Eternal Security and Its Implications For A Theology of History, Pt. XII: Tensed Facts

I have spent much time on the idea of the eternal decrees of God and how God’s actions in eternity relate to human action in time. In today’s post, I intend to focus on what Scripture has to show us about the believer’s coming to faith in Christ...that there is a real passage of time in which, as we come to faith, God changes His relationship toward us (from one of wrath to one of love). I’ve already done some exegetical work in Hebrews 11:6, showing that the Lord “becomes a rewarder” to those who seek Him (the word used is “ginomai,” meaning “to become”). To start off the post, I’d like to quote the words of Scripture itself:

“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2) in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3) among whom we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. 4) But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5) even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6)and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7) that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:1-7, NKJV).

These first seven verses of Ephesians chapter 2 concern what philosophers call “tensed facts.” William Lane Craig defines the term:

“Second, we need to define what we mean by a ‘tensed fact.’ We are all familiar with tense as it plays a role in language. THE FUNCTION OF TENSE IS TO LOCATE SOMETHING IN RELATION TO THE PRESENT. Although most of our ordinary language is tensed, there are occasions on which we employ sentences that are grammatically in the present tense to express what are really tenseless truths. For example, we say such things as ‘Lady MacBeth commits suicide in act V, scene V,’ ‘The glass breaks easily,’ ‘The area of a circle is ∏r^2,’ ‘Centaurs have the body of a horse and the torso of a man,’ and ‘The 1996 presidential election is earlier than the 2004 presidential election.’...the information conveyed by a tensed sentence concerns not just tenseless facts [facts without respect to time, definition mine] but tensed facts as well, facts about how far from the present something is. Thus what is a fact at one moment may not be a fact at another moment. It is now a fact that I am writing this sentence; in a moment it will no longer be a fact. Thus the body of tensed facts is constantly changing” (William Lane Craig, “Timelessness & Omnitemporality,” from “God & Time: Four Views” by Gregory E. Ganssle, ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, pages 145-146).

Tensed facts show us facts (truths about everyday life) that are “tensed”---that is, contain a tense (whether past, present, or future). For example, the sentence “I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior” indicates that my salvation occurred in the past (notice the word “accepted,” which is in the past tense). If I say, “I will eat lunch,” then I am implying that the action (lunch) is of future occurrence (notice the verb “will eat”). Tensed facts not only show us truths, but give us the time such truths will occur in relation to where we are now. The present is the reference point for tensed facts---without it, we would not know how to relate to such information...for we would not know what day or time (or have a concept of time) in which we could act upon the information we have been given.

Using this definition of tensed facts, let’s now approach Ephesians 2. Does Ephesians 2 itself contain tensed facts? The answer is yes. Let’s start with verse 2. The verb for “you walked” is “periepatesate,” coming from two Greek words, “peri” (around) and “pateo” (to walk). The verb itself is also in the aorist tense, implying past action. Many verbs will occur in passages related to past time in the aorist tense. A.T. Robertson explains the aorist tense:

“The Greek in truth is ‘an aorist-loving language’ (Broadus)...In the koine the aorist is even more frequent than in the classic Greek...it is true that in THE EXPRESSION OF PAST TIME IN THE INDICATIVE...the aorist is the tense used as a matter of course, unless there was special reason for using some other tense” (A.T. Robertson, “A Grammer of the Greek New Testament In The Light of Historical Research, Fourth Edition.” Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934, page 831).

The aorist’s basic use as a tense is to demonstrate a past action (that something happened in the past). This is what Ephesians 2 will show us---that, according to the present time (in which the Ephesians are saved), there was a time before (in the past) when they were not saved. And all the verbs will appear in the past tense.

The second verb in verse 2, “working,” is the verb “energountos,” which is a present participle (verb + the letters “ing”). The Greek word before “energountos” in the Greek text is “nun,” which means “now.” So the rulers of the powers of the air, that which “is now working” in the sons of disobedience. The verb “working” and the adverb “nun” (now) contrasts the sons of light (i.e., Ephesian believers) with the world (sons of disobedience) and the fact that the Ephesians (in the past) did what the world (sons of wrath) are “now” doing.

In verse 3, “we conducted ourselves” is the Greek verb “anastrephemen,” which is the aorist form of “anastrepho” (meaning “to turn back” or “to live” or “to conduct oneself”). Once again, the aorist tense tells us that the Ephesians, in reference to the present, dealt with sin in the past.

Verse 5 presents us with the verb “made us alive,” which in the Greek is the word “sunezopoiesen.” The verb itself is a compound verb, consisting of the words “sun” (with) and “zoe” (life) and “poieo” (to make). We are not just made alive in Christ, we are “made to live with Christ.” The verb, once again, is aorist, indicating past tense. The Ephesians, in other words, are currently “in Christ”---but at one point in the past, they experienced their first moment of conversion (they were saved in the past, and they are now “being saved”).

I cover the Greek grammar here to show you that the very words of Scripture point to tensed facts (that is, that the Ephesians “once walked” in sin, but “have been made alive” with Christ). The question I leave you with is, “If these words are truly sincere, then what about unconditional election?” As I’ve stated before, to affirm an “unconditional” election is to affirm that certain individuals are chosen by God prior to time (“time” being a condition, so “unconditional” means “without time”, signaling eternity). If individuals are saved from eternity, then how is it that they could actually have walked in darkness and been “dead in trespasses in sins” (Eph. 2:1)? How then, could the Ephesians have been “made alive in Christ” if they were saved from eternity? Once again, let me state that I am not arguing against eternal decrees; what I am arguing against is the idea that certain individuals were decreed as saved “without regard to time itself.” If God actualized the world in history, as John Piper says, and time itself was created along with the world, then why would God have already determined who would and would not accept Him?

If there is real relationship between God and man with regard to time, then to affirm God chose certain individuals outside of time is to affirm a logical impossibility. As I’ve stated before, those who hold to unconditional election affirm that the decree of election comes logically PRIOR to the decree to send Christ; what does this mean? That God elects sinners, not believers...by so stating, Calvinists (and Molinists) stipulate that God was more concerned with their election than dealing with sin. So, again, I ask, how could the Ephesians have ever been “dead in trespasses and sins”? I’ll continue with the series in my next post.

Eternal Security and Its Implications For A Theology of History, Pt. XI-B: The Temporal-Eternal Tension of Molinism

In my last post, I focused on the idea that God’s decrees are made in eternity because they are prior to time. However, what I am not arguing for is the necessity of human actions in the past; rather, as Arminius said (see the end of Pt. XI-A), God wills some things “per accidens”. Such things are “accidental,” contingent or based upon the actions of human beings. All of God’s decrees are not unconditional (without regard to human beings). While they are “unconditional” if by the word one means that God freely decrees everything to exist; if, however, one means that among God’s decrees, God decides to damn people to Hell without the person being the cause of their damnation, then all decrees are not unconditional. I spend time on word definitions because the key to the debate is how one defines terms. It all comes down to nuanced definitions of words. Sometimes I think theologians and philosophers fail to get on the same page because, while both use the same words, they have different definitions in mind (and thus, talk past one another).

Having said all this, it is important to point out that Molinism claims the exact same thing: that is, that some of God’s decrees are conditional. Molinist Ken Keathley writes:

“In other words, the Molinist paradigm explains how it is possible for there to be a decree of election without a corresponding decree of reprobation, which is in fact the biblical witness” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 154).

While I disagree with Dr. Keathley, I want to point out that he is right in affirming that “some” of God’s decrees are conditional upon human decision. Not all of God’s decrees are unconditional; for, if this were true, then God would be damning people to Hell before the foundation of the world was brought into existence.

However, to admit that some of God’s decrees are conditional works against unconditional election, since conditional decrees give way to genuine choice in time. Ken Keathley writes:

“If God rejects the reprobate because of his sin and unbelief, then reprobation is based on God’s justice, and His decision poses no moral dilemma. BUT IT WOULD ALSO MEAN that some aspects of God’s decree were conditional...and THAT IN CERTAIN WAYS THE FREE CHOICES OF MORALLY RESPONSIBLE CREATURES AFFECTED THE ETERNAL DECISIONS OF GOD” (“Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach,” page 140).

It’s a pretty big concession for anyone to admit that free creatures can affect the eternal decrees of God. But if this is true, then this means that creatures are given the power of genuine choice by God, that they are not “forced” to make the decisions they do in time. And God decrees that humans can make their own decisions (which means that God freely chooses to grant human decision...nothing is forced upon God).

But how does an “unconditional” election work with an “conditional” reprobation? If the elect are chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4; “Salvation and Sovereignty,” page 140) by God Himself, then are not the elect chosen in eternity? I will set up a syllogism:

I.      The elect are chosen before the foundation of the world.

II.    With the creation of the world, time and space appear.

III.  If the elect are chosen before the foundation of the world, and the foundation is created along with time and space, then the elect are chosen before time and space are created.

IV.    Therefore, the elect are chosen apart from time, or “in eternity.”

If this is true, then what about the reprobate? If the reprobation decree is “conditional,” then what does this mean? It means that the person who rejects God is allowed to do so because of genuine choice in time. But, if one is allowed to reject God in time, then why is one not allowed to accept God in time?

This is where singular redemption comes in. According to the Molinist system, singular redemption allows room for conditionality:

“The singular redemption view, held by moderate Calvinists and Reformed Arminians...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. THE KEY DISTINCTION OF THE SINGULAR REDEMPTION VIEW IS THAT IT SEES A TEMPORAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROVISION AND THE APPLICATION” (“Salvation and Sovereignty,” page 196).

Mark that Molinists note a “condition” placed in the appropriation of forgiveness. What this means is that the “unconditionally elect,” chosen in eternity, must receive the forgiveness itself in time. But, if they are chosen in eternity, then are they not “eternally saved”? How then, can the elect be “eternally saved,” IF they must receive the forgiveness of sins in time? If forgiveness is tailored to time, then, until a certain point in world history, that person is unsaved. But, if they have already been chosen for salvation in eternity, then how can they be an “unsaved elect”?   Are not the elect “saved”? Then, how can the person be both saved and unsaved at the same time? This is an illogical argument.

This is the problem with the Molinist system. It posits that a person is “unconditionally elect” in eternity but must receive the forgiveness of sins in time. But why such an emphasis on action in time? If God chooses a person “unconditionally,” then He chooses them without respect to anything about them (which includes choices in time and therefore, time itself). In other words, not even time is a condition in which the person is elected...rather, they are chosen in eternity, logically prior to time. How then, has the person ever been under the wrath of God, or at enmity with God? How then, has that person ever been guilty of sins committed? And why does that person ever need to ask for forgiveness?

The truth is, we all say, “I got saved,” at some point to mark a time in which we experienced God’s gift of salvation. However, if Ephesians 1:4 is interpreted in Molinist fashion, then a person never “got saved,” but has always been saved.

Molinism is an interesting system to study because I think it struggles to explain how one can simultaneously hold to predetermined decisions in eternity, but affirm genuine choice in time. To me it seems that, for Molinism to be right, genuine choice must be eliminated. The eternally secure have been eternally forgiven and eternally saved; and if the elect are eternally saved, what do they repent of at conversion (since to repent implies committed sin)? Why would the eternally elect need to repent of sin that has NEVER counted against them? It seems that, to hold to genuine choice in time, one must allow more conditionality in God’s decrees in eternity than Molinism will allow...

Eternal Security and Its Implications For A Theology of History, Pt. XI-A: God and Decretal Theology (Theology of Decrees)

I am back to deal with another “juicy” post on Eternal Security. Before you ask me, yes, I know that this is part eleven of the series. It seems like it really hasn’t been all that long since I started the series...but I guess the work speaks for itself.

I’ve covered much in this series. For one, I’ve covered the idea of eternal security as a philosophical concept---that is, if a person is eternally secure, there is no “temporal” start to salvation (the person did not “get saved,” but has been saved eternally). As a result, the sins of elect individuals have been forgiven, and that person had no sin to repent for in time. What then, is the meaning of the biblical concept of “repentance” for sins and “repentance” at conversion? Not a lot. If acts such as repentance really matter, then time must be more than just some unit of passage that distinguishes one moment from another. If one holds to a proper theology of history, as I’ve stated over and over again (using John Piper’s quote), then history is how God chose to reveal Himself. If God were concerned only with “eternal security” and all things eternal, then there is no need for time (since time is the antithesis of eternity).

In this post, I’ve chosen to evaluate Molinism in regards to my discussion of time and eternity. The reason I’ve chosen Molinism is because, in regards to all the other systems present in the theological world, Molinism is the system that seems to many to be the most viable in terms of its philosophical appeal. Of course, Molinism is more than just a philosophical system (Molinists often tell me to emphasize that!), but the philosophical appeal often wins many to this system, many who would otherwise be Calvinist (and some Arminians).

Before I get into the goal of this post, I just wanna make something clear in case I haven’t: God’s decrees are made in eternity, prior to the creation of time and space. As Arminius writes,

“The world was neither created from all eternity, nor could it be so created;---though God was from all eternity furnished with that [potentia] capability by which He could create the world, and afterwards did create it;---and though no moment of time can be conceived by us, in which the world could not have been created” (James Arminius, “Works” II:357-58).

If God existed in eternity, and time appeared when God created the heavens and earth (the world), then God must have made the decrees in eternity regarding what would take place in time.

However, the question then becomes, “Did God predetermine what He wanted to happen, or did He predetermine on the basis of what He knew in Himself would happen, events caused by creatures outside of Himself?” If God determined what He wanted to happen, then God is responsible for everything (sin, sickness, and evil) that has ever gone wrong. And here is where a proper theology of history comes in: if God decides to actualize the world in history (as John Piper states---see his quote in earlier parts of the series), then God desires that genuine choices be actualized in time...and the decrees for those choices are conditional decrees (that is, conditioned upon the person(s) who will make those choices). While the decrees are “unconditional” in that God chooses to make them, they are “conditional” in that they are made because such individuals will commit those actions, not that God determines every choice that is made.

I wanted to let it be known that Classical Arminians do not deny the eternality of God’s decrees; rather, what we do deny is that those decrees made in eternity are simply what God has decided all individuals will do. That is, we don’t believe God predetermined that David would kill Uriah and commit adultery with Bathsheba. We believe that such an action was decreed in eternity, “conditioned” upon the fact that David actually would do it. In other words, nothing happens because God foreknows it...rather, God foreknows something because it is going to happen. God’s foreknowledge is not causal or determinative in what happens in time. While God does make decrees in time that He Himself determines of His own free will, there are those that He determines will occur because of the will of His human creation. In the words of Arminius,

“God wills some things per se, or per accidens. Of themselves, he wills those things which are simply and relatively good: Thus he wills salvation to that man who is obedient. ACCIDENTALLY, THOSE THINGS WHICH IN SOME RESPECT ARE EVIL, but have a good joined with them, which God wills more than the respective good things that are opposed to those evil: Thus He wills the evils of punishment; because He chooses that the order of justice be preserved in punishment, rather than that a sinning creature should escape punishment, though this impunity might be for the good of the creature” (James Arminius, “Works” II: 346).

Here, God wills what He calls “evils of punishment” because of the evil actions of His human creation (“rather than that a sinning creature should escape punishment”). If God were to will evils of punishment because of mere whim, then God would be the author of sin and evil, which would contradict James 1’s affirmation that God is innocent of sin and evil (see James 1:13).

I will dive into Molinist philosophy in my next post.

Eternal Security and Its Implications For A Theology of History, Pt. X-B: The Implications of "Unconditional Eternal Forgiveness" In Time

This is part 10B in my series on eternal security (ES). I decided to do a second portion to part ten because I felt the need to go into more detail about unconditional eternal forgiveness. In my post yesterday, I tackled James White’s quote regarding the forgiveness of sins as being past, present, and future. Biblically, the evidence is stacked against White’s position, since we saw yesterday in Matthew 6 (the Lord’s Prayer) that we are forgiven “as we forgive our debtors,” or rather, in the forgiving of those who owe us or have wronged us. We also saw Matthew 18 regarding the King who retracts (takes back) the forgiveness He bestowed upon the unforgiving servant (who, although forgiven, refused to forgive his own servant of his debt). The unforgiving servant went from being freed of his debt, to having his debt restored upon his head and being thrown in prison until he should pay every last cent. Jesus then responded with the words, “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses” (Matthew 18:35, NKJV). If all of Scripture is profitable (2 Tim. 3:16), then Jesus’ words also apply to us. Unless we forgive others, we ourselves will not be forgiven.

In this post, I intend to discuss what it means “in time” for unconditional eternal forgiveness to be true. The things I write here just may surprise you...

Let’s start this post with a section of James White’s quote from yesterday’s post:

“First, we note that at the time of the death of Christ, all the sins of all believers for the next two millennia were yet future. So if we believe that any of our sins were laid upon Christ, even if we limit this to our past sins, we are asserting that future sins were laid upon Christ in the past. Therefore the idea that future sins can be said to be forgiven in the death of Christ is basic to the whole presentation of the efficacy of His saving work. Our problem lies in the fact that we are caught in the middle, so to speak, knowing all too well our past and present sins but not yet knowledgeable about our future trespasses. If we confess, however, that our past sins were forgiven in the work of Christ long ago, we should not reject that our future sins can be laid upon Him as well” (James White, “The God Who Justifies: The Doctrine of Justification, A Comprehensive Study.” Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001, page 99).

White’s argument above is the following:

1. Christ died before I confess and believe on His name.
2. When I confess and believe on His name, my past sins are eliminated (2 Peter 1:9).
3. Christ died before I was even born to commit past, present, and future sins.
4. Therefore, since Christ died for my sins, and all my sins are future (since even my birth is future), then Christ died for all of my sin (whether past, present, or future).

In other words, even forgiving my past sin is to forgive “future” sins since they are commited “after” Christ’s death (to Christ, such sin is future). Therefore, if He died for “some” of my future sin (the “some” being my pre-conversion sin), then Christ died for all my future sin (“all” involving my “present” as well as “later” sin).

While this argument might convince James White, it does not convince me. Yesterday in my post, I gave Scriptural reasons for why I disagree with James White. Here, however, I wanna discuss how entertaining White’s notion of “unconditional eternal forgiveness” impacts life in Christ.

In this series, I have talked about what it means for someone to be “unconditionally eternally secure.” If that person cannot fall away from the gospel, no matter what they do, then this security has not only been from conversion forward...the security has also been there from the moment of conversion backward. In other words, the person has always been secure because they were made secure IN ETERNITY! Eternity itself always existed, and God chose to make some secure before time began. If time had nothing to do with one’s election and security, then the person never “became” secure when they received Christ; rather, they were ALWAYS secure, even BEFORE salvation!

__divine decree of election_________________________salvation

Now this may seem shocking to some, but it’s the only way to make sense of an “unconditional eternal security.” If the security is unconditional, then nothing the person does affects the security. What this means is that not even the person’s coming to faith in time affected their security in Christ one way or the other (God already chose them and made them secure before they were born). In that case, coming to faith, for the elect one, is simply a confirmation of an eternal election that God endowed upon that person (an election that has always been in existence).

How does this tie in to unconditional eternal forgiveness, you may ask? This ties in because unconditional eternal forgiveness works the very same way. If a person’s birth is future to the cross, and all of their sin is future, then the individual has always been forgiven of all their sins. In other words, when the person hears the gospel and confesses that they are a sinner, under White’s scheme they are really wasting their time because, even before birth, they have always been forgiven of all sins. So the question becomes, “What does the sinner repent of at salvation?” If there is no sin (since all has been forgiven before their birth), then confession and belief are of no effect. And yet, Scripture tells us that we cannot be saved “until” the moment of confession (Romans 10:9).

1. _+(Christ on the Cross)______________________human birth
2. _human sin_______________conversion__________more sin_________

It’s funny that, when we talk of conversion, we always use tensed facts. When a person talks about coming to faith they say, “I got saved.” I heard a sermon on Jude this past Sunday, and the preacher said, “I remember when I got saved.” What he is recalling is a point in the past when he came to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But if unconditional eternal security and unconditional eternal forgiveness are right, then what the preacher has is an “unconditional eternal election.” That is, he didn’t “get saved”; rather, he has “always been saved.” He has an “eternal salvation”---not “eternal” in the sense that it comes from an eternal God...but in the sense that he has been saved for all of eternity, even before he was born or thought about. Not only can nothing “separate him from the love of God” (Rom. 8:39), nothing has ever separated him from the love of God (not even sin).

And this is why Calvinists spend so much time arguing decretal theology (or the theology of the divine decrees): because, if not even sin has ever separated the elect from the love of God, then God decreed the election of “sinners” (not “believers”), and this happened BEFORE God decreed to send Christ to deal with humanity’s sin. In other words, God was more preoccupied in eternity with drawing His elect to Himself than dealing with humanity’s sin. Jesus, then, coming in the flesh, is sent here only to redeem the elect (while leaving the rest of humanity in their sins).

If one thinks of eternity to time as a line (drawn from left to right as I did in the diagrams above), then one can understand why James White’s argument falls short. I think the truth is found in our affirmation of tensed facts (I “ate,” I “am going,” I “will call,” etc.); our affirmations show that we believe there is real importance to time. Evidently, time is of major importance to God, who, “when the fullness of time had come,...sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law...” (Galatians 4:4, NKJV).

Eternal Security and Its Implications For A Theology of History, Pt. X: Past, Present, and Future Sins

Have you ever heard the statement, “All of your sins, past, present, and future, have already been forgiven” in a sermon before? If not in a sermon, how about in a Bible study? Chances are, if you’ve ever been raised in an evangelical, conservative, Bible-believing church, you’ve heard these words. If you’ve ever been a member of a conservative church, you’ve heard these words. I point out conservatives in this post not to make fun of us, but to make the point that most conservative churches (particularly Baptist churches) have heard the above statement made within church walls.

In this post, I desire to tackle the above statement and see if Scripture really teaches such a thought. In my reading, though, I’ve found little to commend itself to this train of thought; however, in my estimation (however little that may be), it seems that the above statement is just another one of those philosophical statements of the Doctrine of Eternal Security that preachers place in sermons (and teachers in class lessons) without thinking about the implications of such statements.

Here’s what Calvinist theologian James White has to say about past, present, and future sins:

“The truth is, if justification is a one-time declaration by God, intimately connected with the forgiveness of sins through the work of Christ, then it follows that all of the believer’s sins have been forgiven him for Christ’s sake. This remission of all sins IS NOT LIMITED TO PAST SINS ONLY, BUT TO ALL SINS---PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE. If it were not so, THEN JUSTIFICATION WOULD HAVE TO BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND THE IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST WOULD BE LITTLE MORE THAN A FICTION, lowered to the level of the animal sacrifices of the old covenant, which had to be offered over and over again as a symbol of the continued presence of sin. Instead of this, all our transgressions were laid upon Christ and were, therefore, nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:13-14)” (James White, “The God Who Justifies: The Doctrine of Justification, A Comprehensive Study.” Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 98).

It is noticeable throughout James White’s quote above that for him, justification is a one-time-for-all-time act. Then, White seems to struggle with the biblical evidence that might stir controversy toward his view:

“The problem with accepting this fact is easy to see: how can we speak of sins being forgiven when they haven’t even been committed yet? AND WHY DO WE READ THAT WE AS BELIEVERS ARE TO CONFESS OUR SINS (1 JOHN 1:9)?” (White, “The God Who Justifies,” page 98).

White then turns around and, against Scriptural proof, argues from his own logic:

“First, we note that at the time of the death of Christ, all the sins of all believers for the next two millennia were yet future. So if we believe that ANY of our sins were laid upon Christ, even if we limit this to our past sins, we are asserting that future sins were laid upon Christ in the past. Therefore the idea that future sins can be said to be forgiven in the death of Christ is basic to the whole presentation of the efficacy of His saving work” (White, “Doctrine of Justification,” page 99).

What do we do with James White’s analysis? If you ask me, I think that James White’s logic should not be placed before Scripture itself. The fact that he notes 1 John 1:9 and the continual need to ask God for forgiveness of sins does not justify his logical argument given right after which seems to assert that past, present, and future sins have all been forgiven.

What does 1 John 1:9 say, exactly?

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9, NKJV).

The condition is “if we confess our sins,” and only with the confession of sin will we be forgiven. No other “if” statement in Scripture is hypothetical, so why would this one be? The condition must be met in order for sins to be forgiven. If this is true, then James White’s assumption is wrong. While our future sins are forgiven in some sense, it is a “conditional forgiveness”---a forgiveness that is dependent upon us asking the Lord to forgive us of our many sins.

The idea of conditional forgiveness can even be found in the Lord’s Prayer, as Jesus taught the disciples to pray:

“And forgive us our debts, AS WE FORGIVE OUR DEBTORS” (Matthew 6:12, NKJV).

What are we praying in Matthew 6:12? We are praying that, AS we forgive others, by us meeting the condition of forgiving others (and praying to God, as Jesus does here), we will receive forgiveness from God. The text does not say, “Forgive us our debts, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT WE FORGIVE OUR DEBTORS,” or “forgive us our debts because we are eternally secure and you died once for sin,” etc; no---the text itself points to a forgiveness that COMES ALONGSIDE our forgiveness of others who have wronged us and our requesting forgiveness of our own sin from a holy God.

Not only are sins forgiven on the conditions that 1) we ask for it and 2) we forgive others...also, forgiveness of past sins can be withdrawn. Jason Kerrigan writes in his work, “Against Once Saved Always Saved: Refuting the Doctrine of Unconditional Eternal Security,” that Matthew 18:23-35 is the ideal parable on forgiveness. Jesus tells the story of a man who, as a servant, was forgiven of his debt; however, this forgiven servant had a servant under him who also had debt...and yet, the forgiven servant failed to forgive his own servant of his debt. The king discovers that the forgiven servant has failed to practice forgiveness and retracts his debt. Matthew 18:34 tells us, “And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him” (NKJV). Here’s what Kerrigan has to say about the parable:

“Since the servant did that which was wicked after being forgiven, the lord of that servant WITHDREW HIS PREVIOUS FORGIVENESS AND REINSTATED HIS OLD DEBT. THIS IS A PICTURE OF WHAT GOD WILL DO TO US IF WE DO NOT FORGIVE OTHERS AFTER GOD HAS FORGIVEN US...Matthew 28:35” (Jason Kerrigan, “Against Once Saved Always Saved: Refuting the Doctrine of Unconditional Eternal Security.” Denver: Outskirts Press, Inc., 2009, page 24).

The fact that the king took back his forgiveness on the servant means that the forgiveness itself is not guaranteed, nor is it automatic; rather, the king’s forgiveness was CONDITIONAL, based upon the servant’s forgiveness of his servant (and others). Because he failed to do that, he failed to meet the condition, and the king took back the forgiveness and reinstated the financial requirement upon the head of the unforgiving servant. This explains why the parable tells us that the unforgiving servant was thrown into prison “until he should pay all that was due to him.”

Now, back to the question of 1 John 1:9. James White’s quote above asked the question, “how can we be forgiven of past, present, and future sins if we must confess our sin (1 John 1:9)?” Responding to White’s question would now be one of the foremost New Testament scholars of our time, Tom Schreiner:

“Some maintain that John could not possibly intend such a thought, since WE ARE ALREADY FORGIVEN BY OUR DIVINE JUDGE. They think, therefore, that JOHN MERELY MEANS THAT WE MUST CONFESS OUR SINS TO MAINTAIN FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD. In their view, fellowship is not the same thing as salvation...THIS INTERPRETATION IS MISTAKEN, for fellowship in these verses cannot be separated from salvation. In the context John counters the teaching of secessionists who had left the church. These secessionists claimed to be without sin (1 John 1:8) and asserted that they had not sinned since their conversion (1 Jn 1:10), yet John says they ‘walk in darkness’ (1 Jn. 1:6)...Thus, John really means that WE MUST CONFESS OUR SINS IN AN ONGOING WAY TO BE FORGIVEN BY GOD” (Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday, “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, pages 76-77).

What do we do with the testimony here of Jason Kerrigan and Dr. Thomas Schreiner against James White? Scripture doesn’t lie, and it testifies to the need for ongoing confession and ongoing forgiveness of others. At the end of the day, no matter how eloquent James White’s argument may be, it is more a sign of human depravity to buy into “unconditional eternal forgiveness” than to admit that Scripture contradicts the idea. In my next post, I will tackle the philosophical reasoning behind James White’s argument and tie in “unconditional eternal forgiveness” with “unconditional eternal security.” Stay tuned...

Eternal Security and Its Implications For A Theology of History, Pt. IX: The Presence of Perseverance In the Present

I am back today for part nine of our series on Eternal Security (ES) and its implications upon a theology of history. Up to now, I’ve been drilling home the fact that a proper theology of history cannot exist if ES is true. God chooses to actualize real relationship with His human creation in history...and this divine choice itself testifies that there is something real to time and its passage (not static and predetermined). If God had wanted things to unfold in a robotic manner (as Calvinists believe), then God made quite a bit of extra work for Himself by allowing time to exist (not to mention, He was unusually cruel to His human creation, putting them through their struggles with sin and sickness, disease and despair, so as to give the illusion of free will and genuine choice). As I’ve stated here at the site, I don’t believe God actualized history because of His mere whim; rather, I believe God did so because He too, is committed to the idea of genuine choice in time.

My last post dealt with Hebrews 11:5 and the special case of Enoch. Have you read that verse lately? I highly suggest that you reread Enoch’s case. Verse 5 is one that I still can’t get over mentally because Enoch’s faith even defied death! Can you imagine having such strong, genuine faith as Enoch’s?

Today, I’m back to deal with what I call the key verse of Hebrews chapter 11--- that is, the summary verse, Hebrews 11:6. Let’s read it together:

“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, NKJV).

The Greek reading of this verse helps provide insight into the meaning of verse 6. The Greek word for “without” is “choris,” meaning not only “without,” but “apart from.” In other words, there is no other way to please God “apart from” faith. This should stump the idea, as provided by Calvinist theologians (or even compatibilists) that faith is apart from God’s good pleasure.

Steven Roy does this in his work on divine omniscience:

“And in addition I would argue that the ‘corporate only’ understanding of the election of Ephesians 1---the election of all those who are in Christ, WITH THE FACTOR determining whether any particular individual is a part of that group BEING HIS OR HER UNDETERMINED FAITH---GOES AGAINST THE SPECIFIC TEACHING OF EPHESIANS 1:5 (WHICH SAYS THAT CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PREDESTINED TO BE ADOPTED AS GOD’S CHILDREN ‘IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS PLEASURE AND WILL’ RATHER THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR FAITH) and Ephesians 1:11 (which says that we have been chosen and predestined ‘according to the plan of HIM who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of HIS will’)” (Steven C. Roy, “How Much Does God Foreknow? A Comprehensive Biblical Study.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, pages 85-86).

When Roy writes in the quote above, that “the factor” determining election is not “his or her determined faith” but “His plan...His will” (quoting Ephesians 1), he does the text a great injustice. Why? Because God’s will (or desire) is that “all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). How can men be saved apart from faith (John 3:16; Rom. 10:9; Ephesians 2:8)? God’s will is not “apart from” faith, or “without faith,” but “with faith.” Hebrews 11:6 checks the presuppositions of Calvinists and Molinists who argue unconditional election. And as I dive deeper into this verse, you will see why, with all the conviction in my heart and mind I can muster, I cannot be a Calvinist or a Molinist (although I am sympathetic to the Molinist cause).

The next key word of the verse is “impossible,” which is rendered “adunatos” in the Greek. The same word (“adunatos”) used here as “impossible,” is the same Greek word used in Hebrews 6:4 when the writers talk about falling away from the faith. The word impossible, “adunatos,” literally translates to “not able,” “of no power,” etc. So the one who desires to please God “is not able” to do so without faith.

When we get to the word “please” in the text we find something interesting: the Greek word for “please” here is “euarestesai.” The word is a compound word, made up of a prefix (“eu,” meaning “good”) and “aresteo” (“to please”). The fullest expression of pleasing God here is to “please good,” or to be “well-pleasing.”

The word “for” (Grk. “gar”) tells us that the writers will now give a reason for their previous statement (that is, that a person cannot please God apart from faith). The Greek word for “he who comes,” “proserxomenon,” is a compound word made up of “pros” (toward) and “erxomenon” (a participial form of “erxomenos,” which means “to come”). The phrase literally translates to “the one coming to God,” and the participle itself is a present middle participle. It is not only present tense (implying continuous action, the one continually coming to God), but also a middle voice (implying that the person is the one responsible for the action). In other words, I do believe that the Spirit draws all men and women to Himself (John 6:44); at the same time, however, I do not believe that the Spirit “drags” someone to Himself (as Calvinists translate the word “helkuo” in John 6:44 to mean “drag”). And why? Precisely because of this verse, Hebrews 11:6. The one who is to be saved must be “continually coming to (ward) God.” God desires to save, but He is not going to save you WITHOUT YOU!

The one who comes to God “must believe that He is.” The word “dei” means “must” or “it is necessary.” In other words, the following expectations are requirements of the one who comes to God. And these requirements have been set by God Himself. No one imposed these requirements on God, or made God set them. He did so because it seemed good to Himself to do so.

What does God require of the one who comes to Him? This is where Calvinists like to stop and say, “But God doesn’t require anything of you, except to believe.” However, the moment they throw in “except to believe,” they’ve already added a requirement to coming to Christ. In other words, no one can truly come to Christ “without anything.” Such a notion is ridiculous and does a huge injustice to the biblical text.

God requires two things of the one who comes for salvation: first, that he “believe that He is.” This means that the person must believe that God exists. If a person does not believe that God exists, he will not come to God, he will not desire to serve God, he will not love God because he presumes that God is a fairy tale. Only those who believe God is real will love Him and serve Him wholeheartedly. God will not reserve space in the new heaven and new earth for unbelievers who go to church and eat at all the church picnics but have no love for God within. If you do not believe that God exists, then coming to Him will do nothing at all. While it might impress someone watching you walk an aisle, it will not (indeed, it CANNOT) impress God (to do so would go against the standards God Himself has set).

The last requirement God expects of the sinner who comes to Him is that he believe that “He [God] is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Not only must one believe that God exists, but also that He rewards those who love Him, obey Him, and serve Him. Because He lives, we, His children, can believe that He is kind and gentle toward us, giving us the very best of Himself. It is upon the presupposition that He exists that we can believe God rewards those who truly love Him.

The wording of the last requirement is essential. “He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” does not give the wooden translation of the statement. Rather, the statement literally translates to “and becomes the rewarder to the ones seeking out/searching out Him.” The word “ginomai” (becomes) shows us genuine relationship between God and His creature. It does not say “is a rewarder,” but rather, “becomes a rewarder.” The idea of God’s relation to us as “becoming a rewarder” shows that we must walk with God daily in order to see God reward us in time. God does not just reward us with good things overnight; He doesn’t just give us spiritual gifts in a split second. Rather, God gives us responsibilities as believers...and when He sees that we have served well in the first things He has given, then, God may very well be pleased to provide more spiritual gifts and blessings to our lives. The point to be made here is that life with God is not a static relationship whereby God gives everything at once (a Calvinist notion); rather, God gives us blessing and rewards us throughout the time of our lives, some here, some there, because our relationship with Him in time really matters.

I pray that my examination of Hebrews 11:6 has been a blessing to you and will continue to do so in the coming days. For now, let me just state that, once again, we see God’s relationship with us changing as we continue to conform more and more to the image of God’s Son every day. As we walk with God, we change because we become more like Him...and He changes His response to us, from one of wrath (before salvation) to one of love (at the moment of salvation) to one of rewards (as we continue to walk with Him). And all of God’s changing responses to us occur because He is not only loving, but just...and a holy God must reward good... because everything that is good, all goodness, is found in God (whose very essence is Goodness itself).

I will continue with the words of Hebrews 11 in my next post.

The Case of the "Plastic" Martin Luthers

I know that I've been going through a series on ES (Eternal Security), and I will continue this series tomorrow. For today, however, I thought that a bit of theological humor would do you (and me) quite a bit of good.

 I stumbled over an article last night which discusses the construction of these little plastic Martin Luthers in Wittenberg. For those who care to view the article, see the following:

 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/08/12/martin-luther-statues-have-wittenberg-in-a-stir-500-years-on/

 Until tomorrow, enjoy!!!

Eternal Security and Its Implications For A Theology of History, Pt. VIII: A "Death-Defying" Faith

This is part eight of a series on the Doctrine of Eternal Security (ES) and its impact regarding a proper theology of history. For those who have not read the other parts, let me bring you up to speed: those who hold to the Doctrine of ES presuppose that everything has been predetermined, decided before time began. In that sense, every action of every single person is predetermined...which means that choice is an illusion. Simply put, if God’s already decided that some will go to heaven and others will burn in Hell for all eternity, then there is no need to worry about one’s eternal fate; just stand at the judgment and, when God sentences you to burn in the lake of fire for all eternity, point your finger at Him and tell Him, “but I thought you decided everything! You decided I would go to Hell...so how do I bear blame for that?”. I can assure you that no one will get to blame a holy God on that day...but it’s funny how, despite the fact that God is innocent, we still attempt to make Him an “assassin” in our theologies.

What about those who don’t agree that everything has been predetermined? Some people have said to me that they believe that they have been predetermined to be with God for all eternity because He chose them (versus leaving someone else in their sins). However, God left those sinners in their sins because they refused to accept Him. So what about this group? My response would be that their theology is inconsistent and they need to decide what they believe about being chosen to be with Christ in glory. How can God damn someone else because “it’s their own fault,” but save someone else “without regard to that person?” And this is the problem with the Calvinist notion of unconditional election: it says that God picks without regard to the individual. But if God does this, then He damns without regard to unbelief or anything else. This group of which I speak don’t wanna take responsibility for a consistent theology, but it doesn’t make sense otherwise. To argue that, if the unbeliever had surrendered, he WOULD HAVE BEEN CHOSEN, is to argue conditional election (that is, God’s choice is based on faith or belief). If God is not damning on the basis of unbelief, then He’s damning by virtue of “His own good pleasure,” as Calvinists say it all the time.

In any case, I’ve argued that unconditional eternal security makes life on earth “pre-programmed.” In that sense, there is no theology of history. To believe in a theology of history is to believe that God actually works within history, that He has real relationship with man “in history,” that, as the John Piper quote says, God decides to do more than just think of “what would be” if He created history (rather, He actually does create history through which to work out His divine purposes). If God intended to predetermine everything, then what did He need history for? If eternal security is right, then why create history? It just serves as a stage...and all the people in history become players. But if eternal security is right, why subject God’s people to suffering in, for example, the Holocaust? How could a God subject His creation to such torture as death, disease, etc., if He is the one responsible for it all? Eternal Securitists will not like it, but if believers are predetermined and selected before time by God, then unbelievers have been “predetermined and selected” and are damned by God before time. And it’s high time we face that fact and stop trying to find ways to get around it. One is either Calvinist or Arminian...and there is no middle ground (Classical Arminianism is the middle ground between Classic, five-point Calvinism and Open Theism, and Pelagianism, for example). There are “middle-ground theologies,” but none exists between Classical Calvinism and Classical Arminianism (at least consistent middle-ground theologies, anyway).

In my last post, I dealt with B.J. Oropeza’s work on liminality and process, coming off of a post on the Israelite Wilderness Generation (1 Corinthians 10). Life in the wilderness was a genuine journey for Israel, in which the nation made a genuine decision to lose faith in God and His ability to provide for them. The individual members of the nation did not have “Eternal Security,” such that their complaining in the wilderness did not affect their entrance into the Promised Land. Now, Calvinists will say that people who fall away “were never saved to begin with”; but Jude 5 and 1 Corinthians 10 testify to the salvation of the Wilderness Group (not to mention Exodus 15 and the Red Sea Experience). Such language as “saved” “redeemed,” and “believed” is not tossed around for groups that are not saved.

In this post, I will focus on one chapter that I think best tackles the issue of conditional security (that is, security in Christ in time)...that is, Hebrews chapter 11. In this wonderful chapter we find examples of those whose trust in God to make good on His promises motivated them to “take hold” of those promises in time. That is, their faith in God drove them to put their faith in action. It is a living faith that pleases God (Heb. 11:6).

One of the most outstanding examples to me of great faith in Hebrews 11 is Enoch (v.5). Enoch is the first person on earth as recorded in Scripture that was “translated” and did not die. Why did he not die? “he pleased God” (v.5). What can be said of Enoch? He lived in a world where the divine death sentence had been passed on all of mankind since Genesis 3. He lived in a world where sin was spreading to every facet of God’s creation, where wickedness was daily increasing...and yet, because of his walk with God, he did not face the same physical death as everyone else. Was not death promised to all of Adam’s seed? Yes (Romans 5). Paul tells us in that chapter that “all sinned” in Adam (Rom. 5:12); if this is true, why then, does Enoch not see death? While we can’t know precisely the reason why God “took” Enoch and did not allow him to die physically, we know from the text that he had extraordinary faith, such that God did not desire his physical death. That must have been some awesome faith!!!

“And what more shall I say” for now? “For time would fail me to tell of” others on the Roll Call of Faith (Heb. 11:32). Tomorrow, I will go into the theme verse of all of Hebrews 11---that is, Hebrews 11:6. To dive into verse 6...well...you’ll have to have enough faith to wait patiently for my next post.

Changes

Dear Readership,

I hope all is well with each of you and that the Lord continues to grow you in grace and knowledge of Him each day.

I am writing to announce some changes that have been made here at the Center for Theological Studies (CTS). For many of you, you suddenly realized those changes when you visited (or will visit) the site sometime today. For others of you, you may get this blog post in your e-mail and not have any idea that changes have been made. To give you a pleasant tease so as to drive you back to the site, I will tell you about those changes now.

First, I've added a new blog poll to the site. The question for the poll is, "Which are you?"---and the question itself refers to the theological system to which you pledge allegiance. There are several choices to select from, some of the latter ones being humorous in and of themselves. I thought that by adding a little theological humor (not meaning to degrade or insult), that many would enjoy having a little change in the life of the blog itself. I can renew the blog poll for a long time, but I just might change up the poll each month. For you, that means that you'll have to come back to the site to see what I'm up to...

Next, I've also added a "Recommended Books" mass link at the site. From now on, you can click to the right of the page to see the top books that I recommend...and all of the clicks will take you to pages where you can order the favored book titles. This list will be updated rather frequently throughout the coming months (and years...yes! I plan to be around for that long!!!).

Last but not least, the "big whammy"...I've changed the blog template. Now, before I go further, let me just say that I absolutely love the new template. I adore it so much that I sat at my desk looking at the new template for an hour today...and, if it were not for a dear friend, I would STILL be looking at it (lol)!! Needless to say, like Zacchaeus, I had to "come down from the sycamore tree" and get back to life :-)

In all seriousness, I do love the new template...and I hope you do as well. Please comment back to this post to tell me what your thoughts are regarding the new template. It would help me better design the site to meet your theological needs in the present and coming future.

For now, let me just say that I am grateful to you, my dear readership, for the time you've invested in me to read the ramblings of an old seminarian. Thanks so much for all the time you've spent reading blog post after blog post. Continue to pray for me as I continue to research and publish to the glory of God...
so that all the world may know Him,
Deidre

Eternal Security and Its Implications For A Theology of History, Pt. VII: Liminality and Odyssey

In my last post, I spent time dealing with Schreiner’s critique of “past-tense salvation”; that is, that salvation occurs in a point rather than a line (that it is punctiliar instead of linear). Schreiner’s whole point is that salvation starts at a point, but progresses in a linear fashion until glorification.

In this post, I intend to deal with liminality, a concept surrounding the idea of transitions from and between stages of life, as well as the journey of life itself.

Let’s look at the basic idea of what liminality is:

“Victor Turner describes liminality as a transitional state and process used to categorise cultural-religious phenomena. Liminality appears in rites of passage, pilgrimages, millennial groups, monasticism, and so forth...he derived the concept from Arnold van Gennep’s rites of passage ‘which accompany every change of place, state, social position and age...all rites of passage or ‘transition’ are marked by three phases: separation, margin (or ‘limen’, signifying ‘threshold’), and aggregation” (B.J. Oropeza, “Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the Corinthian Congregation.” Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000, page 45).

Notice that the word ‘limen’ means ‘threshold’? This tells us then, what “liminality” is: it is a ‘threshold’ state in which something or someone is close to an event or destination, while still not having attained it at the moment. In other words, one is “almost” in New Jersey (for example), or “nearing” the point of giving birth to a child, etc. Liminality is also “a transitional state and process,” and “appears in rites of passage, pilgrimages,” and so forth. When I read the words “rites of passage,” I think about Roman Catholics who administer “the last rites” as the moment of death nears an individual. I also think of Greco-Roman mythology, where the rites of passage were performed right around the moment of death because the dying victim was soon to be transported to the underworld, etc.

In addition, look back at the above quote and notice that there are three phases to the liminal process: (1) separation (being apart from something or having left something); (2) margin (liminality, “threshold”), which means that the person is crossing over to the destination; (3) aggregation, which means that the person has attained or gained the desired event or destination.

Liminality is not only found in rites of passage; it is also found in the phenomenon of pilgrimage:

“Pilgrimages may be short-term, long-term, or permanent. The transient is a pilgrim who renounces world and home. Pilgrimages may have a character of separation or initiation in which the liminal period is much longer than many rites of passage” (Oropeza, “Paul and Apostasy,” page 46).

The Israelite wilderness journey for 40 years, as seen in The Pentateuch as well as 1 Corinthians 10 (which I covered yesterday), is an example of liminality. The wilderness journey covered the three stages of liminality: first, the people left Egypt; secondly, the people wandered in the wilderness; third, the Israelite group ages 19 and under crossed over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, the Promised Land.

B.J. Oropeza gives examples of liminality (process) in the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures. In the Old Testament, for instance (Leviticus 12:2-8), we have instructions regarding pregnancy: the mother first experiences “separation” as the child is born, no longer inside the womb; next, the mother is declared unclean from 40-80 days after the pregnancy and must not have sexual relations; last, after the forty to eighty days are over, the woman is free to engage in sexual relations with her husband once more. Another example that exists in the OT is the idea of mourning: first, a loved one dies, separating the dead victim from his/her family and friends; second, this places the loved ones and friends left behind in a state of mourning; thirdly, after mourning the death of the loved one, one is free to resume normal activities. This happens with Joseph and his brothers mourning the death of their father Jacob, amongst others (Genesis 44:32ff, 50:11). Deuteronomy 21:10-14 works along these lines as well: since it involves the death of relatives and a woman held in captivity due to Jewish war, the foreign woman is to be granted time to mourn for her deceased relatives (killed by the Jews); after mourning their deaths, she is then to have sexual relations with her Jewish husband and assume married life and all of its duties and privileges.

The idea of process in earthly life comes to the forefront in one of the most beautiful passages of the Scriptures, in a place that few of us would dare to look or read---Hebrews chapter 11, the renown “Roll Call of Faith.” In this chapter we find example after example of those whose trust in God manifested itself in the here and now. I will deal with Hebrews 11 soon.

For now, though, let me quickly review what’s in this post. The intention of the post was to cover the idea of process and transformation in everyday life. I examined Oropeza’s use of Victor Turner’s words regarding liminality, that liminality comes in three stages, and that pilgrimages are included in this as well. The words of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10) were meant to show that Israel was in the wilderness, and that she was on the verge (she was in the “margin” phase, the “limen,” the “threshold”) of the Promised Land...but she had not yet arrived. Last but not least, contra Calvinists and Molinists, Israel could be “certain” of God’s promise but could not guarantee it because receiving that promise would occur based on what would be lived out in time. I will end once more with the words of John Piper:

“If God knows what will come to pass, does that mean that all testings IN HISTORY are pointless? I DON’T THINK SO. God has not created the world just to be known in terms of what would be if tests were given. HE CREATED THE WORLD TO BE ACTUALIZED IN HISTORY. That is, he wills not just to foreknow, but to know by observation and experience. That is the point of creating a real world, rather than just knowing one that might be” (John Piper, “Answering Greg Boyd’s Openness of God Texts”; at the site www.ondoctrine.com/2pip1201.htm; quoted by Steven C. Roy, “How Much Does God Foreknow? A Comprehensive Biblical Study.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, page 181).

Eternal Security and Its Implications For A Theology of History, Pt. V: The Corinthian "Wilderness" Experience

This is part five in a series engaging the Doctrine of Eternal Security and a proper Theology of History. The major emphasis in this series has been that Eternal Security (ES) as a view denies everyday reality---that is, that life consists of processes, transformations, growth, declines, etc. Life, in short, is a roller coaster full of ups and downs, twists, turns, and curves. Any supposed “doctrine” regarding God and man in relationship that does not acknowledge this “fluidity” in relationship is one that should be discarded by the church of Jesus Christ (which is called “the church of the LIVING God,” 1 Timothy 3:15, NKJV).

Today’s post will focus on the Corinthian congregation and Paul’s words to them regarding spiritual counsel. The text comes from 1 Corinthians 10:

“Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:1-4, NKJV).

Paul refers to the Israelites in the wilderness as “our fathers,” meaning that Paul is connecting the Jews in the wilderness to the Gentiles at Corinth---calling them the spiritual ancestors of these new converts at Corinth. The wilderness generation “passed through the sea...were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea, ate the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink.” These words refer to the two ordinances of the early church, namely, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion). The Rock from which the Israelites drank water symbolically represents Christ (the one from whom comes living water, John 4).

However, vv. 5ff hit like a punch to the diaphragm:

“But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. NOW THESE THINGS BECAME OUR EXAMPLES, TO THE INTENT THAT WE SHOULD NOT LUST AFTER EVIL THINGS AS THEY ALSO LUSTED. And DO NOT BECOME IDOLATERS AS WERE SOME OF THEM. As it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.’ NOR LET US COMMIT SEXUAL IMMORALITY, AS SOME OF THEM DID, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; NOR LET US TEMPT CHRIST, AS SOME OF THEM ALSO TEMPTED, and were destroyed by serpents; NOR COMPLAIN, AS SOME OF THEM ALSO COMPLAINED, and were destroyed by the destroyer” (1 Cor. 10:5-10).

Paul’s message here to the Corinthians is, “don’t do what the Israelites did, for if you do, you will face the same fate as did the Wilderness Generation.” Even though the Wilderness Generation of Israelites were baptized and shared in a form of the Lord’s Supper (communion with God through food and drink), they still fell in the wilderness without entering the Promised Land. They died in the wilderness and did not receive what was promised. And why? Because they sinned, proving that, at every turn, they doubted God’s ability to do what He promised (Hebrews 4:1-2).

Now, Jude reports the Israelite perishing in the wilderness as an example to the church of what will happen to those who are currently abusing the grace of God (using grace to sin) in their midst (Jude 4-5). The Lord once saved Israel out of Egypt, but the nation was later denied the realization of the promise because of unbelief (also evidenced in Hebrews 3-4).

The question that I always pose to Calvinists is, “Why did God not fulfill the promise to the Wilderness Generation?” Were they not God’s people? Someone could say, “they were never saved to begin with,” but the text tells us that the Lord “saved” the nation out of Egypt (Jude 5). Exodus 15 shows us that the people praise the Lord saying, “You in Your mercy have led forth the people WHOM YOU HAVE REDEEMED” (Exod. 15:13, NKJV). How can the Wilderness Generation be labeled the “redeemed” and not be saved?

So then, we’re back to the same question: why did God promise to take the Wilderness Generation into the Promised Land but did not (Exodus 3:16-17)? The answer is to be found not only in Hebrews 4 (provided above)...but also Numbers 14:27-35. The reason why the Israelites die out in the wilderness after forty years of travel is because of their sin against God: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation WHO COMPLAIN AGAINST ME? I HAVE HEARD THE COMPLAINTS WHICH THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL MAKE AGAINST ME” (Numbers 14:27). The Israelites die in the wilderness and are denied entrance into the Promised Land because of their unbelief (as signaled by their constant complaining against the Lord).

If the Wilderness Generation were “saved” out of Egypt, but not allowed to enter the Promised Land (but were “destroyed”), then this means that whatever security the individual Jews had with the Lord God was NOT unconditional or eternal! There was no eternal security with the individual Jews in the wilderness. Was there a corporate unconditional security? Yes! Even after all the Wilderness Generation had done, the Lord still promised to take in the nation---however, the recipients of the Promised Land would be everyone aged 19 and under (Num. 14:29).

What does this tell us? The story of the Israelite wilderness perishing testifies to the fact that history itself is not predetermined and static, with everything being guaranteed from the very beginning; rather, we see God respond to the Israelites in a just way based upon their changing actions---that is, that God delivers His people and smiles upon them when saving them and leading them out of Egypt...however, after saving them, He turns against them because they reject Him and complain against Him. God does not continue to remain pleased with Israel because the nation’s gratitude toward God declines (and thus, God’s favor upon the individuals who complain and murmur declines as well). As B. J. Oropeza writes:

"It supports the perspective that Paul believes in a form of predestination and election of the collective people of God WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE MAY GENUINELY FALL AWAY. Our study suggests that if perseverance to final salvation is promised to the elect 'all,' Paul still believes that perseverance is CONDITIONAL FOR THE INDIVIDUAL who belongs to the 'all.' Regardless of what we may think about his logic, Paul believes in the election of the people of God as a solidarity, but individuals within that unit can fall away so that those individuals no longer participate in the grace of God's elect...this was no less true for the Christians in Corinth than it was for the Israelites in the wilderness" (B.J. Oropeza, "Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the Corinthian Congregation." Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000, page 224).


Is this a fair view of the process of the nation of Israel from the deliverance out of Egypt to the Promised Land? Does God deal with the nation in a dynamic relationship (in which God changes in relationship by rewarding Israel with favor when she does what is pleasing and punishes her when she does wickedness; even in this, His character is unchanging, for He is operating out of justice, which is also an attribute of His)...or is everything already determined by God beforehand, anyway?

For now, let it be said that this post intended to deal with the change in God’s response to the Israelite Wilderness Generation (due to the change in Israel’s walk before the Lord). If God changed His response from one of favor to one of anger because of the decline (change) in faith of His people, then why would He operate any differently with believers of the modern church???