Category Archives: Jesus Christ

How to interpret ‘appeared’ in Titus 2:11

Stars Universe

By Spencer D. Gear

Was Jesus’ death for the sins of all people or for only the elect – those who become Christians? Or, to put it in parallel language, was Jesus’ death for the whole world or only for some of them? You wouldn’t believe how these types of questions can get the theological juices going!

Titus 2:11 reads, ‘For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people’ (ESV). What is a plain reading of the text saying? When did God’s grace appear? What was it? How did it bring salvation to all people? Are all going to be saved? Is this a verse that promotes universalism (salvation for everyone)? Please read on.

When I raised this online, a Calvinist stated,

The Greek word behind ‘appeared’ is … epiphainw. Strong’s Concordance says the word literally means “to show forth, i.e., to appear” or “to shine upon” or “become visible”.[1]

This person didn’t know any more Greek than Strong’s Concordance (I have a BA in biblical literature & NT Greek and PhD in NT). I could not say this better than Gordon Fee, emeritus professor of New Testament at Regent College, Vancouver B C, Canada and editor of Eerdmans’ New International Commentary series on the New Testament. Fee, a extremely competent Greek exegete, wrote of Titus 2:11,

An explanatory for opens the paragraph and thus closely ties verses 11-14 to 2-10. It proceeds to explain why God’s people should live as exhorted in 2-10 (so that the message from God will not be maligned [v. 5] but instead will be attractive [v. 10]): because the grace of God that brings salvation to all people has appeared.

In the Greek text all of verses 11-14 form a single sentence, of which the grace of God stands as the grammatical subject. But contrary to the NIV (and KJV), Paul does not say that this grace appeared to all men; rather, as almost all other translations have it, and as both Paul’s word order and the usage in 1 Timothy 2:3-6 demand it, what has appeared (see disc. on 1 Tim. 6:14; epiphaneia) is grace from God that offers salvation to all people.

Paul does not indicate here the reference point for this revelation of God’s grace. Most likely he is thinking of the historical revelation effected in the saving event of Christ (v. 14; cf. 2 Tim. 1:9-10), but it could also refer existentially to the time in Crete when Paul and Titus preached the gospel and Cretans understood and accepted the message (cf. 1:3 and 3:3-4). That at least is when the educative dimension of grace, emphasized in verse 12, took place (Fee 1988:194, emphasis in original).

The Calvinist again:

So according to Titus 3:4, what happened when God “appeared”? Look at the next words… he saved us. How? By the washing of regeneration. We are saved by God’s grace appearing that washes us in regeneration. Why don’t you translate the verb as “offer” here?

So in Titus 2:11, same verb used….

So grace “appears” again and what does it do? The same exact thing it does in Titus 3:4! It “brings salvation for all people” just like the grace in Titus 3:4 “saved us”. The grace that appears in Titus 2:11 also trains us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives. Nothing about an “offer” anywhere in the text. The word … can’t even mean “offer”. None of the definitions of the word even suggest such a thing. So either “all people” doesn’t mean 100% of humanity, or Universalism is true.[2]

My response [3] was that Titus 3:4 is in a single Greek sentence in the original that includes Titus 3:4-7.

The sentence in Titus 3:4 begins with ‘but when’ – a when-clause. The preceding verse (3:3) speaks the language that ‘we ourselves were once’. But then there came a time when God’s mercy took effect in their lives. We know from Titus 2:11 that God’s grace ‘appeared bringing salvation’, which was ‘the doctrine of God our Savior’ (2:10). We know that this happened historically in Christ’s person and work and especially in his atoning sacrifice.

Back in Titus 2:11-14, the emphasis is as in Titus 3:5-7, that God’s mercy brought salvation through regeneration, renewal of the Holy Spirit, justification and their becoming heirs of hope. This was the readers’ own experience of salvation.

As for the verb, ‘appeared’, this word also is used in 1 Tim 6:14-15, ‘until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time’. Here ‘appear’ refers to the Parousia, the second coming of Christ. Do you want to import that meaning of ‘appear’ into Titus 2:11 and Titus 3:4?

The same word, ‘appear’, occurs in Acts 27:20, ‘When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest lay on us…’ (ESV). Do you want this meaning of ‘appear’ to be given to Titus 2:11 and 3:4?

It is not unusual for a Greek word to be used in different contexts to mean different things. However, from Titus 2:11; 3:4, we know that that context is talking about salvation through Christ in which the grace of God appeared to all people and have a guess what? This grace of God offers salvation to all men (people) [Titus 2:11].

So what appeared in this epephane, which refers to something becoming visible or making an appearance? All human beings could not have reached a satisfactory understanding of God’s grace without the manifestation of Jesus Christ through his incarnation and atonement. Titus 2:11 shows the effects of this grace, ‘bringing salvation for all people’ (ESV). Thus the universality of the salvation offer is made available thanks to Christ’s epiphany.

Its saving effect depends on God’s election and a personal response of faith. The human will is freed for all people in regard to salvation. This is implied by all of the verses in Scripture that exhort people to turn to God (see Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; Acts 3:19); to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts2:38; 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23).

Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon (1957:304) gives the meaning of the verb, epiphainw (I appear), as ‘show oneself, make an appearance’ in relation to Titus 2:11. So God’s grace ‘appeared’ to all people in the person and work (life, crucifixion and resurrection) of Jesus Christ. It was made manifest through Him.

Varieties of Calvinists

Ron Rhodes is a 4-point Calvinist (Amyraldian) who does not believe in limited atonement. See: The Case for Unlimited Atonement (by Ron Rhodes).

See how John Piper misused a quote from Millard J Erickson‘s book, Christian theology, to try to indicate that Erickson supported limited atonement – which he does not.

Different meanings of ‘appeared’

On The Cross (image in public domain)

There is a difference between ‘appeared’ as referring to the parousia (second coming), the sun and stars appearing, and the grace of God appeared, bringing salvation for all people? I find it strange that this person did not understand the differences among the meanings of ‘appeared’ in these three different circumstances. The difference is among Christ’s appearing at his second coming (Titus 2:13), the appearing of the sun and stars (Acts 27:20), and the appearing of God’s grace bringing salvation for all (Titus 2:11).

The same Greek word can be used in different contexts to mean different things. It did not mean the same in those three different places. The second coming appearing, the appearing of the sun and clouds, and the appearing of the grace that leads to salvation are THREE DIFFERENT meanings of ‘appeared’.

There is a great difference in what they did. Surely this person can’t be trying to convince me that the appearing of the sun and clouds is identical to the appearing of the person and works of Jesus and will be identical to the Parousia (second coming) appearance of Jesus. That he could even be pressing towards that understanding beggars my imagination.

Noah Webster’s 1828 edition of his dictionary (online) has 10 different meanings for the English noun, ‘appearance’. They are:

Appearance
n.
1. The act of coming into sight; the act of becoming visible to the eye; as, his sudden appearance surprised me.
2. The thing seen; a phenomenon; as an appearance in the sky.
3. Semblance; apparent likeness.
There was upon the tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire. Num. 9.
4. External show; semblance assumed, in opposition to reality or substance; as, we are often deceived by appearances;
he has the appearance of virtue.
For man looketh on the outward appearance. 1Sam. 16.
5. Personal presence; exhibition of the person; as, he made his first appearance at court or on the stage.
6. Exhibition of the character; introduction of a person to the public in a particular character, as a person makes his
appearance in the world, as a historian, an artist, or an orator.
7. Probability; likelihood. This sense is rather an inference from the third or fourth; as probability is inferred from
external semblance or show.
8. Presence; mien; figure; as presented by the person, dress or manners; as, the lady made a noble appearance.
9. A being present in court; a defendant’s filing common or special bail to a process.
10. An apparition.

My 1977 hard copy of Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, unabridged, second edition, Jean L McKechnie general supervisor of editorial staff (William Collins-World Publishing Co., Inc.), provides seven meanings of the word, ‘appearance‘:

Appearance, n. 1. The act of coming into sight; the act of becoming visible to the eye; as, his sudden appearance surprised me.
2. the thing seen; an apparition; a phenomenon; as an appearance in the sky.
3. external semblance; outward aspect; hence, outward sign, indication, or evidence; as appearance of a place was altogether pleasing; the writing had every appearance of genuineness.
4. a pretense or show; as, the man gave the appearance of being busy.
5. a coming into notice; an appearing before the public; as the appearance of an actor, of a new book, etc.
6. probability; likelihood. [Oba.]
7. in law, a being present in court; a coming into court of either party; an appearing in person or by attorney.
to put in an appearance; to appear for a short time.
to save appearances; to maintain a good showing.
Syn. – air, aspect, look, manner, mien, semblance (Webster 1977:88).

My understanding of the various meanings of ‘appearance’ is based not only on NT Greek but also on Webster’s unabridged English dictionary.

One of the major difficulties with church folks in their understanding of Scripture is that they have little foundation in understanding exegesis vs. eisegesis of the text. They are not trained to discern. It is beneficial, but not compulsory, to have a knowledge of the original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic in the OT, Greek in the NT). If one does a comparison of, say, six different committee translations of the Bible (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, NLT, NIV) one should be able to come up with an understanding of the nuances of the original languages.

It’s Greek to me [3a]

Titus 2:11 (Greek NT) uses the Greek, epephane, that is translated as, ‘has appeared’ (NIV, ESV). The Greek is aorist passive, indicative of the verb, epiphaino.

The Greek tenses represent the kind of action as prominent, rather than the time of action. The Present and Imperfect tenses are linear tenses that can be represented by a line or a line or dots: __________________________________ or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Present is in the present time while Imperfect is in the past – but both represent continuous / continual action.)
However, the aorist is a punctiliar (or point action) tense which can be diagrammed as a single dot . The action of the aorist tense is that of something that simply happens. There is no thought of the continuing or frequency of action (Wenham 1965:96-97).

The passive voice indicates that the subject was acted upon. If the subject was doing the action, the active voice would be used.

Let’s apply that to Titus 2:11 and the aorist, passive, indicative, epephane.

Since epephane is the passive voice, something is acting on this and that something is ‘the grace of God’.
The mood of a verb indicates the mode or manner of the action of a verb. The indicative mood makes a statement or asks a question. Here, epephane is indicative mood, thus meaning it is making a statement.
Epephane is aorist tense, so it means that something appeared at a point in time. However, since it has no sigma (s) in its conjugation, that means it is the second aorist tense. That gets a bit technical with the conjugation (i.e. form) of the verb, but the meaning of the aorist is the same for the action of the second aorist.

In English, when we translate as ‘has appeared’ (NIV, ESV), it indicates it has appeared in the past but there is no indication of the kind of action. ‘Has appeared’ is meant to bring out the passive voice of action happening by someone/something, i.e. ‘the grace of God’. So the aorist could be translated as ‘did appear’ or ‘has appeared’, as long as one understands it is seen as a punctiliar action happening to someone/something, i.e. ‘to all people’.

What is the meaning of the verb, epiphaino? In the passive voice it means ‘show oneself, make an appearance’ and in Titus 2:11 refers to the grace of God that has appeared (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:304). Since the appearance of the grace of God happened (appeared), it seems that the interpretation is meant to refer to the Epiphany of Jesus, the Incarnation (Robertson 1931:604).

What is eisegesis?

Calvinist, Dr James White, provides this understanding:

Exegesis v. Eisegesis. A quote from Dr. James White’s forth-coming book “Pulpit Crimes” on eisegesis indicates that it means:

The reading into a text, in this case, an ancient text of the Bible, of a meaning that is not supported by the grammar, syntax, lexical meanings, and over-all context, of the original. It is the opposite of exegesis, where you read out of the text its original meaning by careful attention to the same things, grammar, syntax, the lexical meanings of the words used by the author (as they were used in his day and in his area), and the over-all context of the document. As common as it is, it should be something the Christian minister finds abhorrent, for when you stop and think about it, eisegesis muffles the voice of God. If the text of Scripture is in fact God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and if God speaks in the entirety of the Bible (Matt. 22:31) then eisegesis would involve silencing that divine voice and replacing it with the thoughts, intents, and most often, traditions, of the one doing the interpretation. In fact, in my experience, eisegetical mishandling of the inspired text is the single most common source of heresy, division, disunity, and a lack of clarity in the proclamation of the gospel. The man of God is commended when he handles God’s truth aright (2 Tim. 2:15), and it should be his highest honor to be privileged to do so. Exegesis, then, apart from being a skill honed over years of practice, is an absolutely necessary means of honoring the Lord a minister claims to serve. For some today, exegesis and all the attendant study that goes into it robs one of the Spirit. The fact is, there is no greater spiritual service the minister can render to the Lord and to the flock entrusted to his care than to allow Gods voice to speak with the clarity that only sound exegetical practice can provide (in Reformation Theology, emphasis added).

Could there be a way forward?

There is a way forward, but I can’t see it when a person’s theological presuppositions seem to intrude and prevent that person from seeing what I did write (see above) that the difference in definitions of ‘appearance’ is clear from a plain reading of the biblical text.
But he does not want to accept it that Christ’s appearance in his epiphany (his coming, works, death & resurrection) IS NOT the same meaning as appearance of sun and clouds, and IS NOT the same meaning of appearance of Jesus at the Parousia – his second coming. His posts didn’t acknowledge this. He seems to have a presuppositional bias against accepting the obvious.

It is false to accuse me: ‘You have failed to explain the differences in definitions. All you’ve done is provide examples’.[4] This is absolutely false. He doesn’t want to acknowledge that the three Greek examples that I gave him demand three different understandings of the meaning of ‘appearance’.

It is a waste of time going over this AGAIN and AGAIN. He did not want to receive it. I will not do it again.

However, I thanked him for acknowledging the truth that he did engage in the use of a false approach to hermeneutics – eisegesis – by imposing his will on the biblical text.[5]

In fact, my first seminary hermeneutics text used was that by A Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (1963). Mickelsen gave this brief, but accurate, definition: ‘Eisegesis is the substitution of the authority of the interpreter for the authority of the original writer’ (Mickelsen 1963:158).

I thanked the person online for admitting that this is what he did in one of his posts to me when you inserted, ‘for a purpose’, that was not in the biblical text relating to the verses I cited regarding the appearance of Christ’s first coming with his epiphany, works, death and resurrection. This referred to the appearance of the sun and clouds and the appearance of Christ at his second coming.

I left it to this person to read Kittel & Friedrich’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament to discover the etymology and the various meanings of the Greek, epiphainw, epiphaneia, and epiphanes (vol 9, pp. 7-10, Eerdmans).

I recommend the article by Roger E Olson, ‘What’s wrong with Calvinism?‘ (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.[6] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Fee, G D 1988. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. W Ward Gasque, New Testament (ed). Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Robertson, A T 1931. Word pictures in the New Testament: The epistles of Paul, vol 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

Wenham, J W 1965. The elements of New Testament Greek (based on the earlier work by H P V Nunn). London / New York NY: Cambridge University Press.

Notes

[1] Christian Forums.com, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Is rejecting Christ a sin’, griff #624, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-63/ (Accessed 12 July 2013).

[2] Ibid (emphasis in original).

[3] Ibid., OzSpen #644, my emphases.

[3a] I provided this Greek explanation at Christian Forums.net, Apologetics & Theology, ‘Salvation belongs to the Lord’, OzSpen#116. Available at: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/salvation-belongs-to-the-lord.64623/page-6#post-1206560 (Accessed 31 May 2016). This explanation was at the request of one of the moderators, JohnDB.

[4] Christian Forums.com, General Theology, Soteriology…. Hammster #760, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-76/ (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[5] My response is as OzSpen #778 at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-78/ (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[6] This is ‘a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur’ (4^th rev & aug ed 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).

Why does God allow floods to devastate Australia?

Severe Tropical Cyclone Marcia at peak intensity on 19 February, 2015 (image courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

Why does God allow such devastation as we are seeing in Queensland with Cyclone Marcia through central Queensland (ABC News, 23 February 2015) and the floods of December 2010 – January 2011? Here are some photos of the flood devastation in Queensland from the Bundaberg News-Mail.

Bundaberg, Qld. floods, December 2010

The secular media blame it on “mother nature”. The Daily Telegraph, Sydney, 8 January 2011 (NSW’s towns bracing for floods), stated:

MOTHER nature has unleashed its fury in the state’s north with 18 rivers expected to break their banks by tomorrow night as the Queensland floodwaters run south.

ABC News, Australia, 5 January 2011, “Qld floods damage Australia’s economic performance”, reported:

The Queensland floods are hurting the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by wiping as much as $9 billion off export revenues.

Operations at at least 40 coal mines in central Queensland’s Bowen Basin have been disrupted because of the floods, crops have been damaged and grazing lands are under water.

The state is responsible for more than half of Australia’s coal exports, 45 per cent of meat and a quarter of fresh food exports.

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) senior strategist Sue Trinh says the economic impact of the floods could be the biggest of all the natural disasters Australia has experienced.

But who’s to blame for this? Federal politician, Joe Hockey, opposition treasury spokesman, told ABC news that

“Australia is a rich-enough nation to be able to handle the worst of mother nature – floods, droughts, you name it, all the horrible events that occur on a regular basis at this time of year.”

Some pointed things have been stated about “mother nature” and disasters around the world, but especially amidst the Queensland floods of early 2011:

“Mother nature is a wicked bitch”;
Of the tsunami in 2004, “Mother nature is wicked”;
“I hope the Aussies die! This is curse of our Hindu Gods”.
“Australian floods: ‘disaster of biblical proportions‘;
“Fears for missing in ‘biblical’ Australian floods“;
“Is Mother Nature mad at us humans?”
Queensland Premier Anna Bligh on 11 January 2011: “This is our darkest hour of the past fortnight,” declared Queensland Premier Anna Bligh at a press conference yesterday. “Mother nature has unleashed something shocking out of the Toowoomba region”;
‘Qld sees Mother Nature’s fury: Bligh‘;
Anna Bligh, Qld Premier, again, 11 January 2011: “Mother nature has delivered something terrible in the last 48 hours but there’s more to go…”;
“… the destruction caused by Mother Nature’s fury“;
“Mother nature soon repairs itself, so too will the people of Queensland”;
“EVERY now and again Mother Nature likes to make the point that she has slightly more influence than any self-declared masters (or mistresses) of the financial universe”.

Who sends the rains? Is it “mother nature” or God Himself? God is very clear about telling us in the Christian Scriptures.

This raises the theological issue of theodicy – a defence of the goodness and omnipotence of God in the midst of evil.

Here are some of my thoughts to point towards a conclusion:

God sends rain on the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45).
There is the problem of evil and disaster that originated in Genesis 3 with Adam and Eve and the fall into sin. All of creation is suffering from this disobedience. Are flood disasters the outcome of evil in our world? Does God send the cyclones, tornadoes and typhoons to remind us of judgment to come?
God sends the rain, but human beings in their desire for prosperity (or greed), cluster around rivers and build houses in low-lying areas. Could it be that God sends the rain and human beings create the human conditions so that floods devastate?

I posted comment #3 on Christian Fellowship Forum and Richard W. responded (#37):

Though not theologically satisfying, I think this is a huge part of the problem.

When you build on a flood plain you can expect to be flooded out from time to time. Smart people don’t build in flood plains. Smart insurance companies charge a mighty premium to insure anything in a flood plain. Smart governments do not zone flood plains for residential or commercial industrial purposes. But people still build there, and insurance is cheap backed by the government, and the snow melts and the rain comes.

Floods are often classified as hundred year floods, or five hundred year floods, or thousand year floods. Somehow the hundred year floods are now commonplace and I’ve seen some five hundred year floods and a thousand year flood. Pretty good for being only a little over half a century old myself.

I’m pretty sure the cause of these ‘rare’ floods is that marshes have been drained, farms have been turned into malls with massive parking lots, and every house has a paved driveway and a sidewalk. The water has to go somewhere. The marsh that once held the surplus is no longer there. The water flows downstream. Each upstream city or town or hamlet puts up a levee to protect itself from the flood, pushing the water downstream faster. Who’s to blame? Farmers want higher yield on more acres, so they install drainage ditches. Not so much now as this unsustainable practice now has legal roadblocks that restrict drainage a bit. But almost everything built in the past 100 years has been done at the expense of natural habitat that would soak up considerable water. We have inadvertently engineered floods to be worse than ever.

A flood from 100 years ago could still be quite an event. But now it’s a human made problem. New Orleans was an inevitability. Big floods down the Mississippi this spring are another inevitability. Fargo, on the Red River (which runs North into Canada) looks like it will also an inevitability. At least Fargo is looking at a solution of diverting the river into areas where it has more space to spread out. And they have forbidden rebuilding in many parts of the city. Fargo downtown flooded out a few years back and most of it burned when electrical fires started and spread uncontrollably. Crazy city, but at least they are looking for higher ground AND looking to let the river expand as it wants to, and the government is trying to force the reversal of many old drainage ditches. This are is vital because it is prime wheat growing land that feeds hundreds of millions of people.

The wake up calls have been given. Some people are actually waking up. Rain needs to soak in, and the little bits of excess need to go downstream. We screwed that up and it’s time to fix that before we see too many more thousand year floods. Theologically, God makes the rain to fall on the good and the evil, but the evil have not been good stewards of the land, causing misery and pain and death. Had we been good, we would have farmed with nature, not against nature, and we would not be blaming God for terrible floods.

Another respondent to Christian Fellowship Forum, Jim Parker (#50) also made some interesting, but similar, points to Richard. Jim was responding to my question, “Why does God allow such devastation as we are seeing in Queensland with the floods of December 2010 – January 2011?”

Perhaps it would be more to the point to ask why people insist on building cities on flood plains.

San Francisco was destroyed by a massive earthquake because it is built on a major earthquake fault. So they rebuilt it on the major earthquake fault.

People build homes along the Russian River north of San Francisco. About every 5-7 years their homes are destroyed by floods. They rebuild.

I have a friend who lives in the Florida Keys. The houses there have no ground floor because when huricanes come through they would be flooded. The first floor is 12 feet in the air resting on stilts.

People know the dangers of the places where they build cities and they choose to rebuild them after they are destroyed by “natural disasters” which, having happened once, should be sufficient data to decide to move somewhere else.

But when they don’t and another flood or earthquake just like the last one happened they ask, “Why did God allow this?”

“Watermark” in New Farm Park is red steel sculpture commemorating the 1974 Brisbane flood (courtesy Wikipedia)

I remember when my wife and I lost all that we owned in the Brisbane flood of 1974. I was in theological college and we were living in our caravan (called a trailer in North American lingo), 20 feet long on the banks of the Brisbane River at Graceville, a western Brisbane suburb, where the College was located. The entire college was located in a very low-lying area on the river bank and was devastated. As a result, we lost car and caravan which were parked alongside the College. But it was because of our stupidity of having a caravan and car in a flood-prone zone that we lost it. Never again have we built or located near a flood zone.

4. We do know that there will be an increase in disasters as we approach the second coming of Christ (we don’t know when that will be). Luke 21:23-30 (NLT) states:

“How terrible it will be for pregnant women and for nursing mothers in those days. For there will be disaster in the land and great anger against this people. They will be killed by the sword or sent away as captives to all the nations of the world. And Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the period of the Gentiles comes to an end.

“And there will be strange signs in the sun, moon, and stars. And here on earth the nations will be in turmoil, perplexed by the roaring seas and strange tides. People will be terrified at what they see coming upon the earth, for the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then everyone will see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great glory. So when all these things begin to happen, stand and look up, for your salvation is near!”

Then he gave them this illustration: “Notice the fig tree, or any other tree. When the leaves come out, you know without being told that summer is near” (New Living Translation).

5. Does God send judgment to people and nations in this life because of the sinfulness of humanity in those nations?

What happened in Noah’s day? The description was that “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11 ESV). When God saw this corruption, he told Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth” (Gen. 6:13).

God’s judgment happened in this life because of the corruption of humanity in Noah’s time. Why should God think any differently of Haiti’s earthquake or Australia’s floods? What have these countries done to promote sinfulness and corruption?
I think there is enough biblical evidence to support God’s judgment of people and nations.

6. Tragedy may cause us to re-evaluate priorities.

Tragedy, whether through cyclones, floods, earthquakes or other devastation, may jolt us to rethink and change priorities. If we build in flood-prone zones near a river, losing many possessions may cause us to see the damage that a materialistic philosophy can do. I’m reminded of that Jesus said about wealth on earth:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matt. 6:19-21 NIV).

7. There are reasons why God allows Christians to suffer.

To understand this biblical teaching, I recommend the article, “Ten reasons for suffering in the Christian life”. I’m not convinced that all suffering is caused by sin or disobedience. The Christians who have suffered persecution, whether in the southern Sudan, under Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc., did not commit sin but suffered for being Christian believers. What happened to them is what Jesus predicted:

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you (John 15:18-19 NIV).

As a personal example, when I was a child at age 6, 10 and 12, I suffered 3 bouts of rheumatic fever that left me with a leaking mitral heart valve. Since 1983 I have had five open-heart surgeries (1983, 1987, 1988, 2003, 2013) to insert mechanical valves to correct this abnormality. To my knowledge, the rheumatic fever was not caused by my personal sin, but is a consequence for my being born in sin as a result of Adam & Eve’s fall into sin (Genesis 3).

8. Does the Book of Job shed some light?

On Christian Fellowship Forum, I shared some information about the Queensland floods of 2010-11 and received this reply on the topic, “Why does God allow floods to devastate?” from lrschrs (Chris) at #5 (I have corrected his spelling errors):

I think that the book of Job gives us the best answer to the question, that is, We Do Not Know, but God does know what He is going on about, and we should be silent before Him in worship, wonder, and praise.

That God has ordained the weather to be what it is is true, there are no things outside His loving providence and thus we can be confident even when all around us fails, as Habakkuk noted, no mad molecule, no runaway nature, He does have the whole world in His hands, and He holds us, and holds us dear. [Hab. 3:17-19].

That sin has entered the world is true, though how it effects such things I think is more indirect, for while all nature groans in an effect of sin how this is so is not revealed to us, Rom. 8:18-22.

One aspect of sin in the world is the lack of wisdom that builds things on flood plains or in denial of the common droughts of an area, and then wonders why we have wet or dry weather as usual. We build below sea level and wonder why things get wet at times.

Another reason can be divine judgment and blessing on a society, though here we are told not to be hasty and judge by appearances, for we don’t know all in any case, Luke 13:4. Here we need to avoid the twin errors or naturalism, an impersonal cosmos, on one hand, and moralism, or a world of simplistic this for that, on the other. The world is not a mechanical system but a system of mechanisms that is open to the personal providence of God and directed toward the ends He has appointed for all things.

I think all talk of ‘mother nature’ is foolish, for nature does not do anything, that is, act on choices it makes, but it only happens in accord with its construction and direction.

But in the end I think we have to rest in God and in what can be called the ‘mystery of providence’, we simply do not know why some things go as they do and others as they do, Maybe we can see some hints at times, like buildings in foolish places leave us good grounds to consider human folly at work, but in the end we must be silent before His works, adore the Lord even in hard times, for He knows what He is doing, and get on with our calling to comfort the afflicted and help the neighbor

I responded to Chris (I’m ozspen #12):

I agree that the Book of Job causes us who believe in the sovereign Lord to say that we do not know the answers for the Haiti earthquake, the Pike River mine disaster in New Zealand and the floods in Australia.

You and I can understand this as believers and accept this from the sovereign hand of the Lord. However, unbelievers see this as a God who is an evil so-and-so who would bring such devastation.

How do you respond to unbelievers? To say, “We do not know the answers”, could be cause for them to not believe in this kind of God – become agnostic or atheistic towards him.

What is your response to Aussies who say, “Your God doesn’t give a damn about ordinary people. Look what he has done with the floods at Chinchilla, Dalby, Theodore, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Maryborough and Gympie. He’s a monster”.

To say, “Go to the Book of Job and you will see that we do not know”, is hardly a satisfactory answer to questioning Aussies who want to know the nature of this horrific God who would do this to people.

How would you reply?

A woman trapped on the roof of her car awaits rescue during the Toowoomba flash flood (Dec 2010-Jan 2011, courtesy Wikipedia)

What if Mother Nature’s fury is the curse?

If there is no God and the devastating floods that are happening in Queensland are due to the inanimate Mother Nature, why are we bad-mouthing Mother Nature? Qld premier, Anna Bligh, has stated that “Mother Nature is unleashing something shocking” in the Toowoomba disaster.

If this devastation is to be blamed on Mother Nature, whatever he, she or it might be, if there is no God then why is she and others griping about these things? If God is not in charge of these things, then he must be just as frustrated as we are.

Surely, the floods in Qld should be pointing us to a higher purpose in life than what we are acknowledging. I haven’t heard or read this kind of response: “We have been ignoring God, kicking Him out of our lives for so long. It’s about time He got our attention to focus on ultimate issues in life”.

God has promised that he will not strike the earth again like he did in Noah’s day (see Genesis 8:21). Jesus Christ warned us that before Christ’s second coming there would be strange signs in the sun, moon and stars, along with roaring seas and strange tides. People would be terrified by what they see on the earth (see Luke 21:25-28).

If there is no God who sends the rain on the just and the unjust, why are we kicking up such a stink about the actions of Mother Nature?

These floods should be a wake-up call about ultimate issues for all, not just Queenslanders. This kind of a response to a “Mother Nature” cause, will not be appreciated by those who interpret life emotionally.

Disasters and God’s judgment

I received an email with the content of this blog (below) under the heading, “Japan denounced Israel exactly 1 year before earthquake and tsunami”. This blog appeared at Armageddononline.com #257:

Ron Reese from 5 Doves has discovered that ON MARCH 11TH, EXACTLY ONE YEAR AGO, JAPAN DENOUNCES ISRAEL!!! http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/annou…3/0311_01.html

Exactly 1 year ago March 11, 2010…The exact day of the 9.0 earthquake in Japan hit a year later in 2011.
Genesis 12:3 “I will Bless those who Bless (Israel), and Curse Those Who Curse you.”

Remember, America forced Israel to remove 8,000 Israeli’s from their homes in Gaza, then came Katrina where America lost 800,000 houses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama.

Japan demanded that Israel not build 1,600 housing units in east Jerusalem. After the 9.0 earthquake Japan may have to rebuild 1.6 million homes.

God is not mocked! Pay attention America!

A more detailed comment by Ron Reese is in, ‘Ron Reese (15 March 2011) “On March 11th, exactly one year ago, Japan denounces Israel!!!’

What are we to make of those who want to link Japan’s actions (sins?) against Israel with the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan on 11th March 2011?

Jesus will not allow us to draw the conclusion that the Japanese, because of their response to Israel, are any more sinful than we are. This is clearly stated in Luke 13:1-5:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (ESV).

To paraphrase Jesus for Aussies today, based on Luke 13:1-5: There are people present today who speak about the Japanese who denounced Israel one year before the tsunami. Jesus answers these who see this as judgment against Japan: “Do you think that these Japanese are worse sinners than all Australians because they acted in this way? No, says Jesus. I tell you: but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish”.

We do not have the right to pronounce that the earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear meltdown are God’s judgment on Japan – based on Luke 13:1-5. Providing judgment is God’s job and he will do it in our time. God has told us (Luke 14) that we all are sinners who need to repent and the Japanese crisis should be a reminder that all sinners need to repent.

One of the ways of responding to doubters of the biblical text and its teaching is to use …

The Judo Technique

I learned this when I was studying Jim Kennedy’s gospel presentation in Evangelism Explosion.

Often as you begin presenting the gospel, the person will say something like, “I don’t believe the Bible. You’ll have to convince me some other way than referring to the Scriptures.” Many people are devastated by this objection. What happens to them? Their attempt to share Christ fizzles.

This need not be the case. I want to encourage you to use this objection as a springboard into the gospel itself. The Apostle Paul, when he preached in Greek cities that had no background in the Bible, appealed to the Scriptures even though the people who listened to him did not believe the Bible.

He proclaimed to them and the Holy Spirit used the proclamation to save some who then came to believe the Bible to be true. When we witness, our primary function is to proclaim the gospel, not defence of the Bible. BUT when people object to the Bible, we DO NEED good answers to respond. And there ARE EXCELLENT answers.

The judo technique works like this. The objection, “I don’t believe the Bible,” is quite an easy one to deal with. Don’t use the approach of a boxer who meets the blow head on and tries to overwhelm the opponent with counter punches. Instead use the technique of the judo expert. The force of the opponent’s blow is used to throw the opponent.

Here’s how it works in presenting the gospel. The person who objects, “I don’t believe the Bible,” usually has some university education, or has been exposed to some course in the Bible, or biblical criticism or something like that.

There is often some intellectual pride that says or infers something like this: “I used to believe those fairy tales when I was in kindy, but now I am an educated person and am far above believing those things.” It is this intellectual pride that can be used to turn this objection into an opportunity for presenting the gospel. I suggest this kind of dialogue with the person who objects.

“You don’t believe the Bible, John? That’s very interesting and it certainly is your privilege not to believe it, and I would fight for that right on your part. However, if the Bible is true then obviously you must accept the consequences.

“But I would like to ask you a question. The main message of the Bible, which has been unquestionably the most important literary work in human history, is how a person may have eternal life. So what I would like to know is: What do you understand that the Bible teaches about how a person may have eternal life and go to heaven?”

He may say that he does not believe in eternal life. To this you might say, “I’m not asking you what you believe, but I am asking you what you understand. It would be a rather unintellectual approach to reject the world’s most important book without understanding even its main message, would it not? What do you understand that the Bible teaches as to how a person may have eternal life? What is your understanding about what the Bible teaches on this subject?”

My experience is that over 90% will respond by saying that it is by keeping the Ten Commandments or following the Golden Rule or imitating the example of Christ, doing good, or something like that.

You might respond something like this: “That is just what I was afraid of, John. You have rejected the Bible without even understanding its main message, for your answer is not only incorrect, but it is diametrically opposite to what the Bible teaches. Now, don’t you think that the more intellectual approach would be to let me share with you what the Scriptures teach on this subject and then you can make an intelligent decision whether to reject or accept it?”

Now the tables have been completely turned. Instead of being superior to the Scripture and even above listening to it, he now finds himself ignorant of even its basic message. Now he must decide whether to listen to the message of the Scriptures or be found to be not only ignorant but also some obscure person who opposes intellectual advancement — and wants to remain in his ignorance.

This is the last thing in the world that his intellectual pride will allow him to be. So, very often he will give you permission to tell him the gospel. It is at this point that you pray with vigour that the Holy Spirit will take the gospel, which is the power of God to salvation, and use it to awaken him from the deadness because of sin.

Bundaberg, Qld. floods, December 2010

God is sovereign. As the Creator of all things visible and invisible, He is the owner of all, has an absolute right to rule over all, and He exercises this authority in the universe (Henry C. Thiessen 1949:173).

See: 1 Chronicles 29:11; Psalm 115:3; Isaiah 45:9; Ezekiel 18:4; Daniel 4:35; Matthew 20:15; Romans 9:14-24; 11:36; Ephesians 1;11; 1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 4:11.

Works consulted

Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Where do Scriptures say Christians can be lost?

(courtesy sweetclipart.com)

By Spencer D Gear

If you want to find yourself in the midst of a Christian bun fight, raise the issue of once-saved-always-saved and the Arminian vs Calvinistic views and you can guarantee a start. It may not finish.

A fellow who believes in once-saved-always-saved (eternal security) challenged a poster on a Christian forum:

Show me in scripture where God ever lost one of His own.
Now if you want, we can continue to play these games.
But it still boils down to the fact that nowhere in scripture does it show God has ever lost one of His sheep to Satan, or ever let one saint slip from His hand.
I ask that you show me, where God lost one of His saints, prove it from scripture.[1]

Was he prepared for this kind of response?

A fellow, with an excellent knowledge of NT Greek, answered the challenge with some needed but technical language, to show in Scripture where God speaks of losing his own. He wrote:

John 15:6. “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.”

The Gospel According to John explicitly teaches that our salvation is conditional upon our abiding in Christ, and the Greek word translated ‘abide’ in English is the Greek word mene meaning to ‘abide,’ ‘remain,’ and ‘stay’ and is used in twelve of the New Testament books with these meanings. But before we go any further with this, we need to address the construction of conditional sentences in New Testament Greek.

There are the four kinds of conditional sentences found in the Greek New Testament:

1. The supposition of a fact. Example: For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; (1 Cor. 15:16). In this kind of conditional sentence we find the conditional Greek particle ei used with the verb in the indicative mood in the protasis (the “if” clause), and either the indicative mood or the imperative mood (or the subjunctive mood in the case of a prohibition) in the apodosis (the “then” clause).

2. The supposition of a possibility. Example: If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. (John 7:17). In this kind of conditional sentence we find the conditional Greek particle ean used with the verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis, and either the indicative mood or the imperative mood (or the aorist subjunctive with ou me in the apodosis.

3 The supposition of an uncertainty. Example: who ought to have been present before you and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me. (Acts 24:19).

In this kind of conditional sentence we find the conditional Greek particle ei used with the verb in the optative mood. There are no examples in the New Testament where this kind of conditional sentence is used having both the protasis and the apodosis.

4 The supposition of something contrary to fact. Example: If God were your Father, you would love Me. (John 8:42). In this kind of conditional sentence we find the conditional Greek particle [ei] used with the verb in the protasis and the Greek particle an used with the verb in the apodosis with the indicative mood used in both the protasis and the apodosis.
With this information in mind, let’s look at the conditional sentences that we find in John 15:1-10:

John 15:4. “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.” Although it is not apparent from this English translation, this verse does include a conditional clause and we find the conditional Greek particle ean used with the verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis. (Compare Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, “remain in me, and I in you, as the branch is not able to bear fruit of itself, if it may not remain in the vine, so neither ye, if ye may not remain in me.”)

John 15:6. “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.” Here we find the conditional Greek particle ean used with the verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis and in the indicative mood in the apodosis.

John 15:7. “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you”. Here we find the conditional Greek particle ean used with the verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis, and the indicative mood in the apodosis. Therefore, we have a supposition of a possibility – His disciples may or may not abide in Him. It depends upon them and their choices. If they choose to slip away – they slip away, and according Jesus, their slipping away is a possibility – and hence the warning!

John 15:10. “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.” Here we find the conditional Greek particle ean used with the verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis and in the indicative mood in the apodosis. The significance of this is that subjunctive mood in the protasis indicates that, in the mind of the speaker (Jesus), our keeping His commandments is a supposition of a possibility. Therefore it is not a question of who keeps us from falling, but a question of whether or not we continue to obey Christ and thereby continue to abide in Him. The choice, according to these words of Jesus, is ours.

John 15:16. “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.” We have no conditional clauses in this verse, but the verb that we are studying (translated here “remain” rather than “abide”) is in the subjunctive mood, the mood expressing a probability rather than a certainty. It is also worth pointing out that the mood of the several other verbs in this verse, hence:

John 15:16. “You did not choose (indicative) Me but I chose (indicative) you, and appointed (indicative) you that you would go (subjunctive) and bear (subjunctive) fruit, and that your fruit would remain (subjunctive), so that whatever you ask (subjunctive) of the Father in My name He may (subjunctive) give (subjunctive) to you.”

John 15:1. “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2. “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3. “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4. “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5. “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6. “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
7. “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.”

The word “abide” in verse 4 is in the subjunctive mood; Jesus is telling his disciple that unless they remain in him, they cannot bear fruit.

The word “abide” in verse 5 is in the imperative mood; Jesus is commanding His disciple to abide in him.

The word “abide” in verse 6 is in the subjunctive mood; Jesus is telling his disciple that if anyone does not remain in him, they are cast into the fire and are burned. This is a very stern warning in vivid language to those individuals who are in Christ that the consequence of failing to obey His command to remain in Him is to be dried up and burned like a dried up branch of a vine.

The word “abide” in verse 7 is in the subjunctive mood in both of its occurrences in this verse; Jesus is telling his disciple that if they (the you is plural) abide in Him and His words abide in them, they are to ask (imperative mood and hence a command) for whatever they wish and it will be done for them.

In these verses, the word “if” means “if,” not “since,” and the promises found in these verse, both the good and the bad, are conditional upon the disciples, individually, continuing to abide (remain) in Christ, and His words continuing to abide (remain) in them.

How do we continue to abide in Christ? Jesus answered that question for us, “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.” (v. 10).[2]

Conclusion

This poster has nailed the issue. Christian salvation is only guaranteed for those who continue to abide in Christ. Continuing faith in Jesus is a condition of continuing salvation – and thus, eternal life.

I recommend the article by Roger E Olson, ‘What’s wrong with Calvinism?‘ (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Notes

[1] Christian Forums, 16 November 2014, ‘OSASers choose to reject Jesus’ warnings about losing salvation!’, DeaconDean#152. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7842244-16/#post66634768 (Accessed 16 November 2014).

[2] Ibid., PrincetonGuy#155.

Jesus’ work not finished, says Roman Catholic

(courtesy clker)

By Spencer D Gear

Was Jesus’ work on the cross to accomplish salvation completed then or not? Or does it have do be done over and over in some sort of way?

A person wrote on a Christian forum, ‘I believe that when Jesus said, “It is finished.” He was referring to his work of paying the penalty for our sins. That means, everything has been paid. It’s up to us to accept the free gift of salvation by faith’.[1]

A Roman Catholic responds

This response confirmed that a Roman Catholic has a very different view of the finished work of Christ on the cross than a Protestant. His response to the above was:

And you would be wrong, sir.

What happened at the exact instant that Jesus expired? The veil of the Temple was torn in two, exposing the Holiest of All. That was the place that the Old Covenant was renewed every year by the presentation of the Yom Kippur sacrifice by the high priest (Lev. 16).

When the veil of the Temple was ripped apart, it exposed the Holiest of All, making it unfit to ever use again for Yom Kippur. “It is finished” has to do with the Old Covenant. THAT is what Jesus was talking about, not your personal sins.

Yes, as the Lamb of God, Jesus is the Sacrifice for our sins. But the idea that He paid “once and forever” and it is all done is heresy. Every time you sin, you have to present that Sacrifice to God to renew your covenant relationship with Him. He has not paid for all your sins in advance of you committing them, and certainly they are not paid for if you refuse to repent and find sin so attractive that you stay in it.[2]

Three evangelical exegetes disagree with the Roman Catholic

My response[3] was that three leading evangelical commentators disagree with him.

John 19:30 states, ‘When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit’ ESV).

This is how three evangelical scholars respond to the meaning of ‘It is finished’ in their commentaries:
cubed-redmatte Leon Morris stated:

‘In the Greek this is one word, ?????????? [tetelestai], which is another of John’s ambiguous terms. It could mean that Jesus’ life was finished. This is part of the meaning, but it is highly improbable that it is the whole meaning. More important is the truth that Jesus’ work was finished. He came to do God’s work, and this meant dying on the cross for the world’s salvation. This mighty work of redemption has now reached its consummation. It is finished’ (Morris 1971:815, n. 73).

cubed-redmatte D. A. Carson‘s understanding was:

In the Greek text, the cry itself is one word, tetelestai (cf. notes on v. 28). As an English translation, It is finished captures only part of the meaning, the part that focuses on completion. Jesus’ work was done. But this is no cry of defeat; nor is it merely an announcement of imminent death… The verb teleo from which this form derives denotes the carrying out of a task, and in religious contexts bears the overtone of fulfilling one’s religious obligations. Accordingly, in the light of the impending cross, Jesus could earlier cry, ‘I have brought you glory on earth by completing (teleiosas; i.e. by accomplishing) the work you gave me to do’ (17:4). ‘Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them eis telos‘—not only ‘to the end’ but to the full extent mandated by his mission. And so, on the brink of death, Jesus cries out, It is accomplished! (Carson 1991:621, emphasis in original).

cubed-redmatte R. C. H. Lenski wrote:

‘It is finished!’ tetelestai, exactly as in v. 28, the perfect [tense] of a completed state, denotes an action brought to its termination, it is like a line that ends in a point ———————• Jesus speaks this word to his Father. He makes his report to the father who sent him. Uttered with a loud voice, it is also intended for all men to hear. Recorded now in Scripture, it still rings out to all the world. Since the whole passion and death of Jesus were intended for us, why set up the contention that this conclusion is intended only for him and not also for us? The verb has no subject. What is it that is here brought to an end? Some think that Jesus has in mind his suffering, which, of course, in a way is true and quite obvious. But this cry cannot mean that Jesus is thinking only of himself and is glad that his pain now ceases. Some think of the ancient prophecies and their fulfillment, which, of course, in a way is also true (v. 28). This is better than the previous view, yet it still is indefinite, and other prophecies are still unfulfilled, namely the resurrection and the exaltation. Many are satisfied to say that the work or task of Jesus is concluded, or even that no further duty holds Jesus to life; this is equally indefinite. A word so important cannot be explained by so general an interpretation. The death of Jesus finishes His redemptive work, the work of reconciliation and atonement. This specific work is now brought to a close. The Lamb of God has made His great sacrifice for the world. It is this that is now done. Our great Substitute has paid the great price of ransom, paid it to the uttermost farthing. ‘It is finished’ indeed! Others will yet preach and teach, and Jesus will work through them; as the Kong on David’s throne his regal work will continue forever; but the redemptive shedding of His blood, done once for all, is finished and stands as finished forever. Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26; Rom. 6:10 (Lenski 1943:1309).

Jesus’ death as ‘once for all’ a heresy

As indicated above, the Roman Catholic stated that ‘the idea that He paid “once and forever” and it is all done is heresy. Every time you sin, you have to present that Sacrifice to God to renew your covenant relationship with Him’.[4]

Let’s check out a couple of Scriptures to see if the RC is on target or is simply perpetrating his own human-made theology. Two verses come to mind:

Hebrews 9:26-28,

²⁴For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, ²⁶for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. ²⁷And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement, ²⁸so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him (ESV).

This is extremely clear:

Christ appeared in the presence of God himself;
Jesus did not offer himself repeatedly as the high priest did when he entered the high places every year with blood other than his own;
Jesus did not suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world;
Jesus’ sacrifice at the end of the ages was to put away sin by His own sacrifice;
Christ has been offered ONCE to bear the sins of many;
When Jesus appears a second time, it will not be to deal with sin.

But there is more in 1 Peter 3:18, ‘For Christ also suffered[5] once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit’ (ESV).

Conclusion

So the idea that Jesus paid for sin, ‘once and forever’, is not heresy, but it is orthodox, biblical Christianity. Scripture affirms it.

Bible New Testament Christ Carrying the Cross El Greco

(courtesy public domain)

Works consulted

Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Lenski, R C H 1943. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (assigned by Augsburg Fortress).

Morris, L 1971. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Notes

[1] biblestudyresources#51, 23 July 2014, Christian Forums, Salvation (Soteriology), ‘What Christians must do to keep their salvation’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7828815-6/ (Accessed 23 July 2014).

[2] Ibid., Light of the East#54, emphasis added.

[3] Ibid., OzSpen#56.

[4] Ibid., Light of the East#54, emphasis added.

[5] Some manuscripts have ‘died’.

When will the world be convicted of sin?

Iraq (image courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

We live in a world where incredible wickedness is displayed. We know of the atrocities under Emperor Nero, Adolph Hitler & the Holocaust, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Boko Haram kidnapping of girls in Nigeria, and the ISIL slaughter in Iraq and Syria.

But what about the lying and deceit that is part of everyday life, work and business? When will it be exposed? When will the world be convicted of its sin and when will judgment be declared on a rebellious sinful world?

Now that question assumes that such will happen. I didn’t invent this one out of thin air. I read it in John 16:7-9, Jesus Christ speaking,

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper [the Holy Spirit] will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. ⁸And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement: ⁹concerning sin, because they do not believe in me (ESV).

A fellow raised it on a Christian forum:

(image courtesy clker)

Convict the World?

John 16:8-9
“When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me”
When does the Holy Spirit convict the world of it’s (sic) unbelief, before or after regeneration?[1]

I asked him,[2]

There is a bigger issue than what you are raising IMO. We need to know what we are talking about with the meaning of ‘convict’ or otherwise.
John 16:8-9 reads in these various translations:

‘And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me’ (ESV);
‘And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me’ (KJV);
‘When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me’ (NIV);
‘And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me’ (RSV).

So what does the future tense, active voice, indicative mood of elegchw mean in this verse: convict, reprove, prove to be wrong, or convince?

Another replied:

The conviction Jesus talks of here is a condemnation because they do not believe in Him.
So nothing to do with being saved.
Nothing to do with any kind of born again regeneration. Do we agree?[3]

While I agreed with his sentiments, he still had not clarified enough, so I pursued the topic: ‘But you haven’t provided an exegesis of the verb, elegchw. We won’t know to what it refers if we don’t know the meaning of the word’.[4] His comeback was:

This? KJV uses ‘reprove’
Greek Lexicon :: G1651 (KJV)

to convict, refute, confute
generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted
by conviction to bring to the light, to expose
to find fault with, correct
by word
to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove
to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation
by deed
to chasten, to punish

BLB – Jhn 16: Gospel of John 16 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV – King James Version).[5]

That dished up a mish-mash [6]

That fellow amalgamated headings and sub-headings here to make the meaning rather confusing.

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol 2 (Eerdmans 1964) gives the meaning of elegchw in the NT with the active voice as:

to show someone his sin and to summon him to repentance’. This may be a private matter between 2 people (Mt 18:15; Eph 5:11); a congregational matter under the leader as seen in the pastoral epistles (1 Tm 5:20; 2 Tm 4:2; Tit 1:9, 13; 2:15). It is also the work of the Holy Spirit in the world as we see here in John 16:8, the exalted Christ in the community (Rev 3:19) and of the Lord in judgment at the parousia (Jude 15) [Kittel 1964:474].

This exegesis of the term in Kittel concluded that

the word does not mean only “to blame” or “to reprove,” nor “to convince” in the sense of proof, nor “to reveal” or “expose,” but “to set right,” namely “to point away from sin to repentance”…. The noteworthy and impressive battle against sin which is part of NT Christianity is reflected in the rich use of elegchw and related words (Kittel 1964:474).

A. T. Robertson, one of the greatest Greek scholars of the 20th century stated that elegchw is an ‘old word for confuting, convicting by proof’ [already in John 3:29; 8:46] (Robertson 1932:266).

One of the best non-technical explanations I have read is in William Hendriksen’s commentary on the Gospel of John 16:8 in which he states of ‘will convict’:

But just what does the term convict mean? Convince and convict are not always nor necessarily identical in sense. A man is convinced of a doctrine or of a duty; he is convicted of a crime. Nevertheless, when the context or universe of discourse is human guilt, the two verbs may approach each other very closely in meaning. However, the English verb to convict is rather ambiguous because it may mean either: a. to prove guilty, without implying that the person whose guilt is proved is ready to admit and confess his guilt; and b. to awaken to consciousness of guilt. Surely, when the Holy Spirit convicts the world through the preaching of the Gospel, both of these results are achieved, but not in each individual to whom the Word is proclaimed. The Gospel immediately proves the whole world to be guilty. In the case of many this guilt is brought home to the conscience, so that they feel it. And among these, again, there are some (God’s elect) who not only are convinced of it in their soul, but also admit it openly, truly repent, and, confessing the wrong which they have committed, cast themselves upon the mercy of God in Christ. Hence, the verb to convict does not have the same meaning for all. By and large the wicked world continues in open hostility to God, his Christ, and his people (see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote ²⁶, meaning 6). Though its guilt has been exposed or proved (hence, though in that sense it has been convicted), it does not repent.

The term employed in the original (elegchw) is at least just as elastic in meaning as is the English word to convict. That it means more than merely to rebuke has been shown by R. C. Trench, op. cit., pp. 13–15. However, as his summary is not complete and as he seems to build his case on some (and not on all) the uses of the term, the value of his discussion is somewhat limited. In the passages which he mentions the verb implies to rebuke with good effect, that is, to bring sin home to the conscience.

The divergence of views with respect to the proper translation of the term is evident from the following Table, which lists all the seventeen instances of its use in the New Testament. (In this summary no mention is made of John 8:9 and of Jude 22, where the textual support is weak.)

A.V. A.R.V. R.S.V.

Matt. 18:15 tell him his fault show him his fault tell him his fault

Luke 3:19 reprove reprove reprove

John 3:20 reprove reprove expose

John 8:46 convince convict convict

John 16:8 reprove convict convince

I Cor. 14:24 convince reprove convict

Eph. 5:11 reprove reprove expose

Eph. 5:13 reprove reprove expose

I Tim. 5:20 rebuke reprove rebuke

II Tim. 4:2 reprove reprove convince

Tit. 1:9 convince convict confute

Tit. 1:13 rebuke reprove rebuke

Tit. 2:15 rebuke reprove reprove

Heb. 12:5 rebuke reprove punish

James 2:9 convince convict convict

Jude 1:15 convince convict convict

Rev. 3:19 rebuke reprove reprove

Moulton and Milligan, op. cit., on this verb, prefers the translation convict (in the sense of “bring to light the true character of a man and his conduct”) for all three instances of its use in the Fourth Gospel; and renders it expose, set forth in I Cor. 14:24; Eph. 5:11, giving papyri support for both uses (Hendriksen 1953:324-325).

Conclusion

My overall conclusion is in line with that of Hendriksen that the world is convicted (about the true character of human beings and their conduct) by the proclamation of the Gospel and that will be exposed in judgment at the parousia (i.e. Christ’s second coming).

I know that this has been long and quite technical, but I find it is too easy to throw around the meaning of ‘convict’ in John 16:8 without doing the exegesis. I also realise a lot of folks won’t have the interest in and tools to do this kind of exegesis.

Works consulted

Hendriksen, W 1953. New Testament commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, also available at: Biblicalwritings.com.

Kittel, G (ed) 1964. Theological dictionary of the New Testament, vol 2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. The article cited was on elegchw by Friedrich Büchsel, 473-476.

Robertson, A T 1932. Word pictures in the New Testament: The fourth Gospel, the epistle to the Hebrews, vol 5. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

Notes

[1] gmm4Jesus#1, 10 May 2014, Christian Forums, General Theology, Salvation (Soteriology), ‘Convict the world’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7821375/ (Accessed 12 May 2014).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen#9.

[3] Ibid., sdowney#10.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen#12.

[5] Ibid., sdowney#13.

[6] The following is my response at ibid., OzSpen#15.

Does God only draw certain people to salvation?

What is the meaning of ‘draw’ in John 6:44?

Boy and cat fishing vector drawing

(image courtesy publicdomain)

By Spencer D Gear

How are people drawn to Christ in Sierra Leone or North Korea? What happens in certain countries where the open proclamation of the Gospel is prohibited? This has been the burden of short-wave Christian radio stations such as Reach Beyond (formerly HCJB) and Trans World Radio. How can the Gospel reach beyond the human barriers that prevent overt evangelism on the ground in some countries?

How does God draw people to salvation? Is this by an irresistible grace of election over which they have no say? Do some people choose to respond in faith or is that forced on them by God (irresistible grace)? Or does it involve God’s drawing and human beings agreeing to co-operate with God by responding in faith?

Join a discussion on a Christian forum and you’ll see the heat – and not light – that this discussion often brings. I was involved in such a dialogue. There was quite a bit of banter between Calvinists and non-Calvinists (including Arminians) about the meaning of ‘draw’ in John 6:44. This verse states:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (ESV).

A Calvinist wrote: ‘I never said it meant drag. But it doesn’t mean to woo or lure or whatever you think it means’.[1]

A non-Calvinist response was: ‘Well when you use those words, of course not. What it conveys is seen in the metaphorical use of [the Greek] helko, to signify “drawing” by inward power, by Divine impulse. Not against our will, but in empathy towards our inner heart’.[2]

What is the demonstration in Scripture?

To try to make headway through this sometimes antagonistic theological jungle, I replied:[3]

The focus on the etymology[4] of the Greek, helko, gets our discussion into this kind of bind. John 6:44 makes the teaching clear:

This drawing is by the power of God with the specific purpose of moving the sinner’s inner being (heart/soul) to move from darkness to light and into God’s eternal life. No human being can do this by himself/herself. God’s divine power does the drawing. If that does not happen, no salvation will take place.

However, the book of John clarifies that this is not for a select few. What does John 12:32 declare? These are the words of Jesus, ‘I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw[5] all people to myself’ (ESV). So the drawing of John 6:44 and the drawing of John 12:32 demonstrate that it applies to all human beings, not a select elect.
We know from Romans 1:16 that it is the gospel that is accompanied by God’s power ‘for salvation to everyone who believes’. So, people are the ones who make the decision to believe, to have faith in Jesus.

Not irresistible

(image courtesy shutterstock, public domain)

But we know from Matthew 23:37 what Jesus’ view was:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (ESV)

Thus we know that God’s moving and drawing of all human beings is NOT irresistible as this verse affirms, ‘And you would not’. All human beings have the power to resist God’s drawing. This means that it cannot be an irresistible ‘dragging’ into the kingdom of God.
I’m pleased it is this way. There are decided disadvantages against a faith that compels people and does not allow them individual choice. See my article, What is the nature of human free will?

God does the drawing

It must be emphasised that there will be no kingdom salvation for believers without God doing the drawing and human beings responding. This is not Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

Pelagius (ca 360-420),[6] the originator of Pelagianism, was a British monk and theologian who went to Rome about AD 400 in the time of St. Augustine of Hippo who died in 430. Cairns explained that Pelagius’s beliefs were that

each man is created free as Adam was and that each man has the power to choose good or evil. Each soul is a separate creation of God and, therefore, uncontaminated by the sin of Adam. The universality of sin in the world is explained by the weakness of human flesh rather than by the corruption of the human will by original sin. Man does not inherit original sin from his first ancestor, although the sins of individuals of the past generation do weaken the flesh of the present generation so that sins are committed unless the individual wills to cooperate with God in the process of salvation. The human will is free to cooperate with God in the attainment of holiness and can make use of such aids to grace as the Bible, reason and the example of Christ. Because there is no original sin, infant baptism is not an essential element in salvation.

Augustine, the great bishop of Hippo, opposed what he believed was a denial of the grace of God by insisting that regeneration is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit. Man was originally made in the image of God and free to choose good and evil, but Adam’s sin bound all men, because Adam was the head of the race. Man’s will is entirely corrupted by the Fall so that he must be considered totally depraved and unable to exercise his will in regard to the matter of salvation. Augustine believed that all inherit sin through Adam and that no one, therefore, can escape original sin. Man’s will is so bound that he can do nothing to bring about his salvation. Salvation can only come to the elect through the grace of God in Christ. God must energize the human will to accept His proffered grace, which is only for those whom He has elected to salvation.

(Cairns 1981:137)

According to Stephen Filippo, because Pelagius

promoted moral fervor, there was an inherent danger in it: self-reliance, not God-reliance, based upon an inadequate understanding of human nature. Pelagianism stressed complete human autonomy and freedom of the will before God. Pelagius posited three elements to any moral action: 1. that we must be able to do it, 2. that we must be willing to do it, and 3. that the action must be carried out. Or the three elements can be described as possibility, will, and action. Possibility is a natural gift from God alone, but the other two, since they arise from man’s choice, are from man. For instance, God has freely given us the gifts of speech, sight, hearing, etc., and the power to speak, see hear, etc., yet whether or not these are put to good use is left entirely up to the individual. Thus, we are entirely free to will and do good or evil. Nor does he separate will from power, finding in the will the power to automatically carry out what it has willed.

(Filippo 2013)

(Pelagius, image courtesy Wikipedia)

So, self-reliant, human generated salvation of Pelagianism is contrary to Scripture and so is false teaching.

What about semi-Pelagianism that has often been associated by monergism with Arminianism. The Calvinistic website, CARM, gave this definition, ‘Monergism is the teaching that God alone is the one who saves. It is opposed to synergism which teaches that God and man work together in salvation. Cults are synergistic. Christianity is monergistic’.[7] While this accurately describes monergism, it is a false representation of synergism. Synergism is associated with Arminianiam, which is main-stream Christianity.

Semi-Pelagianism

is tied inextricably to the teachings of Gallic monastic critics of Augustine and most importantly (prototypically) John Cassian. Cassian and certain other Gallic monks (“Masillians”) argued that although God may initiate salvation with grace, for many people the initiative is theirs toward God. That is, God waits to see the “exercise of a good will” before responding with grace. This is what was condemned (along with predestination to evil) at Orange in 529.

“Semi-Pelagianism,” then, is the view that “the beginning of faith may have its source in the human agent, although it will not always have its source there.” Furthermore, to compound Cassian’s non-Augustinian view of free will and human initiative in salvation, he taught that “the free will, even in its fallen condition, is not totally unable to will the good” and “the emphasis [of Cassian’s doctrine] falls on vigilance, unceasing struggle, in the attainment of salvation”.

(Weaver 1996, cited in Olson 2013a, emphasis in original)

Roger Olson’s further explanation of semi-Pelagianism was:

“Semi-Pelagianism,” then, is the view that “the beginning of faith may have its source in the human agent, although it will not always have its source there.” Furthermore, to compound Cassian’s non-Augustinian view of free will and human initiative in salvation, he taught that “the free will, even in its fallen condition, is not totally unable to will the good” and “the emphasis [of Cassian’s doctrine] falls on vigilance, unceasing struggle, in the attainment of salvation.”

This is the standard definition/description of semi-Pelagianism. But in some Reformed circles it has been broadened out to include any and every denial of the irresistible efficacy of grace (for the elect). That’s too broad and it departs from historical tradition in identifying what semi-Pelagianism is. That would be like me using “supralapsarians” to describe all denials of free will. I would be quickly challenged and corrected by especially infralapsarians like Sproul.

(Olson 2013a)

The Arminian position

As Roger E Olson has indicated with Sproul’s exposition of Arminianism, all too often semi-Pelagianism has been wrongly associated with Arminianism. The Arminian position in relation to the order of salvation is summarised by Olson:

1) God’s electing grace in Christ of all who will believe in him;

2) Christ’s atoning, reconciling death for all sinners;

3) Prevenient grace given by God to sinners through the Word (calling, convicting, illuminating, enabling);

4) Conversion (repentance and faith) enabled by assisting, prevenient grace;

5) Regeneration, justification, adoption, union with Christ, indwelling of the Holy Spirit;

6) Sanctification;

7) Glorification.

Remember—these are not necessarily chronologically sequential. Especially 3, 4, 5 and 6 may be temporally simultaneous. (Of course, some Arminians will view all as temporally simultaneous in God’s awareness as God does not experience temporal sequence of events).

(Olson 2013b)

I recommend the article by Roger E Olson, ‘What’s wrong with Calvinism?‘ (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

The Calvinistic position

A Calvinistic view on John 6:44 is clearly articulated by Calvinistic commentator William Hendriksen:

William Hendriksen (image courtesy Wikipedia)

Here the emphasis is on the divine decree of predestination carried out in history. When Jesus refers to the divine drawing activity, he employs a term which clearly indicates that more than moral influence is indicated. The Father does not merely beckon or advise, he draws! The same verb … occurs also in John 12:32, where the drawing activity is ascribed to the Son; and further, in 18:10; 21:6,11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; and James 2:6. The drawing of which these passages speak indicates a very powerful – we may even say, an irresistible – activity. To be sure, man resists, but his resistance is ineffective. It is in that sense that we speak of God’s grace as being irresistible. The net full of big fishes is actually drawn or dragged ashore (John 21:6,11). Paul and Silas are dragged into the forum (Acts 16:19). Paul is dragged out of the temple (Acts 21:30). The rich drag the poor before the judgment-seats (James 2:6). Returning now to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus will draw all men to himself (12:32) and Simon drew his sword, striking the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear (18:10). To be sure, there is a difference between the drawing of a net or a sword, on the one hand, and of a sinner, on the other. With the latter God deals as with a responsible being. He powerfully influences the mind, will, heart, the entire personality. These, too, begin to function in their own right, so that Christ is accepted by a living faith. But both at the beginning and throughout the entire process of being saved, the power is ever from above; it is very real, strong, and effective; and it is wielded by God himself!

(Hendriksen 1953:238-239, emphasis in original)

It is important to note a couple of Hendriksen’s emphases that throw doubt on his rather adamant interpretation:

Contrary to Hendriksen, there is not a word here about predestination. That’s Hendriksen imposing on the text. In context this is not about the divine decree to salvific predestination. Faith as a predetermined gift from God is not the subject. The following verses does speak of those who ‘will all be taught by God’ (ESV). The predestination interpretation is Hendriksen’s imposition on the text, especially in light of the use of the same verb in John 12:32, where …
When Jesus is lifted up on the cross, he stated, ‘I … will draw all people to myself’. Hendriksen surely would not want that to mean the teaching of universalism – all people will receive salvation. It can only mean that God in his grace is making the offer to people regarding salvation – all people. But some will not receive it. We know from Romans 10:17 that ‘faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ’ (ESV).
Hendriksen’s language is that with sinners, ‘God deals as with a responsible being’. That cannot be so if ‘draw’ means ‘dragged’. Responsible human beings cannot be responsible if they are dragged as in the decree of a dictator. There is something fundamentally amiss with this Calvinistic interpretation.
Another Calvinist, G C Berkouwer stated of John 6:44, ‘This “drawing” of the Father is not at all an act that rules out all human activity; rather, says Kittel, it rules out all that is coercive and magical’.[8]

Robert Shank’s pertinent comment was,

Thus, according to Kittel (and Berkouwer), the “drawing” is a matter of compelling but it is not at all coercive. No explanation is given of how God can compel without being coercive. Obviously, both propositions cannot be true, for they are mutually exclusive. Truth rests with the latter proposition: The Father’s “drawing” is not coercive. And if God does not coerce, it follows that in man’s response to the Gospel, something is left to man’s volition. That this is so is implied in John’s passage. Having asserted that “no man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (v. 44), Jesus immediately declared,

It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God. Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me (v. 45 RSV).

Robertson comments on verse 45

And hath learned (kai mathen)…. It is not enough to hear God’s voice. He must heed it and learn it and do it. This is a voluntary response. This one inevitably comes to Christ.[9]

(Shank 1970:176)

Often the Calvinism vs Arminian debate can be buried within a discussion over monergism vs synergism. Why don’t you take a read of Eric Landstrom’s excellent overview: ‘The False Antithesis Between Monergism and Synergism: A Lesson from Historical Theology’.

Conclusion

John 6:44 is not dealing with the doctrine of election or predestination. God’s electing grace is needed for there to be salvation of any kind. However, it is extended to all who hear the Gospel and respond in faith to it. It is not a drawing of compulsion that avoids human responsibility. There can be no salvation without God’s initiative and God’s giving human beings the opportunity to respond in faith to the Gospel call.

The sinner’s inner being is moved by God but there is no salvation without a human response. Romans 10:17 is clear: ‘Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ’.

From this assessment, you hopefully will have concluded that I’m a convinced biblically-based Arminian in my theology (Reformed/Classical Arminian). See an affirmation of this position by Seth Miller in, ‘The Foundation of Election: An Overview of Classical Arminianism’. See Roger E. Olson, ‘Is Arminian theology “Reformed”?’

Works consulted

Berkouwer, G C 1960. Studies in dogmatics: Divine election. Tr by H Bekker. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Cairns, E E 1981. Christianity through the centuries: A history of the Christian church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Flippo, S N 2013. St. Augustine and Pelagianism. Ignatius Insight: Ignatius Press (online). Available at: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/sfilippo_augustinepelag_jan08.asp (Accessed 5 September 2014).

Hendriksen, W 1953. New Testament commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Olson, R E 2013a. R C Sproul, Arminianism, and Semi-Pelagianism. Patheos (online), February 22. Available at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/r-c-sproul-arminianism-and-semi-pelagianism/ (Accessed 5 September 2014).

Olson, R E 2013b. An Arminian Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation). Patheos (online), August 23. Available at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/08/an-arminian-ordo-salutis-order-of-salvation/ (Accessed 5 September 2014).

Oxford dictionaries 2014. Etymology (online). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/etymology (Accessed 5 September 2014).

Robertson, A T 1932. Word pictures in the New Testament: The fourth Gospel, the epistle to the Hebrews. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

Shank, R 1970. Elect in the Son: A study in the doctrine of election. Springfield, Missouri: Westcott Publishers.

Weaver, R H 1996. Divine grace and human agency: A study of the Semi-Pelagian controversy. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press.

Notes

[1] Hammster#561, Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology debate, ‘Why do Arminians’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7820790-57/#post65659060 (Accessed 23 May 2014).

[2] Ibid., stan1953#564.

[3] Ibid., OzSpen#567.

[4] Oxford dictionaries give the meaning of ‘etymology’ as, ‘The study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history: the decline of etymology as a linguistic discipline’ (Oxford dictionaries, s v Etymology 2014).

[5] This is the same word for ‘draw’ as in John 6:44.

[6] Lifespan dates are from Cairns (1981:137).

[7] CARM (2014).

[8] Berkouwer (1960:48).

[9] Robertson (1932:109).

Did John 8:58 refer to Jesus as God?

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear PhD

Did Jesus really say anything while he was on earth about his being God? Yes, he did, in John 8:58, which reads: ‘Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am”’ (ESV).

R C H Lenski, a Greek exegete, provides this explanation of this verse, that in my understanding of the original language, gives an accurate explanation of the NT Greek:

58) Not only does Jesus affirm what the question of the Jews asks, with the solemn formula of verity and authority he affirms vastly more. Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am. The aorist genesthai (prin with the infinitive after a positive verb, R. 977, 1091) marks the historical point of time when Abraham came into existence as against the time prior to that point when Abraham did not exist. this aorist is in contrast to eimi [I am]; which Jesus predicates of his own person (ego), here a finite verb not the mere copula (R. 394). As the aorist sets a point of beginning for the existence of Abraham, so the present tense “I am” predicates absolute existence for the person of Jesus, with no point of beginning at all. That is why Jesus does not use the imperfect emen, “I was”; for this would say only that the existence of the person antedates the time of Abraham and would leave open the question whether the person of Jesus also had a beginning like that of Abraham (only earlier) or not. What Jesus declares is that, although his earthly life covers less than fifty years, his existence as a person (ego) is constant and independent of any beginning in time as was that of Abraham. For what Jesus here says about himself in comparison with any other man, no matter how far back the beginning of that man’s existence lies. “I am”=I exist. Thus with the simplest words Jesus testifies to the divine, eternal pre-existence of his person.

To speak of an “ideal” existence before the days of Abraham is to turn the solemn assurance of Jesus into a statement that means nothing. Unacceptable are also all other efforts to empty out this divine “I am” and to substitute for the fact and reality of existence before Abraham something merely mental, whether this occurred in the mind of Jesus or in that of God. Yet this “I am” is nothing new: by means of two tiny words it states only what Jesus has testified and continues to testify of himself in many other words in other connections. Thus, too, it forms the parting of the ways for faith and unbelief.

Yes, Jesus has seen Abraham – the deduction of the Jews is right in every respect, only it should go much farther.

59) As Jesus had made his meaning clear to the Jews in the first place, so also he did in this final word. they understand its full import, namely that, if the existence of the person of Jesus antedates that of Abraham in absolute continuation, he declares himself to be God. To them this is rank blasphemy. They took up stones, therefore, in order to throw at him; but Jesus was hidden and went out of the Temple. (Lenski 1943:670-671).

Note the R in this quote from Lenski refers to A. T. Robertson’s, fourth edition of his massive Greek grammar (Robertson 1934).

This explanation of the Greek from Lenski is technical, but it demonstrates from the NT’s original language that Jesus was confirming that he is eternally God and he did not stop being God when on earth, according to John 8:58. To the Jews of Jesus’ day that was a statement of blasphemy for which He needed to receive capital punishment – so they wanted to stone him.

They knew what Jesus meant by these words. He was claiming to be God and they wanted him executed.

At no time before, during, or after Jesus’ coming to earth did Jesus ever cease being God. He is an eternal member of the Trinity. To say that Jesus was not God while on earth declares a fundamental denial of a core Christian teaching – the Trinity.

Works consulted

Lenski, R C H 1943. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. John’s Gospel. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (special limited edition from Augsburg Fortress).

Robertson, A T 1934. A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

Elected to salvation and/or damnation?

(images courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D. Gear

What is the biblical teaching on election?

Does it matter whether you or I differ in our beliefs on how ‘election’ or ‘predestination’ to salvation works? You might think this has no relevance to the people in the pew or on the street. However, what your view is on election / predestination will have a practical impact on your approach to evangelism.

I used to preach for a Calvinistic church that was not growing, but was diminishing in the number of people who attended. I asked the pastor about his view on evangelism. His response was: ‘God will bring them in’. This had a very practical impact on the lack of evangelism in that church. His view of unconditional election caused that church and him to go silent on evangelism in their community. Why? To use the pastor’s words, ‘God will bring them in’. How was it that God was not bringing them in to that church?

Let’s check into the two most prominent views of election.

What’s the difference between election and predestination? Not much! Kevin DeYoung (a Calvinistic Reformed pastor) explained:

The terms election and predestination are often used interchangeably, both referring to God’s gracious decree whereby he chooses some for eternal life. In Romans 8:30 Paul speaks of those whom God has predestined, called, justified, and (in the end) glorified. In 8:33 Paul references “the elect,” apparently a synonym for the predestined ones described a few verses earlier.

A sharp distinction between the two words is not warranted from Scripture, but if there is a distinction to be made, predestination is the general term for God’s sovereign ordaining, while election is the specific term for God choosing us in Christ before the foundation of the world. That is, predestination is the broader category of which election is the smaller subset (DeYoung 2010).

In this brief article, I’ll be treating election and predestination as interchangeable terms.

Why bother about the differences between Arminians and Calvinists in their theological understandings of how salvation happens? Here’s how they differ:

John Calvin (image courtesy Wikipedia)

Calvinism: Matthew Slick explains,

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21) (Slick 2012).

Jacob Arminius (image courtesy Wikipedia)

Arminianism: The Society of Evangelical Arminians states:

The FACTS of Salvation C: Conditional Election

Desiring the salvation of all, providing atonement for all people, and taking the initiative to bring all people to salvation by issuing forth the gospel and enabling those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith (see “Atonement for All” and “Freed to Believe” above), God chooses to save those who believe in the gospel/Jesus Christ (John 3:15-16, 36; 4:14; 5:24, 40; 6:47, 50-58; 20:31; Rom 3:21-30; 4:3-5, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20-24; 5:1-2; 9:30-33; 10:4, 9-13; 1 Cor 1:21; 15:1-2; Gal 2:15-16; 3:2-9, 11, 14, 22, 24, 26-28; Eph 1:13; 2:8; Phil 3:9; Heb 3:6, 14, 18-19; 4:2-3; 6:12; 1 John 2:23-25; 5:10-13, 20). This clear and basic biblical truth is tantamount to saying that election unto salvation is conditional on faith. Just as salvation is by faith (e.g., Eph 2:8 – “For by grace you have been saved through faith”), so election for salvation is by faith, a point brought out explicitly in 2 Thes 2:13 – “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth” (NASB; note: “God has chosen you . . . through . . . faith in the truth”; on the grammar of this verse, see here) (Society of Evangelical Arminians 2013).

So there is quite a difference in these two views of election. They could be summarised as: God picks people for salvation and they cannot refuse; his election is unconditional (Calvinism) versus God picks people for salvation and they can accept or reject the offer of salvation because they are freed to believe or refuse God’s offer, based on God’s grace (Arminianism). In election God determined what would happen before the foundation of the world (Calvinism), while in Arminianism God has foreknowledge of what will happen but human beings’ free will is not removed.

A blaze of disagreements

If you want to enter a firestorm of theological controversy, start talking about election and predestination in a church group or in an online Christian forum. The sparks are likely to fly both ways. Here are a few prominent proponents who are coming from different sides of the theological fences to demonstrate how conflicting the views can be:

Roger E Olson is an avid and convinced Arminian. He wrote of

the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism. While both are forms of Protestantism (even if some Calvinists deny that Arminianism is authentically Protestant), they take very different approaches to the doctrines of salvation (soteriology). Both believe in salvation by grace through faith alone (sola gratia et fides) as opposed to salvation by grace through faith and good works. Both deny that any part of salvation can be based on human merit. Both affirm the sole supreme authority of Scripture (sola sciptura) and the priesthood of all believers. Arminius and all of his followers were and are Protestants to the core. However, Arminians have always opposed belief in unconditional reprobation – God’s selection of some persons to spend eternity in hell. Because they oppose that, they also oppose unconditional election – the selection of some persons out of the mass of sinners to be saved apart from anything God sees in them. According to Arminians the two are inextricably linked; it is impossible to affirm unconditional selection of some to salvation without at the same time affirming unconditional selection of some to reprobation, which, Arminians believe, impugns the character of God (Olson 2006:14-15; also HERE).

Dr. Olson

Roger E. Olson (photo courtesy George W. Truett Theological Seminary)

In another context, Olson stated:

All that is required for full salvation is a relaxation of the resistant will under the influence of God’s grace so that the person lets go of sin and self-righteousness and allows Christ’s death to become the only foundation for spiritual life. Was Arminius’s soteriology then synergistic? Yes, but not in the way that is often understood. Calvinists tend to regard synergism as equal cooperation between God and a human in salvation; thus the human is contributing something crucial and efficacious to salvation. But this is not Arminius’s synergism. Rather, his is an evangelical synergism that reserves all the power, ability and efficacy in salvation to grace, but allows humans the God-granted ability to resist or not resist it. The only ‘contribution’ humans make is non-resistance to grace. This is the same as accepting a gift. Arminius could not fathom why a gift that must be freely received is no longer a gift, as Calvinists contend (Olson 2006:165; also HERE).

I recommend the article by Roger E Olson, ‘What’s wrong with Calvinism?‘ (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Henry C Thiessen (photo courtesy Wheaton College)

Henry C Thiessen does not identify himself as an Arminian, but his views are sympathetic with those of Arminianism. I used his text when in a Bible college in the early 1970s in Australia where the teacher of theology was an Arminian. Thiessen provided this definition:

1. The Definition of Election. By election we mean that sovereign act of God in grace whereby he chose in Christ Jesus for salvation all those he foreknew would accept him. This is election in its redemptive aspect. The Scriptures also speak of an election to outward privileges (Luke 6:13, Judas; Acts 13:17; Rom. 9:4; 11:28, Israel) to sonship (Eph. 1;4, 5; Rom. 8:29, 33), and to a particular office (Moses and Aaron, Ps. 105:26; David, 1 Sam. 16:12; 20:30; Solomon, 1 Chron. 28:5; and the Apostles, Luke 6:13 – 16; John 6:70; Acts 1:2, 24; 9:15; 22:14). But we are here concerned with election as related to salvation, and so we analyze the above definition more fully.

(1) Election and Foreknowledge. Election is a sovereign act of God; He was under no obligation to elect anyone, since all had lost their standing before God. Even after Christ had died, God was not obliged to apply that salvation, except as He owed it to Christ to keep the agreement with him as to man’s salvation. Election is a sovereign act, because it was not due to any constraint laid upon God. It was an act in grace, in that He chose those who were utterly unworthy of salvation. Man deserved the exact opposite; but in His grace God chose to save some. He chose them ‘in Christ.’ He could not choose them in themselves because of their ill-desert; so He chose them in the merits of another. Furthermore, He chose those who He foreknew would accept Christ. The Scriptures definitely base God’s election on His foreknowledge: ‘Whom he foreknew, he also foreordained,… and whom He foreordained, them He also called’ (Rom. 8:29, 30); ‘to the elect… according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’ (1 Pet. 1: 1, 2). Although we are nowhere told what it is in the foreknowledge of God that determines His choice, the repeated teaching of Scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation necessitates our postulating that it is man’s reaction to the revelation that God has made of himself that is the basis of His election. May we repeat: Since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all men sufficient ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him. This is the salvation-bringing grace of God that has appeared to all men. In His foreknowledge He perceives what each one will do with this restored ability, and elects men to salvation in harmony with His knowledge of their choice of Him. There is no merit in this transaction, as Buswell has clearly shown in his allegory of the captain who is beaten into unconsciousness by the crew on the deck of his vessel, if that captain is revived by restoratives and then accepts the proffered leadership of a captain from another vessel who has come to his rescue[1] (Thiessen 1949:344; also HERE).

But the Calvinist takes a very different view of election to salvation:

R. C. Sproul (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

R C Sproul stated his view clearly:

What predestination means, in its most elementary form, is that our final destination, heaven or hell, is decided by God not only before we get there, but before we are even born. It teaches that our ultimate destiny is in the hands of God. Another way of saying it is this: From all eternity, before we even existed, God decided to save some members of the human race and to let the rest of the human race perish. God made a choice – He chose some individuals to be saved into everlasting blessedness in heaven and others He chose to pass over, to allow them to follow the consequences of their sins into eternal torment in hell….

The Reformed view holds that, left to himself, no fallen person would ever choose God. Fallen people still have a free will and are able to choose what they desire. But the problem is that we have no desire for God and will not choose Christ unless first regenerated. Faith is a gift that comes out of rebirth. Only those who are elect will ever respond to the gospel in faith.

The elect do choose Christ, but only because they were first chosen by God (Sproul 1992:161-162: also HERE).

At least Sproul admitted that most Christians do not accept his view. He stated that ‘the non-Reformed view, held by the vast majority of Christians, is that God makes that choice on the basis of His foreknowledge. God chooses for eternal life those whom he knows will choose Him. This is called the prescient view of predestination because it rests on God’s foreknowledge of human decisions or acts’ (Sproul 1992:161, emphasis in original).

Ji-packer

J. I. Packer (photo courtesy Regent College, Vancouver)

J I Packer, another Calvinistic Reformed stalwart, put it in terms of election:

The verb elect means “to select, or choose out.” The biblical doctrine of election is that before Creation God selected out of the human race, foreseen as fallen, those whom he would redeem, bring to faith, justify, and glorify in and through Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10). This divine choice is an expression of free and sovereign grace, for it is unconstrained and unconditional, not merited by anything in those who are its subjects. God owes sinners no mercy of any kind, only condemnation; so it is a wonder, and matter for endless praise, that he should choose to save any of us; and doubly so when his choice involved the giving of his own Son to suffer as sin-bearer for the elect (Rom. 8:32).

The doctrine of election, like every truth about God, involves mystery and sometimes stirs controversy. But in Scripture it is a pastoral doctrine, brought in to help Christians see how great is the grace that saves them, and to move them to humility, confidence, joy, praise, faithfulness, and holiness in response (Packer 1993:149; also HERE).

What about those who are damned to hell (the reprobate)? Packer explained:

Reprobation is the name given to God’s eternal decision regarding those sinners whom he has not chosen for life. His decision is in essence a decision not to change them, as the elect are destined to be changed, but to leave them to sin as in their hearts they already want to do, and finally to judge them as they deserve for what they have done. When in particular instances God gives them over to their sins (i.e., removes restraints on their doing the disobedient things they desire), this is itself the beginning of judgment. It is called “hardening” (Rom. 9:18; 11:25; cf. Ps. 81:12; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28), and it inevitably leads to greater guilt.

Reprobation is a biblical reality (Rom. 9:14-24; 1 Pet. 2:8), but not one that bears directly on Christian behavior. The reprobates are faceless so far as Christians are concerned, and it is not for us to try to identify them. Rather, we should live in light of the certainty that anyone may be saved if he or she will but repent and put faith in Christ.

We should view all persons that we meet as possibly being numbered among the elect (Packer 1993:150-151; also HERE).

Disagreement on a Christian forum

This article will touch down on only a few issues. This response was provoked by an initial comment I received from an advocate of ‘free grace’ theology[2] on a large Christian forum. Here is our interchange:

He stated,

‘There are NO verses that specifically and clearly state that God elects anyone to salvation. None at all. Which is why the Calvinist doctrine of election is in error.

To be elected is to be chosen for special privilege and service, not chosen for salvation. Those who equate the 2 are in error.

The Bible gives at least 6 categories of election that have nothing to do with being chosen for salvation, including Judas, one of the 12 chosen (Jn 6:70)’.[3]

Evidence for election to salvation or not?

Therefore, a logical question for me to ask was, ‘So do you believe that there is biblical evidence for people being predestined to salvation/justification?’[4]

His anticipated response was:

No, I believe that there is NO Biblical evidence for people being predestined to salvation unconditionally.

Unless you understand that God chooses ALL (unconditionally) believers for salvation. Even the stinky ones.

The problem is that the logical conclusion from Calvinism is that per their view of election, God has chosen who will believe, completely removing the free response of man, which is unbiblical.

Yes, God chooses who He will save. And that is believers ONLY. No doubt about it. But Calvinism’s view results in God choosing who will believe, which is rejected as truth.[5]

Hence my reply:

In essence I agree with what you said because I believe in conditional salvation (i.e. human beings make a response) and not the Calvinistic unconditional salvation.
However, my question to you was: ‘So do you believe that there is biblical evidence for people being predestined to salvation / justification?’

I was asking about predestination / election and not unconditional predestination / election. By your response you have indicated that you do not believe in the unconditional election of Calvinism – neither do I as I don’t find it taught in Scripture.

For a better understanding of predestination/election, I recommend, ‘The FACTS of Salvation C: Conditional Election‘ (Society of Evangelical Arminians).[6]

His comeback was: ‘Correct. Calvinism’s election is foreign to Scripture. Election isn’t even about salvation. It’s about being chosen or elected to special privilege and service, as all 6 categories illustrate, even including ol’ Judas (Jn 6:70)’.[7]

There is no concept of election in salvation, he said

He then chose to reply to my statement: ‘For a better understanding of predestination/election, I recommend, ‘The FACTS of Salvation C: Conditional Election‘ (Society of Evangelical Arminians)’.

I just looked over the site you cited. The opening statement was this:

There are two main views of what the Bible teaches concerning the concept of election unto salvation: that it is either conditional or unconditional.

I disagree that there is any concept of election unto salvation. The reason is that of the 3 related Greek words translated “elect/election”; ekloge (noun), eklektos (adjective), and eklegomai (verb), none of these words are used in conjunction with salvation.

In Rom 9:11, Paul notes there is a “purpose in election (ekloge)”.

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:

So we know there is a purpose in God’s election. But is it choosing who will be saved? No, for there are no verses that use any of the 3 Greek words in relation to salvation.

The ISBE [The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia] defines election as being selected for special privilege and service. While some may argue that being chosen for salvation IS being chosen for special privilege and service, they have no point or defense, since even Judas was elected (Jn 6:70) and Jesus even described him as a devil.

However, we clearly see that Judas’ election was about special privilege and service, even though he was not saved. To be with Jesus easily qualifies to be a special privilege. And as for “service”, he was the one who betrayed Jesus. Not the kind of service we generally think of, but he did fulfill the plan of God by doing so.

So, when one encounters any of the 3 Greek words, the question needs to be asked, “chosen for what special privilege and service?”.
Also, since the nation of Israel was a chosen nation, and it is quite obvious that many were not believers, this election had nothing to do with salvation.[8]

Election: It’s Greek to me!

I asked:[9]

Can you read NT Greek and the tools or not? If you read and understood NT Greek, you would not come to such a conclusion. Going to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) is not the place to go to learn how to exegete the Greek NT. I suggest that you use these tools:

Arndt & Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Colin Brown (ed), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (3 vols).[10]
Kittel & Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols).[11]

I’m not going to do the exegesis for you from these Greek tools that I use. But if you went to Arndt & Gingrich, you would find that the definition of ‘election’ on the site of the Society of Evangelical Arminians is correct and that the view you are promoting on this forum is incorrect.

Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives only two meanings for the noun he ekloge (the elect). They are,

1. Active use, which means selection, election as choosing. Examples are a chosen instrument (Acts 9:16), especially of God’s selection of Christians (2 Peter 1:10; 1 Thess 1:4); with the accusative verb, ‘to selection by grace = selected by grace (Rom 11:5); the purpose of God which operates by selection (Rom 9:11); ‘as far as (their) selection or election (by God) is concerned beloved’ (Rom 11:28); there is an outside source from the NT that means, ‘make a selection from among some people’ (MPol 20:1).

2. Passive use, a NT example being Rom 11:7, which means of persons, ‘those selected’ (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:242)

Arndt & Gingrich give the meaning of the adjective eklektos (masculine declension) as:

1. Chosen, select

a. Generally of angels (1 Tim 5:21); of the Messiah (Lk 23:35);

b. ‘Especially of those whom God has chosen from the generality of mankind and drawn to himself’ (Mt 20:16; 22:14). ‘Hence of the Christians in particular (as in the OT of Israelites)…. chosen (Mk 13:20, 22, 27; 1 Pt 1:1; 2 Tim 2:10; elect of God (Lk 18:7; Rom 8:33; Col 3;12; Tit 1:1, etc.

2. ‘Since the best is usually chosen, choice, excellent … Rufus ‘chosen in the Lord’, ‘the outstanding Christian‘. ‘Of a stone choice‘ (1 Pt 2:4, 6) [Arndt & Gingrich 1957:242}.

I did not have the time to go through the other Greek resources to demonstrate that this person’s perspective was incorrect when compared with the Greek meanings, gained through exegesis.

Election does refer to salvation!!!

He went to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia to try to gain support for his view of election. However, when I go to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Walter Elwell ed, 1984), this is what I find about the meaning of …

Elect, Election. Scripture employs a rich vocabulary to express several aspects of God’s sovereign election, choice, and predestination. Five types of election call for distinction. (1) There is only one reference to “the elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21; cf. 1 Cor. 6:3; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). (2) Election to service or office is evident in God’s sovereign choice of David as Israel’s king (1 Sam. 16:7–12) and in Jesus’ choosing of the disciples and apostles (Luke 6:13; John 6:70; 15:16; Acts 9:15; 15:7). (3) The election of Abraham’s descendants to form the theocratic nation of Israel is a common biblical theme (Deut. 4:37; 7:6–7; 10:15; 1 Kings 3:8; Isa. 44:1–2; 45:4; 65:9, 15, 22; Amos 3:2; Acts 13:17; Rom. 9:1–5). The election of Israel originated in God’s sovereign choice, expressed his covenantal love, and served the goal of redemptive history culminating in Jesus Christ. (4) The election of the Messiah is a fourth type of election. Isaiah referred to the servant of the Lord as “my chosen one” (42:1; cf. Matt. 12:18). Of the Synoptics only Luke refers to Jesus as the Chosen One (9:35; 23:35). Peter echoes another Isaiah reference (28:16) in 1 Peter 1:20 and 2:4, 6. These references indicate the unique mediatorial office of Christ and the Father’s pleasure in him. It is an election basic to the final type, (5) election to salvation, with which the rest of this article is concerned.

The most common NT reference to election is God’s eternal election of certain persons to salvation in Jesus Christ. The subject is dealt with comprehensively in Ephesians 1:3–11 and Romans 8:28–11:36 (Elwell 1984:348; also HERE).

If you go to the 1996 revised edition of Elwell’s dictionary (online) you will find that ‘elect, election’ has these emphases: ‘The term “elect” means essentially “to choose.” It involves discriminatory evaluation of individuals, means, ends, or objects with a view to selecting one above the others, although not necessarily passing negative judgment on those others’. These are the meanings of ‘elect, election’, based on the exposition of Scripture that is documented in Elwell:

God’s Election of Angels;
God’s Election of Israel;
God’s Election of the Place of Worship;
God’s Election of People to an Office;
God’s Election of Individuals for Various Reasons;
God’s Election of the Messiah;
God’s Election of Means to Accomplish Ends;
God’s Election to Salvation of Believers and the Believing Community.

This Elwell exposition harmonises with the biblical material and not with the view this person on the Christian forum was promoting that ‘election isn’t even about salvation. It’s about being chosen or elected to special privilege and service’. Yes, there is election to a special privilege and service, but there also is election to salvation. The biblical emphasis is that this election is effected by God’s initiation and the human being’s free will response to that call. I cannot find the Calvinistic determinism in relation to unconditional election and double-predestination in Scripture.

R C Sproul defines the Calvinistic Reformed doctrine of double-predestination: ‘In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives’ (Sproul, ‘Double’ Predestination, Ligonier Ministries).

The good God and creation of evil

If God is doing everything in the world according to his sovereignty, then God is responsible for all its evil. That would be a horrifying thought. However, I see a different picture in Scripture:[13]

We know from Jesus that,

‘Many are called, but few are chosen’ (Matt 22:14 ESV).
Acts 13:48 (ESV) confirms that ‘as many as were appointed to eternal life believed’. So, from God’s point of view, only the elect will believe.
However, the Lord is ‘not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance’ (2 Pet 3:9 NIV). We obtain a similar message from 1 Tim 2:4 (NIV) that God our Saviour ‘wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth’.
Therefore, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son’ (John 3:16 NIV).
Why was this? That Jesus would be ‘the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world’ (1 John 2:2 ESV).
So God has provided salvation for all, but how do people receive it? ‘Now he commands all people everywhere to repent’ (Acts 17:30 ESV) and believe (Acts 16:31 (ESV).

It would be outrageous for God to command all people to be saved and not make salvation available for all people.

We know that God is not the creator of evil (sending the damned to hell) because God is the good God and not the evil God:

Psalm 25:8 (ESV), ‘Good and upright is the LORD; therefore he instructs sinners in the way’.
Psalm 136:1 (ESV), ‘Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good’.
Psalm 100:5 (ESV), ‘For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures for ever, and his faithfulness to all generations’.
Mark 10:18 (NIV), ‘“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone”‘.

Richard Bargas (2006) has written an article that does not support double predestination, ‘Double trouble: Is double predestination biblical?‘

I, the author of this article, accept the Arminian understanding of election. See my articles on this subject:

God’s foreknowledge and predestination/election to salvation

Jesus died for those who will be damned

Sent to hell by God: Calvinism in action?

Conflict over salvation

Did John Calvin believe in double predestination?

The injustice of the God of Calvinism

I recommend the article by Roger E Olson, ‘What’s wrong with Calvinism?‘ (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.[12] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Brown, C (ed) 1975-1978. The new international dictionary of New Testament theology, 3 vols. Exeter: The Paternoster Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation.

Buswell, J O 1937. Sin and atonement. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

DeYoung, K 2010. What is the difference between election and predestination? The Gospel Coalition (online). Available at: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/08/13/what-is-the-difference-between-election-and-predestination/ (Accessed 1 May 2013).

Elwell, W A (ed) 1984. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Kittel, G & Friedrich, G 1964-1977. Tr & ed by G W Bromiley. Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Olson, R E 2006. Arminian theology: Myths and realities. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.

Packer, J I 1993. Concise theology: A guide to historic Christian beliefs. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Slick, M 2012. The five points of Calvinism, Calvinist Corner (online). Available at: http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm (Accessed 2 May 2014).

Society of Evangelical Arminians 2013. The FACTS of Salvation C: Conditional Election (online). Available at: http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvationc-conditional-election/ (Accessed 2 May 2014).

Sproul, R C 1992. Essential truths of the Christian faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Notes

[1] Here he acknowledged Buswell’s publication on sin and atonement (Buswell 1937:112-114).

[2] Another free grace theology proponent defined it this way: ‘Free Grace is the view that “salvation is by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ”. 1 Cor 15:3-4. Good works and discipleship ought to follow salvation but are separate and distinct from salvation itself. This is contrasted with Lordship Salvation which views good works as essential to “final salvation”. John MacArthur [is] arguably Lordship Salvation’s best known modern proponent’ (Free Grace Theology, Frequently Asked Questions, ‘What is free grace?’ available at: http://free-grace-theology.blogspot.com.au/, accessed 1 May 2014).

[3] FreeGrace2#54, 28 April 2014, Christian Forums, Soteriology DEBATE, ‘I believe that arminianism and calvinism are both true at the same time’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7816600-6/ (Accessed 1 May 2014).

[4] Ibid., OzSpen#55.

[5] Ibid., FreeGrace2#56.

[6] Ibid., OzSpen#57.

[7] Ibid., FreeGrace2#58.

[8] Ibid., FreeGrace2#60.

[9] Ibid., OzSpen#61.

[10] Bibliographical details in ‘Works consulted’ at the bottom of this article.

[11] Bibliographical details in ‘Works consulted’ at the bottom of this article.

[12] This is ‘a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur’ (4th rev and augmented edn 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).

[13] I made this post to Christian Forums.net, Apologetics & Theology, ‘Predestination and Calvinism’, OzSpen#541, 26 May 2016. Available at: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/predestination-and-calvinism.64471/page-28 (Accessed 26 May 2016).

Can people lose their Christian salvation?

Free Gift

(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

This has been a controversial subject throughout Christian history, but especially since the time of the Reformation. We have the Calvinists who defend the position that salvation cannot be lost and those who no longer continue to believe were not saved in the first place. Arminians respond, as I have below, that salvation can be lost when people commit apostasy.

Matt Slick’s view as a Calvinist is that ‘a Christian cannot lose his salvation’. And the author of Arminian Perspectives states that ‘we see that life abides in the Son and only those who presently “have” the Son “have” the life that abides in Him’.

What is apostasy?

Commit what? We don’t hear the word much these days. What is apostasy? In the English language, the definition given by dictionary.com is, ‘a total desertion of or departure from one’s religion, principles, party, cause, etc’.

A Christian-based definition is that apostasy is ‘a deliberate repudiation and abandonment of the faith that one has professed (Heb. 3:12). Apostasy differs in degree from heresy…. Perhaps the most notorious NT example is Judas Iscariot. Others include Demas (II Tim. 4:10) and Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20)’ (Whitlock, Jr. 1984:70).

Hebrews 6:4-6 (ESV) is clear enough for me:

4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

We also have 1 Timothy 1:18-20,

18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme (ESV).

So by rejecting faith and a good conscience, some have shipwrecked their faith. Is that too difficult to understand?

Then we have John 3:36,

Whoever believes [continues believing] in the Son has [continues having] eternal life; whoever does not obey [continues not obeying] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains [continues remaining] on him.

What I have inserted in square brackets [ ] indicates the meaning of the Greek present tense. There is only eternal life for those who continue believing in the Son, Jesus, and continuing to remain in him. There is no eternal life for those who continue not to obey the Son.

That’s Bible and I cannot arrive at the position you advocate while these verses are in Scripture.

My understanding is that if a person deliberately chooses to apostasize from the Christian faits, he/she loses salvation. See my articles:

Works consulted

Whitlock, Jr., L G 1984. Apostasy, in Elwell, W A (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology, 70. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Does a Christian experience eternal life NOW?

(courtesy public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

Do you have to wait until death or Christ’s second coming (the resurrection of all people) to know you have

eternal life and can experience it? That’s how some on a Christian forum as seeing the issue. Here are a couple of examples:

There’s a difference between knowing one has it and actually being in possession of it. A child with a million dollar trust fund has a million dollars, however, until he meets the conditions of that fund he doesn’t have possession of that fund. If you take notice, John is the only one who uses eternal life in the present tense, I believe this is significant.

My statement isn’t contradicted, it’s pretty straight forward that eternal life means one doesn’t die, if one dies he doesn’t have eternal life. What is there that is not correct. A claim that one is now in possession of eternal life is in contradiction with other passages of Scripture.[1]

Another responded:

That’s the rub, right here. We can know that we have been saved and believe it (You better!), and the enemy will whisper to you that you don’t, not good enough and so forth…and we shouldn’t listen to this…but at the same time we shouldn’t be lackadaisically over confident and should continue to seek to be closer to God, walk after the Spirit, OBEY, and witness for Him, all of the things that God wants and commands. Because you never know for sure until you are in possession of it, right?[2]

Eternal life now or later?

My first response to Butch was:[3]

I notice you didn’t use any Scriptures to support your position. I did.

That John should use the present tense is what God, the author of Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-16 ESV), states. You stated: ‘There’s a difference between knowing one has it and actually being in possession of it’. This is not true in my case. I know I have one Toyota Camry and do you know what? I’m actually in possession of it.
Perhaps we are dealing with two different issues. We can continue to know NOW that we have eternal life (as 1 John 5:13 affirms) and we have the ultimate consummation of eternal life at Christ’s second coming.

[4]But 1 John 5:13 ESV says we are in possession now. We will have a new experience of eternal life when we are ‘absent from the body and present with the Lord’ at death and then at Christ’s second coming it will be the ULTIMATE.

His response was to come back with a few Scriptures. The post began:

If you worked today you earned money, correct? However, I’ll bet you have to wait until the check is written to obtain that money that is yours. You quoted 2 Tim 3:16, when Paul wrote that the Scriptures were the OT.

I didn’t post Scripture because I didn’t think it was necessary since by definition eternal life means one won’t die and we know Christians die. However, I can post Scripture.[5]

Contemporary analogies are not helpful

[6]My reply was that using another analogy is not helpful as I can come back with another view. If I work as a backpacker picking oranges, I get my wages the day I pick the oranges because he may not need me tomorrow or for the rest of the week. Analogy after analogy does not answer the issue.

So what if 2 Tim 3:16 (ESV) does refer to the Scriptures of the OT as theopneustos (breathed out by God)? They do refer to the OT. However, are you inferring that the Scriptures of the NT are not breathed out by God? We know what Peter said about Paul’s writings:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures (2 Pt 3:15-16).?

Peter put Paul’s writings on the same level as ‘the other Scriptures’, presumably referring to the OT.

Meaning of eternal

So what’s the meaning of eternal? There are a couple different meanings in Scripture. When applied to God, eternal means that God has no beginning, no end and no succession of moments in his being. Yet God sees events in time and acts in time and eternity (Grudem1994:168). Psalm 90:2 ESV puts it as ‘from everlasting to everlasting you are God’.

This we know about eternal life: ‘And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life’ (I John 5:11-12 ESV).?

If we are ‘in his Son’, we currently have eternal life. The one who ‘has the Son’ currently has eternal life and the one who does not currently ‘have the Son of God does not have eternal life’.

I’m indeed grateful that when I was saved and Jesus gave me new life (2 Cor 5 17), my eternal life began. The coming of eternal life into my being changed me from the inside out.

Henry Thiessen gives a wonderful summary of the biblical material:

By the eternity of God we mean His infinity in relation to time; we mean that He is without beginning or end; that He is free from all succession of time; and that He is the cause of time. That He is without beginning or end may be inferred from the fact of His necessary existence: He who exists by means of his nature rather than his volition must always have existed and must continue to exist for ever. That God is eternal is abundantly taught in Scripture. He is called “the eternal God” (Gen. 21:33); the Psalmists say: ‘From everlasting to everlasting thou art God’ (Ps 90:2) and ‘thou are the same, and they years have no end’ (Ps. 102:27). Isaiah represents God as ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Isa. 57:15); Paul says He ‘only hath immortality’ (1 Tim. 6:16.

He is free from all succession of time. Time is, as commonly understood, duration measured by succession (Thiessen 1949:122).

But the nature of that ‘eternal life’ is different from when I speak of the ‘eternal God’ who is from everlasting to everlasting. I expect to bask in the full benefits of that eternal life at death and in the eternal kingdom of God.

So, eternal life for the Christian has a beginning when I repent of my sin and receive Jesus as my Lord and Saviour. Eternal damnation for unbelievers is confirmed at death and it goes on forever and ever. We know this from a verse such as

Matthew 25:46, ‘And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life’ (ESV).

Works consulted

Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Notes

[1] Butch5#246, 15 July 2014, Christian Forums, ‘Losing salvation after getting saved’. Available at: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/losing-salvation-after-getting-saved.54616/page-13#post-956314 (Accessed 15 July 2014).

[2] Edward#248, ibid.

[3] OzSpen#251, ibid.

[4] OzSpen#253, ibid.

[5] Butch5#255, ibid.

[6] OzSpen#257, ibid.

	A.V.	A.R.V.	R.S.V.
Matt. 18:15	tell him his fault	show him his fault	tell him his fault
Luke 3:19	reprove	reprove	reprove
John 3:20	reprove	reprove	expose
John 8:46	convince	convict	convict
John 16:8	reprove	convict	convince
I Cor. 14:24	convince	reprove	convict
Eph. 5:11	reprove	reprove	expose
Eph. 5:13	reprove	reprove	expose
I Tim. 5:20	rebuke	reprove	rebuke
II Tim. 4:2	reprove	reprove	convince
Tit. 1:9	convince	convict	confute
Tit. 1:13	rebuke	reprove	rebuke
Tit. 2:15	rebuke	reprove	reprove
Heb. 12:5	rebuke	reprove	punish
James 2:9	convince	convict	convict
Jude 1:15	convince	convict	convict
Rev. 3:19	rebuke	reprove	reprove