that? By not enduring: “for you HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE.” Our assurance comes with our endurance. Without endurance, we have no assurance of our faith in the end.
Losing salvation is viewed by many to be the most ridiculous teaching ever passed on in the church. However, I think there is more biblical evidence for it than has been previously believed. The early church fathers certainly believed that one could only have PRESENT assurance of salvation (not final or future) and Calvin himself argued that God does not always bestow grace forever upon a person: “Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure forever” (Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 11). In addition, he believed that God only gives “present mercy” to some (Book 3, Chap. 2, par. 11).
I will cover more on “losing salvation” in my next post.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility in the Death of Christ
“Sometimes the twin truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility are expressed in the same passage. In one of the texts just mentioned [Acts 2:23], both God’s predetermination and man’s wicked free choice are present: ‘This man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s SET PURPOSE AND FOREKNOWLEDGE, and YOU...PUT HIM TO DEATH by nailing him to the cross’ (Acts 2:23). As before, while GOD DETERMINED THEIR ACTIONS FROM ALL ETERNITY, nevertheless, those who carried out the crucifying of Jesus were free to perform these actions---and were morally responsible for them. Here again, it is not either sovereignty or free choice; it is both sovereignty and free choice” (Dr. Norman L. Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election,” Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 39).
I’ve started a bit of new reading regarding divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Let’s just say that, every now and then, it’s good to have some material that helps you review the things you’ve studied. I’ve been blessed this year (2009) to study the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in massive detail. After over 40 books on the subject, let me admit with humility that there’s still so much I don’t know! What I have learned, however, I share with God’s people. And it is with this attitude that I approach Geisler’s book.
The above quoted Bible verse, Acts 2:23, is used in discussions of sovereignty and responsibility all the time! Notice that Geisler believes that “God determined their [the men] actions from all eternity.” First, though, I want to say that this contradicts what Geisler wrote several pages earlier in his work:
“God is morally accountable for giving the good thing called free will, but HE IS NOT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for all the evil we do with our freedom. Solomon said it well: ‘This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes’ (Eccl. 7:29). In brief, God made the FACT of freedom; we are responsible for the ACTS of freedom. The fact of freedom is good, even though some acts of freedom are evil. God is the cause of the former, and we are the cause of the latter” (Geisler, “Chosen But Free,” page 23).
If men are the cause of their own evil actions, then what makes Geisler believe that the actions of the men in Jesus’ Crucifixion were PREDETERMINED BEFORE TIME with God? Which is it? Either the acts are determined or they are not.
Next, there is the philosophical error with Geisler’s claim. A choice can be “limited,” but not “determined.” There is no such thing as a “determined choice” in reality. The phrase “determined choice” is a logical impossibility, and the Lord Himself is able to do anything EXCEPT logical impossibilities (such as a square circle and round square, etc.). A determined choice is no choice at all!
Then, look at the text itself: Jesus was crucified “by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God...” (Acts 2:23, NKJV) When we look at the verse, we see God’s plan and God’s foreknowledge mentioned.
I have a question: why did Jesus die on the cross? Did He die because the Father felt like sending Him? Did He die because the Father got bored in heaven and needed a little excitement? No---He died because of the FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE SINS OF MANKIND! Jesus died because of the foreknowledge of sin in the Garden of Eden as well as all the sins that would follow. Hebrews records the following:
“...but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26b, NKJV).
Jesus gave Himself for the sins of man. It was the foreknowledge of man’s sin that put Jesus on the cross (not just the Father’s spontaneous declaration of Jesus’ Crucifixion).
The question now becomes, “well, if Jesus died for the sins of the world, then why did man sin?” How was man allowed to sin? Man was allowed to sin because God gave man a free will by which man was to make true, genuine choices. I ask Calvinists here: if man does not have a free will and can make choices, then how do we explain man’s sin producing such an effect that Jesus had to be offered up for it? Man’s sin is of such spiritual significance that even Christ, God’s ONLY Son, must pay the price for it! Man’s choice, although wrong, was pretty powerful. Why then, do Calvinists seek to weaken man’s choice today? It still remains potent---even if all we have a tendency to do with our freedom is sin.
Because God allows man to make decisions (like Adam naming the animals in the Garden, for example), God PREDETERMINED man’s ability to make choices. He PREDETERMINED MAN’S FREE WILL! However, I agree with Geisler here in that, while man has been predetermined to make choices (and given the power to do so), God is not responsible for what man does with his free will. Only man is responsible for that.
If we can see why Jesus was sent to the cross in the first place, it would help us understand the actions of the men involved in Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. In God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, He knew that the men involved would do what they did. God allowed these things to happen in that, while He predetermined their ability to do what they did, He did not CAUSE them to do what they did (Pilate, for instance, did not have to hand over Jesus; after all, he did believe that Jesus was an innocent man). Rather, God incorporated the evil actions of these men into His Sovereign Plan to redeem the world through His Son.
I think foreknowledge is listed in Peter’s sermon to offset God being identified with evil. While God actively decreed the death of His Son (because of His righteous judgment), He did not decree the individual actions of the sinful men involved (He only decreed their POTENTIAL or ABILITY to perform such evil deeds). Rather, the deeds of the wicked men involved were deeds of their own choosing.
I’ve started a bit of new reading regarding divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Let’s just say that, every now and then, it’s good to have some material that helps you review the things you’ve studied. I’ve been blessed this year (2009) to study the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in massive detail. After over 40 books on the subject, let me admit with humility that there’s still so much I don’t know! What I have learned, however, I share with God’s people. And it is with this attitude that I approach Geisler’s book.
The above quoted Bible verse, Acts 2:23, is used in discussions of sovereignty and responsibility all the time! Notice that Geisler believes that “God determined their [the men] actions from all eternity.” First, though, I want to say that this contradicts what Geisler wrote several pages earlier in his work:
“God is morally accountable for giving the good thing called free will, but HE IS NOT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for all the evil we do with our freedom. Solomon said it well: ‘This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes’ (Eccl. 7:29). In brief, God made the FACT of freedom; we are responsible for the ACTS of freedom. The fact of freedom is good, even though some acts of freedom are evil. God is the cause of the former, and we are the cause of the latter” (Geisler, “Chosen But Free,” page 23).
If men are the cause of their own evil actions, then what makes Geisler believe that the actions of the men in Jesus’ Crucifixion were PREDETERMINED BEFORE TIME with God? Which is it? Either the acts are determined or they are not.
Next, there is the philosophical error with Geisler’s claim. A choice can be “limited,” but not “determined.” There is no such thing as a “determined choice” in reality. The phrase “determined choice” is a logical impossibility, and the Lord Himself is able to do anything EXCEPT logical impossibilities (such as a square circle and round square, etc.). A determined choice is no choice at all!
Then, look at the text itself: Jesus was crucified “by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God...” (Acts 2:23, NKJV) When we look at the verse, we see God’s plan and God’s foreknowledge mentioned.
I have a question: why did Jesus die on the cross? Did He die because the Father felt like sending Him? Did He die because the Father got bored in heaven and needed a little excitement? No---He died because of the FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE SINS OF MANKIND! Jesus died because of the foreknowledge of sin in the Garden of Eden as well as all the sins that would follow. Hebrews records the following:
“...but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26b, NKJV).
Jesus gave Himself for the sins of man. It was the foreknowledge of man’s sin that put Jesus on the cross (not just the Father’s spontaneous declaration of Jesus’ Crucifixion).
The question now becomes, “well, if Jesus died for the sins of the world, then why did man sin?” How was man allowed to sin? Man was allowed to sin because God gave man a free will by which man was to make true, genuine choices. I ask Calvinists here: if man does not have a free will and can make choices, then how do we explain man’s sin producing such an effect that Jesus had to be offered up for it? Man’s sin is of such spiritual significance that even Christ, God’s ONLY Son, must pay the price for it! Man’s choice, although wrong, was pretty powerful. Why then, do Calvinists seek to weaken man’s choice today? It still remains potent---even if all we have a tendency to do with our freedom is sin.
Because God allows man to make decisions (like Adam naming the animals in the Garden, for example), God PREDETERMINED man’s ability to make choices. He PREDETERMINED MAN’S FREE WILL! However, I agree with Geisler here in that, while man has been predetermined to make choices (and given the power to do so), God is not responsible for what man does with his free will. Only man is responsible for that.
If we can see why Jesus was sent to the cross in the first place, it would help us understand the actions of the men involved in Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. In God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, He knew that the men involved would do what they did. God allowed these things to happen in that, while He predetermined their ability to do what they did, He did not CAUSE them to do what they did (Pilate, for instance, did not have to hand over Jesus; after all, he did believe that Jesus was an innocent man). Rather, God incorporated the evil actions of these men into His Sovereign Plan to redeem the world through His Son.
I think foreknowledge is listed in Peter’s sermon to offset God being identified with evil. While God actively decreed the death of His Son (because of His righteous judgment), He did not decree the individual actions of the sinful men involved (He only decreed their POTENTIAL or ABILITY to perform such evil deeds). Rather, the deeds of the wicked men involved were deeds of their own choosing.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
"Actually Escaped"
In the numerous books on Calvinism out in stores and on the internet, many will discuss the text of 2 Peter 2:20-22. And in many cases, there will be exposition on the false teachers--- how they left the faith and were never saved to begin with.
And I’m not going to disagree with that statement. It’s one thing to fall away from the faith...and another entirely to go on a campaign against the faith. To campaign and strategize “against” the faith is to declare oneself an enemy of the cross. Those who do so hate Christ and want His truth eradicated at all costs. They will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to bring Christ’s kingdom down (and to demolish His will being done in the lives of His people).
Robert Peterson is no different in his attack on the false teachers. He writes:
“I hold this view [false teachers as unregenerate] for three reasons. First, Lucas and Green correctly point to verse 22 as aiding in the interpretation of the false teachers’ identity. In the proverb, the dog and pig do not change nature---they remain unclean animals. Similarly, though the false teachers experience outward changes, they are never regenerated.
Second, as Lucas and Green mention, Jesus refers to unbelievers as ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ in Matthew 7:6, and Peter likely uses these terms in the same way in 2 Peter 2:22. Therefore, Peter’s comparison of the false teachers to the same animals makes it more likely that he regards them as unbelievers than as apostate Christians. Third, we noted that Peter quotes Proverbs 26:11 in verse 22. And the ‘fool’ of Proverbs 26:1-12 is better understood as a person never saved than as a believer who later repudiated his faith. Peter’s description of the false teachers in 2 Peter 2:20-21, then, when considered in light of verse 22, the Old Testament background of that verse’s first proverb, and Jesus’ saying in Matthew 7:6, leads me to regard the teachers as unregenerate persons affected for a time by Christian morality” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, pages 184-185).
I will not disagree with Peterson regarding false teachers. However, I think Calvinists should engage Arminians not on the false teachers, but those who are enticed by the false teachers:
“For when they [false teachers] they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY ESCAPED FROM THOSE WHO LIVE IN ERROR” (2 Peter 2:18, NKJV).
The word here for “actually” in the Greek is “oligos,” meaning “scarcely, barely.” The word “oligos” is a Greek word from which our English word “oligarchy” comes. An oligarchy refers to a few people in control over a territory. So those who “scarcely” or “barely” escape leave the corruption of the world by “small” increments. While they have come to Christ, they have made the right decision but still yearn in some sense for the things of the world. These people, then, are those who, like the soil that falls away in Jesus’ parable of the Sower, “have no root” (Lk. 8:13). However, according to Peter, they have still escaped the world. They are saved, even if they are “barely” saved!
My question to Peterson and all Calvinists would be, “What about those who have ‘actually escaped’? What about those who are saved, but are “barely” saved? What about this group? I think it’s easy to sit and debate about the false teachers...but it’s a lot harder to talk about this group that, while believing, is still very much in love with the things of the world (still lusts for the things of the world). These people, then, the “barely-escapers,” have begun to listen to the words of the false teachers. Are the followers saved?
I want Peterson and all other Calvinists to tackle this little thorny problem in 2 Peter 2:18. If the followers of 2 Peter 2:18 are saved, can they return to the world? And if so, does this mean that they were saved?
If we are faithful to the biblical text, we have to admit that the followers are saved. However, they are “barely” saved...and what does this mean? That, unless they continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18), they too can become entangled with the world again. This doesn’t mean that they were never saved---it just means that they fell away because of temptation.
And I’m not going to disagree with that statement. It’s one thing to fall away from the faith...and another entirely to go on a campaign against the faith. To campaign and strategize “against” the faith is to declare oneself an enemy of the cross. Those who do so hate Christ and want His truth eradicated at all costs. They will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to bring Christ’s kingdom down (and to demolish His will being done in the lives of His people).
Robert Peterson is no different in his attack on the false teachers. He writes:
“I hold this view [false teachers as unregenerate] for three reasons. First, Lucas and Green correctly point to verse 22 as aiding in the interpretation of the false teachers’ identity. In the proverb, the dog and pig do not change nature---they remain unclean animals. Similarly, though the false teachers experience outward changes, they are never regenerated.
Second, as Lucas and Green mention, Jesus refers to unbelievers as ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ in Matthew 7:6, and Peter likely uses these terms in the same way in 2 Peter 2:22. Therefore, Peter’s comparison of the false teachers to the same animals makes it more likely that he regards them as unbelievers than as apostate Christians. Third, we noted that Peter quotes Proverbs 26:11 in verse 22. And the ‘fool’ of Proverbs 26:1-12 is better understood as a person never saved than as a believer who later repudiated his faith. Peter’s description of the false teachers in 2 Peter 2:20-21, then, when considered in light of verse 22, the Old Testament background of that verse’s first proverb, and Jesus’ saying in Matthew 7:6, leads me to regard the teachers as unregenerate persons affected for a time by Christian morality” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, pages 184-185).
I will not disagree with Peterson regarding false teachers. However, I think Calvinists should engage Arminians not on the false teachers, but those who are enticed by the false teachers:
“For when they [false teachers] they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY ESCAPED FROM THOSE WHO LIVE IN ERROR” (2 Peter 2:18, NKJV).
The word here for “actually” in the Greek is “oligos,” meaning “scarcely, barely.” The word “oligos” is a Greek word from which our English word “oligarchy” comes. An oligarchy refers to a few people in control over a territory. So those who “scarcely” or “barely” escape leave the corruption of the world by “small” increments. While they have come to Christ, they have made the right decision but still yearn in some sense for the things of the world. These people, then, are those who, like the soil that falls away in Jesus’ parable of the Sower, “have no root” (Lk. 8:13). However, according to Peter, they have still escaped the world. They are saved, even if they are “barely” saved!
My question to Peterson and all Calvinists would be, “What about those who have ‘actually escaped’? What about those who are saved, but are “barely” saved? What about this group? I think it’s easy to sit and debate about the false teachers...but it’s a lot harder to talk about this group that, while believing, is still very much in love with the things of the world (still lusts for the things of the world). These people, then, the “barely-escapers,” have begun to listen to the words of the false teachers. Are the followers saved?
I want Peterson and all other Calvinists to tackle this little thorny problem in 2 Peter 2:18. If the followers of 2 Peter 2:18 are saved, can they return to the world? And if so, does this mean that they were saved?
If we are faithful to the biblical text, we have to admit that the followers are saved. However, they are “barely” saved...and what does this mean? That, unless they continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18), they too can become entangled with the world again. This doesn’t mean that they were never saved---it just means that they fell away because of temptation.
Monday, December 21, 2009
God's Fault?
“Fruitfulness, therefore, is evidence of salvation and preservation, and fruitfulness is evidence of the opposite. So, ‘every branch that does not bear fruit’ is cut off, discarded, ‘thrown into the fire, and burned’ (John 15:2, 6). Fruitlessness reveals no eternal life, because God’s salvation is real and shows up in fruit (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:7-8). This is the problem in passage after passage in Paul’s condemnation of the false teachers in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. In a word, ‘they profess to know God, but deny him by their works’ (Titus 1:16). If professed Christians do not persevere, this is a very bad sign. IT MAY POINT TO THE FACT THAT GOD HAS NOT SAVED AND PRESERVED THEM” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 203).
The sentence in the above quote (capitalized) is probably the most shocking statement I’ve read in any book in regards to the Calvinist-Arminian debate (second to the idea that God reprobates men and women to hell from before the foundation of the world). I think what is most shocking about the quote is that it blames God for the fact that some believers do not persevere.
Most Calvinists that I know will argue that God picks people; but they will then turn around and blame the person for not persevering. In fact, I engaged in a conversation with a Calvinist friend of mine once. She told me that if a person does not persevere, that they were not sincere about their faith. What I told her is, that if the person was saved at some point, and God chose the person to be saved (which is the Calvinist presupposition), then it is “God’s fault” that the person did not persevere. According to the Calvinist perspective, God “let the rug out from under” the person, and so stole their perseverance. Augustine argues in a work called “The Gift of Perseverance” that EVEN SOME OF THE ELECT do not get perseverance! In Augustine’s view, there are the non-elect, the elect with perseverance, and the elect without perseverance. So even if you’re part of the “elect,” you can still not be sure that you will finally reach eternal life.
Calvin follows this same train of thought in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion”:
“Perseverance is the gift of God, which he does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he pleases. If it is asked how the difference arises---why some steadily persevere, and others prove deficient in steadfastness, we can give no other reason than that the Lord, by his mighty power, strengthens and sustains the former, so that they perish not, while he does not furnish the same assistance to the latter, but leaves them to be monuments of instability” (Book 2, Chap. 5, Paragraph 3).
In another place, Calvin distinguishes the “superior grace” of the elect from the “inferior grace” of the non-elect:
“Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only forever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an INFERIOR OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT from taking its course in the reprobate...the reprobate NEVER HAVE ANY OTHER THAN A CONFUSED SENSE OF GRACE, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only...the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. HE ONLY GIVES THEM A MANIFESTATION OF HIS PRESENT MERCY...THUS WE DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION THAT IF GOD TRULY DISPLAYS HIS GRACE, IT MUST ENDURE FOREVER. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterward proves evanescent” (Book 3, Chap. 2, paragraph 11).
Last but not least, this is probably the most well-known of Calvin’s shocking statements:
“There is a special call which, FOR THE MOST PART, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. SOMETIMES, HOWEVER, HE COMMUNICATES IT ALSO TO THOSE WHOM HE ENLIGHTENS ONLY FOR A TIME, and whom afterwards, IN JUST PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR INGRATITUDE, HE ABANDONS AND SMITES WITH GREATER BLINDNESS” (Book 3, Chap. 14, Paragraph 8).
So even some of the non-elect receive the special call. Then, “in just punishment for their ingratitude” (whatever this means), the Lord ABANDONS THEM!
I wanted to quote Calvin here after Peterson to let you, the readers, see that Peterson is being a cold, but consistent Calvinist. Calvin himself explained away the soil that believed for a while (Luke 8) by saying that God removed his grace from the person. Remember his words above about grace? “Thus we dispose of the objection that if God truly displays His grace, it must endure forever.”
As hard as it is for most people to believe, Peterson is being consistent in his theology. If someone doesn’t persevere to the end, whose fault is it? God’s. Most people will respond and say, “well, it was that person’s fault”; but in the Calvinist system, people are picked by God to be saved...and, should they fall, they fall because God “lets the trampoline go from under them.” God “pulls out the rug from under them” and kicks them to destruction. In the Calvinist system, the person’s responsibility is absent from the scene altogether!
And this is what is so dangerous about Peterson’s conclusions regarding perseverance and apostasy. If God preserves a person no matter what he or she does (because He has handpicked him or her for salvation), then how does their choice work? How does man’s responsibility and action work? If man will infallibly persevere because God picked him, then man’s choices and responsibility play no role in the Bible whatsoever---or in man’s relationship with God. Peterson, like many Calvinists, cannot claim that divine sovereignty and human responsibility work (Peterson’s book “Election and Free Will”) and then turn around and argue that God necessarily keeps us to the end (which negates man’s responsibility of perseverance). If God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are actual and real BEFORE coming to faith (God completes the work of salvation and man believes in Christ), then divine sovereignty and human responsibility also matter AFTER a person is in the faith (God supplies the strength man needs, while man continues to have faith and perseverance until the end). In both the PRE- and POST- salvation states, God gives us what we need (faith and the fruit of the Spirit post-conversion) to please Him; and we use what He gives us for His glory, to live lives according to His Word.
The sentence in the above quote (capitalized) is probably the most shocking statement I’ve read in any book in regards to the Calvinist-Arminian debate (second to the idea that God reprobates men and women to hell from before the foundation of the world). I think what is most shocking about the quote is that it blames God for the fact that some believers do not persevere.
Most Calvinists that I know will argue that God picks people; but they will then turn around and blame the person for not persevering. In fact, I engaged in a conversation with a Calvinist friend of mine once. She told me that if a person does not persevere, that they were not sincere about their faith. What I told her is, that if the person was saved at some point, and God chose the person to be saved (which is the Calvinist presupposition), then it is “God’s fault” that the person did not persevere. According to the Calvinist perspective, God “let the rug out from under” the person, and so stole their perseverance. Augustine argues in a work called “The Gift of Perseverance” that EVEN SOME OF THE ELECT do not get perseverance! In Augustine’s view, there are the non-elect, the elect with perseverance, and the elect without perseverance. So even if you’re part of the “elect,” you can still not be sure that you will finally reach eternal life.
Calvin follows this same train of thought in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion”:
“Perseverance is the gift of God, which he does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he pleases. If it is asked how the difference arises---why some steadily persevere, and others prove deficient in steadfastness, we can give no other reason than that the Lord, by his mighty power, strengthens and sustains the former, so that they perish not, while he does not furnish the same assistance to the latter, but leaves them to be monuments of instability” (Book 2, Chap. 5, Paragraph 3).
In another place, Calvin distinguishes the “superior grace” of the elect from the “inferior grace” of the non-elect:
“Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only forever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an INFERIOR OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT from taking its course in the reprobate...the reprobate NEVER HAVE ANY OTHER THAN A CONFUSED SENSE OF GRACE, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only...the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. HE ONLY GIVES THEM A MANIFESTATION OF HIS PRESENT MERCY...THUS WE DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION THAT IF GOD TRULY DISPLAYS HIS GRACE, IT MUST ENDURE FOREVER. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterward proves evanescent” (Book 3, Chap. 2, paragraph 11).
Last but not least, this is probably the most well-known of Calvin’s shocking statements:
“There is a special call which, FOR THE MOST PART, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. SOMETIMES, HOWEVER, HE COMMUNICATES IT ALSO TO THOSE WHOM HE ENLIGHTENS ONLY FOR A TIME, and whom afterwards, IN JUST PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR INGRATITUDE, HE ABANDONS AND SMITES WITH GREATER BLINDNESS” (Book 3, Chap. 14, Paragraph 8).
So even some of the non-elect receive the special call. Then, “in just punishment for their ingratitude” (whatever this means), the Lord ABANDONS THEM!
I wanted to quote Calvin here after Peterson to let you, the readers, see that Peterson is being a cold, but consistent Calvinist. Calvin himself explained away the soil that believed for a while (Luke 8) by saying that God removed his grace from the person. Remember his words above about grace? “Thus we dispose of the objection that if God truly displays His grace, it must endure forever.”
As hard as it is for most people to believe, Peterson is being consistent in his theology. If someone doesn’t persevere to the end, whose fault is it? God’s. Most people will respond and say, “well, it was that person’s fault”; but in the Calvinist system, people are picked by God to be saved...and, should they fall, they fall because God “lets the trampoline go from under them.” God “pulls out the rug from under them” and kicks them to destruction. In the Calvinist system, the person’s responsibility is absent from the scene altogether!
And this is what is so dangerous about Peterson’s conclusions regarding perseverance and apostasy. If God preserves a person no matter what he or she does (because He has handpicked him or her for salvation), then how does their choice work? How does man’s responsibility and action work? If man will infallibly persevere because God picked him, then man’s choices and responsibility play no role in the Bible whatsoever---or in man’s relationship with God. Peterson, like many Calvinists, cannot claim that divine sovereignty and human responsibility work (Peterson’s book “Election and Free Will”) and then turn around and argue that God necessarily keeps us to the end (which negates man’s responsibility of perseverance). If God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are actual and real BEFORE coming to faith (God completes the work of salvation and man believes in Christ), then divine sovereignty and human responsibility also matter AFTER a person is in the faith (God supplies the strength man needs, while man continues to have faith and perseverance until the end). In both the PRE- and POST- salvation states, God gives us what we need (faith and the fruit of the Spirit post-conversion) to please Him; and we use what He gives us for His glory, to live lives according to His Word.
Inclusive Language
“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23, NKJV).
To whom does Jesus refer in Luke 9:23? The only way of knowing the answer to this question is to look at the language Jesus uses. He refers to “anyone,” which is the indefinite pronoun “tis.” An indefinite pronoun uses inclusive language, or “language that includes everyone.” Because “tis” is an indefinite pronoun, everyone is involved here. So when Jesus says “if anyone” wants to follow Him, He is alerting the disciples that everyone CAN follow Him, but those who so choose MUST do the following things that He lists in the verse above. Following Jesus comes with conditions; either we accept those or nothing at all.
“Tis,” as stated above, is an indefinite pronoun. If this is the case, why then, does Robert Peterson make the indefinite pronoun DEFINITE? In his work on “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy,” he makes the following comment regarding Hebrews:
“This emphasis on individuals fits with my view that although the writer is assured of the spiritual status of the preponderance of his audience, he has real concerns for a SHAKY MINORITY in the congregation. It is individuals in this minority who are addressed in the texts above” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 174).
Peterson advocates a view of Hebrews where a “shaky minority” is thinking about turning back to Judaism. However, upon close reading of the verses Peterson mentions, one will see that the language includes everybody and does not single out one person over another. Let’s look at Peterson’s evidence:
“Beware brethren, lest there be in ANY OF YOU an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12-13, NKJV).
How is the language of Hebrews 3 singling out a minority? The writer refers to “any of you.” Now, imagine that a friend sits five monetary bills in front of me ($5, $10, $20, $50, $100) and says, “you can pick any one of these bills for a Christmas gift.” I can pick the $5 so as to not offend their generosity...or I can pick the $100 bill and walk away extremely happy! If the person says that I can pick “ANY ONE” of the bills placed in front of me, then all five bills are available to be chosen. None of the five bills are excluded.
If this is the case, then with Hebrews 3, “any of you” refers to ANY MEMBER of the entire congregation, not a shaky minority.
Peterson points out another verse:
“Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest ANY OF YOU seem to have come short of it” (Hebrews 4:1, NKJV).
Once again, we see the words “any of you,” referring to “anyone of you.” The word for “any” here is “tis,” which, as I stated above (with Luke 9), is an indefinite pronoun. If the word is an INDEFINITE pronoun, then how can it be referring to a DEFINITE group of the congregation (and not the entire congregation itself)?
What about Hebrews 6:11?
“And we desire that EACH (Gk. hekaston) ONE OF YOU show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end” (Heb. 6:11, NKJV).
Go back to my dollar bill example. If “each one of these bills” or “any one of these bills” I can take, then the $100 bill is just as much an option as the $5 or $10 bill. None of the bills are excluded. Once again, I don’t see here how the writer of Hebrews is distinguishing between a “saved majority” and a “shaky minority.” He refers to “each one of you,” which means that he is giving great care to EVERY PERSON in the congregation.
The next example Peterson uses comes from Hebrews 12:
“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which NO ONE will see the Lord; looking carefully lest ANYONE fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled” (Heb. 12:14-15, NKJV).
The Greek word for “anyone” is our favorite word again---“TIS”! Once again, as an indefinite pronoun, the word refers to ANY MEMBER OF THE CONGREGATION! There is no “shaky minority” here. Look at verse 15: “any root of bitterness” can cause “many” to “become defiled.” This shows that one person hardened by sin can lead many others down a destructive path. Many can “become defiled,” which means that they were not defiled before. No one is immune from sin and its deleterious effects.
Peterson claims that the warnings refer to certain people in the congregation...but as we’ve seen, the words refer to “anyone” and “each one” of the members of the congregation. No one seriously believes that Jesus’ reference in Luke 9 refers to “a believing minority” of those who choose to follow Christ (and excluding others). If Luke 9’s “anyone” refers to any person, then why not Hebrews? Why must Hebrews refer to a “shaky minority” instead of the entire congregation (whether shaky or not)?
I think it’s good to defend what you believe; but when Scripture works against it, we should acknowledge that our belief is our “preference” and not “scripturally prescribed.” I think Peterson would do well to acknowledge his preference here. Other Calvinists have done so (as did Buist Fanning; see my posts on the “Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews”)...and Peterson does not have to be an exception to the rule.
To whom does Jesus refer in Luke 9:23? The only way of knowing the answer to this question is to look at the language Jesus uses. He refers to “anyone,” which is the indefinite pronoun “tis.” An indefinite pronoun uses inclusive language, or “language that includes everyone.” Because “tis” is an indefinite pronoun, everyone is involved here. So when Jesus says “if anyone” wants to follow Him, He is alerting the disciples that everyone CAN follow Him, but those who so choose MUST do the following things that He lists in the verse above. Following Jesus comes with conditions; either we accept those or nothing at all.
“Tis,” as stated above, is an indefinite pronoun. If this is the case, why then, does Robert Peterson make the indefinite pronoun DEFINITE? In his work on “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy,” he makes the following comment regarding Hebrews:
“This emphasis on individuals fits with my view that although the writer is assured of the spiritual status of the preponderance of his audience, he has real concerns for a SHAKY MINORITY in the congregation. It is individuals in this minority who are addressed in the texts above” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 174).
Peterson advocates a view of Hebrews where a “shaky minority” is thinking about turning back to Judaism. However, upon close reading of the verses Peterson mentions, one will see that the language includes everybody and does not single out one person over another. Let’s look at Peterson’s evidence:
“Beware brethren, lest there be in ANY OF YOU an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12-13, NKJV).
How is the language of Hebrews 3 singling out a minority? The writer refers to “any of you.” Now, imagine that a friend sits five monetary bills in front of me ($5, $10, $20, $50, $100) and says, “you can pick any one of these bills for a Christmas gift.” I can pick the $5 so as to not offend their generosity...or I can pick the $100 bill and walk away extremely happy! If the person says that I can pick “ANY ONE” of the bills placed in front of me, then all five bills are available to be chosen. None of the five bills are excluded.
If this is the case, then with Hebrews 3, “any of you” refers to ANY MEMBER of the entire congregation, not a shaky minority.
Peterson points out another verse:
“Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest ANY OF YOU seem to have come short of it” (Hebrews 4:1, NKJV).
Once again, we see the words “any of you,” referring to “anyone of you.” The word for “any” here is “tis,” which, as I stated above (with Luke 9), is an indefinite pronoun. If the word is an INDEFINITE pronoun, then how can it be referring to a DEFINITE group of the congregation (and not the entire congregation itself)?
What about Hebrews 6:11?
“And we desire that EACH (Gk. hekaston) ONE OF YOU show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end” (Heb. 6:11, NKJV).
Go back to my dollar bill example. If “each one of these bills” or “any one of these bills” I can take, then the $100 bill is just as much an option as the $5 or $10 bill. None of the bills are excluded. Once again, I don’t see here how the writer of Hebrews is distinguishing between a “saved majority” and a “shaky minority.” He refers to “each one of you,” which means that he is giving great care to EVERY PERSON in the congregation.
The next example Peterson uses comes from Hebrews 12:
“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which NO ONE will see the Lord; looking carefully lest ANYONE fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled” (Heb. 12:14-15, NKJV).
The Greek word for “anyone” is our favorite word again---“TIS”! Once again, as an indefinite pronoun, the word refers to ANY MEMBER OF THE CONGREGATION! There is no “shaky minority” here. Look at verse 15: “any root of bitterness” can cause “many” to “become defiled.” This shows that one person hardened by sin can lead many others down a destructive path. Many can “become defiled,” which means that they were not defiled before. No one is immune from sin and its deleterious effects.
Peterson claims that the warnings refer to certain people in the congregation...but as we’ve seen, the words refer to “anyone” and “each one” of the members of the congregation. No one seriously believes that Jesus’ reference in Luke 9 refers to “a believing minority” of those who choose to follow Christ (and excluding others). If Luke 9’s “anyone” refers to any person, then why not Hebrews? Why must Hebrews refer to a “shaky minority” instead of the entire congregation (whether shaky or not)?
I think it’s good to defend what you believe; but when Scripture works against it, we should acknowledge that our belief is our “preference” and not “scripturally prescribed.” I think Peterson would do well to acknowledge his preference here. Other Calvinists have done so (as did Buist Fanning; see my posts on the “Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews”)...and Peterson does not have to be an exception to the rule.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
More Certain Than Not
“Fairness leads me to conclude from Paul’s making final sanctification dependent upon Christians’ perseverance in faith that one could deduce the possibility of their losing salvation. But it is important to note that the apostle himself does not draw that conclusion here. Frankly, Colossians 1:21-23 CAN BE INTEGRATED INTO EITHER AN ARMINIAN OR CALVINIST SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. THE PASSAGE BY ITSELF DOES NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE EITHER THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 133; caps mine).
I’ve been blogging excessively on Peterson’s book titled “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” However, I’ve started reading his newest book in the “Explorations in Biblical Theology” series, titled “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.”
In the above quote, Peterson is giving his analysis of Colossians 1:21-23, as he has presented various opinions on this passage. He presents the view of I. Howard Marshall:
“The need for perseverance in faith is also stressed in Colossians 1:23...here the construction, ‘provided that...’ (ei ge) allows, but by no means demands, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE CONDITION MAY NOT BE FULFILLED” (132).
Then Peterson presents the view of P.T. O’Brien, who disagrees with Marshall’s conclusion:
“The Greek construction ‘ei ge’, translated ‘provided that,’ DOES NOT EXPRESS DOUBT...The words in this sentence may be paraphrased: ‘at any rate if you stand firm in the faith--- AND I AM SURE THAT YOU WILL’” (132).
With whom does Peterson agree? Neither. Instead, he sides with the opinion of Douglas Moo:
“...Pauline evidence POINTS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, Galatians 3:4 falling into the former category and 2 Corinthians 5:3 and Ephesians 3:2; 4:21 into the latter...nevertheless, THE CONDITION IS A REAL ONE, and it is very important NOT TO ROB THE WORDS OF THEIR INTENDED RHETORICAL FUNCTION” (133).
In the analysis that Peterson provides from O’Brien, for example, there are problems. According to O’Brien, the Greek particle “ge” (gei) emphasizes assurance: “and I am sure that you will.”
According to some lexical sources, the word “ge” means “indeed, truly.” The word “ge” however, placed within the verse of Colossians 1:23, is meant to give assurance of the concept itself, not of the perseverance of the Colossians.
Let’s look at some other examples where “ge” is used:
“And he said, ‘Well done, good servant; because we faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities” (Luke 19:17, NKJV).
The word for “well done” in the Greek text here is “euge,” where the prefix “eu” stands for “good” or “well.” The word “ge” means “indeed.” So the master, when he says “well done,” is really saying “well indeed” or “good indeed.” By saying “good indeed,” the master is affirming the good job of the servant. He’s simply affirming what is done---not adding anything to the servant’s work.
The next verse from Luke is Luke 11:8—
“I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, YET because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs” (Luke 11:8, NKJV).
The word for “ge” in this verse is the English word “yet.” Here Jesus is affirming the response of the friend to a friend outside of his house who has a need. He is talking about persistence in prayer, and He is telling the disciples that if they continue to pray, they can be ASSURED or CERTAIN that the Lord will grant what they ask for. There is nothing that the word “ge” adds to the text---except certainty of what Jesus is saying. Jesus is saying this with assurance.
The last example is Luke 18:5—
“YET because widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me” (Lk. 18:5, NKJV).
Jesus is telling the story of the judge and the widow. The widow continually kept coming to the judge, until one day the judge decided to grant her request (so she could stop bothering him). This is why he says, “though I do not fear God nor regard man, YET because this widow troubles me...” (Lk. 18:4, 5) The judge decides here to give consent to the widow’s request, even though he felt no reason to do so (except that the woman worried him to death). So here, the word “ge” overturns the previous clause, “though I do not fear God nor regard man.” Because he is fearless, he was not worried about granting the woman’s request; but because he doesn’t want her to keep bothering him, he grants her request. It is her annoyance that gets her the blessing, not his good-heartedness or kindness...or even his willingness to help...but instead, her constant pestering.
Looking at Colossians 1:23 again, we can now put the word “ge” into proper perspective (looking at two senses in which it is used in the Gospel of Luke).
When Paul says, “if INDEED you continue in the faith,” he is affirming the truth of this statement. In the immediate context, he discusses what God has done for them (v. 21) and what God’s goal is for them (v.22); but in verse 23, he does two things. First, he encourages them with the words, “continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel...” Next, Paul affirms the need to continue: “if INDEED you continue...” He is sounding confident in their continuance in the faith while still urging them to remain nonetheless. His assurance of their walk in the faith doesn’t cancel out his need to exhort them to “continue” in the things they have walked in.
Last but not least, I want to talk on the issue of assurance. According to O’Brien, Paul seems assured that they will continue in the faith. But why is Paul assured? Is he assured because their continuance in the faith is GUARANTEED---or is he assured because of their fruit? The answer? Because of their fruit. Let’s read Paul’s words to the Colossians:
“We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, SINCE WE HEARD OF YOUR FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS AND YOUR LOVE FOR ALL THE SAINTS; because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the WORD OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, AND IS BRINGING FORTH FRUIT, AS IT IS ALSO AMONG YOU SINCE THE DAY YOU HEARD AND KNEW THE GRACE OF GOD IN TRUTH” (Colossians 1:3-6, NKJV).
Notice that the Colossians’ faith and love have been demonstrated. In addition, their hearing the gospel has “brought forth fruit...also among them” from the time they heard the word of the gospel up until this point (the writing of Paul’s letter). It is because of Epaphras’s report to Paul and Timothy, “for this reason,” that “we also, since the day we heard it, DO NOT CEASE TO PRAY FOR YOU...” (Col. 1:9)
Their work in the faith from their conversion until the time of Paul’s writing gives Paul and Timothy confidence regarding the spiritual growth of the congregation. Paul and Timothy are not praying for good things because they are guaranteed these things (unconditional guarantee); no---they are praying for the good things to come because of the constant good reports being given concerning the Colossians. The congregation seems to be headed in the right direction.
Paul does the exact same thing with the Philippians congregation. This is the statement of assurance Paul gives:
“being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6, NKJV).
Calvinists often point to this verse and say, “See, Paul is confident of the Philippians’ final salvation.” But, notice that Paul gives reasons for his confidence in the congregation:
“just as it is right for me to think this of you all, BECAUSE I HAVE YOU IN MY HEART, INASMUCH AS both in my chains and in the defense of the gospel, YOU ALL ARE PARTAKERS WITH ME OF GRACE” (Phil. 1:7).
The Philippians are fellow partakers of afflictions with Paul. This is why he can write with confidence of their end. Paul also mentions their “fellowship in the gospel” in verse 5. Paul tells the Philippians that it is a privilege to suffer for the name of Christ (Phil. 1:29), and that they have “always obeyed” his instructions (2:12). These clues give us insight into Paul’s assurance of their faith as well as the proof of their faith. Paul even wrote that they should let their conduct “be worthy of the gospel of Christ,” so that, despite their enemies, their conduct would be proof of their salvation (Phil. 1:27, 28).
The assurance Paul has regarding both the Colossians and Philippians is not some “guaranteed” assurance of the Calvinists, but rather the “persevering assurance” of the Word of God. The Word of God grants assurance in perseverance, not a guarantee in laziness. There is no unconditional guarantee of continual belief in Christ, which is why Paul tells the Colossian congregation to “continue in the faith.” In addition, we have the parable of the soils in Luke 8, with one of the soils believing “for a while” in Christ (Lk. 8:13). Only the soil that “keeps the word and bears fruit” (Lk. 8:15) is the one that reaps the harvest and receives eternal life.
I’ve been blogging excessively on Peterson’s book titled “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” However, I’ve started reading his newest book in the “Explorations in Biblical Theology” series, titled “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.”
In the above quote, Peterson is giving his analysis of Colossians 1:21-23, as he has presented various opinions on this passage. He presents the view of I. Howard Marshall:
“The need for perseverance in faith is also stressed in Colossians 1:23...here the construction, ‘provided that...’ (ei ge) allows, but by no means demands, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE CONDITION MAY NOT BE FULFILLED” (132).
Then Peterson presents the view of P.T. O’Brien, who disagrees with Marshall’s conclusion:
“The Greek construction ‘ei ge’, translated ‘provided that,’ DOES NOT EXPRESS DOUBT...The words in this sentence may be paraphrased: ‘at any rate if you stand firm in the faith--- AND I AM SURE THAT YOU WILL’” (132).
With whom does Peterson agree? Neither. Instead, he sides with the opinion of Douglas Moo:
“...Pauline evidence POINTS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, Galatians 3:4 falling into the former category and 2 Corinthians 5:3 and Ephesians 3:2; 4:21 into the latter...nevertheless, THE CONDITION IS A REAL ONE, and it is very important NOT TO ROB THE WORDS OF THEIR INTENDED RHETORICAL FUNCTION” (133).
In the analysis that Peterson provides from O’Brien, for example, there are problems. According to O’Brien, the Greek particle “ge” (gei) emphasizes assurance: “and I am sure that you will.”
According to some lexical sources, the word “ge” means “indeed, truly.” The word “ge” however, placed within the verse of Colossians 1:23, is meant to give assurance of the concept itself, not of the perseverance of the Colossians.
Let’s look at some other examples where “ge” is used:
“And he said, ‘Well done, good servant; because we faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities” (Luke 19:17, NKJV).
The word for “well done” in the Greek text here is “euge,” where the prefix “eu” stands for “good” or “well.” The word “ge” means “indeed.” So the master, when he says “well done,” is really saying “well indeed” or “good indeed.” By saying “good indeed,” the master is affirming the good job of the servant. He’s simply affirming what is done---not adding anything to the servant’s work.
The next verse from Luke is Luke 11:8—
“I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, YET because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs” (Luke 11:8, NKJV).
The word for “ge” in this verse is the English word “yet.” Here Jesus is affirming the response of the friend to a friend outside of his house who has a need. He is talking about persistence in prayer, and He is telling the disciples that if they continue to pray, they can be ASSURED or CERTAIN that the Lord will grant what they ask for. There is nothing that the word “ge” adds to the text---except certainty of what Jesus is saying. Jesus is saying this with assurance.
The last example is Luke 18:5—
“YET because widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me” (Lk. 18:5, NKJV).
Jesus is telling the story of the judge and the widow. The widow continually kept coming to the judge, until one day the judge decided to grant her request (so she could stop bothering him). This is why he says, “though I do not fear God nor regard man, YET because this widow troubles me...” (Lk. 18:4, 5) The judge decides here to give consent to the widow’s request, even though he felt no reason to do so (except that the woman worried him to death). So here, the word “ge” overturns the previous clause, “though I do not fear God nor regard man.” Because he is fearless, he was not worried about granting the woman’s request; but because he doesn’t want her to keep bothering him, he grants her request. It is her annoyance that gets her the blessing, not his good-heartedness or kindness...or even his willingness to help...but instead, her constant pestering.
Looking at Colossians 1:23 again, we can now put the word “ge” into proper perspective (looking at two senses in which it is used in the Gospel of Luke).
When Paul says, “if INDEED you continue in the faith,” he is affirming the truth of this statement. In the immediate context, he discusses what God has done for them (v. 21) and what God’s goal is for them (v.22); but in verse 23, he does two things. First, he encourages them with the words, “continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel...” Next, Paul affirms the need to continue: “if INDEED you continue...” He is sounding confident in their continuance in the faith while still urging them to remain nonetheless. His assurance of their walk in the faith doesn’t cancel out his need to exhort them to “continue” in the things they have walked in.
Last but not least, I want to talk on the issue of assurance. According to O’Brien, Paul seems assured that they will continue in the faith. But why is Paul assured? Is he assured because their continuance in the faith is GUARANTEED---or is he assured because of their fruit? The answer? Because of their fruit. Let’s read Paul’s words to the Colossians:
“We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, SINCE WE HEARD OF YOUR FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS AND YOUR LOVE FOR ALL THE SAINTS; because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the WORD OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, AND IS BRINGING FORTH FRUIT, AS IT IS ALSO AMONG YOU SINCE THE DAY YOU HEARD AND KNEW THE GRACE OF GOD IN TRUTH” (Colossians 1:3-6, NKJV).
Notice that the Colossians’ faith and love have been demonstrated. In addition, their hearing the gospel has “brought forth fruit...also among them” from the time they heard the word of the gospel up until this point (the writing of Paul’s letter). It is because of Epaphras’s report to Paul and Timothy, “for this reason,” that “we also, since the day we heard it, DO NOT CEASE TO PRAY FOR YOU...” (Col. 1:9)
Their work in the faith from their conversion until the time of Paul’s writing gives Paul and Timothy confidence regarding the spiritual growth of the congregation. Paul and Timothy are not praying for good things because they are guaranteed these things (unconditional guarantee); no---they are praying for the good things to come because of the constant good reports being given concerning the Colossians. The congregation seems to be headed in the right direction.
Paul does the exact same thing with the Philippians congregation. This is the statement of assurance Paul gives:
“being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6, NKJV).
Calvinists often point to this verse and say, “See, Paul is confident of the Philippians’ final salvation.” But, notice that Paul gives reasons for his confidence in the congregation:
“just as it is right for me to think this of you all, BECAUSE I HAVE YOU IN MY HEART, INASMUCH AS both in my chains and in the defense of the gospel, YOU ALL ARE PARTAKERS WITH ME OF GRACE” (Phil. 1:7).
The Philippians are fellow partakers of afflictions with Paul. This is why he can write with confidence of their end. Paul also mentions their “fellowship in the gospel” in verse 5. Paul tells the Philippians that it is a privilege to suffer for the name of Christ (Phil. 1:29), and that they have “always obeyed” his instructions (2:12). These clues give us insight into Paul’s assurance of their faith as well as the proof of their faith. Paul even wrote that they should let their conduct “be worthy of the gospel of Christ,” so that, despite their enemies, their conduct would be proof of their salvation (Phil. 1:27, 28).
The assurance Paul has regarding both the Colossians and Philippians is not some “guaranteed” assurance of the Calvinists, but rather the “persevering assurance” of the Word of God. The Word of God grants assurance in perseverance, not a guarantee in laziness. There is no unconditional guarantee of continual belief in Christ, which is why Paul tells the Colossian congregation to “continue in the faith.” In addition, we have the parable of the soils in Luke 8, with one of the soils believing “for a while” in Christ (Lk. 8:13). Only the soil that “keeps the word and bears fruit” (Lk. 8:15) is the one that reaps the harvest and receives eternal life.
Friday, December 18, 2009
The False Gospel
This post starts new work on Calvinism, although the subject matter (Calvinism vs. Arminianism) is still the same. I know it might seem weird to be writing on James White (since it’s something I’ve NEVER done), but there’s always room for something new at CTS.
Last night, I watched James White’s response to Ergun Caner’s sermon, titled “Why I Am Not Predestined to Be A Hyper-Calvinist.” Caner, president of Liberty University, preached this sermon several months ago (at least a year or two), but I just stumbled upon it last night. In any case, I wanted to see what the debate between Caner and White was all about. James White basically went through every little minute statement of Caner’s sermon and attacked what he didn’t like about it or what he thought was ridiculous about the message. Some of his comments, although true, were of the kind that he did not have to spend such large amounts of time on them--- but he did nonetheless. I think in the end, it made it harder for him to spend most of the time on the big issues. It seems that he had too much work carved out for him and not enough time to do it in (as he extended the talk time from 1 hour, 15 minutes to 1 hour, 30 minutes).
I listened to about 90 percent of White’s response and felt as if I had gotten enough of the argument to know James White’s response to Caner’s sermon. One of White’s comments that most fascinated me was when he said that Caner needed to understand that Calvinists have no idea who the elect are. He said, “We don’t know. We haven’t been given that kind of information. And I don’t need to know that information. I just need to preach the gospel so the Lord can bring in the elect to Himself. Since I do not know who the elect are, I preach the gospel.”
However, surrounding White’s discussion of the elect was his view that Jesus did not die for every person. Even when he discussed the issue of babies, he said that “I believe the Lord has freedom to choose which babies are saved and which babies are damned.” He claims that he isn’t saying that babies are damned because they do not “repent and believe the gospel,” while in the same breath saying that he believes the Lord is at liberty to damn those He wants to damn. At the least, he believes that not every baby will be saved! He attacked the view that “every baby is saved until a certain magical number” (referring to the age of accountability) and a host of other things (like altar calls and such) that he didn’t like about normal worship services.
White’s view regarding the elect and Jesus’ dying for some complicates his defense. His entire point throughout most of the Caner critique was that Jesus did not die for every person. But if that is true, then how can Christians preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE? I mean, when we preach the gospel to every person, we’re telling them that the Lord desires their salvation. But if the Lord doesn’t desire the salvation of every person (and we don’t know who the elect are, as White says), then, AREN’T WE LYING TO EVERY PERSON, or a large number of the world population? What good are we doing telling them that “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son” for them (John 3:16), if Jesus did not die for EVERY SINGLE PERSON? Isn’t our evangelism (in that case) falsifying the gospel and “teasing the reprobate” all in one?
To make matters worse, think about the character and nature of God for a moment. When Jesus was praying the high priestly prayer in John 17, He prayed for the disciples and those who had come to believe that the Father had sent Him:
“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by YOUR TRUTH. YOUR WORD IS TRUTH” (John 17:14-17, NKJV).
The Word of God is truth. The Word of God will not lie when it comes to ANY MATTER on which it touches. If this is true, then what do we do with the words of Christ in Mark 16:15 to “preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE” (NKJV)? Are we just willing to believe that Jesus told the eleven to preach the gospel to everyone “just to draw in the elect”?
If White’s belief is correct, then preaching the gospel to everyone is not significant except for the fact that it draws in the elect. And the gospel is lying to those who do not believe (because their unbelief is a sign of God’s reprobative decree from before the foundation of the world). According to White, God approves of the believers preaching a “deceiving gospel”; and if this is so, then how can God be one who does not lie (Titus 1:2)?
Contra White, I believe that Jesus died for all. And if Jesus died for all, then preaching the gospel is important so that ALL can have the opportunity to be saved. When Judgment Day comes, no heathen will be able to stand and accuse God of an “unfair deal,” because God in His justice has extended mercy to every single person. In the words of the apostle Paul, “Indeed, LET GOD BE TRUE BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR” (Romans 3:4, NKJV)...
Last night, I watched James White’s response to Ergun Caner’s sermon, titled “Why I Am Not Predestined to Be A Hyper-Calvinist.” Caner, president of Liberty University, preached this sermon several months ago (at least a year or two), but I just stumbled upon it last night. In any case, I wanted to see what the debate between Caner and White was all about. James White basically went through every little minute statement of Caner’s sermon and attacked what he didn’t like about it or what he thought was ridiculous about the message. Some of his comments, although true, were of the kind that he did not have to spend such large amounts of time on them--- but he did nonetheless. I think in the end, it made it harder for him to spend most of the time on the big issues. It seems that he had too much work carved out for him and not enough time to do it in (as he extended the talk time from 1 hour, 15 minutes to 1 hour, 30 minutes).
I listened to about 90 percent of White’s response and felt as if I had gotten enough of the argument to know James White’s response to Caner’s sermon. One of White’s comments that most fascinated me was when he said that Caner needed to understand that Calvinists have no idea who the elect are. He said, “We don’t know. We haven’t been given that kind of information. And I don’t need to know that information. I just need to preach the gospel so the Lord can bring in the elect to Himself. Since I do not know who the elect are, I preach the gospel.”
However, surrounding White’s discussion of the elect was his view that Jesus did not die for every person. Even when he discussed the issue of babies, he said that “I believe the Lord has freedom to choose which babies are saved and which babies are damned.” He claims that he isn’t saying that babies are damned because they do not “repent and believe the gospel,” while in the same breath saying that he believes the Lord is at liberty to damn those He wants to damn. At the least, he believes that not every baby will be saved! He attacked the view that “every baby is saved until a certain magical number” (referring to the age of accountability) and a host of other things (like altar calls and such) that he didn’t like about normal worship services.
White’s view regarding the elect and Jesus’ dying for some complicates his defense. His entire point throughout most of the Caner critique was that Jesus did not die for every person. But if that is true, then how can Christians preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE? I mean, when we preach the gospel to every person, we’re telling them that the Lord desires their salvation. But if the Lord doesn’t desire the salvation of every person (and we don’t know who the elect are, as White says), then, AREN’T WE LYING TO EVERY PERSON, or a large number of the world population? What good are we doing telling them that “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son” for them (John 3:16), if Jesus did not die for EVERY SINGLE PERSON? Isn’t our evangelism (in that case) falsifying the gospel and “teasing the reprobate” all in one?
To make matters worse, think about the character and nature of God for a moment. When Jesus was praying the high priestly prayer in John 17, He prayed for the disciples and those who had come to believe that the Father had sent Him:
“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by YOUR TRUTH. YOUR WORD IS TRUTH” (John 17:14-17, NKJV).
The Word of God is truth. The Word of God will not lie when it comes to ANY MATTER on which it touches. If this is true, then what do we do with the words of Christ in Mark 16:15 to “preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE” (NKJV)? Are we just willing to believe that Jesus told the eleven to preach the gospel to everyone “just to draw in the elect”?
If White’s belief is correct, then preaching the gospel to everyone is not significant except for the fact that it draws in the elect. And the gospel is lying to those who do not believe (because their unbelief is a sign of God’s reprobative decree from before the foundation of the world). According to White, God approves of the believers preaching a “deceiving gospel”; and if this is so, then how can God be one who does not lie (Titus 1:2)?
Contra White, I believe that Jesus died for all. And if Jesus died for all, then preaching the gospel is important so that ALL can have the opportunity to be saved. When Judgment Day comes, no heathen will be able to stand and accuse God of an “unfair deal,” because God in His justice has extended mercy to every single person. In the words of the apostle Paul, “Indeed, LET GOD BE TRUE BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR” (Romans 3:4, NKJV)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)