Category Archives: Arminianism

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]

https://i0.wp.com/www.ivpress.com/img/book/XL/9780830828418.jpg?resize=190%2C293&ssl=1

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:

  1. God loved the world (Jn 3:16) and not your view of only loving the elect;
  2. 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.
  3. Jesus died for the whole world (1 Jn 2:2).
  4. To have the opportunity to receive Christ, people must hear the Gospel (Rom 10:17);
  5. The omniscient God has determined that only those who choose to believe receive eternal life (Jn 3:16).
  6. Those who choose to reject this offer are damned/they perish (Jn 3:16).
  7. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

 

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 18 November 2015.

Arminius on perseverance of the saints

James Arminius 2.jpg

Jacob Arminius (courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

This is straight from the Works of James Arminius, vol 1 (online):

V. THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies—yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual.

Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.

So Arminius’ view was that:

1. It is not possible for Christian believers, through the work of Satan, to be dragged out of their salvation in Christ. So a true Christian believer can never finally fall away from the faith.

2. BUT, there are some passages of Scripture that give us the aspect of falling away from the faith.

3. BUT, there are also some passages that support the unconditional perseverance that are worthy of much consideration.

His writings that follow the above statement give some further clarity on his views. But from his own exposition on ‘Perseverance of the saints’, he was not prepared to state categorically that a person can fall away from the faith, but there were verses that indicate both ways – conditional perseverance and unconditional perseverance. I find that fence-sitting view not to be helpful. But I have more work to do on understanding Arminius’ views on continuation of salvation – especially on how he understood the Scriptures.

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

 

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 18 November 2015.

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:

  1. God loved the world (Jn 3:16) and not your view of only loving the elect;
  2. 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.
  3. Jesus died for the whole world (1 Jn 2:2).
  4. To have the opportunity to receive Christ, people must hear the Gospel (Rom 10:17);
  5. The omniscient (all-knowing) God has determined that only those who choose to believe receive eternal life (Jn 3:16).
  6. Those who choose to reject this offer are damned – they perish (Jn 3:16).
  7. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

 
Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 12 November 2015.

A Calvinist’s deceitful attempt

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 by George Romney.jpg

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?

Scarlet Salvation Button 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?” 31 And 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?” 38 And 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.

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date:28 May 2019.

   

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:

clip_image001 ‘Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live’ (Deut 30:19).

and again from the OT,

clip_image001[1] ‘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

clip_image003 ‘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:

clip_image003[1] ‘So until the Lord opened her heart, there was no way she could respond positively to the gospel?’[9] And again:

clip_image003[2] ‘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]

clip_image003[3] ‘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).

 

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 18 November 2015.

Is it possible for a Christian to commit apostasy?

Green Salvation Button

ChristArt.com

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

Was King Solomon a godly man or not in the Old Testament era? Did he engage in gross sin and confess it? Was he once saved and then lost?[1] Did he commit apostasy?

Contrasting evidence for King Solomon

There are two sides to the Solomon story that this article investivates:

design-blue The first one is found in 1 Kings 3:3, ‘Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father, only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places’ (ESV). Do the latter sins exclude him from entry into the kingdom? Yes, he had considerable sins that needed forgiving, but we are told he loved God and followed the (godly) statutes given by his father, David.

design-blue But the other side of Solomon is [2] in 1 Kings 11:1-14 where we find some valuable information to help deal with this difficult issue:

1 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. 3 He had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart. 4 For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. 8 And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrificed to their gods. 9 And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the Lord commanded. 11 Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. 12 Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.”
14 And the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite. He was of the royal house in Edom (ESV, emphasis added).

We know from 1 Kings 3:3 that ‘Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of his father David’.

BUT, BUT 


This same Solomon chose to love many foreign women who turned his heart away from the Lord. The God who forbade adultery (Exodus 20:14) had that commandment violated by Solomon.

AND THERE WERE CONSEQUENCES of his polygamy, etc. and 1 Kings 14 tells us what they were.
So the lesson is that a person can love the Lord and still be tempted by an adversary and foreign women as in Solomon’s case and depart from following the Lord.

When do people lose their salvation?

This is a valid question that needs answering: ‘At what point do you believe that someone loses their salvation?’[3]

clip_image002 Of course most Calvinists do not believe it is possible to lose salvation. Here are a couple of statements of such a view:

clip_image004 The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof (Chapter XVII:I-II).

J. I. Packer

J I Packer (photo courtesy InterVarsity Press)

clip_image004[1] J I Packer’s theology on the ‘perseverance of the saints’ is:

‘God is adequate as our keeper. “Nothing…can separate us from the love of God,” because the love of God holds us fast. Christians “are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation” (1 Pet 1:5), and the power of God keeps them believing as well as keeping them safe through believing. Your faith will not fail while God sustains it; you are not strong enough to fall away while God is resolved to hold you’ (Packer 1973:310, emphasis in original).

clip_image002[1] The contrasting view is that of Arminianism which provides biblical evidence that salvation can be lost. A couple of examples are:

clip_image006 Stephen Ashby, a Reformed/Classical Arminian (like Jacob Arminius), concludes that ‘if one becomes an unbeliever, which is not probable but yet is possible since he or she is a personal being, then God removes that individual from the true vine, Christ Jesus (John 15:2, 5). Hence, the singular act of apostasy is irreversible (Heb. 6:4-6)’ (Ashby 2:187).

clip_image006[1] Another Arminian, John Wesley’s, view on eternal security[4] was:

The sum of all is this: If the Scriptures are true, those who are holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself; those who are endued with the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience; those who are grafted into the good olive-tree, the spiritual, invisible Church; those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, “I am the vine, ye are branches;” those who so effectually know Christ as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world; those who see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of the witness and of the fruits of the Spirit; those who live by faith in the Son of God; those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly (John Wesley Elements of Divinity, ‘Perseverance of the saints’).

Hebrews 6 and losing salvation

The reason given in Hebrews 6:4-6 for losing salvation (‘falling away’ from the faith) is apostasy. The Greek word used confirms this: parapesontas, aorist participle of parapipto, which Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives the meaning as “fall away, commit apostasy” (1957:626). It is a point action (aorist tense) of committing the act of apostasy. This meaning is affirmed by Thayer’s Greek lexicon: “to fall away (from the true faith)” (1962:485).

So, based on this passage from Heb 6:4-6, we can say that it is possible for a true believer to fall away from the faith, commit apostasy, and lose his/her salvation. If that happens, it is impossible for those who commit apostasy to be restored to repentance.
What’s the evidence that Solomon committed apostasy?

Colin Brown’s examination of the New Testament evidence, based on the original Greek language, was:

Apostasy
(Gk. apostasia, rebellion, abandonment, apostasy; from apo, away, and histe4mi, stand). The deliberate repudiation of belief once formerly held. An apostate is one who thus abandons Christianity. In the post-NT church apostasy, murder and adultery were regarded for a time as unpardonable sins. Later it become pardonable only after great (in some cases, lifelong) public penance (Brown 1975:51).

If you equate ‘turning their heart away from God’ with ‘deliberate repudiation of belief once formerly held … one who abandons Christianity’, then I can accept that this is a definition of apostasy. However, apostasy is a deliberate abandonment of faith formerly held, in my understanding.

For a fuller discussion of the issue of whether salvation can be lost, see my article, ‘Once saved, always saved or once saved, lost again?’

A possible contemporary example of apostasy

Michael Patton has written this sad but challenging article, ‘Billy Graham and Charles Templeton: A Sad Tale of Two Evangelists‘. There is evidence here that Templeton may not have been intellectually convinced of the Gospel. See this excerpt from Charles Templeton’s, Farewell to God (1996).

clip_image008

Courtesy McClelland and Stewart (publishers)

‘All our differences came to a head in a discussion which, better than anything I know, explains Billy Graham and his phenomenal success as an evangelist.

In the course of our conversation I said, ‘But, Billy, it’s simply not possible any longer to believe, for instance, the biblical account of creation. The world was not created over a period of days a few thousand years ago; it has evolved over millions of years. It’s not a matter of speculation; it’s a demonstrable fact.’

‘I don’t accept that’ Billy said. ‘And there are reputable scholars who don’t.’

‘Who are these scholars?’ I said. ‘Men in conservative Christian colleges[?]‘

‘Most of them, yes,’ he said. ‘But that is not the point. I believe the Genesis account of creation because it’s in the Bible. I’ve discovered something in my ministry: When I take the Bible literally, when I proclaim it as the word of God, my preaching has power. When I stand on the platform and say, ‘God says,’ or ‘The Bible says,’ the Holy Spirit uses me. There are results. Wiser men than you or I have been arguing questions like this for centuries. I don’t have the time or the intellect to examine all sides of the theological dispute, so I’ve decided once for all to stop questioning and accept the Bible as God’s word.’

‘But Billy,’ I protested, ‘You cannot do that. You don’t dare stop thinking about the most important question in life. Do it and you begin to die. It’s intellectual suicide.’”

‘I don’t know about anybody else,’ he said, ‘but I’ve decided that that’s the path for me’” (Templeton 1996:7-8).

Michael Patton’s comment was:

Templeton, as his own story makes plain (p. 3), never truly reached a point where he was intellectually convicted of the truthfulness of Christianity (what the reformers called assensus). Assensus represents the conviction we have in our minds. Assent of the mind is vital to our faith. Graham, according to this testimony, had enough assensus to make a decision. He was not going to be an eternal “tire-kicker” with regard to Christianity. Sure, he could have waited, like Templeton, until every possible objection to the faith was answered, but this would amount to a failure of modernistic irrationality. We can never have all our questions answered. At some point there must be a sufficiency in probability (‘A sad tale of two evangelists’).

My sense is that Templeton may never have been a true believer in Jesus Christ and was preaching a superficial Gospel that sounded like the real thing, but it wasn’t. One comment by another person at the end of this Michael Patton article was to point to

the interview former atheist, Lee Strobel 
 conducted with Templeton. When Strobel asked him about Jesus, he said, ‘“he’s the most important thing in my life.” He stammered: “I . . . I . . . I adore him . . . Everything good I know, everything decent I know, everything pure I know, I learned from Jesus.” Strobel was stunned. He listened in shock. He says that Templeton’s voice began to crack. He then said, “I . . . miss . . . him!” With that the old man burst into tears; with shaking frame, he wept bitterly (see Strobel 2000:21-22).

When discussing apostasy online, a person wrote: ‘The word [for apostasy] also means “rebellion” … easier to understand. There are a number of instances when Israelites rebelled and died. Do you believe Solomon rebelled or got addicted to sin or was even deceived by sin?’[5] But 


As for Solomon?[6]

The lexicon meanings of apostasy from Arndt & Gingrich, and Thayer, are that the word used for ‘fall away’ in Heb 6:6 means falling away, apostasy. Rebellion has different connotations in English to apostasy.

We have evidence that Solomon loved God, was walking in the statutes of his father, David, and then committed gross sin with ungodly women and in serving other gods.

I do not have unequivocal evidence from the OT or NT that King Solomon committed apostasy and was damned, never to return to repentance. We have evidence that Solomon committed sin in engaging with ungodly women, serving other gods, but I don’t know Solomon’s ultimate destiny as I don’t have all of the evidence.

We do know this from a book of the Bible that states it is based on some of the proverbs of Solomon:

The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel:

2 To know wisdom and instruction,
to understand words of insight,
3 to receive instruction in wise dealing,
in righteousness, justice, and equity;
4 to give prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the youth—
5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning,
and the one who understands obtain guidance,
6 to understand a proverb and a saying,
the words of the wise and their riddles.
7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
fools despise wisdom and instruction

(Proverbs 1:1-7 ESV, emphasis added).

The introduction to the English Standard Version’s Book of Proverbs states that ‘because Proverbs is a collection of writings it has multiple authors, but most of the book is attributed to King Solomon. Individual proverbs date from between the tenth and sixth centuries B.C.’ (ESV 2001:634).

This I do know from Heb 6:4-6 that it is possible for people to fall away from the faith, commit apostasy, and can never be restored to repentance.
We see a very sad example of this with Charles Templeton. See: Charles Templeton’s “Farewell to God“

Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.[7] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Ashby, S M 2002. A reformed Arminian view, in Pinson, J M (gen ed), Gundry, S N (series ed). Four views on eternal security, 135-205. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Brown, C (ed) 1975. New international dictionary of New Testament theology, vol 1: A-F.[8] Exeter, Devon U.K.: The Paternoster Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation.

Packer, J I 1973. Knowing God. London, Sydney, Auckland, Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton.[9]

Strobel, L 2000. The case for faith: A journalist investigates the toughest objections to Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles (a division of Good News Publishers).

Templeton, C 1996. Farewell to God: My reasons for rejecting the Christian faith. Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart Ltd.

Thayer, J H 1962. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

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

Notes:

[1] What provoked this article was a thread started in Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Was Solomon saved?’ Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7803787/ (Accessed 11 February 2014).

[2] This is part of my post at ibid., OzSpen#37.

[3] Ibid., Hammster#38,

[4] I am using ‘perseverance of the saints’ and ‘eternal security’ as synonymous terminology.

[5] Christian Forums loc cit, Edial#61.

[6] Ibid., OzSpen#63.

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

[8] This was translated, with additions, and revisions, from an original German publication, theologisches begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, ed by L Coenen, E Beyreuther, and H Bietenhard.

[9] In the USA, it was published by InterVarsity Press in 1973. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterVarsity_Press (Accessed 21 February 2014).

 

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 18 November 2015.

Calvinist misrepresents the Reformed

Courtesy Google (public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to read or hear of Calvinists and Arminians who misrepresent the theological views of each other. I met one on a Christian forum when he wrote:

Historically speaking, the word Reformed was first used of the movement spreading out because of Calvin’s work in Geneva, and the influence of his many editions of the Institutes
.

So, OP (original poster). I would say to you that it would be almost impossible to find a Reformed Church that isn’t Calvinistic because the two go hand in hand historically speaking.[1]

The OP had asked:

I am looking for a Baptist type church that isn’t calvinist but preaches and takes God’s word and makes Christ so important that never does it seem like just a secular community meeting. I hear to often in sermons a self-help seminar message.

Basically if I can simplify it I am looking for a Non- Calvinist or Arminian version of Paul Washer lol. If someone can direct me to some audio, video, or way to find local churches, I would greatly appreciate it.[2]

Calvinist vs Arminian antagonism

       

            Calvin (Google public domain)                 Arminius (Google, public domain)

I am of Reformed (Classical) Arminian persuasion,[3] and we are found in many denominations. I referred this person to Dr Stephen M. Ashby, as an example, who was teaching at Asbury Theological Seminary, where there is a Wesleyan emphasis, when he wrote a chapter as a Reformed Arminian (he is now at Ball State University).[4] Dr Ashby contributed the chapter, ‘A Reformed Arminian View’ of eternal security (Ashby 2002) in this edited book by J Matthew Pinson (2002)

Ashby begins his article in this publication,

A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a Presbyterian pastor in the city where I work. Upon hearing that I had graduated from a Calvinist seminary, he waited for the appropriate moment and said, “So you are one of those rare birds who was educated in Reformed thought … but just didn’t get it.” My response was, “Oh, I’m very Reformed; in fact, I call myself a Reformed Arminian.” To which he laughed incredulously and said, “That’s the first time I’ve ever heard of that.”

No doubt, many people who might pick up this book will ask themselves, “What is Reformed Arminianism?” The answer that that question is simple: It is the view of Jacobus Arminius himself. Arminius always considered himself to be Reformed, right up until his death. And there were many within the Dutch Reformed movement who held his approach to theology. Of course, given the popular usage of the term Reformed today – it is probably not surprising that my Presbyterian friend reacted so strongly to the thought of Reformed Arminianism. However, if we get beneath the surface of handy and well-worn labels and compare the actual substance of the views held by those within my community with views typically thought to be Reformed, it will become clear that this is not a contradiction of terms but an accurate description (Ashby 2002:137, emphasis in original).

Jacob Arminius, as a Dutch Reformed minister, considered himself Reformed to his dying day. Those who are Reformed Arminian are spread throughout various denominations. So historically, Arminius was Reformed before the time of his followers, The Remonstrants, and he was not Calvinistic in his overall theology. However, Arminius’ doctrine of Total Depravity was in harmony with that of Calvinism. See, ‘Do Arminians Believe in Total Depravity?’ where there are ample quotes from Arminius and Arminians to demonstrate their view of total depravity is similar to that of Calvinists.

Jacob Arminius wrote concerning total depravity and free will:

THIS is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace.  But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace (Works of James Arminius, vol 1, 5.3, The free will of man).

Roger Olson’s understanding is that, ‘Arminians together with Calvinists affirm total depravity because of the fall of humanity in Adam and its inherited consequence of a corrupted nature in bondage to sin. A common myth about Arminianism is that it promotes an optimistic anthropology’ (Olson 2006:55-56).

Arminians and Calvinists in the same denomination

For many years I’ve been associated with a Baptistic denomination that includes both Calvinistic, Reformed Arminian and Wesleyan Arminian pastors.[5]

This misunderstanding of the misunderstanding between Calvinists and Arminians is acknowledged by a Calvinist, R C Sproul,

In the perennial debate between so-called Calvinism and Arminianism, the estranged parties have frequently misrepresented each other. They construct straw men, then brandish the swords of polemics against caricatures, not unlike collective Don Quixotes tilting at windmills. As a Calvinist I frequently hear criticisms of Calvinistic thought that I would heartily agree with if indeed they represented Calvinism. So, I am sure, the disciples of Arminius suffer the same fate and become equally frustrated. Arminius himself came from a Calvinistic framework and embraced many tenets of historic Calvinism. He frequently complained, in a mild spirit, of the manifold ways in which he was misrepresented. He loved the works of Augustine and in many ways earnestly sought to champion the Augustinian cause.

[A citation] from one of Arminius’s works demonstrates how seriously he regards the depths of the fall. He is not satisfied to declare that man’s will was merely wounded or weakened. He insists that it was ‘imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.’ The language of Augustine, Martin Luther or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius (Sproul 1997:125-126).

Interesting label by Sproul. He calls the Calvinists and Arminians ‘estranged parties’. That seems very accurate to me. If you don’t believe me, take a read of the topics in the ‘Soteriology’ directory of Christian Forums. To me (and I’ve participated there as a Reformed Arminian many times), the description is more like ‘hostile parties’ than ‘estranged parties’.

What’s the truth?

So I’m not surprised that this person[6] made a statement that ‘it would be almost impossible to find a Reformed Church that isn’t Calvinistic’. Sproul described this as an example of how ‘the estranged parties have frequently misrepresented each other. They construct straw men, then brandish the swords of polemics against caricatures’.

So, to set the record straight. It is very possible to find a Reformed pastor in a denomination that is not Calvinistic. That pastor, like Stephen Ashby, others, and me, could believe the teachings of Jacob Arminius and be known as Reformed Arminians.

Why don’t you take a read of Roger E. Olson’s article in Christianity Today (September 6, 1999) from 15 years ago, ‘Don’t hate me because I’m Arminian’?

 

Works consulted

Ashby, S M 2002. A Reformed Arminian view, in J M Pinson (gen ed) 2002. Four views on eternal security. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 135-205.

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

Pinson, J M (gen ed) 2002. Four views on eternal security. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Sproul, R C 1997. Willing to believe: The controversy over free will. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Reformed church that is not Calvinist’ (online), branchofthevine#53. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7799143-6/#post64937247 (Accessed 31 January 2014).

[2] Ibid., Awaken4Christ#1. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7799143/ (Accessed 31 January 2014).

[3] Much of this response is in ibid, OzSpen#54, but I have made some changes, including additions.

[4] Dr Ashby also is an adjunct professor at Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College, Moore OK. See: http://www.hc.edu/page.aspx?id=188951 (Accessed 31 January 2014).

[5] I’m an ordained minister with The Christian & Missionary Alliance of Australia.

[6] Op cit branchofthevine#53.

 

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 18 November 2015.

Was Judas saved and then lost?

File:Gustave Doré - Study for "The Judas Kiss" - Walters 371387.jpg

Gustave DorĂ© – Study for “The Judas Kiss” (courtesy wikimedia commons)

By Spencer D Gear PhD

Judas Iscariot and Peter were both picked by Jesus specifically to cast out devils, heal the sick, and preach the gospel (Matthew 10:1-27). I would not expect Jesus to choose men who were not in the kingdom and were not promoters of the kingdom of God.

Jesus placed his public approval upon these men when he picked them to be His Apostles and commissioned them to preach His gospel. This is a very important series of verses (Mt 10:1-27): note v 20, especially, ‘For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you’ (ESV).

So God’s Spirit was speaking through all 12 apostles, including Judas. Therefore Judas was of such a spiritual ranking that God’s Spirit spoke through him. Even though this is prior to Jesus’ death on the cross, it is made clear that the Spirit was working in and through Judas. In New Testament terms, he was a saved man.

Was Judas chosen for the kingdom of God and then lost his status or was Judas never ever chosen by Jesus for the kingdom? Or, was Judas chosen for destruction and damnation as ‘one of you [Judas] is a devil’?

What better place to start than with the Scriptures?

Good Book

ChristArt

 What do the Scriptures state?

Judas was first numbered among the Twelve apostles (Lk 6:13, 22:3; Acts 1:16-17). Acts 1:17 is clear about Judas’ role: ‘He was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry’. Therefore, this issue is unquestioned: Judas was ‘chosen’ by Christ Himself, and as the apostle Judas was one of the 12 chosen by Jesus (Lk 6:13; 22:3).

Luke 22:3: ‘Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve’ (ESV). That’s very clear. He was one of the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus.

John 6:70, Jesus asks the rhetorical question to His twelve apostles, ‘Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil?’

Matt. 26:23-24 He answered and said, ’He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born’.

In Luke 12:32 Jesus says to His disciples, “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”
This Scripture states that Matthias’ place was ‘to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place’ (Acts 1:25).
Jesus Himself provided the answer in John 17:12, ‘While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled’.

Matthew 27:3-5, ‘Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself’ (KJV).

The words ‘repented himself’ here (from the King James Version) are not the best possible translation of the underlying Greek. The Greek word means ‘regret’ or ‘remorse’ but it does not necessarily imply a change like the word for ‘repentance’ does. The World English Bible translates Matthew 27:3 as, “Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that Jesus was condemned, felt remorse, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders” (WEB).

‘Then they [Judas was there] that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God’ (Matthew 14:33 KJV).

Here we learn that Judas, with the others, was an unbeliever, and then the Lord Jesus adds in John 6:70-71 these words, “Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.”

Church Fathers (courtesy Wikipedia)

Let’s check out a few of the church fathers

Irenaeus (ca AD 125-202),[1] bishop of Lyons in Gaul about the year AD 180, wrote in Against Heresies (about AD 185), of Judas [2]

who was expelled from the number of the twelve, and never restored to his place
. but Judas was deprived [of his office], and cast out, while Matthias was ordained in his place
.

But Judas having been once for all cast away, never returns into the number of the disciples; otherwise a different person would not have been chosen to fill his place. Besides, the Lord also declared regarding him, Woe to the man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed; Matthew 26:24 and, It were better for him if he had never been born; Mark 14:21 and he was called the son of perdition John 17:12 by Him. (Against Heresies, 2.20.2, 5).

Chrysostom (ca AD 347-407),[3] was born and ministered in Antioch, Syria, and was the golden-mouthed expositor and orator. He wrote, ‘For Judas too was a child of the kingdom, and it was said to him with the disciples, You shall sit on twelve thrones; Matthew 19:28 yet he became a child of hell’ (Homily 26 on Matthew).

Ambrose of Milan (ca AD 340-397), [4] administrator and preacher, said, ‘For both Saul and Judas were once good
. Sometimes they are at first good, who afterwards become and continue evil; and for this respect they are said to be written in the book of life, and blotted out of it’ (cited from The Works of John Fletcher, p. 137).

St Augustine of Hippo (ca AD 354-430),[5] philosopher and theologian, in his Tractate 62 (John 13:26-21) had quite a bit to say about Judas and his condition. This is but a sample:

It was after this bread, then, that Satan entered into the Lord’s betrayer, that, as now given over to his power, he might take full possession of one into whom before this he had only entered in order to lead him into error. For we are not to suppose that he was not in him when he went to the Jews and bargained about the price of betraying the Lord; for the evangelist Luke very plainly attests this when he says: Then entered Satan into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, being one of the twelve; and he went his way, and communed with the chief priests. Luke 22:3-4. Here, you see, it is shown that Satan had already entered into Judas. His first entrance, therefore, was when he implanted in his heart the thought of betraying Christ; for in such a spirit had he already come to the supper. But now, after the bread, he entered into him, no longer to tempt one who belonged to another, but to take possession of him as his own.

But it was not then, as some thoughtless readers suppose, that Judas received the body of Christ. For we are to understand that the Lord had already dispensed to all of them the sacrament of His body and blood, when Judas also was present, as very clearly related by Saint Luke; Luke 22:19-21 and it was after this that we come to the moment when, in accordance with John’s account, the Lord made a full disclosure of His betrayer by dipping and holding out to him the morsel of bread, and intimating perhaps by the dipping of the bread the false pretensions of the other. For the dipping of a thing does not always imply its washing; but some things are dipped in order to be dyed. But if a good meaning is to be here attached to the dipping, his ingratitude for that good was deservedly followed by damnation (Tractate 62.2-3).

So Augustine regarded Judas as a man of ‘false pretensions’. Thus, it is inferred that Judas was not a genuine believer when he was tempted to betray Jesus. Irenaeus regarded Judas as being cast away from the 12, never to return. For Chrysostom, Judas was a child of the kingdom who became a child of hell. He was written in the book of life was Ambrose’s perspective and then Judas was blotted out of the book of life – he lost his salvation.

So for these church fathers, some believed Judas was never saved and was a pretender, but for others, Judas was saved and lost again.

A heretical forgery, a Gnostic gospel, ‘the Gospel of Judas‘, was found in the 1970s in an Egyptian cave.

 

Green Salvation Button

Tut tut says the Calvinist: Satan could not enter a believer

I was engaged in some interaction on Judas’ godly status or otherwise, on a Christian forum. One fellow, a Calvinist, responded: ‘Satan can enter believers? More heresy’.[6]

My response was:[7]

I do wish your presuppositions wouldn’t blind you to the facts recorded in the Gospels. Another person wrote:

Yes, he was a believer. Even Calvinists will tell you unbelievers want nothing to do with the gospel, the kingdom, and the King Himself. If he wasn’t a believer, he would have turned away from Jesus just as other disciples did. Judas fell away when Satan entered him.[8]

So what did one of these posters do? He labelled my post as ‘heresy’ because he believes that ‘Judas fell away when Satan entered him’
Let’s check out the Gospel facts. In Matthew 10, we note these Gospel details in the authoritative Scriptures:

  • ‘These twelve [including Judas] Jesus sent out, instructing them’ (Matt 10:5). How did Jesus describe these 12?
  • ‘Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves’ (Matt 10:16). So Jesus regarded Judas as one of his ‘sheep’.
  • ‘For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you’ (Matt 10:20). So all of the 12, including Judas, had the Holy Spirit of YOUR heavenly Father speaking through them. So, for Judas, God was HIS Father.

What happened later to Judas? ‘Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve’ (Luke 22:3).

Earlier, in response to another post, the person claimed: ‘I have my view. But if you believe that Satan can inhabit believes (sic), then you believe a heresy’.[9]

My reply was:[10]

That is a false claim in relation to Judas, as I showed in the thread on that forum.

Why must this person impose his own presuppositions on the biblical text and make it mean what it does not say? In hermeneutics (biblical interpretation), this is called eisegesis.

Judas was elected by Jesus as one of the 12, sent out to preach by Jesus and cast out demons, and the heavenly Father was Judas’s Father. The Spirit of the Father spoke through Judas. Then Satan entered Judas.

These are biblical facts and not heretical facts.

Based on these facts and those I have provided, this Calvinistic poster was engaging in eisegesis, but he called a poster a promoter of heresy because he believes Satan entered Judas and that can’t happen to a believer. However, the facts as recorded in the Gospels are that Satan entered Judas. I’m sticking with the biblical facts when I maintain that Judas was chosen by Jesus as one of the 12 to enter the kingdom, but he fell away when he allowed Satan to enter him and he denied association with Jesus – three times.

Scarlet Salvation Button

Calvinists refuse to accept loss of salvation

Calvinists have large problems with Judas being chosen as an apostle and then losing his chosen status when Satan entered him. Why? They are unable to accommodate anyone losing his/her salvation. It doesn’t fit with the presuppositions of a TULIP view of salvation.

Matthew Slick, a Calvinist, explained the P of the acronym, ‘Perseverance of the saints’:

You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.[11]

For an alternative – from an Arminian perspective – regarding salvation, see Brian Abasciano and Martin Glynn’s response to TULIP, represented by the acronym FACTS:

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

This view by Abasciano and Glynn provides this explanation of ‘security in Christ’:

  • Since salvation comes through faith in Christ, the security of our salvation continues by faith in Christ.
  • Just as the Holy Spirit empowered us to believe in Christ, so he empowers us to continue believing in Christ.
  • God protects our faith relationship with him from any outside force irresistibly snatching us away from Christ or our faith, and he preserves us in salvation as long as we trust in Christ.
  • Arminians have differing views of whether Scripture teaches that believers can forsake faith in Christ and so perish (the traditional view, held by most Arminians), or whether God irresistibly keeps believers from forsaking their faith and therefore entering into eternal condemnation (as unbelievers).[12]

Conclusion

The biblical evidence – as articulated above – points to Judas being chosen by Jesus, being a member of God’s kingdom and then losing his salvation when Satan entered him and he denied Jesus. I cannot conclude otherwise from an inductive study of Scripture.

Judas Iscariot (right), retiring from the Last Supper, painting by Carl Bloch, late 19th century (courtesy Wikipedia)

Works consulted

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

Notes

[1] Lifespan dates are from ‘St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons: Biography’, Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus (Accessed 29 December 2013).

[2] These details of Irenaeus are from Cairns (1981:110), who stated that he ‘was born in Smurna, had been influenced by Polycarp’s preaching while Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna’. Against Heresies is his ‘greatest work’ and ‘was done in the field of polemics writing against Gnosticism’ (Cairns 1981:10).

[3] Lifespan dates are from Cairns (1981:141).

[4] Lifespan dates are from Cairns (1981:145).

[5] Lifespan dates are from Cairns (1981:146).

[6] Hammster#22. 13 October 2013, Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Does Matthew 13:11 support election and reprobation?’ Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7779586-3/ (Accessed 27 December 2013).

[7] Ibid., OzSpen#29.

[8] Ibid., Ask Seek Knock#20.

[9] Ibid., Hammster#25.

[10] Ibid., OzSpen#30.

[11] Matthew J Slick 2012. Calvinist Corner, ‘The five points of Calvinism’ (online). Available at: http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm (Accessed 28 December 2013).

[12] ‘Security in Christ (Article 5)’ 2013, An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism, February 28. Society of Evangelical Arminians. Available at: http://evangelicalarminians.org/an-outline-of-the-facts-of-arminianism-vs-the-tulip-of-calvinism/#ASC (Accessed 28 December 2013).

 

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 18 November 2015.

Was Judas Iscariot saved and then lost?

Judas

ChristArt

A person wrote on a Christian forum, ‘Satan can enter believers? More heresy’.[1]

My reply was as follows:[2]

I do wish this person’s presuppositions wouldn’t blind him to the facts recorded in the Gospels. A person who was denounced as promoting heresy, wrote:

Yes, he [Judas] was a believer. Even Calvinists will tell you unbelievers want nothing to do with the gospel, the kingdom, and the King Himself. If he wasn’t a believer, he would have turned away from Jesus just as other disciples did. Judas fell away when Satan entered him.[3]

So what did this person do but label his post as ‘heresy’ because he believes that ‘Judas fell away when Satan entered him’

Gospel facts

Let’s check out the Gospel facts. In Matthew 10, we note these Gospel details in the authoritative Scriptures:

Flower2 ‘These twelve [including Judas] Jesus sent out, instructing them’ (Matt 10:5). How did Jesus describe these 12?

Flower2 ‘Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves’ (Matt 10:16). So Jesus regarded Judas as one of his ‘sheep’.

Flower2 ‘For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you’ (Matt 10:20). So all of the 12, including Judas, had the Holy Spirit of YOUR heavenly Father speaking through them. So, for Judas, God was HIS Father.

What happened later to Judas? ‘Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve’ (Luke 22:3).
So the biblical record provides these facts about Judas:

designBlue-sma He was called as one of the 12, ‘whom he also named apostles’, and appointed the 12 that ‘he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons’ (Mk 3:13-15). Is this fellow daring to say that Jesus sent out Judas to preach and cast out demons and Judas was not a believer? That really is stretching my Gospel imagination!

designBlue-smaHe was one of Jesus’ sheep;

designBlue-sma The Spirit of the heavenly Father spoke through Judas;

designBlue-sma God the Father was Judas’s God.

designBlue-sma Then Satan entered into Judas (and the rest is history).

It is entirely biblical to say that a believer who was chosen by Jesus, who was one of Jesus’ sheep, who had the Spirit of the Father speaking through him, eventually allowed Satan to enter him.

It is preposterous that this person could state that a poster on a Christian forum is promoting heresy when the Scriptures declare these facts, including the fact of Satan entering Judas – a called one, follower, preacher and exorcist for Jesus.

Notes

 

[1] Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Does Matthew 11:13 support election and reprobation?’ Hammster#22, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7779586-3/ (Accessed 13 October 2013).

[2] OzSpen#29, ibid.

[3] Ask Seek Knock#20, ibid.

 
Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 12 November 2015.

Who hardened Pharaoh’s heart?

Stone Heart

(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

Does God deterministically, fatalistically harden any people so that they are unable to respond to God? This has become a very controversial topic in Calvinistic-Arminian discussions, as will be evident as this article unfolds.

It is expected that:

cubed-iron-sm A Calvinist would favour God deterministically causing the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart: ‘while it is said, for instance, that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, it is also said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15; 8:32; 9:34). One description is given from the divine viewpoint, the other is given from the human viewpoint. God is ultimately responsible for the hardening of the heart in that He permits it to occur, and the inspired writer in graphic language simply says that God does it; but never are we to understand that God is the immediate and efficient cause’ (Loraine Boettner, Unconditional election, Reprobation).

cubed-iron-sm An Arminian to agree to God and Pharaoh working together on the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. An example is:

‘The same is true of God in his dealings with Pharaoh. God did not change Pharaoh’s heart to make him want to kill the Hebrews. Pharaoh already wanted to kill them. What God did was give Pharaoh the courage to follow through with what he already desired to do. Pharaoh was an evil man, but he was also timid and fearful of the Hebrews and their God. God simply gave Pharaoh the tenacity to follow through with the desires of his evil heart (Wesleyan Arminian, March 9, 2011).

What happened to Pharaoh? Who was it that hardened Pharaoh’s heart? We have two contrasting sets of verses that we will examine in this table:

Who hardened Pharaoh’s heart?

God hardened Pharaoh’s heart Pharaoh’s heart was hardened Pharaoh hardened his own heart
Exodus 4:21, ‘And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go”’ (ESV).[1]Ex 7:3, ‘But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt’.

Ex 9:12, ‘But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses’.

Ex 10:1, ‘Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them’.

Ex 10:20, ‘But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go’.

Ex 10:27, ‘But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go’.

Ex 11:10, ‘Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land’.

Ex 14:4, ‘And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord.” And they did so’.

Ex 14:8, ‘And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued the people of Israel while the people of Israel were going out defiantly’.

 Exodus 7:13-14, ‘Still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the Lord had said. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is hardened; he refuses to let the people go’.Ex 7:22, ‘But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts. So Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the Lord had said’.

Ex 9:7, ‘And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not one of the livestock of Israel was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go’.

 Exodus 8:15, ‘But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the Lord had said’.Ex 8:32, ‘But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go’.

Ex 9:34-35, ‘But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. 35 So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people of Israel go, just as the Lord had spoken through Moses’.

1 Samuel 6:6, ‘Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? After he had dealt severely with them, did they not send the people away, and they departed?’

Romans 9:17-18, ‘For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills’.

Do we have contradictory messages here?

clip_image002 The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

clip_image002[1] Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.

clip_image002[2] Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Let’s check out these charges.

A. Determinism or choice?

This is how it played out on a large Christian forum to which I have contributed since 2005. A Lutheran wrote:

Been going around with Calvinist(s) for almost 3 decades regarding Rom.9:21. They assert the sovereignty which from the same fallen lump of humanity decreed and shaped some to salvation and decreed and shaped some to damnation where I assert such a sovereignty which is contrary to God’s very nature as agape does not exist.[2]

I replied, ‘Have you had any discussions with them of the Hebrew thinking on the potter and the clay in Rom 9:21 and the parable of the potter and clay in Jeremiah 18?’[3] The Lutheran responded:

Our Lord had an uncomfortable discussion with me, ie, I didn’t construe Rom.9:21 with Jer.18. Good job! The unlimited power of God over mankind is exercised according to man’s conduct, not according to a decretum absolutum or unchangeable determination.

Most of my discussions have been with modern Lutherans, ie, against their post-1930 unionized modernization; however God impacted one Calvinist, not so recent, with the true interpretation of agape a little over 5 years ago and he’s available of course, ie, haven’t done too well with our Christian brothers Calvinist.[4]

My comeback was:[5]

You have taken some of your language from Keil & Delitzsch’s commentary on Jeremiah 18:6-10:

In Jer 18:6-10 the Lord discloses to the prophet the truth lying in the potter’s treatment of the clay. The power the potter has over the clay to remould, according to his pleasure, the vessel he had formed from it if it went wrong; the same power God possesses over the people of Israel. This unlimited power of God over mankind is exercised according to man’s conduct, not according to a decretum absolutum or unchangeable determination. If he pronounces a people’s overthrow or ruin, and if that people turn from its wickedness, He repeals His decree (Jer 18:7.); and conversely, if He promises a people welfare and prosperity, and if that people turn away from Him to wickedness, then too He changes His resolve to do good to it (Jer 18:9.) [in my hard copy edition it is Keil n d:295, emphasis added]

So are you saying that you have had some success in presenting this view of the potter and the clay with Lutherans? It is interesting that you have not had a similar response with brother Calvinists. Any idea why?

B. Potter and clay connection

I find the Jewish thinking of the potter and the clay between Rom 9:21 and Jeremiah 18 to be significantly strong and helped me in my hermeneutics of Romans 9.

I was originally alerted to this potter and clay connection between Rom 9:21 and Jeremiah 18 by Norman Geisler in his comments on Rom 9:21. He wrote:

The image this conjures up in a Western mind is often a deterministic, if not fatalistic, one where they have no choice but are overpowered by God…. However, a Hebrew mind would not think this way, knowing the parable of the potter from Jeremiah 18. For in this context the basic lump of clay will either be built up or torn down by God, depending on Israel’s moral response to God. For the prophet says emphatically, ‘If that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned’ (18:8). Thus, the unrepentant element of Israel becomes a ‘vessel for dishonour’ and the repentant group a ‘vessel for honour’ (Geisler 1999:90, emphasis in original).

The Luther’s response was that he did borrow his statement from Keil and Delitzsch’s commentary. Then he stated,

A Calvinist prior to the last one was a young 30 year old, I’m well over 70, and he was in profound shock when I put forward just a simple old outdated Lutheran definition of agape: The object intelligently understood with a higher divine intelligent purpose where both Calvinist and modern Lutherans reject of course. A few days latter he contacted me saying he couldn’t find fault thus opened up Rom.8 & 9 where he become ‘floored’ having to sit down. My point over a simple interpretation,, ie a paradigm shift would send them to an early grave.[6]

Гончар - клипарт в векторе / векторное изображение

 

 

 

(Courtesy: vector-images)

C. Jewish understanding of the potter and the clay

As a result of this link that I understand between the meaning of God and nation as the potter and the clay in Jeremiah 18 – and its application to Romans 9:21 – I was engaged in various interactions with Calvinists on this forum. They did not want to accept that the potter and the clay in the Jewish worldview did not mean that God the determinist was in action with no thought of human responsibility by way of response. The following are some gleanings from what I wrote:[7]

clip_image004 The God who can absolutely choose the nations of Jacob (Israelites) over Esau, who could absolutely choose the incarnation and passion-resurrection, is absolutely able to affirm that ‘if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it’ (Jer 18:8 ESV)

This God can absolutely choose to grant salvation to these: ‘If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved’ (Rom 10:9 ESV). He is utterly able to involve human beings in the choice.

clip_image004[1] The simple point I was raising in comparing Rom 9:21 with Jeremiah 18 was to show how a Jew (Paul) would understand the potter and the moulding of the clay analogy. God moulding the clay would not take place without the nation (the clay) also being involved. See Jeremiah 18:8, ‘and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it’ (ESV). If the nation turns from evil (human responsibility), God would relent and not send the disaster that He intended.

There is no autocratic determinism in God’s actions in the Jewish thinking re potter and clay. Paul was a Jew and was coming from this framework of the potter and the clay of Jeremiah 18.[8]

clip_image004[2] You are still missing my point. Perhaps I’m not communicating with clarity.

Paul, as a Jew, would not be using the potter and clay example without his the Jewish (God’s) understanding of the clay’s responsibility (as in Jeremiah 18) in the hands of the potter.

God did not let Israel off the hook as the potter. If the clay (Israel) responded, God would relent from his threatened disaster. He was not a deterministic God in action according to Jeremiah 18.

Therefore, Romans 9 is written from within the Jewish framework/worldview that Paul endorsed. No matter who the audience was, the potter and clay analogy was not written as a deterministic potter with the clay not responding to arrive at the final result. That’s how it was for the Jewish worldview.

What you seem to be promoting here (and many Calvinists that I interact with try to do it) is a Western world imposition of determinism of God’s actions in Romans 9.

The Jews do not see the potter and the clay that way, as Jeremiah 18 demonstrates. It matters not whether Paul is addressing individuals or nations. The Jewish worldview was that God and human responsibility (whether national or individual) go together. In my understanding, it’s our Western world that wants to see determinism here.[9]

clip_image004[3] I do pay attention to the details when I read Scripture and that applies to the Hebrews’ worldview of the potter and the clay. There was no deterministic God in action (that seems to be Western thinking), but the God who requires human responsibility, whether that be nation or individual.

Your presuppositions seem to be clouding your understanding of God, the potter, and the nation or individual as the clay. God is not the determinist in the Jewish understanding of the potter and the clay.[10]

clip_image004[4] This is a red herring.

You want me to go on your tangent when you don’t seem to want to understand the Israelite worldview and God’s understanding that he gave them of the potter and the clay throughout the OT and especially in Jeremiah 18.

God hardened Pharaoh’s heart at the same time as Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

To further understand God, the potter, and the nation/human being as the clay from a Jewish worldview (which was the apostle Paul’s background) – the sovereignty of God and the human responsibility of human beings – see the article, ‘Who Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart?‘ by Dave Miller & Kyle Butt.[11]

clip_image004[5] No matter how much I go over and over this in stating the Jewish (and Paul’s Jewish) worldview on the potter and the clay, exemplified in Jeremiah 18, you don’t seem to want to understand what I’m saying about what that means for Romans 9:21 and the Jewish view of the potter and clay.

The image you seem to be wanting me to see is something coming out of the Western mindset of God, the determinist, with your language, ‘he can make anything he wants’.

That is not how the Hebrews understood the potter and the clay analogy from Jeremiah 18 and this applied to how Paul used the analogy in Rom 9:21.

In the Jeremiah 18 example, the nation of Israel would be built up or torn down, depending on its response to God. Jeremiah 18:8 makes this clear: ‘And if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it’ (ESV).

So, God the potter is not God the determinist with Israel. God’s will for the nation is determined by whether it turns from evil or not. If it – taking human responsibility – turns from evil, God will relent.

That’s God’s understanding of the potter and clay example and that’s how Paul understands it as a Jew who is writing. He would not see it as God the determinist. Human co-operation was part of the plan of God.

This has been God’s requirement since the beginning of time when he did not deterministically require man to sin. God commanded the man, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’ (Gen 2:16-17 ESV).

God did not command: ‘You have only one option – you must eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’.

The potter and the clay analogy, from God’s perspective, is not a promotion of determinism. A human moral response is required.
You ask: ‘Do you see the difference between Paul’s analogy and Jeremiah’s analogy being two different times in the Potter’s creation process?’

No, I don’t. That’s because for the Jewish worldview from which Paul writes, God is not the determinist. God requires human response, whether that be national or personal.[12]

clip_image004[6] I observed: ‘God does not harden Pharaoh’s heart without Pharaoh hardening his own heart.’.[13] A reply was, ‘How about in Exodus 4:21? Had Pharaoh hardened his heart already?’[14]

clip_image004[7] I replied:[15]

That is but one example [Exodus 4:21] of a summary of the actions regarding Pharaoh’s hardening of his heart.
Justin Taylor has provided this summary of ‘the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart’:

Here is a quick run-down of the key biblical data:

  • Three times Yahweh declares that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 14:4).
  • Six times Yahweh actually hardens Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 9:12; 10:1; 10:20; 10:27; 11:10; 14:8).
  • Seven times the hardening is expressed as a divine passive with Yahweh as the implied subject, i.e., Pharaoh’s heart “was hardened” by Yahweh (Ex. 7:13; 7:14; 7:22; 8:19; 9:7; 9:35; 14:5).
  • And three times we are told that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15; 8:32; 9:34).

Most certainly let God be God. I agree wholeheartedly. But we need the elements of God’s revelation that he has supplied in the above verses and not one verse only that you supplied of Ex 4:21.

clip_image004[8] The Lutheran contributor provided this helpful insight:

Just to bring a little more clarity: Rom.9:18 via Mr. Chemnitz, Matthias Loy, and Keil summarized: Ten times Exodus reports that Pharaoh hardened himself; then, only in consequence of this self-hardening, we read ten times that God hardened this self-hardened man.

Then Mr. Loy wraps up with something like after five plagues Pharaoh hardened his heart progressively; then after the sixth God’s hardening set in (Exod.9:12). After the seventh it is again Pharaoh (Exod.9:35); then it is God who hardened, but now in complete tragedy (Exod.10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 5).

I agree with all the former, and personally accountable for any discripancies (sic) in Exod., ie, my backyard.[16]

 

D. God and human beings collaborate in causation

clip_image004[9]You do not seem to understand how the Jewish worldview understood the potter and clay analogy. God was not the determinist who acted without human response and responsibility. God’s method started in the Garden of Genesis 2 and it will not change throughout human history.

That’s what the potter and clay analogy teaches, but a Western worldview wants to make it mean a deterministic God, but Jeremiah 18 makes it clear that that is not how Yahweh understands his actions in human history, whether on nations or individuals.[17]

clip_image004[10] A Calvinist wrote:

The NEB[18] reads thus,

8:15 He became obdurate
8:32 Once again Pharaoh became obdurate
9:34 So Pharaoh remained obstinate

***These do NOT necessarily infer that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.***
The NEB seems to be more in line with the English sub-text of the Online Hebrew Interlinear which does not indicate that Pharaoh acted upon himself. In fact, 9:34 in the Interlinear suggests that Pharaoh remained obstinate because YHWH was adding to his sin and making his heart hardened.

and he [YHWH] is adding to the sin of [Pharaoh] and he [YHWH] is making heavy heart-of-him [Pharaoh] Brackets mine.[19]

My reply[20] was that Keil & Delitzsch’s OT commentary, based on the Hebrew, does not agree with this New English Bible translation that he was promoting. Keil & Delitzsch state regarding Exodus 8:15,

‘Though Jehovah had thus manifested Himself as the Almighty God and Lord of the creation, Pharaoh did not keep his promise; but when he saw that there was breathing-time … relief from an overpowering pressure), literally, as soon as he “got air” he hardened his heart, so that he did not hearken to Moses and Aaron’ (Keil & Delitzsch n d:482).

Whether the language is ‘obdurate’ or ‘hardened’, the issue does not change. God did not make Pharaoh’s heart obdurate/hardened without the free choice of Pharaoh hardening his own heart. We know that ‘Pharaoh’s heart was hardened’ or ‘grew hard’ (Ex 7:13) the more that God pressured Pharaoh.

We know that the same sun that hardens clay also melts wax. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in a like manner. If Pharaoh had received God’s warnings and acted on them, his heart would not have been hardened.

clip_image004[11] Part of what Lutheran commentator, R C H Lenski, wrote about Romans 9:18 was:

‘Ten times Exodus reports that Pharaoh hardened himself; then, only in consequence of this self-hardening, we read ten times that God hardened this self-hardened man…. The door of mercy is not shut at once on the self-hardened so that they crash into the locked door with a bang. We might rush to close it thus. God’s mercy closes it gradually and is ready to open it wide again at the least show of repentance in answer to his mercy; and not until all the warnings of the gradually closing door are utterly in vain does the door sink regretfully into its lock.

In Exod. 4:21 the Lord tells Moses the final outcome: “I will harden his heart”; and “all those wonders” refers to all of them that Moses was to do before Pharaoh. After five plagues Pharaoh hardened his heart progressively: then after the sixth God’s hardening sets in (Exod. 9:12). After the seventh it is again Pharaoh (Exod. 9:35); then it is God who hardened but now in complete tragedy (Exod. 10:20, 27: 11:10; 14:4,5). The history of his hardening certainly speaks for itself. Pharaoh wanted none of the mercy for himself and for his own nation and with all his might intended to block the plans of that mercy with regard to Israel. The case of the Jews was even worse, for all the mercy was covenanted to be theirs, and they did not only refuse it and crucify the Christ but intended to prevent all other men from receiving this mercy (Matt. 23:13)’ (Lenski 1936:617).

clip_image004[12] [21]The prediction that God would harden Pharaoh’s heart was before the hardening happened (Ex 4:21).

Exodus 4 and 7 give some reasons why God would harden Pharaoh’s heart after Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

When you leave out Pharaoh’s responsibility in what he did to Israel and to God and in the hardening of his own heart, you leave out a valuable part of the biblical evidence and make God a determinist.

Since Genesis 2, we know that God gives human beings, starting with the first man, the ability to say yes or no to God. It started with God giving man the ability to affirm or reject the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This God-given ability is affirmed throughout the OT and the NT.

The unchanging God has not changed his view on the need of human beings to respond to or reject God. A classical OT example is in Joshua 24:15,

But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” (NIV, emphasis added)

From Genesis to Revelation, God has not changed his theology on the responsibility of human beings to respond to God’s commands before He announces the final decision.
If God were the determinist, it would have been determined in Genesis 2 and the first man would have had no choice. It wasn’t.

clip_image004[13] A person stated: ‘If this be the case, then please explain Ex 5:7-9 and Moses’ recognition of God as the causal agent in 5:22’.[22]

My response was:[23]

I find this to be such a basic question with a straight forward answer. The sovereign God of the universe causes many things to happen, but He does not do it without human involvement.

I write this on 22 November 2013, the 50th anniversary of the assassination of USA president, John F Kennedy. Was it God who deterministically caused it or was Lee Harvey Oswald involved in the cause?[24]

Did God deterministically cause the September 11 2001 disaster in the USA or were human beings involved in the cause?

Did God deterministically cause the slaughter of Australian, New Zealand and other soldiers on the Gallipoli Peninsular on 25 April 1915 in World War I, or were soldiers and others the cause of the slaughter?

Did God deterministically cause the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart or was Pharaoh involved in the cause of his own hardening? God works with human beings to bring about God’s ultimate decisions in the world. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but he did not do it without Pharaoh’s hardening his own heart and resisting God.

See the article, ‘An exegetical and theological consideration of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9’ (G K Beale, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’ (Trinity Journal, 5NS, 1984, pp. 129-154) for further insight into this controversial topic.

Works consulted

Geisler, N 1999. Chosen but free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Keil, C F n d. Commentary on the Old Testament: Jeremiah, Lamentations, in C F Keil & F Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol 8 (2 vols in 1). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company. Jeremiah available online at: http://www.studylight.org/com/kdo/view.cgi?bk=23

Keil, C F & Delitzsch, E n d: Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, vol 1 (3 vols in 1). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Lenski, R C H 1936. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (limited edition, based on 1936 Lutheran Book Concern; assigned 1945 to The Wartburg Press, assigned 1961 to Augsburg Publishing House).

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version of the Bible (ESV).

[2] Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Romans 9’, shturt678 #341, 19 November 2013, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7785192-35/ (Accessed 22 November 2013, emphasis in original).

[3] Ibid., OzSpen #343.

[4] Ibid., shturt678 #344.

[5] OzSpen #366, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7785192-37/ (Accessed 22 November 2013).

[6] Ibid, shturt678 #367.

[7] This is beginning at ibid., OzSpen #369. There will be quite a bit of repeat in these responses as some Calvinists do not want to accept this view, so they raise all kinds of red herrings to try to distract me onto their way of thinking. I maintained my stance of God who is not the fatalistic, deterministic, autocrat who makes personal salvation decisions without the participation of human beings and their free will.

[8] Ibid., OzSpen #372.

[9] OzSpen #376, http://www.christianforums.com/t7785192-38/.

[10] OzSpen #378, http://www.christianforums.com/t7785192-38/

[11] Ibid., OzSpen #379.

[12] OzSpen #382, http://www.christianforums.com/t7785192-39/.

[13] Ibid., OzSpen #383.

[14] Ibid., Charis kai dunamis #384.

[15] Ibid., OzSpen #386.

[16] Ibid., shturt678 #389, emphasis in original.

[17] Ibid., OzSpen #393, http://www.christianforums.com/t7785192-40/ (Accessed 22 November 2013).

[18] NEB = New English Bible.

[19] The Boxer #391, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7785192-40/.

[20] Ibid., OzSpen #398.

[21] Ibid., OzSpen #414, http://www.christianforums.com/t7785192-42/#post64536294 (Accessed 22 November 2013).

[22] Ibid., Charis kai Dunamis #413.

[23] Ibid., OzSpen #416, http://www.christianforums.com/t7785192-42/#post64536294 (Accessed 22 November 2013).

[24] See Stephen Smith 2013. ‘Accused JFK assassin is arrested, then gunned down’ (CBS News, November 24, 2013, available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-assassination-suspect-lee-harvey-oswald-is-arrested-then-gunned-down/ – accessed 24 December 2013).

 
Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 12 November 2015.