Classical Arminianism and Molinism: A Comparison and Contrast Between Two "Mediate" Theologies, Pt. III

In this third part of our mini-series on the similarities between Classical Arminianism and Molinism, we have seen that both systems are similarly “mediate” (the middle ground) in three points. First, “Radical Depravity” is the middle ground between the Calvinist “Total Depravity” and the Pelagian view of “Total Ability.” The CA (Classical Arminian) and Molinist view of depravity is that man is tainted with sin in every part of his being, but he is not completely abandoned by God, since he still retains the image of God and is able to do good deeds (like pay taxes, help an elderly person across the street, donate to charity, and so forth).

We’ve also seen that both systems share the same view of election: while God was not bound to receive us by faith, we are bound to receive Christ by faith (the “law of faith,” Romans 3:27). Last but not least, in my last post, I showed the reader that Classical Arminianism and Molinism share “Singular Redemption” in common as the “middle” atonement view: while there is an “unlimited” element (Christ died for every person, 1 Tim. 2:4), there is a “limited” element as well (“only those who believe will be saved,” Romans 10:9). John 3:16 is another example of singular redemption: while God loved “the world” (every person, unlimited element), He gave His Son so that “whoever believes” (limited element) will have eternal life.

But now we arrive at the issue at hand. While Classical Arminianism and Molinism have been alike in three of five points, both systems will differ in the last two: the issues of grace and perseverance. I will start with the issue of grace(which will go right along with the doctrines of eternal and conditional security)and then we will encounter the issue of perseverance (security itself).

Now before I get into the contrast of the two theologies, let me provide some words from the founder of Molinist thought, Luis de Molina:

“...let us take as our example an action that is supernatural and extremely difficult, namely, A CONFESSION OF FAITH UNDER TORTURE ALL THE WAY UP TO THE END OF ONE’S LIFE, A CONFESSION THAT MAKES THE PERSON IN QUESTION A MARTYR; and let us assume that this confession is elicited from an unbeliever, who is justified through it. Clearly, for an action of this sort it is not only necessary that there should exist all the divine predeterminations spoken of above with reference to the aforementioned indifferent or morally good action, but it is also required that there be a predetermination to call, assist, and comfort the man at the time in question by means of the extraordinary aids of PREVENIENT AND COOPERATING GRACE, without which the man’s faculty of choice would be unable to persevere. STILL, THESE AND THE AFOREMENTIONED PREDETERMINATIONS LEAVE HIM ABLE, AT THE INSTANT AT WHICH HE IS CONVERTED, NOT ONLY NOT TO BE CONVERTED BUT EVEN TO DISSENT FROM THE FAITH AND TO REPUDIATE IT; AND THEY LEAVE HIM ABLE AFTERWARD, AS LONG AS HIS TORMENTS LAST, ALL THE WAY UP TO THE END OF HIS LIFE, TO SUCCUMB AND TO REPUDIATE THE FAITH...otherwise, such a conversion to the faith and such perseverance in confessing it would not be meritorious---indeed, they would not even constitute a morally good act, since there can be neither merit nor moral goodness in any act unless there is freedom...with respect to the opposite” (Luis de Molina, “On Divine Foreknowledge” (Pt. IV of the “Concordia”), Disputation 53, section 8. Translated by Alfred J. Freddoso. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988, pages 245-246).

Simply put, Molina believed that, although a person could have evidence of salvation, up to their last breath, he or she could walk away from the faith, apostatize (or apostasize), “divorce” Christ. I use the word “divorce” here because in the Gospels, particularly Matthew, the Greek word translated “divorce” is “apostasiou” (referring to the “writ of divorce”). To apostasize then, is to “divorce Christ.”

It is at this point that contemporary Molinists part ways with Molina himself. For one, notice that, in the quote above Molina mentions “prevenient and cooperating grace.” Contemporary Molinists would never hold to such a view of grace. This is what Ken Keathley writes in his historical survey of divine and human agency about “Molina’s concept of grace”:

“Unfortunately, Molina holds to the COUNTER-REFORMATION, rather than the Lutheran, understanding of grace. HERE THE EVANGELICAL MOLINIST WILL HAVE TO PART COMPANY WITH MOLINA. Rather than view God’s grace as God’s unmerited favor, Molina saw grace as divine assistance or power that enables persons to merit salvation” [Ken Keathley, “Divine and Human Agency: Historical Survey.” Lecture given on Friday, July 2, 2010 @ Southeastern Seminary. Lecture given in Patterson Hall, room 101 (from 8-11am) in the class “Contemporary Theological Perspectives: Molinism.”]

As is shown above, Molina’s view of grace has been altered to fit contemporary, evangelical Molinists. But this alteration is unfaithful to Molinist theology. What’s the explanation behind this? Well, for one, Molina’s view of theology does not fit the Calvinistic mindset. Dr. Keathley is not “Calvinist,” but “Calvinistic,” and he shares the Calvinist view of grace (while he labels his view “overcoming grace,” another name for it could be “ultimately irresistible grace”). Because of the irresistible nature of grace in that theology, prevenient grace doesn’t “go far enough”---it enables persons to believe, but allows them not to. In the Molinist mindset, God is the one who “causes” a person to be saved. Who makes the difference in salvation? God. It’s not that God offers salvation to everyone with the genuine chance of being rejected; no---God is the one whose grace “irresistibly” draws those He has “unconditionally elected.” In the end, the elect person, although resisting throughout life, will ultimately come to Christ. In his words:

“By contrast, the overcoming grace model understands God’s grace to operate in terms of PERSUASION. The Holy Spirit appeals, persuades, and WINS. AND THE ELECT FIND THE DRAWING ‘IRRESISTIBLE’” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 107).

So this seems to give lip service to the idea of resistible grace. In the end, divine sovereignty wins the day and the resistance (or acceptance) has meant little if anything at all.

What will be surprising to much of my readership here is, that Arminius held to Molina’s view of prevenient and cooperating grace. In his “Works” he cites Augustine:

“Subsequent or following Grace does indeed assist the good purpose of man; but this good purpose would have no existence UNLESS THROUGH PRECEDING OR PREVENTING GRACE. And though the desire of man, which is called good, be assisted by Grace when it begins to be; yet it does not begin without Grace, but is inspired by Him, concerning whom the Apostle writes thus, ‘Thanks be to God, who put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you.’ If God incites any one to have ‘an earnest care’ for others, He will ‘put it into the heart’ of some other person to have ‘an earnest care’ for him’” (Arminius, “Works” (The London Edition) 2:196. Translated by James Nichols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996.

Arminius held to prevenient grace and following (or cooperating) grace, just like Molina did. It is here that we see why contemporary Molinism departs from prevenient grace: to affirm it means that “evangelical Molinists” would have to concede to a possible label of “modern-day Classical Arminians,” which is not what they desire to do in the least.

In this post, I demonstrated that Classical Arminianism and Molinist (currently) disagree on the issue of grace. While Classical Arminians affirm Molina’s view of prevenient and cooperating grace, contemporary Molinists do not. In my next post, I intend to show how Classical Arminians and Molinists differ in their views on perseverance. Stay tuned...

"Unconditional": The Ambiguous Word

I’ve discussed the word “unconditional” at the blog a lot within this past week. Taking the Contemporary Theology class on Molinism this past week put me face-to-face with the phrase “unconditional election.” As you all know, Dr. Ken Keathley advocates this view of election in his book, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach” (see pages 153-154 of the book).

In today’s post, I will not be quoting from Dr. Keathley, but instead, from John Piper, one of the foremost “consistent” Calvinists today. This is a portion of what Piper had to say regarding Romans 9:

“Verse 8 says it again: "It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." In other words, not all the physical descendants of Abraham are the beneficiaries of the covenant promises. Who then is? And here Paul goes right to the bottom of the explanation. He says, The beneficiaries of the promise are the children of promise. But, we ask, who are these? What are the conditions they must meet to be the "children of promise"?
Paul’s answer to this in verse 11, with the illustrations of Jacob and Esau, confronts us with the ultimate sovereignty of God in choosing who the beneficiaries of the promise will be. In referring to Jacob (who became the heir) and Esau (who did not) Paul says: "for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad [there’s the unconditionality, and here’s the reason for it], so that God's purpose according to election would stand [there’s the explanation deeper than human conditions - God’s sovereign purpose], not because of works but because of Him who calls [notice: he did not contrast works with faith, but with "Him who calls" - not even faith is in view here as a condition], Rebecca was told, "The older will serve the younger." (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2002/110_The_Absolute_Sovereignty_of_God_What_Is_Romans_Nine_About/)

Romans 9 is one of the most controversial chapters in not just all of the book of Romans, but all of Scripture itself. Verses 10-12 are gonna be the focus of this post:

And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that GOD’S PURPOSE OF ELECTION MIGHT CONTINUE, NOT BECAUSE OF WORKS BUT BECAUSE OF HIS CALL---she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger’” (Romans 9:10-12, English Standard Version).

Notice above that Piper states (regarding the twins who “had done nothing good or bad”) that “there’s the unconditionality.” What he means by this is that it wasn’t because of anything that they had done. But then, we see these “deeds” more specifically classified in the following words: “In order that God’s purpose of election might continue, NOT BECAUSE OF WORKS BUT BECAUSE OF HIS CALL...” (v.11) In this, we see that election is according to the call of God, not works. And this is why God foretold that Esau would serve Jacob: because God declared Jacob to be the one to inherit the promises, not Esau. God did this freely, of His own choosing. There was nothing that made Him choose Jacob over Esau: He did it of His own volition and good pleasure.

James White gives a definition of “unconditionality” in his debate with Dave Hunt:

“Unconditional election is simply the recognition of the biblical teaching that GOD IS FREE IN THE MATTER OF SALVATION. He chooses to exercise mercy and grace toward undeserving creatures solely on the basis of ‘the good pleasure of His will’ (Ephesians 1:5). There is nothing in the creature that merits, earns, or attracts His favor. His election is unconditional in that IT IS BASED SOLELY ON HIS PURPOSE AND HIS PLEASURE AND NOT IN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE CREATURE” (James White, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, pages 91-92).

Classical Arminians would agree with Piper and White’s statements above: we believe that God is free in the matter of salvation. He is free to do whatever seems good to Him. Like White, we also affirm that “there is nothing in the creature that merits, earns, or attracts His favor.” None of His creation is deserving of His goodness and kindness in Christ. It is not based on anything in humans that “makes” them worthy of salvation.

However, here’s where things get more nuanced. Let’s continue with Piper’s analysis regarding Romans 9:10-12. In Romans 9:11, with the words “not because of works but because of his call,” Piper writes:

“[notice: he did not contrast works with faith, but with "Him who calls" - not even faith is in view here as a condition]”

Now we see what Piper means by “unconditionality”---neither works NOR FAITH is what is meant here. While I agree that we are not saved by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), I do not agree that election comes WITHOUT FAITH! Piper is betrayed by his own interpretation when one arrives at the end of Romans 9:

“What shall we say then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT IS BY FAITH; but that Israel...did not succeed in reaching that law [of righteousness]. Why? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PURSUE IT BY FAITH, BUT AS IF IT WERE BASED ON WORKS” (Rom. 9:30-32, ESV).

The issue with the Jews is not that they have not been unconditionally elected, but rather, that they have failed to do things God’s way--- they have not adhered to “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27).

One thing I’ve learned about the importance of sound exegesis is to always match up an interpretation of one passage with the immediate context (preceding and following chapters), books of the Bible, Testaments (Old and New), and all of Scripture itself. If we follow this rule with regards to Piper’s interpretation of Romans 9, we see that his interpretation is incorrect. I showed you above that vv. 30-32 of the same chapter (Rom. 9) testify to faith as the condition of salvation, which explains why the Gentiles have obtained it and the Jews have not. In chapter 10, Paul makes it clear that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES” (Rom. 10:4). Romans 10:9 is the “law of faith” of Romans 3:27. Romans 10:13 references Joel 2:32; 10:16 references Isaiah 53:1, which is an Old Testament evidence of the condition of faith. In Romans 11, Paul warns the Gentiles about their boasting and tells them, “they were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast THROUGH FAITH” (Rom. 11:20, ESV). The issue for Paul, at least, was the condition of faith.

I could go on about Romans 9-11, and I could discuss the roll call of faith in Hebrews 11 (which shows that faith was required in the Old Testament even as far back as Abel, Genesis 4); however, I will digress.

What I wanted to show in this post is that “unconditional” election is against the biblical message. Why is it that the immediate context of Romans 9 (chapters 10 and 11) concerns the condition of faith, IF Piper’s interpretation of Romans 9 is correct? Piper and other fellow Calvinists have their reasons for arguing unconditional election: One of them concerns “the graciousness of grace.” But that’s a good post that I will save for another time...

Limiting the Atonement: The Bible Speaks, Part II: A Response to Spurgeon's Claim

I’m back to continue my response to Charles Spurgeon’s quote as presented in John Owen’s book “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.” Spurgeon’s quote from Owen’s book was quoted by authors David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn in their book “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented,” done by P&R Publishing.

In any case, I noted in the last post that Spurgeon had no room to make such a quote for two reasons: first, because the Calvinist “L” from the “TULIP” stands for “LIMITED” atonement. The name itself gives away the function of the atonement in Calvinist theology. Spurgeon may have never held to this (or he may have). I’ve read sources that seem to linger on this, but I suspect he held to a form of “unlimited” atonement or what most would label today as “singular redemption” (sufficient atonement for all, efficient atonement for those who believe). However, the point I made was that Spurgeon cannot “look across the fence” at Arminians and claim they limit the atonement when the “L” of the Calvinist “TULIP” is standing “in his own backyard” (i.e., in the Calvinist camp, a theology to which he espoused).

Next, I responded to Spurgeon’s advocacy of “consistency,” and I made the point that he had no right to do so when one considers that he never held to supralapsarianism, which states that God “unconditionally” both elected and reprobated with regards to humanity (see part I of “Limiting the Atonement”). If one is to be a consistent Calvinist, he can only be a five-point Calvinist: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election (and thus, unconditional reprobation), Limited Atonement (no “unlimited”), Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Spurgeon did not hold to limited atonement, nor did he hold to “unconditional reprobation.” On those grounds alone, Mr. Spurgeon stood inconsistent in his own theology. In the words of Ken Keathley,

“The dilemma for the Calvinist is that he cannot take his starting assumptions to their logical conclusions...John Gerstner warned his fellow Calvinists that in its formulation of the relationship of God’s decree to sin, Reformed theology ‘hovers’ over ‘the abyss of blasphemy.’ To their credit, CALVINISTS BY AND LARGE DO NOT TAKE THE PLUNGE” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 149).

Spurgeon, a self-proclaimed Calvinist, could not take his theology to its logical conclusion: which would entail the unconditional election of the saved and the unconditional damnation of the unsaved. With his speech about Arminians being “consistent,” shouldn’t some Arminian have given Spurgeon a speech about “consistency” instead?

Now, on to the topic at hand: how it is that Arminians “limit” the atonement. Let’s read Spurgeon’s words once more:

“The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, ‘No, certainly not.’ We ask them the next question--- Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, ‘No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if’---and then follow certain conditions of salvation. NOW, WHO IS IT THAT LIMITS THE DEATH OF CHRIST? WHY, YOU...” (“Five Points of Calvinism,” page 41)

If Arminians “limit” the atonement in any way, we do so because of the words of Scripture regarding the atonement. Here’s what the Scriptures tell us about conditions for salvation:

“that IF you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9, NKJV).

“but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because THEY DID NOT SEEK IT BY FAITH, but as it were, by the works of the law” (Rom. 9:31-32).

“For ‘WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him IN WHOM THEY HAVE NOT BELIEVED?” (Rom. 10:13, 14)

“Well said. BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF THEY WERE BROKEN OFF, and YOU STAND BY FAITH” (Rom. 11:20).

“Now the just SHALL LIVE BY FAITH” (Heb. 10:38a, Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11).

“But without FAITH it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must BELIEVE that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).

These verses alone testify to the condition of faith in order to receive God’s gift of eternal life. Spurgeon may not have agreed with my assessment here, but this is what Scripture teaches. Nowhere in the Bible can it be said that unconditional election exists, and statements like “he chose us in Christ” (Eph. 1) must be reconciled with statements about faith being the requirement for salvation. If we are chosen “in Christ,” and we must “believe in Christ” to be saved (Rom. 10:9), then what’s the problem? Why can’t election be conditioned on the basis of faith?

My goal in this two-post series was to engage Charles Spurgeon’s assumptions of Arminianism, as well as his attack on Arminian limitations of the atonement. If we limit it, we do so only because Scripture teaches it. However, the fact that it is possible for every single person to be saved testifies more to the universal inclusion view of the Arminians than the unconditional exclusion view of the Calvinists.

Limiting the Atonement, Part I: The Bible Speaks

“Spurgeon’s comments as to whether it is the Calvinists or the Arminians who limit the Atonement, are to the point. ‘We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, ‘No, certainly not.’ WE ASK THEM THE NEXT QUESTION---DID CHRIST DIE SO AS TO SECURE THE SALVATION OF ANY MAN IN PARTICULAR? THEY ANSWER, ‘NO. CHRIST HAS DIED THAT ANY MAN MAY BE SAVED IF’---AND THEN FOLLOW CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF SALVATION. NOW, WHO IS IT THAT LIMITS THE DEATH OF CHRIST? WHY, YOU. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.’ We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement: you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it” [Quoted from James I. Packer, ‘Introductory Essay,’ in “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” by John Owen (London: Banner of Truth, 1959), page 14. Quoted in “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented, Second Edition” by David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004, page 41).

Arminians have been accused of many things throughout church history. They have been accused of being “man-centered” in their theology, Pelagian, heretical, false teachers, etc...but I never thought I’d see the day when Arminians would be accused of limiting the atonement. I read this argument somewhere several months (maybe a year) ago, but didn’t pay the argument much attention. I’ve learned that sometimes, in the Calvinism-Arminianism debate, one has to “shut off” one’s eyes from some arguments. Some arguments are good and worthwhile to debate; but others are just illogical arguments posed by Calvinists in order to “prop” up their system.

I decided to take up the Charles Spurgeon quote above because, first, let me make it known that EVERYONE I know pretty much adores the great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Here at Southeastern, Spurgeon is hailed as one of the greatest preachers of all time. I believe the man did great things in his time, and I praise God that Baptists have such a historical figure to look to for pride in their religious heritage.

At the same time, however, this post will attack and criticize Spurgeon’s quote above. Why? because Spurgeon’s quote is a logical attack with little Scriptural backing.

First, he states, “our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, OUR OPPONENTS LIMIT IT: WE DO NOT” (41).

Calvinists hold to limited atonement; first off, note that it is called “limited” for a reason---because it “limits” the atonement to a select group of the mass of humanity. According to Calvinism, God only died for “the elect,” those individuals He handpicked for salvation. The fact that Spurgeon would deny how the Calvinist view of the atonement “limits” it is appalling indeed.

Next, Spurgeon calls the Arminians on “consistency,” which is a good word to use: “Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, ‘No.’ THEY ARE OBLIGED TO ADMIT THIS, IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT” (41).

I’m glad Spurgeon used the word “consistent” and stated that Arminians are “obliged” to answer in the negative regarding secured salvation. In response, I would respond, “Okay, Mr. Spurgeon; so if Arminians are to be consistent in their theology, let’s question Calvinists.” Then, I would ask the question, “How are Calvinists consistent in their theology if they hold to Jesus dying for everyone (“unlimited atonement”), yet insist that God handpicks certain individuals for salvation and bypasses others (“unconditional election”)? How can God offer Himself on behalf of every single person in the world, if He only draws a few through “irresistible grace”?

Chances are, Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest preachers of Baptist history, probably could not answer this one. He often felt as if the doctrine of supralapsarianism was a harsh one---yet, it is consistent, if God only handpicks a few people to be saved (for where will the rest of humanity go but to Hell?). Spurgeon said the following about God unconditionally reprobating a mass of humanity to Hell:

“Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly---it is the same thing---CREATED THAT MAN, WITH NO OTHER INTENTION, THAN THAT OF DAMNING HIM? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him forever? Well, if you can believe it, I PITY YOU, THAT IS ALL I CAN SAY: YOU DESERVE PITY, THAT YOU SHOULD THINK SO MEANLY OF GOD, WHOSE MERCY ENDURETH FOREVER” (Charles Spurgeon, “Jacob and Esau,” page 118; quoted by Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 145).

Spurgeon admits via the quote above that he is infralapsarian; however, his infralapsarianism is itself inconsistent:

“To genuinely embrace the concept of permission would require the infralapsarian to abandon some of the key tenets of Reformed theology. Berkhof recognized this when he warned, ‘Infralapsarianism really wants to explain reprobation as an act of God’s justice. It is inclined to deny either explicitly or implicitly that it is an act of the mere good pleasure of God. THIS REALLY MAKES THE DECREE OF REPROBATION A CONDITIONAL DECREE AND LEADS INTO THE ARMINIAN FOLD.’ INFRALAPSARIANS HAVE A CHOICE. IF THE DECREE TO REPROBATION IS CONDITIONAL, THEN IT IS NOT ACCORDING TO GOD’S MERE GOOD PLEASURE. IF IT IS UNCONDITIONAL, THEN IT IS NOT ACCORDING TO GOD’S PERMISSION. Infralapsarianism wants to teach that God damns the reprobate in response to their sins, but THIS WOULD ABANDON THE CLASSIC REFORMED VIEW OF GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY, WHICH IS WHY CALVIN REJECTED THE CONCEPT OF PERMISSION OUT OF HAND” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 146).

If Charles Spurgeon was to be consistent, he needed to hold on to supralapsarianism (the unconditional reprobation of the damned), which is something he could not do. Funny though, wasn’t he trying to “school” the Arminian camp about being “consistent”? But how could he hold on to the “conditional” reprobation of the damned while arguing “unconditional” election of the saved? Sounds a bit inconsistent to me...

What about Spurgeon’s attack on Arminianism itself? I will get into his attack on Arminianism’s “limited” atonement in my next post...

At Freedom's Expense

The date was the fourth of July, and there I was doing something I love: sitting in the house of the Lord and listening to His Word being proclaimed. The preacher for the day was not the usual preacher of Sunday mornings past. Instead, he was a substitute for the day (the usual preacher was given time off to enjoy his family for one Sunday). And the message was one that I’m sure many heard something similar to on that day: our freedom in Christ. The parallel was made between our cognizance of national freedom and our cognizance of spiritual freedom (our freedom in the Lord). I enjoyed how, before the sermon, a small powerpoint presentation (no more than five minutes) was played to show quotes of our national forefathers gone by, who argued that the freedom of this country was founded with men who were Christians. John Quincy Adams had a statement that “the birthday of this country [was matched with] the birthday of the Savior.”

And the powerpoint presentation showed me something else I did not know: that the three branches of our government (legislative, executive, and judicial) did not come from the minds of men like Montesquieu in his “Spirit of Laws” (which argued for checks and balances in good government), but rather, from Scripture itself:
“For the Lord is our judge [Judicial]; the Lord is our lawgiver [Legislative]; the Lord is our king, he will save us [Executive]” (Isaiah 33:22, English Standard Version).

That was a novel piece of information to me, something I had never heard before; nevertheless, I was thankful for it. I think the powerpoint itself dispelled of some things I believed about this country from my days in public school. Praise the Lord for enlightenment!

The time of mental meditation began when, during the offering, a woman sang “The Star-Spangled Banner.” The screens turned to nothing but a flag and what looked like fireworks streaming across them, as the woman had the attention of everyone in the congregation. Her voice was beyond anything I’d ever heard in my life: she had such a vocal range that I was praising God after her singing for the voice He had given her...and while hearing her sing the words of a song dearly cherished, I began to ponder just how blessed of a nation the United States of America really is. What other country has the freedoms of ours? What other nation can truly say that it was founded upon biblical principles? And because of the Lord’s goodness, what does He require we give Him in return? I began to think, sitting in that seat, that this great Lord who blessed each person in that place to live in a free country like ours, to be able to assemble in His Name, desires that we give our all to Him and honor Him with our lives. We have not been given the privileges we have for nought; call it “the little Arminian” in me, but God has graced us with so much, that He desires we press on toward “the mark of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14). We have not been so wonderfully graced by God to sit around and “display” our blessings; rather, we have been graced SO THAT we can help others, graced so that we can please the One who has called us to be soldiers.

The sermon was from Romans 6, and the preacher (whom I shall call “Bill”) preached the Word with such clarity that I began to meditate on our freedom in Christ. “We were saved to walk in freedom,” Bill said, “not to resurrect the sin that died in us from the moment of salvation.” I think the following verses impacted me most of all of the ones read:

“What then? Are we to sin because we are not under the law but under grace? BY NO MEANS! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:15-16, ESV)

Bill then paused and explained the context behind Paul’s words in verses 15 and 16: Before the time of Paul, there was a Roman law which stated that a free man could not be enslaved; as a result, free Roman citizens would sell themselves into slavery (upon which they would be paid for their slave labor); once they received the money from slave labor, they would gather witnesses who would testify that they were freemen, and the judge would declare them free from slavery. Being enslaved, for them, was a money-racketeering enterprise by which they could make a lot of money. While it was profitable for them to be enslaved, it was unprofitable for the Roman empire (financially draining). Because of the loss of money to the Roman government, the Roman government passed a new rule that came to pass in the time of Paul: according to the new law, any free citizen who enslaved themselves in order to make money could no longer gain their freedom; While many believers today hold to “Once Saved, Always Saved,” those who sold themselves into slavery were, by virtue of the law, “Once Enslaved, Always Enslaved.” Once you sold yourself into someone’s slave labor, there was no way out except for death. Suddenly, one could have all the money in the world and be the most miserable of all.

Now, the question becomes, “How did Bill use this in his sermon?” His response was, “What Paul is trying to say here is that the only way you will be enslaved to sin is if you choose to be.”

But is that ALL Paul was saying? Or did he mean more? In my estimation, according to the text, Paul meant more than just “I can choose to become enslaved again to sin.”

Look at the passage of Scripture itself: first, Paul tells them that they have died to the old man (Rom. 6:7, 11); then, Paul tells them not to let sin reign in their bodies...to use their physical members (body parts) to work righteousness (v.13); and then, he gives the question, “Are we to sin because we are not under the law but under grace?” and responds with, “By no means!” (v.15). Why do you think Paul warned them about sin? Did he warn them just because he wanted them to not take the grace of God for granted? Did he warn them about yielding to sin because he wanted to stop immorality and make them well-behaved citizens? Or did he warn them about sin because there was a possibility that each and every believer could return to “life without Christ”?

If you ask me, I’d say, “the latter: Paul warns them because they could easily slip back into the old life and abandon their life in Christ.” Simply put, they had been declared free from sin, but were still living as though they were “enslaved” to it; and up until the time of Paul’s words, they had been profiting from sin (getting to cater to their desires while wearing the label “free in Christ”); however, Paul’s words here come as a shock: for, should they sell themselves back into slavery, they will “undo” or “nullify” the freedom in Christ they once possessed. And once they return to the old way of life, they cannot declare their freedom anymore.

The apostle Peter wrote about this same thing in his Second Epistle to the scattered Jews of the Diaspora:

“For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them” (2 Peter 2:19b-21, ESV).

A person can come to saving faith and yet, enslave themselves to sin again by their actions; if they choose to do so, however, like the free citizen who becomes a permanent slave, so will they.

When all is said and done, freedom in Christ means nothing if we don’t understand what bondage to sin is all about. I think that’s the biggest dilemma for the eternal securitist: trying to explain how we appreciate our freedom in Christ (and responsibility of godliness) while guaranteeing our eternal outcome, irrespective of our perseverance.

Classical Arminianism and Molinism: A Comparison and Contrast of Two "Mediate" Theologies, Pt. II

In my last post, I lined up Classical Arminianism and Molinism to show that both believe in Radical Depravity (R) as well as “Sovereign Election” (S). Here is what Classical Arminian (or Reformed Arminian) Robert E. Picirilli has to say:

“Election is conditional. This is the Arminian’s main point of departure from Calvinism, understanding the Bible to teach that SPECIFIC PERSONS ARE ELECTED OR REPROBATED...AS BELIEVERS OR UNBELIEVERS...consequently FAITH IS THE ‘CONDITION’ FOR ELECTION. For Arminius, if salvation is by faith, then election is by faith. If salvation is conditional, election is...True, we are ‘chosen in Him’ (Eph. 1:4), but surely HE PLACES US IN HIM, and THAT UNION OR IDENTIFICATION is part of the work of salvation wrought by Him” (Robert E. Picirilli, “Grace, Faith, Free Will(Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism).” Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002, page 53).

As can be seen, Reformed Arminians (Classical Arminians) hold to a robust view of election, as robust as any Molinist. Ken Keathley stated this morning that “one by faith becomes united to Christ, who is the elect one.” This is exactly what Picirilli and other Classical Arminians believe. In addition, CA (Class. Arminians) do not believe that God’s decrees are conditional, but eternal:

“If salvation is conditional, election is...this is not to say that God’s decrees are conditionally made...God’s eternal decisions are made WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON HIM. HE HAS UNCONDITIONALLY DECREED A CONDITIONAL ELECTION, ELECTING PEOPLE AS BELIEVERS” (Picirilli, “Grace, Faith, Free Will,” page 53).

As can be seen, God was not “forced” to elect based on faith, but He did it because it seemed good to Him (“according to the good pleasure of His will,” Eph. 1:5). God “unconditionally elects” (He makes the decrees of His own volition), but He elects individuals “conditionally” (individuals must believe to be part of the elect). Election is “unconditional” for God, but “conditional” for believers.
And this goes right into the next point of similarity between Classical Arminianism and Molinism: that is, “Singular Redemption.” Ken Keathley notes:

“The SINGULAR REDEMPTION VIEW, held by moderate Calvinists and REFORMED ARMINIANS, agrees with the limited view that Christ paid a propitiatory atonement but argues that this payment was made for all humanity. This view holds that the atonement was unlimited and universal. Christ provided salvation for all, but the benefits of the atonement are applied only to those who believe” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 196).

Classical Arminian Robert E. Picirilli notes:

“Universal atonement is implied in Scriptural references to the perishing of some for whom Christ died. If redemption was provided for some non-elect in the atonement, then there is no reason to limit it at all” (Picirilli, “Grace, Faith, Free Will,” page 113).

He references verses such as 1 Corinthians 8:11, Romans 14:15, and 2 Peter 2:1 to confirm his point (113).

Molinism itself holds to the singular redemption view:

“By contrast, the singular redemption position is able to affirm that the Bible speaks of the atonement in both universal and limited ways. The atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe. Many Calvinists hold that this position is more consistent with Calvin himself” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty,” page 209).

As I’ve shown in this post, Classical Arminianism and Molinism both hold to sovereign election and singular redemption (the two “S”s of the Molinist acronym “ROSES”), not to mention the “R” of “ROSES” for “Radical Depravity.”
This leaves two letters, the “O” (Overcoming Grace) and the “E” (Eternal Life) to be discussed. I guess it’s pretty obvious to you, the reader, that these two points of “ROSES” are the points of contention between the Classical Arminian and Molinist camps. Just how do these two theologies differ on the issues of grace and perseverance? I will reveal that in my next post.

Classical Arminianism and Molinism: A Comparison and Contrast Between Two "Mediate" Theologies, Pt. I

Ever since the time of Arminius and his followers, the Remonstrants, there have been five-point theologies. The five points are usually labeled in terms of depravity, election, atonement, grace, and perseverance (not necessarily in this order). With the exception of Pelagian theology, most theologies will agree on depravity; with the exception of Pelagian theology, most will agree on the points of election, atonement, and grace; perseverance, however, becomes the major dividing issue. Within evangelicalism, most theologies hold to an unconditional (guaranteed) perseverance of the saints. Molinism differs in that it does not count perseverance as a requirement, while both Calvinism and Arminianism do. However, Calvinists and Arminians differ on just HOW one perseveres, not the requirement itself.

The problem seems to come in when we take into account that many (if not all) of acceptable theologies in evangelicalism mix views on points: some Calvinists argue for irresistible grace, while some argue resistible grace; some believe that Jesus died for all (I’m thinking of Amyraldians here, a following named after Moises Amyraut) while some believe He died for a select few. With Molinists, some (like William Lane Craig) argue for a conditional election, while some (Ken Keathley, Kirk Macgregor, Molina himself) argue for unconditional election. And then, when you get to Arminians, some argue conditional perseverance (that is, the possibility of apostasy or falling away), while others argue that one is guaranteed to persevere (which sounds Calvinistic and really makes the four-pointer “Molinist”).

With all the differences between those of “similar” theological viewpoints, the question becomes, “What does it take to create a MEDIATE, or middle, theology?” Middle theologies are good. They keep one from being too deterministic, but pull back others from being too man-centered (humanistic). Because most evangelicals desire to uphold both divine sovereignty and human responsibility in perfect balance and harmony, they invest time in looking for a theology that does a good job of that. We do this with a theological presupposition in mind: the Bible tells us that both divine sovereignty and human responsibility exists...and a theology that centers on one of these two concepts will not do!

I’ve been extremely graced by God and privileged this week to spend six hours a day with Dr. Ken Keathley, one of the most gracious and humble professors I’ve ever had (not to mention a dear friend as well). The class has been provided from Monday through Friday. It ended today.

What Dr. Keathley has been attempting to do all week is show my Reformed classmates (I’m outnumbered; I’m the only Classical Arminian in the classroom of about 20 people!!!) that there are problems in Reformed Calvinist theology. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed his lectures. I made a statement to one of the guys in that class that Calvinism makes some “heinous” (that’s the word I used) statements about the moral character of God. How can God, who “so loved the world” (John 3:16), damn people to hell from eternity past and yet claim to love them? Calvinist theology, essentially, paints God as one who, as Dr. Keathley said today, “Doesn’t play by His own rules.” To the Calvinist, God makes the rules for humans, but God Himself can break them (for He has no one to answer to).

And the most appealing part about Molinism is that it claims to be the “mediate” (or middle-of-the-road) theology that everyone is looking for. Everyone wants to affirm the responsibility of man in his own salvation, while also accounting for the sovereignty of God and divine grace; in Molinism, it seems that one can find all he or she ever wanted in a theological system.

But I will state this here: Classical Arminianism can stand alongside Molinism as a mediate theology. So, while Molinism does affirm that it is a “mediate” theology, I think Classical Arminianism can make its case as well. To see how the two systems stack up, let’s compare them side by side...

First, there is “depravity.” Molinism argues for “Radical Depravity,” which states that, while man is fallen, he is not as corrupt as he could possibly be. Here is where Classical Arminians would agree: we have been made in the image and likeness of God; although we fell in the Garden, God did not abandon us, neither did He remove the image from us. As a result, we still retain some God-given capacity to do morally good things (even though we are depraved).

Next, Molinists affirm “Sovereign Election,” which states that “God’s decree of election is unconditional while His rejection of the unbeliever is conditional” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pages 153-154). What does Keathley mean by “unconditional”? According to Greg Welty, new faculty of Southeastern Seminary, Molinism does not adhere to the doctrine of unconditional election. In his “Philosophical Objections to Molinism from a Reformed Perspective,” he writes:

“Molinism doesn’t really preserve the doctrine of unconditional election. On the Molinist view (as I understand it), if election is CONDITIONED ON FORESEEN INDICATIVES ABOUT HUMAN BELIEVINGS, IT’S ‘CONDITIONAL ELECTION’; but if election is conditioned on foreseen subjunctives about human believing, it’s ‘unconditional election.’ I’M NOT SURE ANY TRADITIONAL ADVOCATES OF UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION ARE GOING TO BUY THAT. IT SEEMS TO BE A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE...especially when we realize that standard Reformed confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)/London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF) RULE OUT FUTURE SUBJUNCTIVES AS A CONDITION FOR ELECTION...” (Greg Welty, “Philosophical Objections to Molinism from a Reformed Perspective.” Lecture and lecture notes given at Southeastern Seminary, Patterson Hall 101 on Wednesday, June 30, 2010, from 1-4:15pm).

If Keathley takes “unconditional” to be God choosing certain individuals to be saved, then he remains Calvinistic. If “unconditional” involves for him “foreseen subjunctives about human believing” (which means that there is possibility for the human to believe or not believe), then Keathley holds to “foreseen faith”---this then places him within the Classical Arminian camp. And this philosophical objection seems to stick when you also consider Molinism’s fifth tenet, “Singular Redemption” (sufficient for all, efficient for those who believe).

As we’ve seen in this post, Classical Arminians and Molinists both hold to “Radical Depravity” (RD) and “Sovereign Election” (conditional election), as I’ve demonstrated above. I will continue to square up Classical Arminianism and Molinism in my next post.

Why Classical Arminianism Is Not Semi-Pelagianism

“We face a dilemma. On the one hand, when a person responds to the gospel, we understand that it is because of a work of grace in his heart. But what about those who do not believe? Did God choose not to do a similar work in them? If God simply passes over them, then it seems difficult to affirm that He really desired their salvation...Historically, this is what is known as Calvinism’s ‘problem of the well-meant offer’...On the other hand, we can solve the above dilemma by holding that exercising faith is the necessary condition for receiving redemption...this would mean that salvation...is genuinely available to all hearers of the good news...[however] if I freely believe, but my neighbor freely does not, does not this imply that somehow I was nobler than my neighbor?...so historically Calvinism has struggled with the issue of the ‘well-meant offer’ while Arminianism has had to deal with THE SPECTER OF SEMI-PELAGIANISM” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pages 101-102).

I’ve often spent time showing the problems in the systems of Molinism and Calvinism. But today, I’m gonna do a little “defensive apologetics”---meaning, I’m gonna have to defend the theological system I love so much, Classical Arminianism, from the charge of semi-Pelagianism. I don’t believe that Dr. Keathley is here pinning such a label on Classical Arminians...but it is a serious charge with Calvinists, as he states in his book. In fact, I’ve got two friends of mine who seem to make that charge about my theological system (Classical Arminianism) all the time---that my view is semi-Pelagian at best and a heresy at worst. And the sad thing is that I’m NOT EVEN JOKING!!!

Roger Olson responds to such a charge in his work, “Arminian Theology”:

“Synergism is any theological belief in free human participation in salvation. Its heretical forms in Christian theology are Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. The former denies original sin and elevates natural and moral human ability to live spiritually fulfilled lives. THE LATTER EMBRACES A MODIFIED VERSION OF ORIGINAL SIN BUT BELIEVES THAT HUMANS HAVE THE ABILITY, EVEN IN THEIR NATURAL OR FALLEN STATE, TO INITIATE SALVATION BY EXERCISING A GOOD WILL TOWARD GOD. When conservative theologians declare that synergism is a heresy, THEY ARE USUALLY REFERRING TO THESE TWO PELAGIAN FORMS OF SYNERGISM. CLASSICAL ARMINIANS AGREE. This is a major theme of this book. Contrary to confused critics, Classical Arminianism is neither Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian!” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, pages 17-18).

Canon 5 posed by the Council of Carthage (418) regarding Pelagianism:

“If any man says that the grace of justification was given us in order that we might the more easily fulfill that which we are bound to do by the power of free will, so that we could, even without grace, only not so easily, fulfill the Divine commands, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/libraryoftheologycom/writings/pelagianism/CanonsAgainstPelagianism.pdf)

It seems evident from this Canon by the Council of Carthage that Pelagianism advocated the idea of natural human ability to fulfill the divine law, “even without grace.”

What does “semi-Pelagianism” advocate?

According to “theopedia.com,” we have the following definition of semi-Pelagianism:

“a moderated form of Pelagianism, taught that man has retained the ability to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God's grace. Pelagianism denied any real effect of original sin on human nature. Semi-Pelagianism, admitted that man's nature was "injured" by original sin, but maintained that man still has free will and the ability to cooperate with God's grace in the salvation process.”

In semi-Pelagianism, man’s will was affected by the fall, but he still possesses the ability to initiate his own salvation. Arminius totally opposed Pelagius’ writing:

“We have just seen that the article of the Pelagian heresy which is by no means either the last or the least, is that in which it is asserted that A MAN IS ABLE THROUGH HIS OWN FREE WILL, AS BEING OF ITSELF SUFFICIENT FOR HIM, TO FULFILL THE PRECEPT OF GOD, IF HE BE ONLY INSTRUCTED IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAW, SO AS TO BE CAPABLE OF KNOWING WHAT HE OUGHT TO PERFORM AND WHAT TO OMIT.
It appears that this dogma is not only firmly refuted, but that it is also plucked up as if by the roots and extirpated, according to the very design and purpose of the apostle, by means of this chapter, when it is understood as referring to a man under the law. This is apparent from the opposition of the dogma to the context of the apostle. The former says, "Man, instructed by the teaching of the law, is capable, by the powers of his free will alone, to overcome sin and to obey the law of God." But the apostle declares that this cannot be effected by the powers of free will and of the law. he says, "sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace," (Rom. vi, 14,) from which it is manifest that, if they were under the law, sin would have the dominion over them -- a consequence upon which he treats more copiously in the seventh chapter. PELAGIUS SAYS, "MAN IS ABLE, WITHOUT THE GRACE OF CHRIST, AND INSTRUCTED SOLELY BY THE TEACHING OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THE GOOD WHICH HE WILLS, THROUGH HIS FREE WILL, AND TO OMIT THE EVIL WHICH HE DOES NOT WILL;" but the apostle declares that this man "consents indeed to the law that it is good, but that to perform what is good he finds not in himself; he omits the good which he wills, and he performs the evil which he wills not." Therefore, the doctrine of the apostle is, independently of its consequence, directly repugnant to the Pelagian dogma, and this, indeed, from the scope and end which the apostle had, in the same chapter, proposed to himself.” (James Arminius, Works, “Dissertation of the Seventh Chapter of Romans, Part III.”)

Pelagius states here that man can believe of his own natural will; but this is what Arminius had to say about the will without grace:

“In this state, THE FREE WILL OF MAN TOWARDS THE TRUE GOOD IS NOT ONLY WOUNDED, MAIMED, INFIRM, BENT, AND WEAKENED; BUT IT IS ALSO IMPRISONED, DESTROYED, AND LOST. AND ITS POWERS ARE NOT ONLY DEBILITATED AND USELESS UNLESS THEY BE ASSISTED BY GRACE, BUT IT HAS NO POWERS WHATEVER EXCEPT SUCH AS ARE EXCITED BY DIVINE GRACE. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing” (James Arminius, Works: “On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers,” Disputation 11).

In the words of Arminius, without grace, the will persists in its fallen, sinful, and rebellious state against God. Only when grace enters the picture is the will freed from its bondage to sin and can then make an honest decision regarding whether to accept or reject Christ as Lord and Savior.

Arminius opposed Pelagius. But does Arminius’ own theology deserve the label “semi-Pelagian”? No, not at all. Read these words:

“Arminius rejected this teaching [Pelagianism], AND SO DO ALL OF HIS FAITHFUL FOLLOWERS. Semi-Pelagianism was condemned by the Second Council of Orange in AD 529 because it affirmed human ability to exercise a good will toward God apart from special assistance of divine grace; it places the initiative in salvation on the human side, but Scripture places it on the divine side. Arminius also rejected semi-Pelagianism, as have all of his faithful followers. ARMINIANS CONSIDER BOTH PELAGIANISM AND SEMI-PELAGIANISM HERESIES...fairness and honesty demand that critics of Arminianism at least admit that Classical Arminians, including Arminius himself, do not teach what Pelagius taught or what the semi-Pelagians (e.g., John Cassian) taught” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, page 81).

I agree with Roger Olson. Non-Arminian theologians should be theologically honest in their assessment of Arminius and his stance against Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. How can we as theologians defend a God who does not lie (Titus 1:2) if we intend to lie against fellow believing theologians (including ones who have passed from this life)?

"Unconditional Determination": The Achilles' Heel for Molinism

The Contemporary Theology class on Molinism started this week at Southeastern. Although yesterday was a hard day for me (it was my mother’s birthday, June 28) I still decided to attend class. I figured that, if mom were here, she’d want me to “be about my Father’s business”---so that’s what I did. I went to class to learn about this theological system called “Molinism.”

Today, however, was the day in which Dr. Ken Keathley explored the details of the Molinist system. One response from a student in the class was worth commenting on here:

“God chooses a world where one believes and the other does not believe. I get that it’s about free will. But in another life, the one who believes may have been reprobate, and the reprobate may have been elect. How does this not come back to God being determinative of all things?”

Steve’s question is one that I have asked much concerning Molinism here at the blog. In fact, it’s the one thing about Molina’s system that I am obliged by conscience to reject (for moral and theological reasons).

Dr. Ken Keathley stated that “We are given control over a lot of things that we do not cause,” and recommended an article for the students to read. I have yet to read the article, but it hit me on the way back to my apartment today that Dr. Keathley actually answers Steve’s question in his book, “Salvation and Sovereignty”:

“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 that 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” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 154).

If God looks at the infinite possible worlds and selects one of those worlds (and that world contains elect and reprobate who will choose to believe or not believe, respectively), then isn’t God the one responsible for what happens in the selected world? How does God "get off the hook" for sin and unbelief and damnation? Here we find that Keathley notes that God has some sort of “unconditional determination” that dictates His allowing even unbelievers to be born, live, and die without accepting Christ. What is the nature of that “unconditional determination?” We are not given an exact answer.

However, this is still problematic. One cannot claim God has an “unconditional determination” for selecting a world that includes reprobates (unbelievers), and yet, throw up his or her hands and say, “As far as what the determination is, I don’t know.” Instead, there has to be an answer for this unconditional determination---otherwise, the answer in the distance is simply “the desire of God to save some and to damn others.”

Roger Olson notes James Arminius’s displeasure with the Molinist idea above as well:

“To those Calvinists who say they do not believe God foreordained the Fall (in disagreement with Calvin!), Arminius objects that they STILL UNDERMINE THE CHARACTER OF GOD REVEALED IN JESUS CHRIST AND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: ‘I should wish it to be explained to me how God can really from his heart will him to believe in Christ, whom He wills to be alien from Christ, and to whom He has decreed to deny the necessary helps to faith: for this is not to will the conversion of any one.’ He based his argument and implied accusation on the clear New Testament expressions of God’s will that no one ‘perish’ but that ‘all’ come to repentance and that all should be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). To those Calvinists who say they believe God did foreordain the Fall but only TO PERMIT THE FALL AND NOT TO CAUSE IT Arminius says, ‘Actually, YOU EXPLAIN THAT PERMISSION OR NON-PROHIBITION IN SUCH A WAY AS TO COINCIDE WITH THAT ENERGETICAL DECREE OF GOD [TO BRING ABOUT THE FALL].’...For Arminius, the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is shipwrecked on the rock of God’s goodness at every turn” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, pages 182-183).

Now someone would say to me, “But Molinism is not the same as Calvinism.” You would be right; however, Calvinists who do not affirm foreordination of the Fall are, in actuality, Molinists. Molinists believe God permits the Fall, but they also believe that God “unconditionally elects” everyone who is saved. In other words, God “picks” individuals to be saved, but He “allows” individuals to disbelieve and be damned.
How is this consistent? No one knows...

I choose to believe that God’s unconditional determination is His commitment to libertarian freedom and human choice, based on God’s bestowal of dominion over the earth to man in Genesis 1, and the curse of the ground because of the responsibility of man in Genesis 3. Because of this, God will not forego the birth of an unbeliever, even if he or she will rebel all their lives. Instead, God’s goodness to them on earth becomes judgment against them for their decision to not believe in Him. And why is this so? Not because God “chose” one of many possible worlds...but because every world God ever made would be good (by virtue of His nature and character) and never needed to have any amount of evil in it. Because of this, God didn’t need to choose worlds; instead, He decided to make one world and care for that world He made. The sin in the world is due to the sin of the creature (all sinned in Adam, Romans 5).

The class was told today that Romans 9 and 10 confirm the Molinist system, but that remains to be investigated. At the moment, all I can say is that I think the idea of “unconditional determination” has a huge suspicion to it. I don’t know how Molinism as a system can state, “God is not the author of sin and evil,” while turning around and stating, “the unbeliever is born because of some ‘unconditional determination’ of God”---and not be guilty of giving with the left hand what the right hand takes away. The fact that God chooses one of many possible worlds to be actualized is what makes Molinism, as a theological system, so problematic.

A Tribute To My Mother, Teressa A. Richardson (June 28, 1956---Feb. 3, 2009): Martha and Mary

Today at the blog is a day set aside to celebrate the life of my mother, Teressa A. Richardson. For those of you who may not know, mom died at the tender age of 52 years old, having battled breast cancer, lung cancer, and finally brain cancer over a span of some three years. She would have been 54 years old this day.

Today, I’d like to set aside this day to honor mom, the woman who influenced me in so many ways to be the blog writer whose work you read daily. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: without my mother this blog would never have been created. In a sense, whenever I take up a challenge in a post and put words on the screen, it’s as if mom were here speaking them herself.

Preparing for this day was somewhat bittersweet. Some weeks ago, I began to brainstorm regarding what I would post at the blogs to honor mom. And then, I began to go over again and again in my head the type of woman mom was, the things she did, the songs she sung, the lessons she taught me and my twin sister (Danielle), and the funny stories she used to tell. I even have memories of mom’s joke e-mails. She was a senior accountant at her corporation, so she was always over a computer typing, double-checking numbers, sending e-mails, or setting up meetings. I remember the weekends when the corporation would perform what is called “inventory,” when the company had to see how many engines were in the plant (she worked at an engine plant), how many were in good condition (and good for sale), and how many were defective and needed to be rebuilt before they could sale. Mom would take my sister and I to work on random Saturdays, and we would sit at her desk (and the desk of a co-worker), and play card games, surf the web, etc. She always told us to behave ourselves because, should we have misbehaved, we might not have been able to return. According to mom, the more we behaved, the better the chances of getting to come visit her job.

The memories are many indeed...and even now, despite the heartbreak, I can still smile when I think of the three of us (Mom, Danielle, and me) together, laughing until our stomachs hurt. Usually, we were ALWAYS somewhere laughing until our stomachs hurt. To laugh until your insides hurt was a typical action in our insane family.

But mom was not only “mom,” “daughter,” “sister,” “friend,” “coworker,” and “boss”...she was also a Sunday school teacher. Mom bought commentaries galore in her lifetime. We have so many Bibles that there are enough there for twelve future grandchildren and beyond (I might be a little outrageous with the “twelve” there...). Whenever I would come home from school and classes, mom would be sitting at her dining table, pouring over the books. Even when she began to live with my grandmother (her mother) while battling cancer, she was still studying...and she was STILL pouring over the commentaries. She had so many that I had to borrow from her extensive collection! Suffice it to say that, while I attended seminary, mom “owned” a seminary of her own (lol). She told me, upon seeing my first set of books in my Master’s degree, that “I’m gonna read everything you read.” According to mom, her seminary education was coming right to her door through me!

One of mom’s favorite accounts in all of Scripture consists of the account of “Martha and Mary”:

“38 Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’[k] feet and heard His word. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.”
41 And Jesus[l] answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. 42 But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42, NKJV)

The account of the text given shows us that there were two sisters, Mary and Martha, who had two different approaches to Jesus’ arrival at the home: while Martha worked hard to serve, Mary sat at Jesus’ feet to hear His teaching. Martha became offended: “Lord, DO YOU NOT CARE that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me” (v.40).

What Martha wanted Jesus to do was scold Mary. In her mind at least, she was doing the “proper” thing while Mary was “being lazy.” In Martha’s reasoning, Jesus had arrived, and it was time to get to work, transforming the house to spotless in order that Jesus may be pleased. What Martha didn’t understand though, was that what pleased Jesus, more than the condition of the home, was THE CONDITION OF THE HEART! Instead of rebuking Mary, Jesus turns and says,

“Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. BUT ONE THING IS NEEDED, and MARY HAS CHOSEN THAT GOOD PART, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:41-42).

Martha’s housework was really a “distraction” from what she needed most. Instead of scolding Mary, Martha needed to follow Mary’s example. Jesus’ response to her is that “one thing is needed,” that is, to sit at His feet and listen and learn. Martha, then, was worrying about things of no eternal significance. Her house cleaning would only benefit that day; but Mary’s learning would benefit her for a lifetime. We can easily see the significance of learning at the feet of Jesus over the daily fleeting pursuits that we can easily pour ourselves into.

Mom always felt as if this account was of importance to her. “God’s trying to tell me something,” she would always say. No matter where she went, whether it be to a church service or a bookstore, she always managed to find something on the “Martha and Mary” account. Martha and Mary were everywhere, and some days, she would point out a Martha and Mary book and then laugh. “The Lord just keeps letting me run into this account. What is it that He’s trying to teach me?”

The funny thing is, that when mom was diagnosed with cancer, she began to wonder about her life’s work. “I just wanna make sure that I’m doing what the Lord desires I do. I don’t wanna live my entire life and stand before Him, not having done what I was supposed to.” I used to tell her, “Mom, you won’t. You’re seeking to do what pleases Him most, and believe me, you’re either doing it now or you will get to do it.”

And when she died, I felt as if she had died too soon. I still believe that regardless of the quality of life a person lives (whether in Christ or not), fifty-two years old is still too young of an age in which to die. But my grief over her death was also due to the plans and dreams that I had for us. We had discussed my twin sister, Danielle, and figured that she would marry first (between the two of us). Then, mom and I would travel the world. She always wanted to see other countries, get a chance to travel and witness for Christ. She had such a heart for missions, and winning others to the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For her, that was the most exciting thing in all of life itself---to tell others about Jesus. And she did that: she told everyone she could about Him, even a store owner who responded, “I’ve had greater people than you tell me about Him, and I’ve not given in yet.” This same grumpy, old man who was lost and in need of Christ is the same man mom told about Jesus and the gospel. She was fearless for Christ, even in the face of doubt and rejection.

But even though mom died young, she died having done what she was placed on earth to do. I’m convinced that the “Martha and Mary” account was mom’s daily reminder of what was important. Mom had “Martha” traits: she was a parent raising a set of twins; a coworker; a boss who had people to oversee; a daughter, who financially provided for her parents with every paycheck she ever received; a sister, who needed to spend quality time with her brother, sister, and three nephews; a choir member, who often helped to organize the choir for Sundays. Even when she was tired, she would still open her mouth and sing at least one song for Christ. In addition, she was the financial secretary, managing the church finances, as well as a Sunday school teacher, who had souls to instruct from the Word of God. Mom studied for every Sunday school lesson, and taught every class with God-given energy that everyone knew came from above.

Having “Martha” traits, however, didn’t take away from the “Mary” portion: In addition to being a diligent worker for Christ, mom also realized her need to hear the Lord in her daily living and the importance of time spent hearing the Word of the Lord. I would wake up on Sundays to the smell of breakfast pervading the house (from the kitchen to my bedroom and beyond) as well as Sunday preaching on the television screen. That’s how all Sundays started. And if you happened to wake up one morning with no television on, that’s because she had the radio turned on to songs of worship. From the time we’d leave the house to the time we’d return, mom would have worship music on the radio. I was never asked to go to church on Sundays: I was going to church, like it or not. Mom took my instruction in the Word as part of her parental duties (not optional) to “bring me up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4, NKJV). And church was always important. Sundays were set aside for worship, Tuesday nights were set aside for Bible study. No questions asked!!

I miss mom today; and I’ve missed her every day for the last almost year and a half since she departed this life. But I know that when she left us, she had fulfilled her mission on earth. It turns out that the “Martha and Mary” account was one she took to heart, and implemented in all she said and did...and the fact that I am here today, studying the Word of the Lord and researching to the glory of God, testifies to just how important being a “Mary” really was to her. Sure---she was a “Martha”; But she learned how to be a “Mary”. And because she was a Mary and sacrificed much to “sit at Jesus’ feet” (study the Word, hear the Word, teach the Word to her children), she lost no time at all. On that cold February morning when she left us, she was, in that sense, the “oldest” woman in all of human existence.

If mom were here, she’d challenge you to be a “Mary.” So that’s what I’m gonna do: challenge you, my readership, to live as “Mary.” There are many things you will do throughout your lives that will have no eternal significance. But I say to you, that only what you do for Christ will last. And since our work for Christ is the only thing of eternal significance in this world (second to receiving eternal life), then we should be busy kingdom-building. How can we start today? By “sitting at Jesus’ feet,” hearing His Word, learning more of His Word. I tell you today that if we learn from my mother’s (Mary’s) example, death will take from us no time at all.

With Power Comes Responsibility

I remember the few weekends of college life I had as a free woman---with no worries and no cares. On one Friday night in particular, I remember a friend of mine, Megan, who asked me to accompany her to “Movie Night” on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We barely got much time together, so movie nights were the thing to do for two friends who desired any little time together possible.

The first movie I saw at movie night while in college was Spiderman One. And to this day, although it’s been about six or seven years since that movie night, I still remember the words that, in my mind, defined the entire movie: “With great power, comes responsibility.”

And these words are words that we’ve heard before, right? Yep. Chances are, when you were growing up, mom and dad once made this same exact statement to you. My mom said this to me. And I think this is why Scripture tells us, “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in THE POWER OF YOUR HAND to do so” (Proverbs 3:27, NKJV).

My sister heard these same words time and time again. She is the oldest of five grandchildren (me included), and she was always put in charge of the other four. Whenever my grandparents had to leave the house and go to the store (five to ten minutes up the street), they always left my sister in charge. No matter what went on in the house, Danielle was always responsible for what happened. If something was broken, or someone misbehaved, Danielle was held responsible for it. Because she held the power of overseer, she also had the responsibility for so doing and suffered the consequences, whether good or bad. Now she liked being in charge of all the grandchildren; she liked being the oldest and being labeled the authority in the house when the grandparents were gone. But she didn’t like accepting responsibility for the other four grandchildren’s actions in the house.

And my sister’s reaction parallels the feeling of every human that has been born, is being born at the moment, or ever will be born on the face of this earth. We like the idea of power, be it a job promotion from assistant to manager, from wife to mother (or from husband to father), from elder to pastor, or from teacher assistant to lead professor. How great the feeling is when we come into more power! We feel almost invincible, as if nothing could stop us. When we receive more power, we rejoice because we feel a sense of accomplishment; and we think to ourselves, “I’ve got all this power to work with. I’ve got privileges I’ve never had before. This is great”!

But what do we do when things get rocky in the “power drive”? What happens when suddenly, the elder-now-turned-pastor finds himself having to battle wayward members in the church who seek to get him ousted from church leadership? What happens when the assistant-turned-manager finds himself giving an account for financial corruption in one of his store chains? What happens when the professor finds himself in conflict with a fellow faculty member at the same school where he teaches? What happens when parents must go to school because their child has misbehaved and gotten suspended? The moment that “the going gets tough,” most of us “get going”!!!

Why do we do this, though? Why do we run when times get tough? Why do we flee when hardships come? This question is as much for you, the readership, as it is for me. At the moment, I find myself thinking on the same question. A few months ago, I took some time off from my church to deal with my grief over my mother. Most people back home assume that I only took time off from church just to deal with my grief (not to mention my workload with classes and such). All of this was true at the time, so there was nothing underhanded about those reasons. All those reasons are legitimate. However, at the same time, I didn’t just take time off for the sake of grieving (though I did grieve and needed the time). I also took time off to deal with my hurt behind being stripped of my teaching ministry in my church. My mother taught a Sunday school class; when she turned ill and was no longer able to instruct, I assisted her in teaching the class two Sundays a month, sharing my teaching duties with a deacon in the church. This deacon turned selfish and secretly undermined my work in my church by going to my pastor and asking to teach every Sunday in the month. Initially, I was co-teaching two Sundays a month, he two or three Sundays (depending on the number in the month). Over time, he grew more and more hungry for more Sundays...and teaching two or three times a month was no longer enough. My Pastor agreed to give all four to five Sundays a month to this deacon, for unknown reasons. This was the following January, after the loss of my mother in February 2009 to brain cancer. You would think that, after this tragic experience, not to mention the death of a great-aunt to stomach cancer the day after my birthday in the same year as well as the death of a friend to suicide, that the worst had already happened. Apparently, more would follow...

And how did I respond? I’m afraid that I responded in a way that was good for certain reasons, but bad for certain reasons. I needed to deal with my grief over everything and I didn’t want to respond in a cruel manner to my Pastor, but I also took time away from my church and somewhat neglected my duties as a woman of God.

A few days ago, my sister called me and reminded me of my mother’s inner strength and determination to press on in her journey with God, no matter what came. Danielle reminded me of my mother’s disappointments with her church, job, bosses, marriage, and life---yet, NOTHING kept mom from doing the right thing! She was always determined to keep going, even in the face of breast cancer, lung cancer, and then brain cancer. When she was declared free of breast cancer, the doctors told mom that she had lung cancer. Even then, my mother didn’t give up. I still remember the night when the doctors told us that she had brain cancer. She was quiet, but she was silently determining within herself to keep going. She was so stubborn in her fight with brain cancer (and the other cancers) that she had to stay six months out of work...but six months later, she returned to work, drove herself to work on her 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo, and laughed to herself as she watched her coworkers stand in awe of what God was doing in her life! Yep. It’s safe to say that my mother was one heck of a woman, one heck of a Christian.

So if my mother could stare cancer in the face as stubbornly as she did, then why can I not stare my problems head-on in the face and be godly in spite of them? When my heart got heavy, I fled from my troubles; I ran away because it was either run or stay and be a living terror to everyone around me. Part of me wanted to make my pastor feel the pain of what it would be like to lose a very valuable part of his staff. The other part of me wanted to show my church that I could make a life for myself somewhere else. Although I had been serving God there, I wanted to show them that if they could not accept me and my gifts, I could go to some place where I would be accepted. I could go off and be happy, while they would just be miserable. I had options.

But let’s look at that last statement again: I HAD OPTIONS! That’s right; this statement sounds easy enough to say, but I didn’t realize that I had options. I didn’t HAVE to leave my church; I could’ve stayed and tried to work through the problems. I could’ve stayed and “been Christ” and suffered for His name sake despite the wrong my pastor and this deacon dealt me. I didn’t have to leave...but everything in me believed that I only had “one” option. And unfortunately, for me, that option was to deny myself the responsibility (to suffer wrongdoing) that came with the power of being in church leadership. Simply put, I wanted all the power---and no responsibility.

Why is it that when it comes to biblical human power and responsibility, believers do the same? Why is it that we celebrate the power given to us to believe in Christ, but yet, dislike the responsibility of all that entails (which is endurance until the end, Hebrews 10:36)? I’ll tell you why: because, as my former Apologetics professor Dr. Spencer said this past semester, “Responsibility is a huge privilege; but it’s also a huge burden.” Being a leader in church ministry is a great privilege...but it comes with its share of hurt. And believing in Christ is a huge privilege (since we are granted salvation in Christ despite our sin in Adam); but it is also a huge burden. And we want to be saved. When we hear the word preached of this great Savior who loved us despite our sin and came to save us from everlasting torment and eternity without His presence, many willingly accept. We like the idea that we are not “predestined” to live lives without Christ, that there is hope beyond our sinful state and current condition. And we believe the gospel is called “good news” [from the Greek word “euangelion,” meaning “good”(eu) “news” (angelion)] for a reason.

But we don’t wanna accept the responsibility that comes with this privilege. We want God to save us, but we don’t wanna owe anything in return. We are always looking for a “lifetime guarantee,” so much so that Christianity becomes nothing more than something we can “check off of the list of things to do” before we die. But the problem is, life only comes with one guarantee: that is, the promise of Christ which says “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Heb. 13:5, NKJV).

All I can think about now is how I once taught a lesson in Sunday school on dealing with confrontation and told the class, “We are not to just ‘back’ our problems (turn our back to them), but to ‘face’ them.” But look at what I did: I did the exact opposite of what I taught. And through my actions, I failed to live up to that God-given responsibility I stress so much here at The Center for Theological Studies. Well, if there’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that, while we can make mistakes (and we will), we are not doomed (or determined) to repeat them. The most wonderful thing about life in Christ is that, though we fall, we can always “get back up again.”

Like the prodigal son (Luke 15), I’m headed back home to face my problems. I choose to turn things around in my life. My question for you is, “Will you live up to the great power we’ve been given in Christ by also acknowledging your responsibility?” That is my prayer for you, my dear readership: that you would acknowledge that God-given power and responsibility that you currently possess. “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Philippians 1:29).

The Work of Faith

“Isn’t exercising faith something we do? Yes, it is, but what many fail to notice is that in saying this there has been A SUBTLE EQUIVOCATION OF THE WORD ‘DO.’ As Geisler points out, all works are actions, but not all actions are works. FAITH IS AN ACTION IN THE SENSE THAT IT INVOLVES AN ACT OF THE WILL, BUT IT IS NOT A WORK. We exercise faith to receive redemption for the precise reason that we cannot DO anything to earn salvation. Faith is not a meritorious deed. How does receiving a gift make the gift less gracious? The challenge for Calvinists is to demonstrate from Scripture that receiving grace equates to deserving grace” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pages 108-109).

I titled this post “The Work of Faith” because for one, I think it grabs attention. I mean, Calvinist theology has plagued American evangelicalism for so long that when we hear “faith” and “works” in the same sentence, our ears (and hearts) become extremely sensitive to the topic at hand.

Ken Keathley’s words above regarding “works” and “actions” reveals how words used in different contexts can easily lead to confusion. Now, I’ve said it here at CTS that “faith is not a work”; but in this post, I will attempt to clarify what I mean by this. Calvinism says that faith is a work, which explains why, in its system, a person must be regenerated before they believe (in other words, salvation PRECEDES faith). While faith is a type of work (if by this word one means “action”), faith itself is not a “work of merit,” by which one earns wages (or personal praise). Read the words of the apostle Paul:

“Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES ON HIM who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Romans 4:4-5, NKJV).

So, according to Romans, works and faith are not the same.

However, what do we do with the following from John?

“Then they said to Him, ‘What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘THIS IS THE WORK OF GOD, THAT YOU BELIEVE IN HIM whom He sent” (John 6:28-29, NKJV).

According to Jesus’ own words, to believe is to do “the work of God.” How do we reconcile this with Paul’s statement that faith is not a work? In addition, how do we reconcile it with these words?

“But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE HAVE DONE, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:4-5).

Initially, we think to ourselves, “Okay, faith is a work; but it isn’t a work.” This statement left by itself at most leads to confusion and at worst, leads to a blatant contradiction. In order to break the contradiction (“it is...but it isn’t”), we have to qualify what we mean by “works”.

Paul gives us the answer in Romans:

“Where is boasting then? IT IS EXCLUDED. By what law? OF WORKS? No, but by THE LAW OF FAITH” (Rom. 3:27).

What is the Law of works? The Old Testament Law. Paul also calls the work “the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:20, 28). In his discussion of the Jews’ unbelief in Romans 9, Paul notes that they are still trying to fulfill “the works of the law,” which explains why they are stumbling (Rom. 9:32).

So, while faith is a type of work (John 6:39), it is not an act of merit. The works of the law were done to achieve righteousness. Now that Christ has come, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” The word for “end” here is “telos,” which also means goal. The law was to point to Christ, who fulfilled the Law down to the minutest detail.

So what kind of “work” is faith? To believe in Christ is to trust Christ, that He will do what He has promised. A life lived in faith is a life that perseveres, taking God at His word. And, as Keathley said, since we cannot merit our own salvation, we must trust in the merits of Christ. There is no other way...

Adequately Refuted??

“The precise meaning of John’s statement that Jesus was the propitiation ‘not for our [sins] alone, but also for the whole world (2:2b; cp. 4:14) is difficult to understand and hotly debated...it is, however, much more difficult when the discussion moves to what John actually meant by ‘the whole world.’ Some contend that this passage speaks of God’s redemption with a universal scope in its POTENTIAL. IN THIS INTERPRETATION THE ‘WHOLE WORLD’ SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS ‘ALL INCLUSIVE,’ THUS JESUS IS THE PROPITIATION FOR ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION...others argue that when John speaks of the ‘whole world,’ HE IS REFERRING TO ALL THE ELECT OF BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES...While both of the above positions are possible interpretations of 1 John 2:2, NEITHER IS WITHOUT PROBLEMS. In the first instance, to assert that Jesus’ death was sufficient to deal with the sins of all people but only becomes effective if one believes is ACTUALLY DIFFICULT TO SUPPORT THEOLOGICALLY” (Christopher D. Bass, “That You May Know: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2008, pages 81-82).

Today, I spent time reading through some of the book “That You May Know,” which is part of the NAC series (a supplement to the New American Commentary series). The purpose of the work is to trace exegetically John’s intention to provide assurance for the congregation, despite the departure of some false teachers, who deny Christ came in the flesh (those John labels as “antichrists” who have already gone out into the world). John wants the congregation to know that they have a true anointing from God and know the truth. Because of their anointing, they can trust God’s promises to them and His presence in them. Since they have the Son, they have life (1 John 5:12).

In the above quote, I quote Christopher Bass providing two different interpretations on the meaning of the phrase “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2. It is the first that I will deal with in this post.

Bass states that he finds problems with the view. The view is that while Christ’s death CAN save every person, His death will only save those who believe. In other words, everyone has an opportunity (despite the fact that many will choose to not be saved).

What are some of the problems with the above view? One of those problems seems to be that it cannot get around the logic of John Owen, whom he quotes at length:

“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight...if the second, that is it which we affirm, that CHRIST IN THEIR STEAD AND ROOM SUFFERED FOR ALL THE SINS OF ALL THE ELECT IN THE WORLD. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ BUT THIS UNBELIEF, IS IT A SIN, OR NOT? IF NOT, WHY SHOULD THEY BE PUNISHED FOR IT? IF SO, THEN WHY MUST THAT HINDER THEM MORE THAN THEIR OTHER SINS FOR WHICH HE DIED...? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will” (John Owen, “The Death of Death In the Death of Christ,” pages 61-62; quoted by Christopher D. Bass, “That You May Know: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2008, page 83).

In the words of Christopher Bass, “To my knowledge no one has ADEQUATELY REFUTED John Owen’s definitive statement on this issue...” (83)

I will go ahead and admit my bias: I believe that Jesus died for all men, but that they do not receive salvation because of unbelief. Now, before I get into why I believe John Owen is simply wrong on this one, let’s affirm that unbelief is the scriptural reason as to why some men are not saved (though Jesus died for them):

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES...” (Romans 1:16, NKJV)

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, TO ALL AND ON ALL WHO BELIEVE” (Rom. 3:22)

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28).

“For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness’” (Rom. 4:3).

“but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SEEK IT BY FAITH BUT...BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW” (Rom. 9:31-32).

“You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.’ Well said. BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF THEY WERE BROKEN OFF, AND YOU STAND BY FAITH” (Rom. 11:19-20).

As Scripture demonstrates, then, faith is required for salvation, and those who are not saved are unsaved because they refuse to believe (as in the case of national Israel in Romans).

The next thing we need to do is answer John Owen’s question: “But this unbelief, is it a sin or not?...if it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not, then did not die for all their sins” (“That You May Know,” page 83).

Is unbelief a sin? Yes it is! So, did Christ die for all sins? The answer is yes. But why, then, are not all men saved? Why does unbelief hinder individuals from coming to Christ? A simple answer I will provide: because those who come to Christ must “receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness” from the Lord (Romans 5:17, NKJV). Put in another way, we can only please God if we come to Him in faith (Heb. 11:6); and those who do not believed are condemned already (John 3:18). The Lord has established “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27), and those who disobey God’s “Law of faith” will not be saved.

I will deal more with the issue of Limited Atonement in the coming days.

The False Dilemma

Today I mentioned to a friend, Cortez, that I was taking a summer class in another week. Dr. Ken Keathley is teaching a summer Contemporary Theology course on Molinism...and I’m taking it! The class will start this coming Monday, June 28, 2010. Boy am I so excited!!!

In any case, a friend of ours, Carlie, was standing around at the time. Carlie found out that I was taking the course and he asked me, “Are you a Molinist?”

Now let me make this known: whenever someone asks me a question, I always wanna answer in a way that will please the person. I grew up trying to please everyone in my life, from mom to grandma to teachers at school to friends. And sometimes, even now at 25 years of age, I have to stop myself sometimes because I find myself in that same rut again. Time and maturity have taught me that I cannot please everyone; I cannot make everyone happy, make them pleased with me, etc. I’ve simply had to learn that there will be those you please and those you cannot.

So when Carlie asked this question, I wanted to give him the answer that he would be most pleased with; but honesty and Christian character prompted me to give him an answer that met with his displeasure: “Ummm...I’m gonna have to say ‘No’.”

“Why?” was his next question. I proceeded to explain that I had a problem with the idea of “God setting the table so that I freely choose what God has predetermined.” And then, that led into an hour conversation between me, him, and our mutual friend, Cortez.

Aside from his Molinist theology, however, there was one thing that most bothered me in my conversation with him: that was his idea that humanity is divided into those who choose Christ, and those who do not choose Christ. Now someone may ask, “What’s the problem? After all, doesn’t Scripture do the same thing?” The answer to that question is a resounding “No”. To create such a bifurcation is known in philosophy as a “false dichotomy” or a “false dilemma.” What is a false dilemma, exactly? Garrett DeWeese and J.P. Moreland give us an example:

“(a) Either Bill is in his apartment or he is in the library.
(b) Bill is not in the library.
(c) Therefore, Bill is in his apartment.

Remember that the truth of the conclusion depends on the truth of the premises. A disjunctive syllogism relies on an exclusive sense of “or” such that THE TWO ALTERNATIVES ARE THE ONLY ONES POSSIBLE...if, in our example, it is possible that Bill is en route, then the conclusion will not follow” (Garrett J. DeWeese and J.P. Moreland, “Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult: A Beginner’s Guide to Life’s Big Questions.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005, page 18).

Look at DeWeese’s and Moreland’s example: this is a false dilemma because the assumption is that BILL CAN ONLY BE in two places; in actuality, Bill could be on his way to one or the other places (i.e., BETWEEN the library and his apartment). The notion that Bill could be in-between the library and the apartment is not even considered, when it is as viable an option as Bill being in the apartment and Bill being in the library.

And the Calvinist and Molinist views of the saved and unsaved commit this same fallacy. Calvinists and Molinists commit the fallacy of assuming that in life, either one is determined to be a believer or an unbeliever; the problem lies in the fact that both camps fail to consider the idea that a person could once be a believer but then become an unbeliever.

Let’s read Scripture’s presentation of what is considered by many to be an “unbiblical” notion (that a believer could fall away and become an unbeliever):

“But he who RECEIVED THE SEED on stony places, this is he who hears the word and IMMEDIATELY RECEIVES IT WITH JOY; yet he has no root in himself, but ENDURES ONLY FOR A WHILE. For WHEN TRIBULATION OR PERSECUTION ARISES BECAUSE OF THE WORD, immediately he stumbles” (Matthew 13:20-21, NKJV).

“These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, IMMEDIATELY RECEIVE IT WITH GLADNESS; and they have no root in themselves, and so ENDURE ONLY FOR A TIME. Afterward, WHEN TRIBULATION OR PERSECUTION ARISES FOR THE WORD’S SAKE, immediately they stumble” (Mark 4:16-17).

“But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, RECEIVE THE WORD WITH JOY; and these have no root, WHO BELIEVE FOR A WHILE and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13).

Let’s notice some similarities and connections between the three accounts of the rocky soil: first, all state that the word is received with joy (“immediately receives it with joy,” “immediately receives it with gladness, immediately receive it with gladness”). Secondly, endurance and faith are connected (“endures for only a while,” “endure for a time,” “believe for a while”).

Now here is where someone would ask the question, “Was the soil saved? Did the person come to faith in Christ? Was the person who fell away a believer or not?” And this is where I would respond by saying, “the text gives us a clear declaration that the person was a believer.” How? Look at Matthew’s and Mark’s account of the rocky soil:

“But he who received the seed on stony places, this is who hears the word and IMMEDIATELY RECEIVES IT WITH JOY; yet he has no root in himself, but ENDURES ONLY FOR A WHILE. For WHEN TRIBULATION OR PERSECUTION ARISES BECAUSE OF THE WORD, immediately he stumbles” (Matthew 13:20-21, NKJV).

“These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, IMMEDIATELY RECEIVE IT WITH GLADNESS; and they have no root in themselves, and so ENDURE ONLY FOR A TIME. Afterward, WHEN TRIBULATION OR PERSECUTION ARISES FOR THE WORD’S SAKE, immediately they stumble” (Mark 4:16-17).

There are two phrases, one in each of the above Scriptures just referenced, that give us the answer to our question: “tribulation or persecution arises because of the word” and “tribulation or persecution arises for the word’s sake.” Both of these phrases tell us that the person is put through difficult times in their lives “because of the word,” “for the word’s sake.” Scripture tells us that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12).

Now my question would be, “Why do persecutions arise in the lives of these ‘rocky’ individuals, unless their acts of “receiving the word,” “believing for a time,” and “enduring for a time” are acts of saved individuals? The word says nothing of unbelievers enduring persecution “on account of the word.” And the word itself says nothing about the unsaved receiving the word with joy: the unsaved “perish...because they DID NOT RECEIVE the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). In addition, Paul also confirms the identity of the rocky soil that “received the word” as believers in his First Epistle to the Thessalonians:

“For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake. And YOU BECAME FOLLOWERS OF US AND OF THE LORD, HAVING RECEIVED THE WORD in much affliction, WITH JOY of the Holy Spirit...” (1 Thess. 1:5-6)

The rocky soil of Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8 is a reference to believers who “believe/endure for a time” and then “fall away.” And 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6 confirms that the Thessalonians themselves (as the rocky believers) receive the word with joy.

I think this post has cleared the air regarding the false dilemma created by Calvinists and Molinists. I am gonna set myself up for a challenge with the following words: if a Calvinist or Molinist can show me why my exegesis of Matthew 13, Mark 4, or Luke 8 is incorrect, I will gladly acknowledge that I stand corrected. However, for me to be corrected exegetically would also require someone to show me that Esau, who failed to obtain the inheritance, never had the birthright to begin with (Heb. 12:16-17)...and that simply can’t be done.