Category Archives: Jesus Christ

Can people KNOW they have eternal life in this life?

By Spencer D Gear

Try some Internet Christian forums to get a taste of what’s out there in evangelical Christian land. I met one fellow who claimed:

One can know they are in the faith, however, one doesn’t receive eternal life until they are resurrected. I think we can all agree that Christians die, one who has eternal life doesn’t die.[1]

My response was as follows:[2] That is not what 1 John 5:13 states: ‘I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life’ (ESV).

‘believe’ = the believing ones = a present tense participle, which means ‘the ones continuing believing in the present’.
‘may know’ = perfect tense subjunctive mood = action in the past with continuing results in the present = may continue knowing.
‘have’ = present tense = continuing to have in the present.

Therefore, it is very clear from the Greek tenses in this verse that any person who continues to believe in the name of the Son of God, Jesus, may continue to know that he/she continues to have eternal life – in this life.

One does not have to wait until the resurrection to know if one has eternal life. It can be known NOW in our present experience of believing in Jesus alone for salvation.
1 John 5:13 contradicts your statement that ‘one who has eternal life doesn’t die’.

People may KNOW in this life that they have eternal life. The ultimate will come in the next life when there is no more sin. I think this writer on the Forum is confusing knowledge of present experience of eternal life AND the ULTIMATE experienced at the resurrection of all people at Christ’s second coming.

The response was:

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.[3]

There were some who supported the position I was challenging, but my reply was:

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]

After some more back and forth, I stated:[5]

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 ESV).?

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

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 (based on Grudem 1994:168). Psalm 90:2 ESV puts it as ‘from everlasting to everlasting you are God’.

Cross Button by wordtoall.org - For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

(Courtesy openclipart)

This we know about eternal life:

1 John 5:11-12 NET ‘And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life’.?

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. 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.

He continued:[6]

Can you show me where eternal is in the Bible?
Please explain to me how a person who is going to die has eternal life.
You didn’t address any of the passages I posted. Jesus explicitly stated aionios life is in the age to come. How do you reconcile the passages I posted?

My reply was:

All you have to do to find out the number of times that ‘eternal’ is in the Bible is to go to Strong’s Concordance. My edition of the KJV Strong’s provides 47 examples of the use of ‘eternal’ in the Bible and only 2 of those are in the OT.

‘Please explain to me how a person who is going to die has eternal life’. That’s a begging the question (circular reasoning) logical fallacy. In your begging the question fallacy, your premise is that people who die do not have eternal life. Then, what do you conclude? Your conclusion is that this is indeed so. We can’t have a logical discussion when you do this ‘because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion’ (source).

Why didn’t I specifically address the passages you posted? The main reason is because we can’t have a logical discussion when you engage in a circular reasoning fallacy.

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 ).?

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

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#242, ‘Losing salvation after getting saved’, Christian Forums. Available at: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/losing-salvation-after-getting-saved.54616/page-13#post-956261 (Accessed 15 July 2014).

[2] This is my response as OzSpen#245 at ibid.

[3] Ibid., Butch5#246.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen#251.

[5] Ibid., OzSpen#257.

[6] Ibid., Butch5#260.

Jesus died for those who will be damned

Reformation Wall in Geneva; from left to right:

William Farel, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and John Knox (courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

This is a typical Calvinistic line against Arminians: ‘Why did God send Christ to die for those He foreknew would not believe?’[1] On of the key differences between Arminians and Calvinists is their understanding of free will. Roger Olson explains:

The nature of free will is another point where Calvinism and Arminianism diverge and where no middle ground seems possible. Because of their vision of God as good (loving, benevolent, merciful), Arminians affirm libertarian free will. (Philosophers call it incompatibilist free will because it is not compatible with determinism.) When an agent (a human or God) acts freely in the libertarian sense, nothing outside the self (including physical realities within the body) is causing it; the intellect or character alone rules over the will and turns it one way or another. Deliberation and then choice are the only determining factors, although factors such as nature and nurture, and divine influence come into play. Arminians do not believe in absolute free will; the will is always influenced and situated in a context. Even God is guided by his nature and character when making decisions. But Arminians deny that creaturely decisions and actions are controlled by God or any force outside the self.

Calvinists, on the other hand, believe in compatibilist free will (insofar as they talk about free will at all). Free will, they believe, is compatible with determinism. This is the only sense of free will that is consistent with Calvinism’s vision of God as the all-determining reality. In compatibilist free will, persons are free so long as they do what they want to do – even if God is determining their desires. This is why Calvinists can affirm that people sin voluntarily and are therefore responsible for their sins even though they could not do otherwise. According to Calvinism God foreordained the Fall of Adam and Eve, and rendered it certain (even if only by an efficacious permission) by withdrawing the grace necessary to keep them from sinning. And yet they sinned voluntarily. They did what they wanted to do even if they were unable to do otherwise. This is a typical Calvinist account of free will (Olson 2006:75).[2]

Courtesy IVP Academic

Olson’s comment was that ‘it is difficult to see how a hybrid of these two views of free will could be created’ (Olson 2006:75).

My immediate response to the post on Christian Forums was: You are giving me your Calvinistic presuppositions with that kind of question.
I could ask you: Why did God send Christ to die only for the elect who he coerced into the kingdom by irresistible grace and damned the rest? Why did he bother to create them when he knew they would be damned eternally?[3]

I added: ‘To give them the opportunity, through unlimited atonement, prevenient grace and free will, to say yea or nay to the Gospel offer. Isn’t that simple enough to understand?’[4]

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

John Sanders.2009

Dr John E Sanders, open theist, (photo courtesy Hendrix College, AR, USA)

The comeback was:

“”’Why can’t you just answer the question? Consistent Arminians are Open Theists. Open Theists deny that God is omniscient. Therefore, they escape the question.
But you cannot escape the question because you believe that God foreknows all things. So, if God foreknows who will not believe, then the only reason for Christ’s dying for them would be to provide a basis for their judgment, not to provide an opportunity for salvation’.[5]

My reply was:[6]

Consistent Arminians are Reformed/Classical Arminians who maintain the integrity of Scripture and that includes the omniscience of God, unlimited atonement, prevenient grace and free will in relation to salvation.

You have misjudged the ‘only reason for Christ’s dying’. He died for them to provide the opportunity for salvation through prevenient grace and free will. God in his wisdom and omniscience knows that salvation should be offered to all and that ALL have the opportunity to say yea or nay to salvation.
That’s what the Scriptures teach and that’s why I maintain such a position. We have debated this over and over on Christian Forums and I don’t plan to go through the verses again.
I refer you to my articles:

The Calvinistic reply was:

First, the scripture no where says that Christ died to give men the “opportunity” to be saved. It consistently says that He died “TO SAVE” men.
Second, your position is totally illogical. If God foreknows who will not believe, then there can be no “opportunity” for them to be saved. Christ’s dath [sic] is nothing more than the basis of their judgment.[7]

My Arminian response was:

Mine is the logical position for these reasons:

God loved the world (Jn 3:16) and not your view of only loving the elect;
God gave all human beings free will as they are part of the ‘whoever believes’ (Jn 3:16). To be ‘whoever believes’, they must have the ability to say, ‘No to the offer’. The corollary this is that this is the ‘opportunity’ to be saved that is offered to ALL people.
Jesus died for the whole world (1 Jn 2:2).
To have the opportunity to receive Christ, people must hear the Gospel (Rom 10:17);
The omniscient God has determined that only those who choose to believe receive eternal life (Jn 3:16).
Those who choose to reject this offer are damned/they perish (Jn 3:16).
The final destiny of all human beings is based on how logically God has provided such salvation as here explained.

You promote an illogical Calvinistic position where

God’s injustice is exposed. He does not love the whole world (contrary to John 3:16) and does not offer ALL people the opportunity to respond to the Gospel.
Instead, people are coerced into the kingdom by unconditional election and irresistible grace. And for some Calvinists, the rest are actively damned by an act of God (hardly the actions of the God of love for the whole world).

I don’t fall for the line that mine is the illogical position and yours is the paragon of logic.

Calvinists: God caused kidnap, rape and murder

Roger E Olson, an Arminian, wrote:

As I read Mark Talbot’s chapter on God and suffering in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor) a thought occurred to me:

Since most Calvinists are harshly critical of the novel The Shack (which takes a similar approach to theodicy as Greg Boyd in Is God to Blame?) because of its alleged undermining of God’s glory and sovereignty, why don’t they (or one of them) write a similar novel in which God explains to Mack (or someone like him) why his daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered–and avoid language about God permitting or allowing it (which is really Arminian language)? I challenge a consistent “high Calvinist” such as Piper or Talbot to produce such a novel. I would like to see what the popular Christian reaction would be to what God would have to say about such atrocities in such a novel. Talbot pulls no punches; he says that God foreordains such events and is their ultimate cause; they are willed by God and not merely allowed or permitted by God (although even he occasionally uses such language–as do all Calvinists in my experience). At crucial points he pulls back a little and uses language such as God “governs” such events, but the context makes clear he means God renders them certain because they fit into his plan and purpose and are necessary for the full accomplishment of his will.

I look forward to the publication of such a novel; I think it would go far toward turning people away from Calvinism (Olson 2013).

Works consulted

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

Olson, R E 2013. A challenge from Roger Olson for Calvinists, Society of Evangelical Arminians (online), March 2. Available at: http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-challenge-from-roger-olson-for-calvinists/ (Accessed 27 April 2014).

Peterson, R A & Williams, M D 1992. Why I am not an Arminian. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Notes:

[1] The Boxer#381, Christian Forums, ‘Soteriology DEBATE’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7815138-39/#post65479174 (Accessed 27 April 2014).

[2] At this point Olson footnoted Peterson & Williams (1992:136-161).

[3] Ibid., OzSpen#383.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen#386.

[5] Ibid., The Boxer#384.

[6] Ibid., OzSpen#387.

[7] Ibid., The Boxer#389.

Calvinists squirming all over the world

A simple globe by jhnri4 - A simple globe made in Inkscape.

(courtesy Openclipart)

By Spencer D Gear

Shouldn’t it be crystal clear that God loves the world of people? Doesn’t ‘world’ in John 3:16 mean the whole world of sinful people? The verse states, ‘For God so loved the world,[1] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life’ (ESV).

Lutheran commentator, R C H Lenski, leaves no doubt:

The universality already expressed in the title ‘the Son of man’ (1:51; 3:14) and in ‘everyone who believes’ (v. 15), is brought out with the most vivid clearness in the statement that God loved ‘the world,’ ton kosmon, the world of men, all men, not one excepted. To insert a limitation, either here or in similar passages, is to misinterpret. We know of nothing more terrible than to shut out poor dying sinners from God’s love and redemption. But this is done by inserting a limiting word where Jesus and the Scriptures have no such word (Lenski 1943:260).

To bolster his interpretation that ‘world’ refers to the world of ‘all men’, Lenski also referred to ‘all men’ in 1 Tim 2:4, which states of God our Saviour ‘who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’ (ESV).

Calvinists on God loving ‘the world’

But that’s not how some Calvinists want us to understand it. I encountered one such person on a Christian forum. He stated:

First, the scripture no where says that Christ died to give men the “opportunity” to be saved. It consistently says that He died “TO SAVE” men.
Second, your position is totally illogical. If God foreknows who will not believe, then there can be no “opportunity” for them to be saved. Christ’s death is nothing more than the basis of their judgment.[2]

How should I reply? I proceeded with this line of reasoning:[3]

Mine is the logical position for these reasons:

God loved the world (Jn 3:16) and not your view of only loving the elect;
God gave all human beings free will as they are part of the ‘whoever believes’ (Jn 3:16). To be ‘whoever believes’, they must have the ability to say, ‘No to the offer’. The corollary of this is that this is the ‘opportunity’ to be saved that is offered to ALL people.
Jesus died for the whole world (1 Jn 2:2).
To have the opportunity to receive Christ, people must hear the Gospel (Rom 10:17);
The omniscient (all-knowing) God has determined that only those who choose to believe receive eternal life (Jn 3:16).
Those who choose to reject this offer are damned – they perish (Jn 3:16).
The final destiny of all human beings is based on how logically God has provided such salvation as here explained.

The Calvinist mentioned above promotes what I think is an illogical position where

God’s injustice is exposed. He does not love the whole world (contrary to John 3:16) and does not offer ALL people the opportunity to respond to the Gospel.
Instead, people are coerced into the kingdom by unconditional election and irresistible grace.[4] And for some Calvinists, the rest are actively damned by an act of God (hardly the actions of the God of love for the whole world).

I don’t fall for the line that mine is the illogical position and this Calvinist’s view is the paragon of logic.

Calvinists can’t accept God loving the whole world of sinful people

So the response to my challenge of his illogical position was,

‘When Jesus said this the belief was that the Jews were the “world” in view. Furthermore, God sent Jesus only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Do you have proof that the term “world” meant to the ancients what it means to you?
You have NOT escaped the problem. If God foreknew who would not believe, then the death of Christ does not provide “opportunity” for them to be saved. It provides only the basis for their condemnation.[5]

This is typical of Calvinists. They cannot accept the plain reading of the text where ‘world’ means the whole world of sinful people. So what did this fellow do? He redefined world to mean only the Jews. My response was: ‘There is not a word in the context to demonstrate that ‘world’ in John 3:16 meant only the Jews. This is what Calvinists like [this man] do to twist Scripture to make it mean what it does not say’.[6] He came back with,

You’re wrong. Jesus spoke those words during His Galilean ministry which was exclusively to the Jews. He said, “For God so loved the world“ to Jews.

Furthermore, there is not one instance in John’s gospel where the term “world” means every human being. Example: The Pharisees said, “The world has gone after Him” (John 12:19). The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, “the whole world.” Yet verse 12 says that it was it was a “great multitude.”

They were a great multitude of Jews, not every human being. They were identified as “the Daughter of Zion” (verse 15). They were Jews.[7]

What better way to refute this than to go to a Calvinist commentator who disagrees with him. I replied:[8]

Calvinist commentator, William Hendricksen, agrees with me and disagrees with you. What does ‘world’ mean in John 3:16? Hendriksen states:

The term world, as here used, must mean mankind which, though sin-laden, exposed to the judgment, and in need of salvation (see verse 16b and verse 17), is still the object of his care. God’s image is still, to a degree, reflected in the children of men….

By reason of the context and other passages in which a similar thought is expressed … it is probable that also here in 3;16 the term indicates fallen mankind in its international aspect: men from every tribe and nation; not only Jews but also Gentiles. This is in harmony with the thought expressed repeatedly in the Fourth Gospel (including this very chapter) to the effect that physical ancestry has nothing to do with entrance into the kingdom of heaven: 1:12, 13; 3:6; 8:31-29 (Hendriksen 1953:140, emphasis in original).

So are you going to say that William Hendriksen, the Calvinist commentator, got it badly wrong and ‘world’ in John 3:16 does not refer to the world of mankind?

Conclusion

There is not a word in the context of John 3:16 to demonstrate that the meaning of ‘world’ was only to the Jews, a limited group of people. This Calvinist was engaging in a typical tactic of Calvinists I have encountered on Internet forums. When someone objects to their Calvinistic interpretations, they set about to redefine terminology in terms of Calvinism. This is known as using a question begging logical fallacy.

If Calvinism starts with a presupposition that Jesus did not love the entire world of sinners and did not die on the cross for all of these sinners, every verse they read that gives a contrary view is made to agree with the presupposition. That is, the conclusion agrees with the presupposition. We cannot have a logical discussion when any one of us uses illogic. And logical fallacies promote illogical thinking.

For further investigation of the truth that God loves the world and Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, see my articles:

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

Works consulted

Hendriksen, W 1953. New Testament commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to John (2 vols complete in 1). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

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

Notes:

[1] The ESV footnote was, ‘Or For this is how God loved the world’.

[2] The Boxer#389, Christian Forums, Soteriology DEBATE, ‘In Arminianism, God excludes some people from salvation’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7815138-39/ (Accessed 28 April 2014).

[3] Ibid., OzSpen#390.

[4] For brief definitions of ‘unconditional election’ and ‘irresistible grace’, see the CARM definitions at: http://carm.org/carm-calvinism (accessed 19 June 2014).

[5] The Boxer#395, Christian Forums, Soteriology DEBATE, ‘In Arminianism, God excludes some people from salvation’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7815138-39/ (Accessed 28 April 2014).

[6] Ibid., OzSpen#397.

[7] Ibid., The Boxer#398.

[8] Ibid., OzSpen#399.

How could the holy Jesus deal with the wicked sins of humanity?

Crucify

(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

A Christian woman whom I have known for 25 years contacted me recently[1] as she has problems understanding some biblical teachings after listening to a prominent evangelical preacher, John MacArthur, on YouTube. Please understand that these are her understandings from what she heard online.

Her difficulties were:

‘Jesus lay aside some of His eternal rights/attributes and became totally dependent of the Father’;
MacArthur talks about how Jesus lay aside ‘somehow’ His holiness and became sin;
He talked about our struggle is the opposite we struggle to lay aside ‘sin’ to attain holiness.
‘Jesus would stop being God if He were not eternally Holy. How then can he become sin? So I find the concept hard to reconcile in my mind’.
‘I thought He was punished for our sin, not that sin and evil clothed Him. So Jesus temptation was to NOT let sin cover Him but remain as He was absolutely Holy’.
‘But then as I write this I “know” that He is and always has been absolutely holy’.
‘Or does He allow sin/evil to cover Him, not change Him, but to draw so near it (sin) it was on Him’.
‘Thus the Father turns away and He is punished as if He has committed the sin Himself. I always thought Jesus was untouched by filth and evil but took the punishment for our actions in His complete purity. Is it as though the Father “bathed Him in our filth” or He allowed that filth to touch Him and then was punished as though He was our filth. Hard concept for me to understand’.

This Christian has been doing some deep thinking about the Christian faith and what Jesus did for her and she’s struggling to understand how Jesus became sin for Christians through his death on the cross.

How should I reply?[2]

The doctrine of imputation

centerforinquiry.net

How can Jesus become sin for us? This is the doctrine of imputation – how our sins were imputed to Christ when he died for us on the cross. What does that mean? I recommend that you take a read of this excellent explanation with some good illustrations: ‘Our sins are imputed to Christ‘ by Ernest L Martin.
‘Impute’ is forensic language – the language of the courts. It means to charge to, to reckon to. The biblical examples of the need for this are in passages such as:

1. ‘The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all’ (Isa 53:6);

2. ‘He bore the sin of many’ (Isa 53:11);

3. Remember John the Baptist’s words: ‘The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’ (Jn 1:29);

4. God made Christ ‘to be sin, who knew no sin’ (2 Cor 5:21);

5. Christ became ‘a curse for us’ (Gal 3:13);

6. Christ was ‘offered once to bear the sins of many’ (Heb 9:28);

7. ‘He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree’ (1 Pt 2:24).

If we pick up the verses from Isaiah and 2 Cor 5:21, we see that by a legal/forensic act, God the Father has put the believers’ sins on Jesus. They have been reckoned to Jesus’ account. Wayne Grudem put is this way:

It was God the Father who put our sins on Christ. How could that be? In the same way in which Adam’s sins were imputed to us, so God imputed our sins to Christ; that is, he thought of them as belonging to Christ, and, since God is the ultimate judge and definer of what really is in the universe, when God thought of our sins as belonging to Christ then in fact they actually did belong to Christ. This does not mean that God thought that Christ had himself committed the sins, or that Christ himself actually had a sinful nature, but rather that the guilt of our sins (that is, the liability to punishment) was thought of by God as belonging to Christ rather than to us (Grudem 1999:253).

In simple language, when God imputed human beings’ sins to Jesus, God thought of them as belonging to Jesus Christ. That’s the meaning of the Greek word, logizomai, which is essentially “to consider” or “to reckon something to be so.” So God decided as a legal act from his throne that the sins of human beings who trust in Christ belong to Jesus. This is the marvellous action of the designer of the universe that he should do this for us. Imputation deals with our legal position before God regarding sin and death. By our sins legally belonging to Jesus, we can have the marvellous gift of fellowship with and be in a right relationship with God.

The righteousness of Christ is imputed

clker.com

But this happens because there is another dimension to imputation. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer. In basic language, it means that the merits of Jesus are put into the account of another – Christians. We get this message from 2 Cor 5:21, ‘God made him who had no sin to be sin [or, a sin offering] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (ESV).

This is not God’s attribute of righteousness because our faith in Christ doesn’t have to do with that. But this relates to the righteousness that God has provided for anyone who has faith in Jesus alone for salvation. God restores us to favour with Himself by imputing to us Christ’s righteousness.

We must not forget that this is a legal arrangement between God and us that is made possible because our sins are imputed to Christ and we receive a righteous provision to be able to enter God’s presence.

Grudem summarises this for us:

(C) GOD CAN DECLARE US TO BE JUST BECAUSE HE IMPUTES CHRIST’S RIGHTEOUSNESS TO US
When Adam sinned, his guilt was imputed to us. In other words, God the Father viewed it as belonging to us, and therefore it did. In the same way Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, and therefore God thinks of it as belonging to us. It is not our own righteousness that we have earned in some way, but Christ’s righteousness that is freely given to us.

Paul says that God made Christ to be our righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30)

Paul speaks of a righteousness that is not his own, but instead is through faith in Christ (Philippians 3:9)

All who believe in Christ have been made righteous before God (Romans 3:21-22)

This idea that God declares us to be just or righteous not on the basis of our actual condition, but rather on the basis of Christ’s perfect righteousness was the heart of the difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism at the Reformation. Grudem covers the error of the Catholic Church teaching derived from the Council of Trent. The consequence of this view of justification held by many Catholics is that our eternal life with God is not based on God’s grace alone, but partially on our merit as well or as Catholic Theologian Ludwig Ott stated “For the justified eternal life is both a gift of grace promised by God and a reward for his own good works and merits…. Salutary works are, at the same time, gifts of God and meritorious acts of man.” This is not supported Biblically. Justification is all God, and not by any merit in us (Source, a longer version is in Grudem 1999:318-320).

So when people are justified by Christ through faith in Jesus alone, they have had their sins pardoned. The penalty of their sins has been remitted (given to Jesus’ account) and they have been restored to proper relationship with God. Why? It happens because our sins have been imputed to Christ (he has become sin for us) and the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us.

I hope that this gives a starter in understanding this wonderful doctrine of the imputation of our sins to Christ and Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us.

Works consulted

Grudem, W 1999. Ed by J Purswell. Bible doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Notes

[1] Her email was received by me on 13 May 2014.

[2] My email reply was sent on 15 May 2014.

A Calvinist’s deceitful attempt

Vector image of yellow light bulb

(courtesy publicdomainvectors.org)

By Spencer D Gear

Why are so much heat and little light generated in the Arminian-Calvinist debates? I write as a convinced Reformed or Classical Arminian. See Roger E Olson’s description of ‘Reformed Arminianism’.

I encountered one such attempt on a Christian forum on the Internet. This was his claim: ‘“It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts.” JW’.[1] I thought he was using JW as referring to the Jehovah’s Witnesses so I replied accordingly, ‘But which Jesus???’[2] As it turned out, he was referring to the Christian revivalist and biblical preacher in the England, John Wesley.[3]

What to do with an isolated quote?

So here we have this one-liner, an isolated quote from John Wesley, ‘It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts’ and he, a Calvinist, is asking people on the forum to respond to Wesley, an Arminian, and the content of this one sentence.

My response was, ‘When I see the citation with context and accurate referencing of where the quote came from in Wesley’s Works, then I’ll be able to reply. But I will not reply to something that has no bibliographic reference to confirm that this is from John Wesley’.[4] Before a bibliographic reference was given, I went searching online and this is what I found:[5]

He edited & censored elements of the quote [6]

Double Check Mark Clip Art

It is interesting to observe how this fellow censored Wesley’s quote by leaving out something important from John Wesley in the one-liner he gave. My search online located this as what was stated in the paragraph in context from John Wesley, which was a letter ‘To a Gentleman at Bristol. BRISTOL, January 6, 1758‘:

It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers made any scruple of calling them so (emphasis added).

In this edition of ‘The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A.M., Vol VI‘, this punctuation is provided:

It is true, repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself, nor any of our Reformers, made any scruple of calling them so (p. 98).

This online fellow was pleased to quote the one sentence by John Wesley but he didn’t mention a thing about what followed immediately in Wesley’s quote about ‘Mr Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers’ not having scruples about calling repentance and faith conditions as privileges and free gifts.

I find this to be disingenuous when he did not provide the exact statement in context where Wesley stated that Calvin and the Reformers didn’t have any scruples about calling repentance and faith, ‘conditions’ (of salvation).

In the Works of John Wesley, there is much more to this discussion than the one-liner he gave. Wesley was answering an Anglican opponent (remember, Wesley was an Anglican) and Wesley was countering the allegation that this Anglican was a promoter of justification by works. In the larger context, this is how it unfolded:

John Wesley (image courtesy Wikipedia)

These undoubtedly are the genuine principles of the Church of England. And they are confirmed, as by our Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, so by the whole tenor of Scripture. Therefore, till heaven and earth pass away, these truths will not pass away.

But I do not agree with the author of that tract in the spirit of the whole performance. It does not seem to breathe either that modesty or seriousness or charity which one would desire. One would not desire to hear any private person, of no great note in the Church or the world, speak as it were ex cathedra, with an air of infallibility, or at least of vast sell-sufficiency, on a point wherein men of eminence, both for piety, learning, and office, have been so greatly divided. Though my judgment is nothing altered, yet I often condemn myself for my past manner of speaking on this head. Again: I do not rejoice at observing anything light or ludicrous in an answer to so serious a paper; and much less in finding any man branded as a Papist because his doctrine in one particular instance resembles (for that is the utmost which can be proved) a doctrine of the Church of Rome. I can in no wise reconcile this to the grand rule of charity–doing to others as we would they should do to us.

Indeed, it is said, ‘Dr. T. openly defends the fundamental doctrine of Popery, justification by works’ (page 3); therefore ‘he must be a Papist’ (page 4). But here is a double mistake: for (1) whatever may be implied in some of his expressions, it is most certain Dr. T. does not openly defend justification by works; (2) this itself — justification by works — is not the fundamental doctrine of Popery, but the universality of the Romish Church and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. And to call any one a Papist who denies these is neither charity nor justice.

I do not agree with the author in what follows: Dr. T. ‘loses sight of the truth when he talks of Christ’s having obtained for us a covenant of better hopes, and that faith and repentance are the terms of this covenant. They are not. They are the free gifts of the covenant of grace, not the terms or conditions. To say “Privileges of the covenant are the terms or conditions of it” is downright Popery.’

This is downright calling names, and no better. But it falls on a greater than Dr. T. St. Paul affirms, Jesus Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant, established upon better promises; yea, and that better covenant He hath obtained for us by His own blood. And if any desire to receive the privileges which are freely given according to the tenor of this covenant, Jesus Christ Himself has marked out the way: ‘Repent, and believe the gospel.’

These, therefore, are the terms of the covenant, unless the author of it was mistaken. These are the conditions of it, unless a man can enter into the kingdom without either repenting or believing. For the word ‘condition’ means neither more nor less than something sine qua non, without which something else is not done. Now, this is the exact truth with regard to repenting and believing, without which God does not work in us ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.’

It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers made any scruple of calling them so.

‘But the gospel is a revelation of grace and mercy, not a proposal of a covenant of terms and conditions’ (page 5). It is both. It is a revelation of grace and mercy to all that ‘repent and believe.’ And this the author himself owns in the following page: ‘The free grace of God applies to sinners the benefits of Christ’s atonement and righteousness by working in them repentance and faith’ (page 6). Then they are not applied without repentance and faith–that is, in plain terms, these are the conditions of that application.

I read in the next page: ‘In the gospel we have the free promises of eternal life, but not annexed to faith and repentance as works of man’ (true; they are the gift of God), ‘or the terms or conditions of the covenant.’ Yes, certainly; they are no less terms or conditions, although God works them in us.

‘But what is promised us as a free gift cannot be received upon the performance of any terms or conditions.’ Indeed it can. Our Lord said to the man born blind, ‘Go and wash in the pool of Siloam.’ Here was a plain condition to be performed, something without which he would not have received his sight. And yet his sight was a gift altogether as free as if the pool had never been mentioned.

‘But if repentance and faith are the free gifts of God, can they be the terms or conditions of our justification’ (Page 9.) Yes. Why not They are still something without which no man is or can be justified.

‘Can, then, God give that freely which He does not give but upon certain terms and conditions’ (Ibid.) Doubtless He can; as one may freely give you a sum of money on condition you stretch out your hand to receive it. It is therefore no ‘contradiction to say, We are justified freely by grace, and yet upon certain terms or conditions’ (page 10).

I cannot therefore agree that ‘we are accepted without any terms previously performed to qualify us for acceptance.’ For we are not accepted, nor are we qualified for or capable of acceptance, without repentance and faith.

‘But a man is not justified by works, but by the faith of Christ. This excludes all qualifications.’ (Page 13.) Surely it does not exclude the qualification of faith!
‘But St. Paul asserts, “To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.”’ True; ‘to him that worketh not.’ But does God justify him that ‘believeth not’ Otherwise this text proves just the contrary to what it is brought to prove (SOURCE, emphasis added).

Wesley stated that he joined with Calvin and the Reformers in affirming that repentance and faith are conditions for entering the Christian covenant of salvation.

Are faith and repentance gifts of God?

Faith Dynamite

(images courtesy ChristArt & ChristArt)

What is the role of God in salvation? Are responses needed by human beings or is it entirely up to God’s unconditional election and irresistible grace (the Calvinistic perspective from Charles Spurgeon)?

Thomas Oden, an Arminian, wrote that for John Wesley,

grace works ahead of us to draw us toward faith, to begin its work in us. Even the first fragile intuition of conviction of sin, the first intimation of our need of God, is the work of preparing, prevening grace, which draws us gradually toward wishing to please God. Grace is working quietly at the point of our desiring, bringing us in time to despair over our own unrighteousness, challenging our perverse dispositions, so that our distorted wills cease gradually to resist the gift of God (Oden 1994:246).

In one of his sermons, Wesley preached, ‘Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it. Thus is his grace free in all; that is, no way depending on any power or merit in man, but on God alone, who freely gave us his own Son, and ‘with him freely giveth us all things’ (‘Free grace’, Sermon 128).

I agree with John Wesley, John Calvin, the Reformers and this Calvinist on the forum, that faith is a gift from God, but a response of faith is needed by human beings. Romans 4:4-8 affirms it,

4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin” (ESV).

Faith in the one who justifies is needed for salvation to be received and according to Romans 4:4, this faith is a gift from God. Against such a person, the Lord will not count his/her sin. She/he has been forgiven – through faith in the one and only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.[7]

What must I do to be saved?

What did the apostle Paul say to the Philippian jailer who asked, ‘Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” ³¹And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household”’ (Acts 16:30-31).

Paul did not say something like, ‘There is nothing for you to do. God does it all and you are either in or out of the kingdom, based on the deterministic unconditional election and irresistible grace of God. You have absolutely no say in whether you become a Christian or not’. That is not what Paul said, but instead: ‘[You] believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household’.

There was a similar reaction to Peter’s preaching on the Day of Pentecost,

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” ³⁸And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:37-38).

So the jailer had to ‘believe in the Lord Jesus’ to be saved, but we know that ‘faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom 10:17 ESV).

The Scriptures affirm two elements in having faith in Jesus:

(1) God saves and gives faith, and

(2) There will be no faith unless a human being responds in faith to God’s offer of salvation through Christ in the proclamation of the Gospel.

This has often been put into the language of synergism (Arminianism) vs monergism (Calvinism). John Kebbel has rightly challenged this dichotomy:

Monergism and Synergism are extra-Biblical terms coined to encapsulate Bible truth. They fail. God’s dichotomy is Works and Faith, not Monergism and Synergism. Works are bad; faith is good. Faith in Jesus is something humans do (with prevenient grace courtesy of the Holy Spirit); saving these believing humans is something God does. (Monergism Versus Synergism: Beware, Kobayashi Maru Ahead!).

Bossmanham explained:

It is often charged by Calvinists that Arminians believe that man must work with God to procure their salvation. Man must make a move toward God and then God will make a move toward them. It is often described as God meeting man half way. Is this what is taught by Arminians? Did Jacobus Arminius believe this way?

The answer is no. Arminians believe the work of salvation is started and completed by God. The Bible says in order for man to come to God, He must draw them to Himself (John 6:44). Arminians believe the initial work of salvation is done by God. God must do this, because due to the effects of sin, man’s will toward faith in Christ has been lost and destroyed. God must free the person’s will in order for them to make a conscious decision whether to accept His gift of grace or not.

God the Holy Spirit acts upon the heart of a man when that man is exposed to the grace of God. This is done through the hearing of the Gospel (Romans 10:17). God has declared as the great commission for His children to spread His gospel (Matthew 28:19) for this reason. Upon the hearing of the word, the Spirit of God calls the sinner to repent of his sins, draws the sinner to accept Christ, enables the sinner to accept Christ, and convicts the sinner of his or her sins and their need for Christ. After being enabled by the Spirit, the response of the sinner is passive. The sinner must stop resisting, repent of their sins, and place their faith in Christ. This gift, like any gift, is not irresistible. The sinner must accept the unmerited gift of God. Once this is done, following the plan of the Father, the Spirit joins the sinner to Jesus and thus begins the Savior’s relationship with the sinner (Monergism, Synergism, and Arminianism).

Conclusion

There is no salvation unless God works on the inner person (known as the heart) through prevenient grace. God does that through the proclamation of the Gospel and draws people to salvation by the Holy Spirit’s work within. However, there is a human response through faith and repentance. This is an Arminian understanding of the Scriptures as outlined above.

Works consulted

Oden T 1994. John Wesley’s scriptural Christianity: A plain exposition of his teaching on Christian doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Christian Theology, Soteriology, ‘How can unregenerate people worship God’, cygnusx1 #697, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7806024-70/ (Accessed 8 March 2014).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #699.

[3] Ibid., cygnusx1 #704, http://www.christianforums.com/t7806024-71/.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen #711, http://www.christianforums.com/t7806024-72/.

[5] The Calvinist eventually provided the bibliographic reference as, ‘Wesley, John, Works VIII, (Appeals and Minutes Wesleyan- Methodist Book –Room), 361, The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A. M. – John Wesley – Google Books. My source, http://dufreire.wordpress.com/2008/0…ntance/#_ftn29’, at ibid., cygnusx1 #718, at http://www.christianforums.com/t7806024-72/.

[6] Ibid., OzSpen #730, http://www.christianforums.com/t7806024-73/.

[7] If you want to read his response to my lengthy quote and my further replies, see ibid., cygnusx1 #732, http://www.christianforums.com/t7806024-74/#post65145404 – and what follows.

Conflict over salvation

(courtesy Google, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

Does God decree which persons should receive God’s salvation? Or, does God invite people to Christ and then let them take human responsibility in saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the offer of salvation?

These two questions have caused theological heartache from the time of the Reformation until today. Does God open the human heart for salvation? Do human beings have the opportunity to receive or reject salvation? It’s the debate over free will and salvation.

I met this challenge in the thread, ‘Acts 16:14’ on Christian Forums. It involves the regular conflict between Arminians and Calvinists over the nature of how salvation through Christ is received by human beings.

Calvinistic interpretation

(Terry cloth)

This fellow started the thread,

Acts 16:14

A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. (Acts 16:14 NASB)

Why was it necessary for Jesus to open her heart? What was wrong with her in the first place? Did she not have the free will to choose prior to that?[1]

Others replied:

‘To respond. Could she have still responded negatively?’[2]
‘God caused her to respond, so the result was predetermined’ (this is a Calvinistic reply’.[3]

However, after 20 replies he as a Calvinist was not receiving the responses from the Arminian opposition that he wanted. So he wrote again:

Heck, I’m still trying to find out why it’s even necessary.
I always figure when the regular non-Calvinists avoid a thread, it must have hit a nerve.[4]

Some Arminian opposition [5]

After 100 posts I responded.

I find it amazing that you have come to this view that ‘it must have hit a nerve’. What do you do?

You started the thread this way:

Acts 16:14

A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. (Acts 16:14 NASB)

Why was it necessary for Jesus to open her heart? What was wrong with her in the first place? Did she not have the free will to choose prior to that?

The ‘nerve’ for me is this: I knew this fellow’s Calvinistic agenda when he started this thread, that he has pushed over and over on this very large Christian forum. He seems to want to try to disprove Arminianism. I contemplated not responding to him as his imbalanced view is not what the Bible teaches in its totality. I knew he would be persistent in trying to corner others and me in his Calvinistic gymnastics.

Calvinistic imbalance?

The very chapter of the Bible that he used, Acts 16, provides the balance (not the contradiction) to Acts 16:14. The Lord opened Lydia’s heart to respond to what Paul preached. But what is stated in Acts 16:31? It is a command for human beings to believe: ‘And they said, “[You] Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household”’.

The Lord opens the heart but he does not do it without the person believing. That is, the person has a free-will choice to believe salvation or reject it.

Lutheran commentator, R C H Lenski, explained this balanced view in his exegesis and exposition of Acts 16:14:

We must combine the two duratives ‘she kept hearing’ and ‘to be heeding,’ for they imply that Lydia was not converted on that very first Sabbath. From the beginning, however, she heard with a heart that was opened wide (dia in the verb) by the Lord. Little did she dream that Saturday morning what a treasure she was to find in the little retreat by the riverside; but she heard the great Apostle of the Gentiles himself set forth the blessed gospel of Jesus Christ with all fervor and all conviction, and this gospel was corroborated by these three companions. She was finding the pearl of great price.

The Lord opens the heart, but the hand with which he lifts the latch and draws the door is the Word which he makes us hear, and the door opens as we heed, prosechein, keep holding your mind to what you hear. No man can open the door of his heart (kardia is the center of thought and will) himself, nor can he help the Lord to open it by himself lifting the latch and moving the door. The one thing he can do is to bolt the door, i.e., refuse to hear and to heed; and thus he can keep the door closed and bar it even more effectually than it was at first. This prevents conversion (Lenski 1934:658).

So the biblical evidence from Acts 16 (not just v. 14) is that it is the Lord who opens the heart but human beings believe (and refuse to believe). This has been God’s approach from the OT into the NT and today.

We read from the OT:

‘Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live’ (Deut 30:19).

and again from the OT,

‘Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord’ (Josh 24:15).

The Lord opening the heart

photo of burning lit candle with flame and pink heart (public domain)

Why was it necessary for the Lord to open Lydia’s heart?[6] There is no salvation outside of the Lord’s working in us.

What was wrong with her? She was a sinner who needed justification, reconciliation and all that salvation can provide. She needed the application of Christ’s shed blood and resurrection.

As I’ve tried to demonstrate in this brief article, salvation is from the Lord but God demonstrates in Acts 16:31 that human beings need to respond by believing. Why? Because human beings can resist such offers of salvation.

We know from the very first sin in the Garden (Genesis 2-3) that God did not take away human beings’ free will to hear God and obey or disobey his instructions (Gen 3:2:9, 17; 3:5-13).

What kind of response do you think that might generate from the Calvinist who started this thread? Here are some samples

‘If you aren’t going to address the OP [original post], I’m not sure why you even posted. Seems like a waste of time’.[7] (Note, this is a red herring logical fallacy as he refused to address the content of what I wrote above.) This is how I replied to the red herring:

Ah, exactly what I expected. I addressed the post and you didn’t like what I wrote so you give me this red herring.

When will you wake up to the fact that this kind of response is what drives people away from pursuing the Calvinism that you want to define on CF. I provided evidence to refute your view; you didn’t like it so you make it look like I didn’t address the post. I addressed the post directly and came to a conclusion different to yours.
If people continue to use logical fallacies, I disengage in conversation with them. Why? When they use a logical fallacy, it prevents a logical discussion.[8] He further added:

‘So until the Lord opened her heart, there was no way she could respond positively to the gospel?’[9] And again:

‘Why did you avoid answering my question? You aren’t obligated to do so, but this dodging gets us nowhere’.[10]

How should I respond? Here it is: ‘I addressed your post directly. This is a false accusation. False accusations are called straw man fallacies. And we cannot have a logical discussion when you do this. I find that you are harassing me and this is against the rules of this forum’.[11]

‘I have no problems with disagreements. And since you don’t, perhaps you’d like to answer this question that I posed to you. So until the Lord opened her heart, there was no way she could respond positively to the gospel?’[12]

There is further interaction between the Calvinist and me, a Reformed Arminian, in this thread.

Conclusion

So I’m not restricted to pushing a one-sided agenda when the Bible provides both sides in Acts 16. It is the Lord who opens Lydia’s heart and it is Lydia who chooses to respond to the offer of salvation and not to reject it. This is the message of 1 Timothy 2:3b-4, ‘God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’ (ESV).

It has nothing to do with ‘it must have hit a nerve’ for a non-Calvinist like me. It has everything to do with being giving the balance in biblical presentation. God saves, God opened Lydia’s heart, but human beings have the free will to respond in faith to the offer of salvation. Otherwise we have God the dictator and human beings the robots. I do not find that view consistent with biblical Christianity.

For further explanations of my views see:

Works consulted

Lenski, R C H 1934. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (based on Lutheran Book Concern 1934; The Wartburg Press 1944; Augsburg Publishing House 1961).

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Acts 16:14’, Hammster #1, 16 February 2014. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7804942/ (Accessed 23 February 2014).

[2] Ibid., Steeno7 #2.

[3] Ibid., abacabb #9, http://www.christianforums.com/t7804942/ (Accessed 23 February 2014).

[4] Ibid., Hammster #22, http://www.christianforums.com/t7804942-3/ (Accessed 23 February 2014).

[5] Ibid., OzSpen #103, 20 February 2014, http://www.christianforums.com/t7804942-11/ (Accessed 23 February 2014).

[6] This is a further explanation that I made in ibid., #104.

[7] Ibid., Hammster #105. That was all he wrote – not one letter more than this.

[8] Ibid., OzSpen #109.

[9] Ibid., Hammster #107.

[10] Ibid., Hammster #114, http://www.christianforums.com/t7804942-12/ (Accessed 23 February 2014).

[11] Ibid., OzSpen #116.

[12] Ibid., Hammster #131, http://www.christianforums.com/t7804942-14/ (Accessed 23 February 2014). I told him that I had already answered this above and that he was continuing his harassment of me with this response, which is against the rules of this forum (ibid., OzSpen#135).

Was Jesus married?

By Spencer D Gear

File:Codex Alexandrinus f41v - Luke.jpg

Codex Alexandrinus: Luke (courtesy Wikipedia)

There was an inquiry on an Internet forum about Jesus’ wife. This person wrote:

I once provided the scroll where Jesus mentioned his (possibly someone else’s) wife. I was just told that the Bible doesn’t mention that. But that isn’t good enough Spencer. Why was I not given a link to a site written by a biblical archaeologist to dispute the claim? I would have loved that.[1]

My response was:

I agree that that’s not good enough and Christians should not be threatened with that information. The biblical evidence does not support this view of Jesus having a wife and it would be interesting to know the origin of such a scroll.
Please appreciate that it takes years for Christian scholars to investigate and respond to such information in peer-reviewed journals. Many of the laity who participate in online forums like this would not have access to journals that review such material. I have such through online access to my university library. Most of the people in my church wouldn’t have such access or much interest.[2]

What are the claims about Jesus’ wife?

Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd (Wikipedia)

One report stated,

‘A highly-contentious document which allegedly proves that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalen is at the centre of a fresh dispute about its authenticity.

The fourth-century papyrus fragment is the subject of an article by Karen King, a professor from the university’s Divinity School, which was due to be published in Harvard Theological Review this month.

But [put] the piece on hold while fresh tests are carried out on the manuscript’.[3]

Another contended:

‘AT an academic conference in Rome on Tuesday, Karen L. King, a church historian at Harvard Divinity School, presented a finding that, according to some reports, threatened to overturn what we know about Jesus, as well as the tradition of priestly celibacy. She identified a small fragment of fourth-century papyrus that includes the words, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife…’ ” Another clause appears to say, “she will be able to be my disciple.” Some experts have concluded that the manuscript, written in Coptic, is authentic’.[4]

In an article in Christianity Today, Daniel Burke of Religion News Service wrote:

A newly revealed piece of papyrus offers evidence that some early Christians believed Jesus was married, according to a Harvard Divinity School professor.

A fourth-century codex in Coptic quotes Jesus referring to “my wife,” Karen King, a scholar of early Christianity, said on Tuesday. It is the only extant text in which Jesus is explicitly portrayed as betrothed, according to King.

Gospel of Jesus’ wife, recto (Wikipedia)

King is calling the receipt-sized slip of papyrus “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.” She believes it was originally written in Greek, and later translated into Coptic, an Egyptian language.

The fragment says, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife…,'” according to King. The rest of the sentence is cut off. Another segment says, “As for me, I dwell with her in order to…” The speaker is not named.

The fragment contains just 33 words spread across 14 incomplete lines—less a full-fledged gospel than an ancient crossword puzzle.

“Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim,” King said in a statement released Tuesday by Harvard. “This new gospel doesn’t prove that Jesus was married, but it tells us that the whole question only came up as part of vociferous debates about sexuality and marriage.”[5]

Wife or not?

Daniel B. Wallace

Daniel B Wallace (courtesy Dallas Theological Seminary)

cubed-redmatte What are the early estimates of the worth of this MSS, considering that not a word of Jesus’ wife was mentioned in the New Testament?
Daniel Wallace is a conservative scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary. His assessment of the MSS fragment about Jesus having a wife is in, ‘Reality Check: The “Jesus’ Wife” Coptic Fragment‘ (21 September 2012). His article concluded with this view:

‘The Possibilities:
1. This manuscript is a fake. Dr. Christian Askeland, in attendance at the International Association of Coptic Studies conference in Rome, noted that about two thirds of those in attendance were very skeptical of its authenticity, while one third were “essentially convinced that the fragment is a fake.” Askeland said he did not meet anyone at the conference who thought it was authentic (posted at the evangelical textual criticism website on Wednesday, 19 September 2012). This presumably does not include Professor King. A number of noted coptologists have pronounced it a fake or have expressed strong reservations, including Alin Suciu of the University of Hamburg, Stephen Emmel of the University of Münster, Wolf-Peter Funk of l’Université Laval in Quebec, Hany Sadak the director general of the Coptic Museum in Cairo, Scott Carroll, Senior Scholar at the Oxford Manuscript Research Group, and David Gill of the University of Suffolk.

2. If genuine, the text is either (a) not Gnostic (since it contradicts the basic Gnostic view of the material world); (b) Gnostic though with an interpretation of marriage as other than the physical bond between a man and a woman (in the Gospel of Philip “the relationship between Jesus and Mary [Magdalene] is an allegory of the soul’s meeting with God in the bridal chamber, i.e. salvation” ; similarly, the Gospel of Mary [Simon Gathercole of Cambridge University, interviewed on the Tyndale House [Cambridge] website, on Wednesday, 19 September 2012]); (c) orthodox but metaphorically referring to the church as the wife of Jesus (a view already attested in the New Testament—implicit in Eph 5.23–27 and explicit in Rev 19.7); (d) a derivative Christian group that gave some push-back against the growing asceticism of the orthodox in the late second century, when marriage was somewhat frowned upon; or (e) parabolic or metaphorical with some other referent in mind.

3. Even Professor King did not suggest that this fragment means that Jesus had a wife (and she is not known for her conservative views!): “its possible date of composition in the second half of the second century argues against its value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus.” If it goes back to a second-century tradition, we must keep in mind that there is a world of difference between first-century, apostolic Christianity and the various spin-off groups that rose after that early period.

Here are some scholarly reviews:

An Ancient Manuscript and Jesus’ Wife? (Concordia Theology)
The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife: A New Coptic Gospel Papyrus (Harvard Divinity School);
The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus’ ‘Wife’ (The Gospel Coalition).

Other media reports on the popular level had these emphases:

Manuscript claiming Jesus had wife is a ‘clumsy forgery’: Vatican (The Globe and Mail) [on 15 September 2016 this article was no longer available online]
‘Jesus Said to Them, “My Wife…”‘ (Christianity Today).
Mr. and Mrs. Jesus Christ? (New York Times). This latter article’s conclusion is:

Dr. King herself cautioned that the papyrus fragment did not constitute proof of Jesus’ marital status. But it may represent evidence of a debate among the early Christian community (say, from the second to fourth centuries) over whether Jesus was married.

What if corroborating evidence of marriage is found from an earlier date? What if scholars unearth a first-century papyrus with additional lines from, say, the Gospel of Mark, which states unequivocally that Jesus was married? Would I stop believing in Jesus, or abandon my vows of chastity?

No and no.

It wouldn’t upset me if it turned out that Jesus was married. His life, death and, most important, resurrection would still be valid. Nor would I abandon my life of chastity, which is the way I’ve found to love many people freely and deeply. If I make it to heaven and Jesus introduces me to his wife, I’ll be happy for him (and her). But then I’ll track down Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who wrote so soon after the time of Jesus, and ask them why they left out something so important.

There seems to be some serious doubt about the authenticity of this manuscript. The secularists and atheists would love to find it authentic so that they could debunk 2,000 years of Christian history – and to expose the four New Testament Gospels as being grossly negligent in not presenting this critical piece of information.

Part of Daniel Wallace’s critique is that

Although Professor King has dubbed the fragment, The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife, this is intentionally provocative. There is simply not enough material here (eight lines on the recto, a few words visible on the verso) to call it a gospel at all, let alone the gospel of Jesus’ wife! It would be more accurate to call it The Fragment about Jesus’ Relations (so the anonymous comment Posted at the Tyndale House [Cambridge] website, on Wednesday, 19 September 2012), since there is no evidence that it is a gospel and at least two family members are mentioned (Jesus’ wife and Jesus’ mother)….

Does this fragment prove that Jesus was married? The answer is an emphatic no. At most, it can only tell us what one group of ‘Christians’ in the middle of the second century thought. But it says nothing about true history, about Jesus of Nazareth.[6]

cubed-redmatte I recommend the article on Bible Gateway that attempts to answer the question, ‘People are asking me if Jesus ever had a wife. I say no. But there are some who think he did. I need your advice!’ The reply is in, ‘Did Jesus Have a Wife?’ Part of this response states:

Even the word “wife” in the document can be misleading. Ben Witherington III, a professor at Asbury Seminary, told the media that Gnostic texts of the second, third and fourth centuries used “the language of intimacy to talk about spiritual relationships.”

“What we hear from the Gnostic is this practice called the sister-wife texts, where they carried around a female believer with them who cooks for them and cleans for them and does the usual domestic chores, but they have no sexual relationship whatsoever” during the strong monastic periods of the third and fourth centuries, Witherington told the Associated Press. “In other words, this is no confirmation of The Da Vinci Code or even of the idea that the Gnostics thought Jesus was married in the normal sense of the word.”

cubed-redmatte Another perspective from NBC News (September 18, 2012) was:

Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar at the Asbury Theological Seminary, noted that the latest find fits King’s perspective on scriptural scholarship. “She does have a dog in this hunt,” he told me. “She’s an advocate for the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas, telling us of early Christian experiences of various kinds, particularly of the Gnostic kind.”

The fragment that King calls the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife could well contribute to the study of Gnosticism in the second or fourth century, but Witherington said it’s not a game-changer for our view of the first-century Jesus. “While this fragment is interesting, if you are interested in the historical Jesus, this is much ado about not very much,” Witherington said via email.

Witherington noted that experts who have gotten a close look at the papyrus say it’s genuine, but he cautioned that “we cannot be absolutely sure of its authenticity or origins” as long as scholars can’t track down the details surrounding how, when and where it was discovered.

Bart Ehrman, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, voiced similar caution. However, if the document proves authentic, it would represent an important advance in scriptural scholarship, he said.

“It’s certainly not reliable for saying anything about the historical Jesus,” Ehrman told me. “But what it is important for is that this would be the first time we have any Christian authority or Christian group indicating that, in their opinion, Jesus was married.” Like King, Ehrman suggested that such claims might have figured into early Christian debates over the comparative merits of marriage vs. celibacy.

Monks and ‘sister-wives’

Witherington said the text could be open to alternate interpretations. “In view of the largely ascetic character of Gnosticism, it is likely that we are dealing with the ‘sister-wife’ phenomenon, and the reference is to a strictly spiritual relationship, which is close but does not involve sexual intimacy,” Witherington said (Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News, ‘Reality check on Jesus and his “wife”’).

cubed-redmatte Tim Chaffey, in his article, ‘Was Jesus married?‘ wrote:

While marriage in and of itself is not wrong—it was instituted by God in the beginning as a “very good” human relationship (Genesis 1:26–31)—the notion that Jesus, the Son of God, could have married raises numerous theological concerns. The Bible teaches that in marriage, husband and wife become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

So if Jesus, who knew no sin, married a sinful woman, would not He and His wife become one flesh as well? Think of some possible implications of such a scenario. By becoming “one flesh” with a sinner, would Jesus become tainted by sin? What type of nature would children from this union have? Jesus was sinless and had both a divine and human nature, yet His supposed wife would have had a sinful nature.

So would children of such a union be born without sin or with sin? As physical children of the Son of God, what type of relationship would they have to God the Father? The whole idea of Jesus being married introduces a vast array of confused theology.

I find this to be a valuable insight of what would happen if the perfect God-man, Jesus, married a sinful human being and had children with her.

Conclusion

Based on the above evidence, I won’t be throwing out the New Testament Gospels or changing them to agree with this new and perhaps fanciful view of Jesus’ having a wife. Jesus’ marital state is still a no-brainer when compared with the existing historical evidence.

Notes

[1] Christian Fellowship Forum, The Fellowship Hall, ‘Why I avoid discussing life after death’, Melissa #201. Available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=201&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=122769 (Accessed 31 January 2014).

[2] Ibid., ozspen #202. I have changed a couple of words from my Forum post.

[3] ‘What IS the truth about the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? Harvard delays article intended to resolve mysteries of papyrus which “shows Christ married Mary Magdalen”’, Mail Online, 7 January 2013. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258465/Authenticity-row-Jesuss-wife-manuscript-continues-tests.html (Accessed 31 January 2014).

[4] James Martin (a Jesuit priest), ‘Mr. & Mrs. Jesus Christ?’ The New York Times, September 19, 2012, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/opinion/mr-and-mrs-jesus-christ.html (Accessed 31 January 2014).

[5] Daniel Burke, ‘Jesus said to them, “My wife…”’, 19 September 2012, Christianity Today, available at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/september-web-only/jesus-said-to-them-my-wife.html (Accessed 31 January 2014).

[6] Op cit, Daniel Wallace, 21 September 2012.

Sent to hell by God: Calvinism in action?

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

By Spencer D Gear

How would you respond to these kinds of claims?

God ‘chooses to have mercy on some, and chooses to let the others go down their own rebellious path and get the justice that is owed them’.

‘God views all humanity as sinful and guilty and deserving of hell’.

‘Nobody receives injustice at God’s hands’.

‘Why does God decree through TULIP that a large section of humanity will be forced into hell because they cannot believe? Would you treat anyone that way?’

‘If God had not chosen to save some, nobody would be saved’.

‘Why does God choose to save some and damn the rest, according to Calvinism?’

‘Reformed Calvinistic theology does not teach that anyone is forced to do anything. But rather, it teaches that people always do what they desire to do’.

‘It’s not the injustice of the God revealed in Scripture, it’s the injustice (as I see it) in the ULI of TULIP’.

For a summary of the Reformed Calvinistic view of TULIP, see R C Sproul’s explanation:

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

On a Christian forum, a Calvinist asked: ‘Perhaps you’d like to answer why God throws anyone in Hell for eternity simply because they don’t believe in Him? Would you treat anyone that way?’[1]

My response was: ‘Or would it be better to ask as a Calvinist: ‘Why does God decree through TULIP that a large section of humanity will be forced into hell because they cannot believe? Would you treat anyone that way?’[2]

His reply was: ‘I guess that’s a good question if you like building straw men [fallacies]’.[3] It was no logical fallacy and it seemed to be his way of backing off from the consequences of the TULIP theology, and I told him.[4]

He continued his straw man allegation:

Since your question doesn’t reflect anything about what I, or any Calvinist I know, believes, it’s a straw man. So, it’s not the consequence of my position. But if you think that’s what Calvinism teaches, then I think I know why you dislike it so much.

If you’d like, I can link you to some resources.[5]

He proceeded to make the allegation to others of my creating a straw man fallacy in my question re TULIP implications, so I book him up on it after he stated, ‘If you want to know what Calvinism teaches, read the Canons of Dort. If you do so, you will know that Oz’s question was a straw man’.[6] I replied:[7]

Since you are quoting my statement to others, it seems as though I need to make a clarification or further explanation. This was my interaction at #179:
A Calvinist:

Perhaps you’d like to answer why God throws anyone in Hell for eternity simply because they don’t believe in Him? Would you treat anyone that way?

I, as a Reformed (Classical) Arminian:[8]

Or would it be better to ask as a Calvinist: ‘Why does God decree through TULIP that a large section of humanity will be forced into hell because they cannot believe? Would you treat anyone that way?’

You are claiming my response is a straw man. It is NOT, for the following reasons:

Unconditional election means that SOME people are forced (decreed) into the kingdom of God by God’s immutable choice.
Limited atonement (LA) means that Jesus died for SOME people, but not for the rest. They have no possibility of entering eternal life because of God’s unchanging determination of limited atonement (others call it particular redemption).
Irresistible grace means that SOME people are forced (decreed) into the kingdom because there is no possibility of saying ‘No’ to salvation.

But what about the rest of humanity? They are forced (decreed) to endure damnation by God, not for a lifetime, but for eternity. Double predestination is a logical conclusion of such theology.

Would you or I treat anyone that way? I wouldn’t. It seems to be a theology of injustice and I would never choose to treat people that way.
Therefore, I am not creating a straw man logical fallacy. I am providing an example of the meaning and implications for eternal damnation for a large section of humanity by Calvinistic theology.

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

Starting point: All humanity deserves hell

Another person, not the person to whom I responded, replied:

Reformed theology does not believe God pre-damns innocent people. It believes that God views all humanity as sinful and guilty and deserving of hell, and from that starting point, chooses to have mercy on some, and chooses to let the others go down their own rebellious path and get the justice that is owed them.

Thus, the first group gets mercy, unto the praise of God’s glorious grace.

The second group gets justice, for the display of God’s power and wrath (Rom 9).

As you can see, nobody receives injustice at God’s hands.

We believe that because of fallen man’s sinful nature and hostile attitude towards God, if God had not chosen to save some, nobody would be saved.
Thus, I hope you can see why we (the reformed) feel that God’s choosing of people for salvation is necessary if anyone at all is going to be saved.

Further, reformed theology does not teach that anyone is forced to do anything. But rather, it teaches that people always do what they desire to do. But because of the fall, nobody desires God, thus chooses accordingly. Thus, out of grace, God enters the scene and takes off our blindfold and changes our hearts, so that we are now willing to do what previously we were unwilling to do (submit to the gospel). This is why the Bible describes salvation as being “by grace”.[9]

One of the difficulties with responding to posts on Internet forums is that many do not deal with the exact points raised and that was the case here. I tried to pick up some of his issues in this reply:[10]

The injustice promoted by Calvinism

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

I asked him: Why do you choose not to deal with the matters as I raised? You did not choose to deal with my objections to TULIP. You gave me another round of your Calvinism, instead of interacting with me on the issues I raised.

Nowhere did I suggest that God pre-damns innocent people.

By the way, your view of ‘Reformed’ is limited. I, as a Reformed Arminian, am Reformed in my theology. To his dying day, Jacob Arminius was a Reformed minister of the Dutch Reformed Church. Why do you continue to use Reformed in a restricted way?

I agree with you that God views all humanity as sinful and guilty and deserving of hell, as you stated. But this is where you miss a dynamic that seems to elude you: Since ALL are deserving of hell, why are not ALL sent to hell by God? That would be justice. Why does God choose to save some and damn the rest, according to Calvinism?

Your language is that God ‘chooses to let the others go down their own rebellious path and get the justice that is owed them’. But that’s not what TULIP teaches.

It teaches that God chooses some unconditionally and leaves the rest to damnation – sounds like injustice to me. Also God chooses to allow Jesus to provide atonement for some and let the rest be damned – sounds like injustice to me. And, God chooses to irresistible draw some reprobates and let the rest be damned – sounds like injustice to me.

However, this is not the injustice of God. He is absolutely just / righteous. The problem is with ULI of TULIP – as I see it.

You say: ‘As you can see, nobody receives injustice at God’s hands’. That’s absolutely true, from God’s perspective. But from ULI theology, the damned who go to hell get injustice because they could NEVER, EVER BE SAVED because of ULI theology.

You want me to believe, ‘Thus, I hope you can see why we (the reformed) feel that God’s choosing of people for salvation is necessary if anyone at all is going to be saved’, and that Reformed refers to Calvinists. I, as a Reformed Arminian, understand that God’s choosing of people for salvation is not according to the ULI of Calvinism.

You want me to believe that ‘reformed theology does not teach that anyone is forced to do anything. But rather, it teaches that people always do what they desire to do’. ULI teaches that people have no say in responding to the offer of salvation; human responsibility in salvation is not part of the equation when God offers salvation and initiates salvation.

That sure sounds like forcing to me.

Maybe I’ve missed something here about ULI theology. Where in ULI theology is there any statement of the need for human responsibility in salvation, i.e. ‘You believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’ where the ‘you believe’ really does include ‘you’?

How would a Calvinist reply?

This was his comeback:[11]

I’m having trouble reconciling these two statements, perhaps you can help me [and he gave these 2 quotes allegedly from me]:

‘I agree with you that God views all humanity as sinful and guilty and deserving of hell’

‘God chooses to irresistibly draw some reprobates and let the rest be damned – sounds like injustice to me’ [quoting OzSpen]

As you can see, I am confused, because on the one hand, you agree that all men deserve hell, but on the other hand, you express that if some men are left to perish, that is injustice.

You say: ‘As you can see, nobody receives injustice at God’s hands’. That’s absolutely true, from God’s perspective. But from ULI theology, the damned who go to hell get injustice because they could NEVER, EVER BE SAVED because of ULI theology’ [quoting OzSpen].

Again, here you express that if God lets people go to hell, that is injustice. Even though above, you affirmed that men deserve hell. Are you suggesting that if God saves some people, that somehow means that the rest, suddenly, are not deserving of hell any longer?

‘That sure sounds like forcing to me’ [quoting OzSpen]

Oz if you are unconscious and dying, and I give you CPR and resuscitate you, would you say that I “forced” you survive, as if somehow, I was doing something against your will? A better way of wording this would be, would I be overcoming some kind of resistance on your part, thus doing something “against” your will?
As you can see, an unconscious person is not putting up any resistance. He is simply the recipient of the life-saving technique being applied to him. In the same way, a dead person is not putting up a resistence [sic] against being resurrected. In fact since he is dead, his volition is not involved at all, regarding whether or not he is resurrected. In spiritual matters, the analogy works the same way. This is why the Holy Spirit described regeneration, in John chapter 3, as being His work alone, like the “wind”, it “blows wherever it wishes”.

‘Maybe I’ve missed something here about ULI theology. Where in ULI theology is there any statement of the need for human responsibility in salvation, i.e. “You believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” where the ‘you believe’ really does include ‘you’?’ [Quoting OzSpen]

In the Bible, the only thing a person contributes to his/her salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.

Yes, faith in Christ is mandatory for salvation, but praise God, He provided me what is necessary for salvation. (ie, I didn’t bring it to the table.) Thus, all praise and glory goes to Him. Salvation truly is, “all of grace”.

Over and over again

Round And Round Clip Art

(courtesy clker.com)

I replied:[12]

You are having trouble reconciling the two statements because you are quoting:

My Reformed Arminian view: ‘God views all humanity as sinful and guilty and deserving of hell Calvinistic view: God chooses to irresistible draw some reprobates. I added: ‘and let the rest be damned – sounds like injustice to me’. AND….

Your Calvinistic view: ‘As you can see, I am confused, because on the one hand, you agree that all men deserve hell, but on the other hand, you express that if some men are left to perish, that is injustice’.

The issue I’m raising is that Irresistible Grace, guaranteeing grace for salvation to some reprobates and no grace for salvation to the rest of the reprobates (as in TULIP), sure sounds like injustice to me. Grace for some and no grace for the rest for salvation. The problem is with TULIP and not with God.

Let’s agree: You and I are not going to agree on this one. You believe in irresistible grace and I don’t. [See my understanding in, ‘Is prevenient grace still amazing grace?’]

Reformed Arminian: ‘You say: “As you can see, nobody receives injustice at God’s hands”. That’s absolutely true, from God’s perspective. But from ULI theology, the damned who go to hell get injustice because they could NEVER, EVER BE SAVED because of ULI theology’.

Calvinistic view: ‘Again, here you express that if God lets people go to hell, that is injustice. Even though above, you affirmed that men deserve hell. Are you suggesting that if God saves some people, that somehow means that the rest, suddenly, are not deserving of hell any longer?’

That is your false understanding of what I stated. My view, as I stated, was that from God’s perspective, NOBODY gets injustice from Him. But ULI promotes injustice – in my view – as it promotes partiality. God is gracious to some but ungracious to the rest – he damns the rest. That’s not a problem with my theology of God; it’s an issue with TULIP theology.

‘Oz if you are unconscious and dying, and I give you CPR and resuscitate you, would you say that I “forced” you survive, as if somehow, I was doing something against your will? A better way of wording this would be, would I be overcoming some kind of resistance on your part, thus doing something “against” your will?’

That’s an invalid illustration as I’m talking of the ULI of Calvinistic theology and its unfairness to a large chunk of humanity as it excludes salvation from them by ULI decree.

You stated: ‘In the Bible, the only thing a person contributes to his/her salvation is the sin that makes it necessary’. That is not what the Bible states. This is biblical: ‘[You] believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household’ (Acts 16:31 ESV). There is no salvation unless there is co-operation by an individual person and he/she believes. That’s Bible.

‘Yes, faith in Christ is mandatory for salvation, but praise God, He provided me what is necessary for salvation. (ie, I didn’t bring it to the table.) Thus, all praise and glory goes to Him. Salvation truly is, “all of grace”’.

But he did not make that faith available to a large chunk of humanity because of the ULI of TULIP theology. That’s the injustice about which I write. It’s not the injustice of the God revealed in Scripture, it’s the injustice (as I see it) in the ULI of TULIP. The problem is not with God but with that brand of theology (Calvinism).

Calvinists on the merry-go-round

(courtesy Google public domain)

When Calvinists don’t want to deal with the consequences of their TULIP theology in relation to God sending some people to heaven and others to hell, what do they do? On this forum, I received these kinds of answers when they wouldn’t respond to my challenges:

‘Your explanation was just a bigger straw man’.[13]
‘I am still confused, because if all men deserve hell, how is it injustice to save some of them while letting the rest perish into hell? Don’t they deserve hell?’[14]
‘The only way that could be a problem is if the damned don’t deserve to be damned’.[15]
‘the only way it could be “problematic” or “unjust” is if those that are damned don’t deserve to be damned. But you’ve already admitted that they deserve to be damned, therefore, I do not see how you can call it injustice for God to damn them. Can you clarify this please?’[16]
‘But now you’re dodging this issue I raising’.[17]
‘There’s no injustice in the ULI [of TULIP]’.[18]
‘There’s no injustice in ULI, because in ULI, all men deserve hell, and God saves some, but lets the perish [sic] go to hell. Since they deserve hell in the first place (something you affirm), it cannot be injustice for God to let them go to hell’.[19]
‘Partiality is not necessarily unjust…
Ex. 4:11: Then the Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (ESV).
Mankind is guilty or a Saviour was needless cruelty’.[20]

Consequences of Calvinistic theology

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

When a group does not want to see the consequences of TULIP theology, we are supplied with the excuses or rationalisations of what is summarised in ‘Calvinists on the merry-go-round’.

So is TULIP theology partial? Does it discriminate against the reprobate? It most definitely does when it only promotes salvation by Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace for those who are elected to salvation. The discrimination takes place when a large chunk of humanity does not get an opportunity to respond to Christ because they are excluded by ULI theology of TULIP.

My claim is that in regard to eternal salvation, TULIP promotes partiality, i.e. injustice. It promotes a view that, even though all people deserve damnation because of their sin, God only elects a certain group to eternal salvation and the rest to eternal damnation. Double predestination (some elected / predestined to salvation and the rest predestined to damnation) does not sit well with some Calvinists, as this interaction demonstrated.

1. Scriptures: God is not partial

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

Acts 10:34-35 states, ‘So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him’ (ESV).

Romans 2:11, ‘For God shows no partiality’.

2. Scriptures: Salvation available for all

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

This topic is NOT promoting universalism – that all people will be saved – but that God has made salvation AVAILABLE to everyone. There is no partiality with the elect.

One Calvinist made this accusation: ‘I accept that God chooses to show mercy to some. You seem to have an issue with that’.[21] My response is basic and fundamental.[22] I DO NOT have an issue with God showing mercy to some. You have misinterpreted me. The issue is with HOW God shows mercy to some.
It’s the EDICT of ULI of TULIP vs the Scriptures which state that

‘The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance‘ (2 Peter 3:9 ESV).

ULI of TULIP shows favourites to SOME (the elect) while 2 Peter 3:9 demonstrates that God is not willing that any should perish. There is no partiality with God, but there are favourites / there is partiality with ULI in Calvinistic theology.

Even in the Old Testament, indicates that God does not show partiality against the wicked: ‘Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?’ (Ezek 18:23). And this theme continues in Ezekiel 18:32, ‘For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live’, and Ezekiel 33:11, ‘ Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?’

I know that this applied to Israel, but the OT is clear that God does not want any of Israel to die in their sins (‘the death of the wicked’).

The New Testament continues with this theme in 1 Timothy 2:3-4, ‘This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’.

God desires ALL to be saved. There is no partiality with God and special treatment of the elect of God. The truth is that God desires salvation for all people. He does not provide unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace for some and let the rest – either actively or passively – go to eternal damnation. God does not send people to hell because of ULI Calvinistic theology. Some Calvinists don’t like the implications of double predestination, but John Piper is not afraid to state such – as indicated below.

So I’ve stated on this Forum that TULIP Calvinism:

‘promotes injustice through partiality’.[23] A Calvinistic reply was:
‘That would only be true if God’s choice of election caused someone to be punished in hell’.[24]

My response was:[25]

And that is exactly what John Piper, a Calvinist, believes.

Matt Perman, of Desiring God Ministries (John Piper), explains: ‘What does Piper mean when he says he’s a seven-point Calvinist?‘. As to double predestination, Perman explains what this means for the Calvinist, John Piper:

The “sixth” point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8). By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment.

So I’m creating no straw man. This is what a leading Calvinist, John Piper, teaches in his support of double predestination. God ordains judgment for the non-elect. In other words, God sends people to hell with no possibility of access to salvation. That is the teaching of Calvinism by statement (John Piper and other double predestination supporters) or implication.

But another leading Calvinist and double predestination supporter, R C Sproul, does not like this John Piper kind of emphasis that ‘God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment’. So Sproul tries to get around it this way by use of the label of ‘distortion’:

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God.[26]

So Sproul calls it a ‘distortion’ to state that ‘God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate’. So what does he believe is the Reformed Calvinistic emphasis of double predestination? He claims that this is

the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
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….

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God’s justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy” (Rom. 9).[27]

This sounds awfully like rationalisation to try to cover the charge against Calvinism of injustice in its view of election. Sproul explains:

If God foreordains reprobation does this not mean that God forces, compels, or coerces the reprobate to sin? Again the answer must be negative.
If God, when He is decreeing reprobation, does so in consideration of the reprobate’s being already fallen, then He does not coerce him to sin. To be reprobate is to be left in sin, not pushed or forced to sin. If the decree of reprobation were made without a view to the fall, then the objection to double predestination would be valid and God would be properly charged with being the author of sin.[28]

But it still does not avoid the promotion of God showing partiality to the elect and not offering the same treatment to the non-elect. Thus, Calvinism demonstrates that it promotes something that is contrary to Scripture – God’s partiality (see Acts 10:34-35; Rom 2:11). God’s mercy and justice will never be in conflict with God’s actions that are alleged to show partiality or favouritism. I find TULIP Calvinism, while promoting God’s mercy and justice (according to Sproul), to be promoting a view of salvation that is in conflict with God stating that God acts in an impartial way.

Calvinistic preterition

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

For a Calvinistic Reformed view of God sending the damned to hell, see Edwin Palmer, ‘Twelve theses on reprobation’. He stated here:

Romans 9 is clear in asserting that both election and preterition [reprobation, damnation] are unconditional. Their ultimate foundation is in God: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Reprobation as condemnation is conditional in the sense that once someone is passed by, then he is condemned by God for his sins and unbelief. Although all things, unbelief and sin included, proceed from God’s eternal decree, man is still to blame for his sins. He is guilty. It is his fault and not God’s.

So, according to Palmer, God condemns unbelievers to damnation, but it is the sinner’s fault and not God’s. What gobbledygook! God does it but human beings are responsible.

‘According to Calvinism, Preterition is the act by which a person is left out of the will of God, or more specifically, left out of the saving will of God, and has been passed by’ (‘Preterition’, Examining Calvinism).

A better alternative to TULIP

Since there are holes in the TULIP argument that are so large one could drive a theological truck through them, I have found the Arminian alternative to represent a more consistent understanding of the biblical data. I refer you to the FACTS (acronym) of salvation (an Arminian response to Calvinism):

Freed by Grace (to Believe)
Atonement for All
Conditional Election
Total Depravity
Security in Christ [29]

I recommend the article by Roger E Olson, ‘What’s wrong with Calvinism?‘ (Society of Evangelical Arminians).

Some further reading

‘PLUCKING THE TULIP: An Eastern Orthodox Critique of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’ by Robert K. Arakaki © 2012.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Does God hate anyone?’ Hammster#165, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-17/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

[2] OzSpen#179, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-18/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

[3] Ibid., Hammster#180.

[4] OzSpen#181, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-19/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

[5] Ibid., Hammster#180.

[6] Hammster#207, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-21/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

[7] Ibid., OzSpen#208.

[8] This link is to an article by Stephen Ashby, ‘A Reformed Arminian View’, available at: http://www.onthewing.org/user/Arm_Reformed%20Arminianism%20-%20Ashby.pdf (Accessed 23 January 2014).

[9] Ibid., Skala#209. All Hammster could say to my post of explanation was to give me another round of his spin – a false allegation, ‘Skala has give an excellent reply to your straw man logical fallacy’ (Hammster#213,

[10] OzSpen#215, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-22/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

[11] Ibid., Skala#219.

[12] OzSpen#221, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-23/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

[13] Hammster#220, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-22/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

[14] Skala#222, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-23/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

[15] Ibid., Hammster#224.

[16] Ibid., Skala#225.

[17] Ibid., Hammster#228.

[18] Hammster#242, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-25/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

[19] Skala#250, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-25/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

[20] drsteveJ#255, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-26/#post64885524 (Accessed 22 January 2014). My response to this comment was: ‘I’m discussing partiality regarding eternal salvation or eternal damnation. Why are you changing the topic?’ (OzSpen#258).

[21] Hammster#283, http://www.christianforums.com/t7792201-29/#post64888221 (Accessed 23 January 2014).

[22] Some of this response is at ibid., OzSpen#284.

[23] Ibid., OzSpen#251.

[24] Ibid., Hammster#253.

[25] Ibid., OzSpen#256.

[26] This is from the R C Sproul article, ‘Double predestination’, available at: http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html (Accessed 23 January 2014).

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] ‘An outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. the TULIP of Calvinism’, Brian Abasciano and Martin Glynn, February 28, 2013, Society of Evangelical Arminians, available at: http://evangelicalarminians.org/an-outline-of-the-facts-of-arminianism-vs-the-tulip-of-calvinism/ (Accessed 22 January 2014).

If Jesus’ atonement is for all, should all be saved?

(courtesy clker.com)

By Spencer D Gear

If you visit some Christian forums on the Internet, you are likely to encounter some Calvinists who support limited atonement and oppose unlimited atonement (that is promoted by Arminians)? Why? Because the limited atonement folks think that if Jesus died for all, then all would be saved.

I encountered this a few times when I was interacting.[1] You might like to read some of the interaction in, ‘The effects of limited atonement’.

Take a read of these Scriptures that support Jesus’ dying for the world and providing the righteousness of God to those who believe:

1 John 2:2: ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world’ (ESV).

2 Corinthians 5:21: ‘For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (ESV).

Romans 5:15-19:

¹⁵But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgement following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. ¹⁷For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

¹⁸Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. ¹⁹For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous (ESV).

Norm Geisler comments about these verses:

The salvation of everyone was not immediately applied; it was simply purchased. All persons were made salvable, but not all persons were automatically saved. The gift was made possible by the Savior, but it must be received by the sinner (Eph. 2:8-9; cf. John 1:12). In short, the salvation of all sinners from God’s eternal wrath is possible, but only those who accept Christ’s payment for their sins will actually be saved from it.

To put it another way, this objection presupposes universalism (that all will be saved), for which there is no sound biblical, theological, or historical basis (Geisler 2003:405).

This is one of the finest, brief statements I’ve read that provides a summary of Jesus’ death providing atonement for all, but salvation only for those who receive the gift of salvation by faith.

Works consulted

Geisler, N 2003. Systematic theology: God, creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

Notes

[1] I am OzSpen on Christian Forums, Soteriology directory.

Is Jesus coming soon or quickly?

(courtesy Google, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

Do the Scriptures lie about the second coming of Jesus or have the translators got it wrong? Is he coming soon or quickly?

1. One man’s vision of the final day

On Youtube there is an interview with a David Jones by Sid Roth on his TV program, ‘It’s supernatural’. The title of the interview is ‘The final day’. Jones claims to have received an open vision of the final day on earth, a visionary experience of the day of the Lord in which he was exposed to the terror of the Lord. This was revealed in Isaiah13:6-9 and the Book of Revelation (Rev 6:15-17).

Now David Jones claims to have seen this final day as an open vision and that time is running out. He claims to have seen the coming of the Son of God.

Why don’t you watch the interview? I have a couple of issues with the TV program:

(1) It’s in a TV interview where there is drama and it is made to have a Hollywood touch of the dramatic and commercialism. Why should I believe David Jones when Isaiah and Revelation have already revealed the nature of that day?

(2) Jesus told us that nobody knows when he will return, including Jesus himself. Only the heavenly Father knows when that will be.

(3) It requires a premillennial end-times (eschatological) perspective.

This we know from Mark 13:32-33: ‘But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come (ESV).

Why should it be revealed to a contemporary human being that the final day of the Lord is soon and that time has run out and it is too late? Jesus himself did not know this. We have the warnings in Isaiah and the Book of Revelation. Why do we need David Jones’ warning?

2. Soon or quickly? Does it matter?

Revelation 22:7 (courtesy Bible Hub) states in these versions:

New International Version
“Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll.”
New Living Translation
“Look, I am coming soon! Blessed are those who obey the words of prophecy written in this book.”
English Standard Version
“And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”
New American Standard Bible
“And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.”
King James Bible
“Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.”
Holman Christian Standard Bible
“Look, I am coming quickly! The one who keeps the prophetic words of this book is blessed.”

The NIV, NLT and ESV state that Jesus is coming ‘soon’, but the NASB, KJV, HCSB state he is coming ‘quickly’. Which one is it? Are the translators confused or is something else going on? If Jesus was said to be ‘coming soon’ and that was about 2,000 years ago with the composition of the Book of Revelation, it seems as though John the Revelator did not get an accurate message from God. He got it wrong!

But is that a correct conclusion?

3. ‘Soon’ in English

What does ‘soon’ mean in English? According to dictionary.com, it means, ‘within a short period after this or that time, event, etc.; we shall know soon after he calls; before long; in the near future; at an early date; promptly or quickly; readily or willingly; early in a period of time; before the time specified is much advanced’.[1]

So to English speakers, ‘soon’, as applied to Jesus’ second coming and the day of the Lord, would generally mean within a short period of time after John the Revelator revealed this.

4. ‘Quickly’ in English

Dictionary.com gives the meaning of the adverb ‘quickly’ as: ‘with speed; rapidly; very soon’.[2]

So even in English there can be a difference between saying something will happen soon and it happens quickly. If it happens soon, it means in the near future. Quickly can mean rapidly.

Therefore in Revelation 20:7, was John stating that Jesus was coming in the near future or that when he comes it will happen quickly? Let’s check the original language of the New Testament.

5. ‘Soon’ or ‘quickly’ in New Testament Greek

Which Greek word is used in Revelation 22:7? The ESV translation of this verse states, ‘And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book’. Is ‘soon’ the correct translation?

By the way, the same word is repeated in Rev 22:12, 20 and other verses in the Book of Revelation. The adverb translation ‘soon’ or ‘quickly’ is the Greek, tachu, from the verb, tachus. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives the meaning of tachus in Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20 as ‘without delay, quickly, at once’ but they note that ‘it is not always possible to make a clear distinction between this meaning’ and ‘in a short time, soon’ as in Mark 9:39 (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:814-815).

Greek exegete, George Eldon Ladd, in his commentary on the Book of Revelation wrote of Rev 22:7,

The word may mean ‘quickly’ (AV) or ‘soon’ (RSV). The Christian community should always live under the expectancy of the imminent coming of the Lord. No man knows the day nor hour (Matt. 24:36) and no one can set dates or calculate the time of his coming; but every generation must be awake as though the coming of Christ was at the threshold (Matt. 24:42-44). The biblical warnings involve a spiritual and moral tension of expectancy and perspective (Ladd 1972:290).

Lutheran commentator, R C H Lenski, confirms this understanding of Rev 22:7, ‘That Jesus is coming quickly is, indeed, Jesus’ own word as v. 20 shows. The angel quotes it twice, here and in v. 12’ (Lenski 1943/1963:659).

The passage of time has spoken as to which is the meaning in the verses in the Book of Revelation that use tachu associated with the second coming of Christ. It could not mean soon, meaning without delay or at once. It surely means ‘quickly’ because that is how Jesus stated his return will be.

‘You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect’ (Luke 12:40 ESV).

6. False predictions have come and gone

Image result for Ellen G White photograph public domain
(courtesy ellenwhitelibrary.new)

Ellen White held a special place in the ministry of the Seventh-Day Adventists. Arthur L White in his brief biography of Ellen White stated:

Seventh-day Adventists believe that Mrs. White was more than a gifted writer; they believe she was appointed by God as a special messenger to draw the world’s attention to the Holy Scriptures and help prepare people for Christ’s second advent. From the time she was 17 years old until she died 70 years later, God gave her approximately 2,000 visions and dreams. The visions varied in length from less than a minute to nearly four hours. The knowledge and counsel received through these revelations she wrote out to be shared with others. Thus her special writings are accepted by Seventh-day Adventists as inspired, and their exceptional quality is recognized even by casual readers (Arthur White: 2000).

Arthur White wrote that Ellen White’s writings included ‘prophecy’ and that ‘this remarkable woman who, meeting all the tests of a true prophet as set forth in the Holy Scriptures, helped found the Seventh-day Adventist church’ (Arthur White: 2000).

Here are a couple of online paragraphs from Ellen White’s, ‘The Mark of the Beast‘:

In a view given June 27, 1850, my accompanying angel said, “Time is almost finished. Do you reflect the lovely image of Jesus as you should?” Then I was pointed to the earth and saw that there would have to be a getting ready among those who have of late embraced the third angel’s message. Said the angel, “Get ready, get ready, get ready. Ye will have to die a greater death to the world than ye have ever yet died.” I saw that there was a great work to do for them and but little time in which to do it.

Then I saw that the seven last plagues were soon to be poured out upon those who have no shelter; yet the world regarded them no more than they would so many drops of water that were about to fall. I was then made capable of enduring the awful sight of the seven last plagues, the wrath of God. I saw that His anger was dreadful and terrible, and if He should stretch forth His hand, or lift it in anger, the inhabitants of the world would be as though they had never been, or would suffer from incurable sores and withering [65] plagues that would come upon them, and they would find no deliverance, but be destroyed by them. Terror seized me, and I fell upon my face before the angel and begged of him to cause the sight to be removed, to hide it from me, for it was too dreadful. Then I realized, as never before, the importance of searching the Word of God carefully, to know how to escape the plagues which that Word declares shall come on all the ungodly who shall worship the beast and his image and receive his mark in their foreheads or in their hands. It was a great wonder for me that any could transgress the law of God and tread down His holy Sabbath, when such awful threatenings and denunciations were against them (emphasis added).

Language such as ‘time is almost finished’, ‘little time’, ‘soon to be poured out’, ‘get ready, get ready, get ready’, regarding the outpouring of God’s wrath, and that was 163 years ago, suggests that Ellen White, the SDA prophetess, got it badly wrong in her supposed prophecy. She was a false prophetess.

I shared this passage with posters on a Christian forum and how do you think an SDA promoter would respond? He wrote:

Do we throw out all prophets that say things like that?

Rev.22:12 “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.”

That was about 2000 years ago. I guess you are missing something. Like what is 168 years compared to 2000??

You KNOW that there are more prophecies in the Bible just like that one. What is a thousand years more or less when
you are talking about eternity??[3]

My response was: ‘Are you saying that the Apostle John, under the inspiration of the Spirit, got it wrong? Are you prepared to admit that Ellen White got it wrong in 1850?’[4] His reply was off at a tangent. He didn’t want to deal with Ellen White’s false prophecy so here is what he stated:

Got what wrong? That Jesus is coming back? I think every
church should be teaching that. Don’t you? I posted Rev.22
just to make the point. That prediction is about 2000
years old. Does that make it a false prophecy??

Nobody knows when He is coming.

Look over your library of SDA writings and find me one
time when anyone set a date. Preachers all over, today,
are preaching the same message. GET READY. Jesus is coming,
SOON. Do we know when? Of course not.[5]

That is a red herring logical fallacy, where an unrelated comment is designed to divert attention from the topic being discussed. What is there to say to challenge him when he used such illogic? A reasonable conversation is not possible. I pursued the discussion regarding the topic of Ellen White prophesying that time is almost finished and we are to get ready:

Language such as ‘time is almost finished’, ‘little time’, soon to be poured out’ and that was 163 years ago [back in 1850], suggests that Ellen White, the SDA leader and prophetess, got it badly wrong in her supposed prophecy.

The facts are that White stated, ‘Time is almost finished…. Get ready, get ready, get ready’. She was dead wrong. She was a false prophetess.
Why don’t you admit it and quit the SDAs who continue to promote this false prophetess?

This thread deals with Ellen White’s false prophecy that time is running out and we are to ‘get ready, get ready, get ready’ – it was so urgent she repeated it 3 times. That false prophecy was given in 1850.[6]

His come back did not address Ellen White’s ‘get ready, get ready, get ready’ and Jesus coming back in a ‘little time’. He wrote:

Ellen White never set any dates. She is warning people, as any good Christian should, that when Jesus comes, that is the end of probation. If you are not ready, you will not go. Will He be here tomorrow, next week, month?? YOU nor I know the answer to that one. Are you ready?

So, is He coming soon or in another century more or less? Tell us.[7]

Harold is correct. Ellen White did not set any dates, BUT she might as well. Her warning was that there was ‘little time’ and that one should ‘get ready’ for the coming of the day of the Lord. Failing to give a specific date does not obliterate her prophetic expectation that she was warning people to get ready for the coming of the Lord as there was ‘little time’ to go. This kind of expectancy given in a prophecy amounts to a false prophecy as it has not taken place since 1850.

7. Conclusion

Since tachu, the adverb, in Rev 22:7 may be translated as either ‘soon’ or ‘quickly’, the fact that it is 2,000 years since Christ’s death and resurrection and he has not returned, the meaning must therefore be ‘quickly’. The Book of Revelation was not lying because God, the originator of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17), cannot lie (see Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18). Luke 12: 40 confirms that Christians should be ready for Jesus is coming again ‘at an hour you do not expect’ and when he comes, it will be ‘quickly’ (Rev 22:7).

The warning is that Jesus’ second coming will come quickly (suddenly) and all people need to be ready. That can never be for unbelievers. They will be caught unawares. It will happen quickly. They need to be warned of the horrific nature of what will when the day of the Lord comes.

Isaiah 13:6-9

New Living Translation (NLT)

⁶Scream in terror, for the day of the Lord has arrived— the time for the Almighty to destroy.
7 Every arm is paralyzed with fear. Every heart melts,
⁸and people are terrified. Pangs of anguish grip them, like those of a woman in labor.They look helplessly at one another, their faces aflame with fear.

⁹For see, the day of the Lord is coming— the terrible day of his fury and fierce anger. The land will be made desolate, and all the sinners destroyed with it.

Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.[8] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Ladd, G E 1972. A commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Lenski, R C H 1943/1963. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. John’s Revelation. Minneapolis MN: Augsburg Publishing House (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edn.).

White, A L 2000. Ellen G. White: A brief biography. The Ellen G. White Estate, Inc., available at: http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp (Accessed 25 January 2014).

Notes

[1] ‘Soon’, Dictionary.com, available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soon?s=t (Accessed 25 January 2014).

[2] Dictionary.com, ‘quickly’, available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quickly?s=t (Accessed 25 January 2014).

[3] Christian Fellowship Forum, Contentious Brethren, ‘Ellen White: Time is almost finished’, Harold#12, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=11&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=122828 (Accessed 25 January 2014).

[4] Ibid., ozspen#13.

[5] Ibid., Harold#14.

[6] Ibid., ozspen#15.

[7] Ibid., Harold#17.

[8] 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 & augmented edn 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).