Category Archives: Arminianism

Choice or determinism in salvation

Joshua 24:15: ‘Choose this day whom you will serve’

Spencer D Gear

It is common in online forums for Calvinists to push the line that people do not have the choice to choose to serve the Lord God or Jesus, or to reject him. This happened in one thread where I contribute.

There was this statement by a noted Calvinist on the forum: ‘Israel didn’t choose to be chosen by God. God took it upon himself to choose them’.[1]

My brief response was:[2]

You seem to be overlooking Joshua 24:14-15,

14 “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, 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.” (ESV)

Israel has a choice as to which God/gods they would serve. That’s Bible!

The reply was: ‘What was the list of options Joshua told his listeners to choose between, in that verse?’[3]

I replied: [4]

What was the list of options Joshua told his listeners to choose between, in that verse?

The text is clear. Please read it: Choose…

‘whom you will serve’;

‘the gods your fathers served’, OR

‘the gods of the Amorites;

‘As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord’ (Joshua 24:15).

The ability of contrary choice is given by God to all people. And it started in the garden with Adam in choosing to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil OR not to choose such.

Why do you find this so difficult to understand when the Scriptures are crystal clear? Well, they are crystal clear in my hermeneutical understanding.

This fellow came back:

Joshua told them to choose from between their false gods. He never asked them to choose between their false gods, or the Real God.

He didn’t say “choose this day whom you will server, whether the gods of the Amorites, or the gods your fathers served, or the Lord”.

thus, you are using that verse out of context. you are using it in application for something it doesn’t even support.[5]

Is there real choice for unbelievers and Christians in things of God?

ChristArt

I responded to the above person:[6]

That is not what it says in context. Joshua 24:14-17 reads:

14 “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, 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.”
16 Then the people answered, “Far be it from us that we should forsake the Lord to serve other gods, 17 for it is the Lord our God who brought us and our fathers up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, and who did those great signs in our sight and preserved us in all the way that we went, and among all the peoples through whom we passed (ESV, emphasis added)

Note the points in context:

‘Fear the Lord and serve him’ (v 14). This is a command to fear the Lord God.
‘Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord’ (v 14). So their fathers served foreign ‘gods’ and they were commanded to fear the Lord God and to put away foreign Gods. The choice was between the Lord God and false gods. Your charge against me is thus shown to be false.
The v. 15 makes the choice clear: Serve the Lord OR the gods your fathers served OR the gods of the Amorites. They were told that they had a choice to make. That’s what this verse states. It’s a similar choice to what Adam had in the garden to choose between the tree of knowledge of good or evil. He chose the evil and we’ve had to struggle with sinful vs godly choices ever since. That’s Bible.
The people chose to not forsake the Lord and serve other gods (v 16). They had a choice. The ‘choose this day whom you will serve’ was as real for them as it is for us today.
Then evidence is given for the nature of the actions of the Lord God and how he had acted on their behalf in the past. Interesting, isn’t it?, of God providing evidence of his actions on their behalf.

I find this person’s charge that Joshua ‘never asked them to choose between their false gods, or the Real God’, to be false – based on the biblical evidence from Joshua 24.

Spin doctors

(courtesy WikiHow)

There are various other grips in leg spin bowling in cricket (wrong-un, flipper, stock ball) that are designed to deceive the batsman. When people speak spin, they use terminology and description designed to deceive the listener in some way. In my country of Australia it is standard to hear politicians being interviewed and no matter what the question, the standard or populist party line is promoted. When politicians do this kind of thing in interviews, some commentators call it ‘spin’.

Andrew Bolt’s articles often call politicians for the ‘spin’ they use to try to deceive listeners. See:

‘Rudd’s spin just cooks that goose worse’ (Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun).

‘Making Indonesia spin Labor’s lines’ (Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun).

‘Mundine slams Rudd’s “political negative spin”’ (Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun).

See the articles:

Political spin undermines democracy (Sydney Morning Herald);

Political spin: politicians, journalists and spin doctors (BBC interview);

Spin doctor exodus as political wheel turns (The Australian);

Political spin checklist (ABC, The Drum).

Spin doctors in Christianity

This is the kind of thing that some Christians can get up to when promoting a certain theological perspective. And that’s what it is because, no matter what the interviewer asks, the person interviewed gives the same old, pre-programmed answer that the party line requires. It is an unthoughtful response that does not answer the question asked by the interviewed. It simply goes onto the party line and avoids dealing with the issues raised. See:

Christian spin doctors (Know it’s true);

Debunking The ‘War On Christianity’: The Dangers Of Out-Of-Control Spin (Americans United);

A postmodern spin on religion: Pagan Christianity (Albert Mohler, MP3);

Mortification of Spin is the “best Christian Podcast ever” – Frank Turk, blogger and speaker (Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals);

Some can get quite brazen in what they call ‘spin’ in association with Christianity. One fellow who calls himself, SinfulSaint, wrote: ‘Apologetics is the art of reframing a belief so that it becomes believable; it’s spin doctoring for religion. I hate to inform you good folks but you all are tools of the spin doctors’ (Topix, ‘Christian Spin Doctors’, SinfulSaint#1). An immediate response was, ‘Careful, your ignorance is showing:-) I’d verture a guess you are not a member of your local Tea Party:-)’ [BarnsWeb]. SinfulSaint’s reply was:

According to the Bible, the sun revolves around the Earth.(Job 9:7 and Joshua 10:12-13, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 96:10, 2 Samuel 22:16) I’m sorry to disappoint you folks; the sun does not revolve around the earth.

Per the Bible, the Earth is flat (Job 28:24, Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11). The last time I looked, it was round.

Per the Bible, the Earth has pillars (Job 9:6, 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 26:11, Psalms 75:3). Pillars? No comment needed; speaks for itself.

“And the hare, because he cheweth the cud he is unclean unto you.”(Lev. 11:6). Okay, maybe Rabbits evolved a bit since then. Rabbits do not chew their cud. They “re’chew” partially digested droppings in the early morning hours to get more nutrients out of them (SinfulSaint#4).

If you read these verses in, say, the English Standard Version, you’ll find that they do not say what SinfulSaint claims. So SinfulSaint is really using a straw man logical fallacy.

However, I find Calvinists and Arminians can use ‘spin’ on Christian forums. They can give the pre-programmed position of their theological positions to put on an acceptable face for the reader, without engaging in a reasoned response. Thoughtful Christians requires Christians to be renewed in their minds so that they can think Christianly. This also means giving a fair and reasonable interpretation of the biblical text. This is best done when the interpreter has a knowledge of the original languages of Hebrew and Aramaic for the OT and koine Greek for the NT. However, a comparison of excellent modern translations can help to gain the possible differences of interpretation from the original text. I recommend:

English Standard Version;

New Revised Standard Version;

New American Standard Bible;

New King James Version (unfortunately it uses the Textus Receptus for the Greek text);

New International Version; and

New Living Translation.

Thoughtful Christianity

ChristArt

Christians not only have a new spiritual heart because of their regeneration in Christ, but also they are called upon to have a renewed mind. Here is a sample of NT and OT verses from the ESV to encourage us to ‘think about these things’:

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things’.

Romans 12:1-2, ‘I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect’.

2 Corinthians 4:16, ‘So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day’.

Psalm 119:11, ‘I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you’.

Ephesians 4:23, ‘And to be renewed in the spirit of your minds’,

1 Peter 1:13, ‘Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ’.

2 Corinthians 10:4-5, ‘For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ’.

John 8:32, ‘And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’ (emphases added in the above verses).

Thoughtful Christianity includes increasing and growing in renewing of the mind,. This is required for all Christians who want to mature in the faith. I find it helpful to have a person with whom I can be accountable to cause me to think about my faith. Be warned! They are as scarce as hens’ teeth to find. Most of the time I have to rely on solid evangelical apologists, theologians and exegetes to help me with the renewing of my mind! My experience is that thinking Christianity that learns to articulate the faith as it relates to issues in our world, is in short supply.

I read both friends and enemies (including religious opposition) of the faith. The enemies include the fellows of the Jesus Seminar, including John Dominic Crossan and Robert Funk. Other opponents of the faith are Albert Schweitzer, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann, Sir Lloyd Geering, Barbara Thiering, Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong. I read them all, plus many more opponents of Christianity or modernist and postmodernist theologians or pastor-teachers.

These Christian scholars have been of considerable help: Paul Barnett (history), N T Wright (historical Jesus), D A Carson (exegesis, postmodernism), R C H Lenski (NT exegesis), Ravi Zacharias (apologist), Henry C Thiessen (theologian), William Lane Craig (apologist), Norman Geisler(theologian, apologist), Anthony Thiselton (historical Jesus, postmodernism), Kevin Vanhoozer (historical Jesus, postmodernism), Ben Witherington (historical Jesus), Craig Evans (historical Jesus), Gordon Lewis & Bruce Demarest (integrative theology), and other thoughtful evangelicals.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Calvinist Arminian dialog’, Skala#65, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7773893-7/ (Accessed 30 September 2013).

[2] OzSpen#67, ibid.

[3] Skala#76, ibid.

[4] OzSpen#79, ibid.

[5] Skala#83, ibid.

[6] OzSpen#99, ibid.

Did Arminius refute eternal security?

‘I never taught that a true believer can either totally or finally fall away from the faith and perish’ (Jacob Arminius)

Jacobus Arminius, Dutch theologian and professor in theology at the University of Leiden.

Jacob Arminius (courtesy About.com)

By Spencer D Gear PhD

Jacob Arminius, the founder of what has become known as Arminianism, wrote that it is “impossible for believers, as long as they remain believers to decline from salvation” (Arminius 1977:281). However, he admitted that at one time he did say “That it was possible for believers finally to decline or fall away from the faith and salvation” (Arminius 1977:281).

Perseverance of the Saints

openclipart

It is worthy of quoting him at some length in his segment on ‘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 (Arminius 1977:254, emphasis in original).

Assurance of Salvation

openclipart

He had this to write about ‘The Assurance of Salvation’:

With regard to the certainty [or assurance] of salvation, my opinion is, that it is possible for him who believes in Jesus Christ to be certain and persuaded, and, if his heart condemn him not, he is now in reality assured, that he is a son of God, and stands in the grace of Jesus Christ. Such a certainty is wrought in the mind, as well by the action of the Holy Spirit inwardly actuating the believer and by the fruits of faith, as from his own conscience, and the testimony of God’s Spirit witnessing together with his conscience. I also believe, that it is possible for such a person, with an assured confidence in the grace of God and his mercy in Christ, to depart out of this life, and to appear before the throne of grace, without any anxious fear or terrific dread: and yet this person should constantly pray, “O lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant!”

But, since “God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things,” and since a man judges not his own self—yea, though a man know nothing by himself, yet is he not thereby justified, but he who judgeth him is the Lord, (1 John iii. 19; 1 Cor. iv. 3,) I dare not [on this account] place this assurance [or certainty] on an equality with that by which we know there is a God, and that Christ is the saviour of the world. Yet it will be proper to make the extent of the boundaries of this assurance, a subject of inquiry in our convention (Arminius 1977:255).

Can Christian believers fall away from the faith?

openclipart

In his ‘Apology or Defence’ (Articles I & II) he wrote:

A distinction ought to be made between power and action. For it is one thing to declare, that “it is possible for the faithful to fall away from faith and salvation,” and it is another to say, that “they do actually fall away.” This distinction is of such extensive observance, that even antiquity itself was not afraid of affirming, concerning the elect and those who were to be saved, “that it was possible for them not to be saved;” and that “the mutability by which it was possible for them not to be willing to obey God, was not taken away from them,” although it was the opinion of the ancients, “that such persons never would in reality be damned.” On this very subject, too, the greater part of our own doctors lay down a difference. For they say, “that it is possible for such persons to fall away, if their nature, which is inclined to lapses and defection, and if the temptations of the world and Satan, be the only circumstances taken into consideration: but that they will not finally fall away, because God will bring back to himself his own elect before the end of life.” If any one asserts, “that it is not possible for believers, in consideration of their being elect persons, finally to fall away from salvation, because God has decreed to save them,” I answer, the decree concerning saving does not take away the possibility of damning, but it removes damnation itself. For “to be actually saved,” and “a possibility of not being saved,” are two things not contrary to each other, but in perfect agreement.

I therefore add, that in this way I have hitherto discriminated these two cases. And at one time I certainly did say, with an explanation subjoined to it, “that it was possible for believers finally to decline or fall away from faith and salvation.” But at no period have I asserted, “that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation.” This article, therefore, is ascribed to one who is not its author; and it is another offense against historical veracity.

I subjoin, that there is a vast difference between the enunciation of these two sentences. (1.) “It is possible for believers to decline from the FAITH ;” and (2.) “It is possible for believers to decline from SALVATION.” For the latter, when rigidly and accurately examined, can scarcely be admitted; it being impossible for believers, as long as they remain believers, to decline from salvation. Because, were this possible, that power of God would be conquered which he has determined to employ in saving believers. On the other hand, if believers fall away from the faith and become unbelievers, it is impossible for them to do otherwise than decline from salvation, that is, provided they still continue unbelievers. Therefore, whether this hypothesis be granted or not, the enunciation cannot be accurately expressed. For if this hypothesis (their perseverance in faith) be granted, they cannot decline; but if it be not granted, they cannot do otherwise than decline. (2.) But that first enunciation includes no hypothesis; and therefore an answer may be given to it simply, either that it is possible, or that it is impossible. For this cause, the second article ought to be corrected in the following manner: “It is possible for believers finally to fall away or decline from the faith;” or rather, “Some believers finally fall away and decline from the faith.” This being granted, the other can be necessarily inferred, “therefore they also actually decline from salvation.” Respecting the truth of this [Second] article, I repeat the same observations which I made about the First. For the following expressions are reciprocal to each other, and regular consequences: “Faith is peculiar to the elect,” and “believers do not finally fall away from the faith.” In like manner, “Faith is not peculiar to the elect,” and “Some believers finally decline from the faith” (Arminius 1977:280-282).

As a Reformed Arminian,

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

Works consulted:

Arminius J 1977. The Writings of James Arminius, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, also available at Christian Classics Ethereal Library at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works1.iv.i.html (Accessed 29 September 2013).

Jacob Arminius (courtesy Christian History Institute)

Controversies: Once saved, always saved

By Spencer D Gear

Razor

(image courtesy ChristArt)

It is predictable that in discussions on Christian themes online, that there will be a dialogue, pro and con, regarding eternal security (often called once saved, always saved – OSAS) or perseverance of the saints. Sometimes this discussion can become somewhat heated.

In fact, Roger Olson, an Arminian, is of the view that there will be continuing Calvinistic-Arminian conflict in Christian theology. He wrote:

Whatever the future of the story of Christian theology brings forth, it is bound to be interesting. It always has been. And there are as-yet unresolved issues for theological reformers to work on. The major one, of course, is the old debate between monergists and synergists over God’s relationship with the world. New light from God’s Word is badly needed as the extremes of process theology and resurgent Augustinian-Calvinism polarize Christian thought as never before. While I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, I predict (with fear and trembling) that this issue will be the all-consuming one in Christian theology in the twenty-first century and that new insights and suggestions for resolving it will come from non-Western Christian thinkers. All the options of Western (European and North American) thought seem to have been proposed and have led only to reactions rather than resolutions. If this particular problem of theology is ever to be solved—even in part—the crucial insights will almost certainly need to come from outside of Western culture, with its dualistic mindset that insists on seeing divine and human agencies as in competition with one another (Olson 1999:612).

Roger E Olson (Courtesy InterVarsity)

I encountered this and entered into some discussions with advocates of the OSAS position in a Christian online forum. Arminians have come under some provocative attacks (I write as a Reformed Arminian). Here are a couple of provocative examples:

(1) Kim Riddlebarger has stated, ‘Arminianism is not simply an alternative for evangelicals who are uncomfortable with certain doctrinal tenets of Calvinism.Taken to its logical conclusion, Arminianism is not only a departure from historic orthodoxy, but a serious departure from the evangel itself’ (Riddlebarger 1992:5, emphasis added).[1]

(2) Michael Horton has stated:

There will doubtless be Roman Catholics, Arminians, and others in Paradise who were saved by God’s grace even if they, like me, did not understand or appreciate that grace as much as they should have. Nevertheless, if we are going to still use “evangelical” as a noun to define a body of Christians holding to a certain set of convictions, it is high time we got clear on these matters. An evangelical cannot be an Arminian any more than an evangelical can be a Roman Catholic. The distinctives of evangelicalism were denied by Rome at the Council of Trent, by the Remonstrants in 1610, were confused and challenged by John Wesley in the eighteenth century, and have become either ignored or denied in contemporary “evangelicalism” (Horton 2013, emphasis added).[2]

Some do not want to use the dichotomy of synergism vs monergism. See: ‘Monergism Versus Synergism: Beware, Kobayashi Maru Ahead!’ (John Kebbel, Society of Evangelical Arminians). However, for plying these definitions apart, Terrance L Tiessen, wrote:

Calvinism is monergistic in its soteriology, as evidenced particularly in two points in the well known acronym, TULIP – unconditional election and irresistible (or efficacious) grace. These points identify salvation as God’s sovereign work, in which God chose to glorify himself by saving particular people, in Christ, without any conditions on their part except those which God himself efficaciously enables them to fulfill, so that salvation is God’s work from beginning to end, even though it does not come about without human response.

By contrast, though Arminians also insist that salvation is a work of God’s grace, God does not determine who will be saved by it. His prevenient grace enables people to meet the conditions (repentance, faith, and obedience) which they could never have met on their own, but whether or not that grace eventuates in their salvation is determined by the individuals, not by God. So Arminianism has been dubbed “synergistic.”

In both of these understandings of salvation, God’s grace is essential, and in both of them people are not saved apart from their response to God’s grace. But because God determines the outcome in the Calvinist construct, it has been called “monergistic,” though it is clear that God is not the only actor. The key point is that God is the decisive actor, the one whose action determines the outcome.[3]

In responding to an Arminian who wrote about the falling away of believers in Hebrews 6:4-6, a Calvinist, DeaconDean, wrote on a Christian Forums:

Let me put it another way.

Jesus said: “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” -John 10:29 (KJV)

If sin, causes you to come out of the Father’s hand, if you, choosing to sin, takes you out of the Father’s hand, and costs you your salvation, then God ceases to omnipotent (all powerful). Sin, and man (namely you) are able to overpower and take yourself from His care.

Now which is corect (sic)?

No man, not even yourself can take you out of God’s hand, or is sin and man more powerful than God?
Either Jesus and scriptures are correct, or Jesus told a lie and subsequently the scriptures lie also, which means sin and man are more powerful than God.[4]

Another responded, ‘The problem is: in this church age, once you are saved by God, there is no way YOU can unsave yourself no matter what you do’.[5] DeaconDean’s reply was, ‘Sure there is. Haven’t you read the thread? ’[6] I’d recommend a read of this online thread to see the back and forth between eternal security supporters – supporters of unconditional security – and those who believe in conditional eternal security for Christian believers, i.e. between Calvinists and Arminians.

My reply to DeaconDean[7], who cited the Calvinist, John Gill, on John 10:28, Kittel and others was:[8]

This is what happens when you read John 10:28-29 in isolation from the rest of John’s Gospel. It is true that ‘I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand…. no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand’ (emphasis added).

BUT this is what can happen. Take a read of John 15:6. This is in the context of being in the vine – God’s vine – and Jesus being the true vine and God the Father being the vinedresser (John 15:1). This is what John 15:6 states, ‘If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned’ (ESV).

The gracious power of God is comprehensively sufficient to protect every born-again Christian believer forever. But a believer can in the end be lost, because salvation is conditional. None of our enemies will be able to snatch us out of the Father’s/Jesus’ hands.
BUT … BUT, any Christians can turn from Jesus, enter into disbelief, commit apostasy and perish by wilful acts of their own. That’s what John 15:6 teaches.

Therefore, John 10:28-29 is not an absolute that guarantees once-saved-always-saved (which, by the way, is not biblical language; neither is it biblical theology – in my view). Eternal life is granted to those who continue to believe. We know this from verses in John such as John 3:36; 6:47,

‘Whoever believes [Gk present tense – continues believing] in the Son has [Gk present tense – continues to have] eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him’ (John 3:36 ESV).

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes [Gk present tense – continues to believe] has [Gk present tense – continues to have] eternal life (John 6:47 ESV).

Thus, eternal life only continues as long as a person continues to believe. He or she can commit apostasy by not continuing to believe in Christ for eternal life and repudiating belief in Jesus.

I know people for whom this has happened and is continuing to happen – apostasy – and they were once vibrant Christians.

John 10:28-29 cannot be read in isolation apart from John 3:36; 6:47 and 15:6.

I have to be honest with what the text says, based on the tenses of the original language.I do not think that this person will like this kind of news (and it shouldn’t be new news for him), but that is what the texts say. And have a guess what? FirstTimothy 1:19 and Hebrews 6:4-6 confirm that this can happen. People can continue to believe or to discontinue to belief. They then move from eternal life to eternal damnation. That’s how I see the Bible unfolding.

I have to be honest with the biblical text and in this case, with John’s Gospel.

I replied:[9]

So I respectfully disagree with your accessment. I do hope you mean assessment and not accessment. Accessment is not a word in my dictionary (also check Dictionary.com).

Also he wrote, ‘Now, regarding the Hebrews passage, I’m sure your familiar with Kittles?’ His name is spelled Kittel.

I agree with the Greek exegesis of Kittel (I have the 10 volumes of the Theological Dictionary that he co-edited with Gerhard Friedrich) where he explained that a person who commits apostasy cannot be brought again to repentance. That’s Bible!

See my detailed exposition of Hebrews 6:4-8 in my, ‘Once Saved, Always Saved or Once Saved, Lost Again? What you have cited from John Gill on Heb. 6:4-6 is not in agreement with the exegesis I have provided in my exposition.

I wrote, that John 10:28-29 should not be read in isolation from John 3:36; 6:47 and 15:6. What did I notice in his response? He provided not one word to refute the content of John 3:36; 6:47 and 15:6, which teach that eternal life is conditional on people continuing to believe. People will continue to have eternal life if they continue to believe and they continue to remain in the vine. These verses are contrary to the view this person was advocating.

In my understanding of the exegesis, a once saved, always saved view is not taught by these verses that require continuing belief to enter eternal life. And that is taught by John 3:16 as well, ‘whoever believes’ means ‘whoever continues to believe’ because the Greek for ‘believes’ is a present tense Greek participle, indicating continuing action. Thus affirming the other verses that I’ve cited from John that continuing / continuous believing is needed to enter and retain eternal life.

Thus, perseverance of the saints is a much more biblical description of the perspective in Scripture – as I understand the Greek present tense used in the verses I have mentioned – than a once saved, always saved view (based on my understanding of the Greek grammar of the meaning of the present tense).

In the Baptist church in which I was raised, I was taught the view this person was advocating of once saved, always saved. But my examination of these Scriptures has brought me to the view I am here sharing. I take seriously the Scriptural injunction:

‘Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers [and sisters], for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness’ (James 3:1 ESV)

The NLT and the new NIV correctly translate adelphoi as brothers and sisters, based on the Greek etymology This is shown in the New Living Translation and the latest NIV. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon confirms that ‘brother’ as in the singular adelphos means any believer, male or female. Arndt and Gingrich note that ‘Jesus calls everyone who is devoted to him brother Mt 12:50; Mk 3:25, esp. the disciples Mt 28:10; J 20:17. Hence gener. for those in such spiritual communion Mt 25:40; Hb 2:12 (Ps 21:23[22:22), 17 al’ (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:15-16).

So I respectfully come to a different conclusion to this person.

Conditional security in John’s Gospel

Another poster wrote:[10]

John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you ?abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
This shows the principle and is why in John 15:6 those branches that are burned do not abide in His word as opposed to those in v7.

John 15:6-7 If anyone does not abide in Me, ??he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. ?7? If you abide in Me, and My words ?abide in you, ?you ?will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you

My response was:[11]

Now let’s do some exegesis to obtain the meaning of John 8:31, which stated in full reads, ‘So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”’ (ESV).

‘Had believed’ is a perfect tense, active voice, participle. Thus it means that those believed in the past and had continuing results of believing. As for ‘abide’ it is an aorist subjunctive verb. It is the conditional subjunctive and a point action, but it needs to be combined with the perfect tense of ‘had believed’ to understand that the meaning is that these Jews had believed in Jesus but they had continuing results of their believing. As a result, they ‘are’ (present tense, continuous action) continuing to be his disciples.

Therefore, based on this exegesis of the Greek text, eternal security is based on continuing to be a disciple. This is not talking about once saved and no longer serving God. It is talking about once saved and continuing to be saved by continuing to believe. That’s why I find the language of ‘once saved, always saved’ to send a message that does not line up with the biblical message of continuing to believe to attain eternal life (as in John 3:16; 3:36; 6:47; 15:6).

John 15:6-7 affirms the need to continue to abide (believe) to remain in the vine.

His response was somewhat unexpected:[12]

After reading your comments here, without going back rereading all the earlier posts I am confused as to why we have disagreed. Other than these in v30 had believed just as Jesus had spoken in the preceding verses and later on in this chapter we see that it is not leading to their salvation. But as far as your other explanations in this post I would agree that saving faith is a one time event that needs not to be renewed but saving faith is a present tense action that will evidence itself in abiding in His word. God looks at the heart and even know the future so He is not sealing and unsealing His children. They are sealed unto the day of redemption. It is God holding on to us and not us holding on to God, Ps 37:23-24, God is the one performing the action of the holding on to us. That is why I agree with Paul when he said being fully persuaded that He who began the good work in you will perform it unto the end.

I’m not of the view that this fellow espouses on two items: (a) For eternal security, there is a need to continue to believe, and (2) It is possible for a genuine believer to commit apostasy.

So I replied:[13]

I’m not so sure that we are in agreement as I have provided verses to confirm that John 10:28-29 is in harmony with John 3:16; 3:36; 6:47; and 15:6 where believers are required to continue to believe to attain eternal life. Thus OSAS, in my understanding, is an improper explanation of this view as apostasy can be committed (1 Tim 1:19; Heb 6:4-6; 1 John 4:1-3).

Is it your understanding that a person can be generally saved, continue to follow Jesus, walk away from the faith and then commit apostasy? And the person who commits apostasy cannot be brought again to repentance (Heb 6:4-6). If this is your view, then we are on the same page. But is that your view?

But the OSAS is what I was raised on and I’ve rejected it because I do not find it taught with a consistent hermeneutic in Scripture.

Continuing belief needed for eternal security

I do wish my two friends who have committed apostasy would be able to return to repentance, but Hebrews 6:4-6 says that is not possible as “they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt” (6:6 ESV). Heb. 6:4 is adamant in its teaching about those who commit apostasy: “for it is impossible to restore again to repentance”. That’s not the way my limited understanding of compassion and mercy works. But that’s based on the absolute justice, empathy, love and compassion of the absolutely honest Almighty God.

I have an ultimate commitment to the Lord God Almighty who revealed His will in the infallible Scriptures (in the original languages).[14]

Let’s check out …

Richard C H Lenski, a Lutheran, on John 10:28-29

Lenski’s NT Commentaries (Courtesy Open Library)

John 10:28 in Lenski’s translation is, ‘And I will give them life eternal, and they shall in no wise perish forever, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand’ (Lenski 1943:754-755). Of this verse, Lenski wrote of the second half of the verse, beginning with ‘they shall in no wise perish forever’:

This is a double and direct promise; the doubling increases the emphasis. “To perish” is to be separated from God, life, and blessedness forever. John and Paul use especially the middle voice [i.e. meaning ‘for oneself’ – SDG] of the verb in this sense…. It is the opposite of being saved…. “Shall in no way perish” would itself be enough, the modifier “forever” is added pleonastically[15]: this dreadful act shall never occur…. This promise holds good from the moment of faith onward. The verb “to perish” never means “to suffer annihilation,” or to cease to exist.

The first part of the promise is stated from the viewpoint of the sheep: they shall never perish. The second part is from the viewpoint of Jesus and of any hostile being that might attack the sheep: No one shall snatch them out of his hand…. The “hand” of Jesus is his power. His gracious power is all-sufficient to protect every believer forever (Lenski 2001:756).

But wait a minute! Are there not New Testament passages that warn about the danger of a true believer falling away? Reading Lenski on John 10:28 it sounds like Jesus’ followers are saved forever and shall never ever experience anything that would cause them to lose their salvation. But that is not what he concludes from John 10:28. He continues, ‘However weak the sheep are, under Jesus they are perfectly safe. Yet a believer may after all be lost (15:6). Our certainty of eternal salvation is not absolute. While no foe of ours is able to snatch us from our Shepherd’s hand, we ourselves may turn from him and may perish wilfully of our own accord’ (Lenski 2001:756).

His translation of John 10:29 is, ‘My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand’ (Lenski 2001:757). He explained that ‘has given’ is in the perfect tense in Greek and ‘has its usual force: a past act when the Son entered on his mission and its abiding effect as long as that mission endures’. In addition, ‘while “greater” is broad, here it must refer especially to power: the Father exceeds in power every being arrayed against the sheep (Satan, demon spirits, human foes however mighty)’ (Lenski 2001:758).

But what about nobody ‘able to snatch us from our Shepherd’s hand’? Surely that sounds like a sine qua non to affirm once saved, always saved? Lenski explains:

After thus declaring the Father’s might, it might seem superfluous for Jesus to add, “and no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand,” for this is certainly self-evident. The reason for the addition lies far deeper. Jesus deliberately parallels what he says of himself, “no one shall snatch them out of my hand,” with what he says of his Father, “no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” The fact that he mentions the detail (“shall snatch”) with reference to himself is due to his being on his saving mission; that he mentions the possibility (“can snatch”) with reference to the Father is due to the Father’s institution of that mission. Both thus belong together; Father and Son, fact and possibility. Does the promise of Jesus, standing there in human form before the Jews, sound preposterous, that no one shall snatch his sheep out of his hand? To snatch them out of his hand is the same as snatching them out of the Father’s hand. Remember the relation of these two hands as his relation centers in the sheep (Lenski 2001:758-759, emphasis in original).

Lenski applies this understanding to John 10:30, his translation being, ‘I and the Father, we are one’. He explains that ‘what is thus prepared [in the preceding verse – SDG] is now pronounced in so many words: “I and the Father, we are one”. The equal power to protect the sheep is due to the equality of these two persons. This makes the mighty acts of equal protection perfectly plain. This makes the mighty acts of equal protection perfectly plain’ (Lenski 2001:759).

Lenski has already indicated that John 10:28-29 does not mean that eternal security is affirmed absolutely, ‘Our certainty of eternal salvation is not absolute. While no foe of ours is able to snatch us from our Shepherd’s hand, we ourselves may turn from him and may perish wilfully of our own accord’ (2001:756).

Conclusion

It is evident from these discussions in a Christian online forum that there was no movement by Calvinists affirming unconditional eternal security and my position as a Reformed Arminian, enunciating a conditional eternal security position. The view that one needs to continue to believe to guarantee eternal security (John 3:16; 3:36; 6:47; 15:6) did not make any impact on these people. It is also evident that some Calvinists, who are anti-Arminian (e.g. Riddlebarger & Horton) have doubts about Arminians being evangelical Christians and even align them with a heresy (Arianism).

There seem to be some aspects of Christian theology where there can be no reconciliation between Calvinists and Arminians. Roger Olson, an evangelical Arminian, claims that these include the nature of God and the understanding of free will. He wrote:

Contrary to popular belief, then, the true divide at the heart of the Calvinist-Arminian split is not predestination versus free will but the guiding picture of God: he is primarily viewed as either (1) majestic, powerful, and controlling or (2) loving, good, and merciful. Once the picture (blik) is established, seemingly contrary aspects fade into the background, are set aside as “obscure” or are artificially made to fit the system. Neither side absolutely denies the truth of the other’s perspective, but each qualifies the attributes of God that are preeminent in the other’s perspective. God’s goodness is qualified by his greatness in Calvinism, and God’s greatness is qualified by his goodness in Arminianism.

Arminians can live with the problems of Arminianism more comfortably than with the problems of Calvinism. Determinism and indeterminism cannot be combined; we must choose one or the other. In the ultimate and final reality of things, people either have some degree of self-determination or they don’t. Calvinism is a form of determinism. Arminians choose indeterminism largely because determinism seems incompatible with God’s goodness and with the nature of personal relationships. Arminians agree with Arminius, who stressed that “the grace of God is not ‘a certain irresistible force…. It is a Person, the Holy Spirit, and in personal relationships there cannot be the sheer over-powering of one person by another’” (in Olson 2006:73-74).

Therefore, Olson reaches the conclusion that

the continental divide between Calvinism and Arminianism, then, lies with different perspectives about God’s identity in revelation. Divine determinism creates problems in God’s character and in the God-human relationship that Arminians simply cannot live with. Because of their controlling vision of God as good, they are unable to affirm unconditional reprobation (which inexorably follows from unconditional election) because it makes God morally ambiguous at best. Denying divine determinism in salvation leads to Arminianism (Olson 2006:74).

It was Olson (2006:74, n. 21) who alerted me to what R C Sproul (1986:139-160) addressed the double-predestination issue. Sproul wrote:

DOUBLE predestination. The very words sound ominous. It is one thing to contemplate God’s gracious plan of salvation for the elect. But what about those who are not elect? Are they also predestined? Is there a horrible decree of reprobation? Does God destine some unfortunate people to hell?…

Unless we conclude that every human being is predestined to salvation, we must face the flip side of election. If there is such a thing as predestination at all, and if that predestination does not include all people, then we must not shrink from the necessary inference that there are two sides to predestination. It is not enough to talk about Jacob; we must also consider Esau (Sproul 1986:141, emphasis in original).

Sproul regard Romans 9:16 as fatal to Arminianism. He quotes the New King James Version, ‘So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy’. The ESV reads, ‘So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[16]but on God, who has mercy’. Sproul’s commentary is:

Though Paul is silent about the question of future choices here, he does not remain so. In verse 16 he makes it clear. “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” This is the coup de grace[17] to Arminianism and all other non-Reformed views of predestination. This is the Word of God that requires all Christians to cease and desist from views of predestination that make the ultimate decision for salvation rest in the will of man. The apostle declares: It is not of him who wills. This is in violent contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. This one verse is absolutely fatal to Arminianism.

It is our duty to honor God. We must confess with the apostle that our election is not based on our wills but on the purposes of the will of God (Sproul 1986:151).

R C Sproul (courtesy Wikipedia)

How does an Arminian respond to such an attack on the Arminian view of election/predestination and human responsibility (free will)? I am in agreement with Olson that

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…. 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 (Olson 1986:75).

As noted by Olson, the Calvinistic, compatibilist free will (if Calvinists talk of free will at all)

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.[18]

Once again it is difficult to see how a hybrid of these two views of free will could be created. Could people have freely chosen to do something different than they actually did? Some Calvinists (such as Jonathan Edwards) agree with Arminians that people have the natural ability to do otherwise (e.g., avoid sinning). But what about moral ability? Arminians agree with Calvinists that apart from the grace of God all fallen humans choose to sin; their will is bound to sin by original sin manifesting itself as total depravity (Olson 1986:75).

However, Arminians describe it differently to free will. This moral ability that people have is called prevenient grace, given to them by God. Again, Olson:

Arminians do not call this free will because these people cannot do otherwise (except in terms of deciding which sins to commit!). From the Arminian perspective prevenient grace restores free will so that humans, for the first time, have the ability to do otherwise – namely, respond in faith to the grace of God or resist it in unrepentance and disbelief. At the point of God’s call, sinners under the influence of prevenient grace have genuine free will as a gift of god; for the first time they can freely say yes or no to God. Nothing outside the self determines how they will respond. Calvinists say that humans never have that ability in spiritual matters (any possibility in any matters). People always do what they want to do, and God is the ultimate decider of human wants even though when it comes to sin, God works through secondary causes And never directly causes anyone to sin. These two views are incommensurable. To the Arminian, compatibilist free will is no free will at all. To the Calvinist, incompatibilist free will is a myth; it simply cannot exist because it would amount to an uncaused effect, which is absurd[19] (Olson 1986:75-76, emphasis added).

Contrary to Sproul, Romans 9:16 is not fatal to Calvinism. The Calvinistic and Arminian views of free will are not compatible. Sproul’s view seems to involve his imposition of a Calvinistic worldview on Romans 9:16. What about the context of Romans 9:14-18, which reads:

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! ¹⁵For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. ¹⁷For 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.” ¹⁸So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

This refers back to Exodus 7 and 8. If we note that context, we see that Pharaoh ‘hardened his heart’ (Ex 8:15) and ‘Pharaoh’s heart was hardened’ by God (Ex 8:19). So none of the application in Romans 9 excludes the action of individual responsibility for Pharaoh hardening his own heart and thus God hardened it. Human responsibility was not excluded in God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus, as it is in God’s showing mercy and demonstrating hardening Romans 9. God’s actions and human responsibility God together in God’s super plan for the universe.

Therefore, I find Sproul quite wrong in his wanting to make Romans 9:16 to be ‘absolutely fatal to Arminianism’. Calvinism’s and Arminians’ concept of free will, election and predestination are described very differently, so the finger needs to be pointed to Sproul’s faulty understanding of the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism and making his judgement on a Calvinistic basis instead of reading Arminians on their own terms.

For a biblical explanation of prevenient grace, see my articles,

Is prevenient grace still amazing grace?

The injustice of the God of Calvinism

Some Calvinistic antagonism towards Arminians

Other writings to confirm conditional security

I have written on this topic elsewhere. See:

Spencer Gear: Conversations with a Calvinist on apostasy

Spencer Gear: Once Saved, Always Saved or Once Saved, Lost Again?

Matthew Murphy: Practical Problems with OSAS

Spencer Gear: What does it mean to shipwreck your faith?

Spencer Gear: Is the Holy Spirit’s seal a guarantee of eternal security?

Matt O’Reilly: Eternally secure, provided that…

Spencer Gear: What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Spencer Gear: Does God want everyone to receive salvation?

Steve Witzki: The Inadequate Historical Precedent for ‘Once Saved, Always Saved

Spencer Gear: Does God’s grace make salvation available to all people?

Spencer Gear: Calvinists, free will and a better alternative

Spencer Gear: Is it possible or impossible to fall away from the Christian faith?

Steve Jones: Calvinism Critiqued by a Former Calvinist

Roy Ingle: Holding Firmly, I Am Held (An Arminian Approach to Eternal Security)

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

Bibliography

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House)

Edwards, J n d. Freedom of the will. Christian Classics Etherial Library (CCEL). Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.html (Accessed 28 September 2013).

Horton, M S 2013. Evangelical Arminians: Option or oxymoron?[20] in Reformation online, September 28. Available at: http://www.reformationonline.com/arminians.htm (Accessed 28 September 2013).

Lenski, R C H 2001. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. John’s Gospel. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.[21]

Olson, R E 1999. The story of Christian theology: Twenty centuries of tradition and reform. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Academic.

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

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

Riddlebarger, K 1992. Fire and water. Modern reformation, May/June, 1-8 (Archives of Modern reformation, Riddleblog). Available at: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/from-the-archives/fire%20and%20water.pdf (Accessed 29 September 2013).

Notes:

[1] I was alerted to this citation by Olson (2006:79).

[2] Olson (2006:81) referred me to a portion of this citation, thus directing me to the original article.

[3] Terrence L Tiessen, Thoughts Theological, Is sanctification synergistic or monergistic? April 9, 2013, available at: http://thoughtstheological.com/is-sanctification-synergistic-or-monergistic/ (Accessed 29 September 2013).

[4] Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Eternal security’, DeaconDean#73, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7775412-8/ (Accessed 28 September 2013).

[5] Danv8#74, ibid.

[6] DeaconDean#75, ibid.

[7] His post was at DeaconDean#73, ibid.

[8] OzSpen#79, ibid.

[9] OzSpen#93, ibid.

[10] iwbswiaihl #81 (emphasis in original), ibid.

[11] OzSpen#94, ibid.

[12] iwbswiaihl #96, ibid.

[13] OzSpen#98, ibid.

[14] I wrote the above 2 paragraphs as OzSpen#99, ibid.

[15] This means ‘the use of more words than are necessary to express an idea; redundancy’ (Dictionary.com, accessed 28 September 2013).

[16] Here the ESV footnote is, ‘Greek not of him who wills or runs’.

[17] The online Free Dictionary gives the meaning of coup de grace as, ‘a death blow, esp. one delivered mercifully to end suffering’ and ‘any finishing or decisive stroke’.

[18] Here Olson referred to Peterson & Williams 1992:136-161).

[19] At this point, Olson gave the footnote, ‘The classic Calvinist critique of libertarian free will is found in Jonathan Edward’s treatise “Freedom of the Will”’ (Olson 1986:76, n. 23). For this treatise, see Edwards (n d).

[20] This was originally published in Modern Reformation, 1 (3) May-June 1992, available at: http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=776&var3=searchresults&var4=Search&var5=Evangelical_Arminians (Accessed 28 September 2013).

[21] This was originally published in 1943 by Lutheran Book Concern and assigned to Augsburg Publishing House in 1961.

Stutters on the stairway: Arminianism vs Calvinism (eternal security)

Stairway to Heaven (PublicDomainPictures.net)

By Spencer D Gear

Will there every be unity in the body of Christ on controversial topics on our stairway to heaven? What about,

Iinfant vs believers’ baptism?
Eternal punishment vs annihilation?
Arminianism vs Calvinism on predestination, limited or unlimited atonement, eternal security, free will?
Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism?

On this journey, will there ever be complete agreement on controversial theological topics?

It is not unusual to get some heated discussion online with Christian forums on controversial topics relating to Calvinism and Arminianism, where there are differences of interpretation regarding election, predestination, and eternal security. I write as a convinced evangelical, Reformed Arminian.

What is a Reformed or Reformation Arminian? See the Roger E Olson article, ‘Reformed Arminian‘.

I made this submission to an online Christian forum:

It says the one who is continuing to believe, continues to have eternal life- that’s the meaning of the Greek present tense [John 3:36].

Didn’t you believe that I knew the parsing and meaning of the Greek present tense?

So, eternal security is based on the fact that a person continues to believe in Jesus. It is not a once saved, always saved view, but a perseverance of the saints view – the saints are those who continue to believe. They are not those who once believed and gave up believing? The only guarantee of eternal life is for those who are continuing to believe at the time of death (or at the time of Christ’s second coming if it arrives before the believer dies).[1]

This was the reply:

No, according to scripture, 1 Jn. 2:19, if they depart, stop beliving (sic), they never believed in the first place. Unless you are calling the Apostle John a liar. Are you? And from Jesus’ own mouth, no man, not even yourself can take yourself out of God’s hand. That is, unless Jesus was lying?[2]

To what does 1 John 2:19 refer?[3] It states: ‘They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us’ (ESV).

What’s the context? First John 2:18 states, ‘Children, it is the last hour, as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour’ (ESV).

It is talking about antichrists in our midst.

That is not the discussion point that I’m addressing. I’m talking about people who formerly continued to believe in Jesus and were committed evangelical Christians for a considerable time and who gave up believing in Jesus. They committed apostasy. But you want that to mean that they never believed in the first place. I disagree profoundly! These people did continue to believe for a time and showed fruits of repentance. But then they quit believing (often related to circumstances in their life that left a big negative impact).

Warnings about the need to continue believing

The warning to the children of God in 1 John 2 (the chapter to which you refer) is:

And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him (1 John 2:28-29 ESV)

From these two verses, we know that:

‘abide’ = menete = Greek present tense verb, which means continuing action, i.e. ‘continues to abide’;
‘everyone who practices righteousness’, where ‘practices’ = poiwn (doing) = Greek present tense participle which indicates continuing action, the meaning of which is, ‘who continues doing/practising’.
Verse 29 is clear that the children of God (based on v. 28) are those who continue to do/practice righteousness. It is not dealing with those Christians who used to do righteousness.

I do not believe that sinning willingly means apostasy. So this person created a straw man logical fallacy against my views with his example of Peter and Paul. We cannot have a rational conversation when people respond in this manner in using such fallacies.

Mountains

(Courtesy ChristArt)

Responses to these posts

You might like to take a read of some of the responses to the information I provided above. These are samples:

‘This is a pretty desperate and contradictory reply, in my opinion’.[4]

‘The problem is on your end, since you do not submit to the scriptures, but only wrest a few to annoy the saints’.[5]

‘Again, the man-centered salvation so prevelant in synergism and Arminianism. That which you so proudly taunt’.[6]

‘So it is impossible for one to backslide, and yet still believe in God? That is the point I take away from all your posts’.[7]

‘according to scripture, 1 Jn. 2:19, if they depart, stop beliving, they never believed in the first place. Unless you are calling the Apostle John a liar. Are you?’[8]

‘So using your standard, we must therefore conclude that since both Peter and Paul sinned willingly, not once, not twice, but at least three times, they lost their salvation, and thusly were not able to “renew them unto repentance”. But tell me, when Peter and Paul both sinned, did they cease to “abide” in Christ? Did they cease to “believe” continuously? Remember, you can “commit apostasy and perish by a willful act of their own.” Who said that? Was it me? Hum…’[9]

‘But notice you say this, without even bothering to acknowledge what the scripture says. What kind of a person sits here telling us these things, but doesn’t bother to respond to points properly? Are you capable of challenging what I have shown is clearly in those verses? If so, then show me, but take on what we say and respond to them specifically. Don’t dance around them as you do, and then get all huffy puffy after making sweeping assertions about it. It seems that you use the word “infallible” not to refer to the scriptures, but to your own point of view, and thus you do not take well to challenges’.[10]

With regard to this last post I made a complaint to the moderators about his emotionally abusive language with language such as:[11]

‘without even bothering to acknowledge what the scripture says’;

‘What kind of a person sits here telling us these things, but doesn’t bother to respond to points properly?’ (I have spent a lot of time on detailed responses on this forum but I will not continue with interaction with you when you make this kind of false allegation.)

‘Are you capable of challenging’.

‘Don’t dance around them as you do, and then get all huffy puffy after making sweeping assertions about it’.

‘It seems that you use the word “infallible” not to refer to the scriptures, but to your own point of view’.

Petruchio’s response to me was: ‘You keep using this phrase to everything people say to you. I don’t think it means what you think it means. (I can’t post the photo of Inigo until I get a total of 50 posts! ).’[12]

My response was:

Here you give another straw man logical fallacy. When you create a view which I did not state, you have created a straw man logical fallacy.

Here is a description of the straw man fallacy.

If you continue this approach in your responses to me, I will not reply. We cannot have a logical conversation when you use a logical fallacy.[13]

It seems to me from interaction on this Christian forum that I have to be alert to the logical fallacies that others and I use. I will name them as I see and understand them in their posts and also my own. I am not immune to using logical fallacies and I want people to draw my attention to them.

See the Nizkor Project for a description of a reasonably comprehensive list of logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies

Notes:

[1] OzSpen#113 Christian Forums, Baptists, Eternal Security, OzSpen#113, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7775412-12/ (Accessed 29 September 2013).

[2] DeaconDean#114, ibid.

[3] This is my response as OzSpen#117, ibid.

[4] Petruchio#43, ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] DeaconDean#114, ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] DeaconDean#116, ibid.

[10] Petruchio#121, ibid.

[11] OzSpen#122, ibid. I made a complaint about this post to the moderators. Maybe this could be removed from the forum.

[12] Petruchio#123, ibid.

[13] OzSpen#124, ibid.

What does it mean to shipwreck your faith?

Edit Post

Spencer D Gear

Maheno shipwreck (photo 2007), Fraser Island,

off the Queensland coast (about 3 hours north of Brisbane)

Courtesy Wikipedia

The New Zealand hospital ship Maheno (before the wreck)

Courtesy Wikipedia

In the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism it is not unusual to read or hear a back and forth about the ability or inability to lose eternal salvation through Christ. Since Calvinists believe that a person, once genuinely saved, cannot lose salvation, it is common to hear language like this:

‘It is my opinion, and I stress opinion, that it is not possible to lose one’s salvation’ (CARM).

’56 Bible Verses about Losing Your Salvation’ (OpenBible.info)

One set of verses often raised about losing salvation is, First Timothy 1:18-20, which states,

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

In commenting on these verses, one Calvinist wrote, ‘Did Paul say that they lost their salvation?’[1]

My response was:

So what does ‘shipwreck of their faith mean’? The Maheno ship wreck on the shores of Fraser Island (about 3 hours north of Brisbane on the Pacific Ocean coast) is useless, wrecked as a viable ship.

Is a shipwrecked faith viable or not to enter the sea of eternal life? Or is shipwrecked faith as useless as the Maheno as a ship in the Pacific Ocean?[2]

(courtesy ChristArt)

The reply from this person was:

‘This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme’ (1 Timothy 1:18-20 NASB).

It would appear that Paul has I’m (sic) mind correction for these two. Not because they lost their salvation, but because they are not acting in the right manner. Paul is hoping that they will be corrected (taught).[3]

[4]Paul has a motivation to deal with ‘keeping faith and a good conscience’ or ‘holding faith and a good conscience’ (ESV). In context this is faith in the prophecies (apostolic teaching?) he had received.

What had Hymenaeus and Alexander done to ‘shipwreck’ their faith? Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives the meaning of this word from apwthew as ‘reject, repudiate’ (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:102). Therefore Lenski’s commentary, based on the Greek, concludes that

they got so far away from the apostolic prophecies that they did even what is here stated regarding their conscience and their faith. Paul himself had dealt with two of them, and when he held up to them the prophecies, i. e., the apostolic gospel teaching, and thereby tried to reach their conscience he found that they had actually thrust all good conscience away and had thereby lost their faith altogether. The true gospel teaching no longer made an impression on them, it had been smothered by their myths, etc (Lenski 1937:532-533).

The consequence for Hymenaeus and Alexander was that Paul has them ‘handed over to Satan’. What this means exactly has been the cause of much debate. However, it seems evident that these two men no longer have a good conscience and faith, so it seems that Paul means that these two are, according to exegete, Gordon Fee, ‘”put back into Satan’s sphere,” outside the church and the fellowship of God’s people…. Paul expects by such an “excommunication” they will “be caught not to blaspheme”‘ (Fee 1988:59).

What ‘blaspheme’ means here is not certain but there are hints in context. In 1:13 Paul says of his life before Christ, ‘formerly I was a blasphemer’ and in 6:4 he states that ‘slander’ (ESV) or ‘malicious talk’ (NIV) that come out of ‘a different doctrine’ (ESV) or ‘false doctrines’ (NIV). However the word is blasphemiai (i.e. blasphemies). This is from a list of what happens as a result of false teachers who had ‘an unhealthy craving for controversy’ (6:4 ESV).

Thus handing over to Satan seems to be an action of excommunication because they had rejected God’s grace for salvation and had pursued the arguments of the false teachers. It seems that Timothy was in Ephesus to deal with the false doctrine that was being perpetrated by false teachers and this was leading people away from the faith.

How would he respond? It was predictable for a Calvinist: ‘So you don’t think that they were apostate, right?’[5] To which I responded, ‘False! They had rejected, repudiated their faith. That’s what the Greek word means!’[6]

File:Wreck of the Central America.jpg

An artists rendition of the 1857 shipwreck (the Central America).

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons

To another person, he wrote: ‘It still says nothing of them losing their salvation’.[7] To which I replied,[8] ‘Yes it does! That’s the meaning of ‘shipwrecked’, based on the Greek exegesis.

What had Hymenaeus and Alexander done to ‘shipwreck’ their faith. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives the meaning of this word from apwthew as ‘reject, repudiate’ (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:102).

Therefore Lenski’s commentary, based on the Greek, concludes that

they got so far away from the apostolic prophecies that they did even what is here stated regarding their conscience and their faith. Paul himself had dealt with two of them, and when he held up to them the prophecies, i. e., the apostolic gospel teaching, and thereby tried to reach their conscience he found that they had actually thrust all good conscience away and had thereby lost their faith altogether. The true gospel teaching no longer made an impression on them, it had been smothered by their myths, etc. (Lenski 1937:532-533).

Faith that is shipwrecked is faith that has been repudiated, rejected. It couldn’t be clearer, based on the Greek etymology.

To shipwreck one’s faith is to abandon/repudiate the faith, reject the faith. This is similar to the message given in Hebrews 6:4-6,

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

For my lengthy exegesis and exposition, see: ‘Once Saved, Always Saved or Once Saved, Lost Again? (an exposition of Hebrews 6:4-6)’.

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

Works consulted

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

Fee, G D 1988. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (New International Biblical Commentary). Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Lenski, R C H 1937. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Paul’s epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc.

Notes:

[1] Hammster #25, Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Saved only by grace’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7773567-3/ (Accessed 14 September 2013).

[2] OzSpen #32, ibid.

[3] Hammster #34, ibid.

[4] This is my reply as OzSpen #39, ibid.

[5] Hammster #41, ibid.

[6] OzSpen #43, ibid.

[7] Hammster #37, ibid.

[8] OzSpen #42, ibid.

Some Calvinistic antagonism towards Arminians

James Arminius 2.jpg

Jacobus Arminius (Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

Why can the following be said of those who believe in an Arminian view of salvation?

You can’t be a biblical Christian and believe that.
It has been judged as heresy in the past and is consigned to heresy today.
It’s an oxymoron.
No such beast exists.
It is not what God says about salvation.
They are playing with fire.
They are dying with their false gospel; it is another gospel.
They are demons from hell.
There is no spiritual life in Arminian salvation.
Since Arminians think contrary to God’s word, they go to the second death in the fire of falsehood and will be in death for eternity.

That is a summary of what a Calvinistic promoter of monergism wrote to me, an Arminian promoter of synergism, on a Christian forum on the Internet (see below).

It’s a hotly contested topic

In Christian circles, monergism versus synergism can be a provocative and passionately debated topic, as we’ll see below. This is terminology that has not been used frequently. In my older theology books, I cannot find the language used. It is not in the indices of Charles Hodge , Louis Berkhof, Henry Thiessen or H. Orton Wiley. Even some modern theologians don’t use this language, examples being Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson. However, it is in John Miley’s Systematic Theology, first published in 1893:

We have no power of self-regeneration. The nature of inherited depravity precludes its possibility. As a subjective state it is as really in us and of us as if original to our nature. Hence a power of self-regeneration would be the same as a power of changing one’s own nature. There can be no such power. It is the sense of Scripture respecting our natural state that we have no such power. In this moral impotence lies the necessity for the economy of redemption. Regeneration is a true sphere of the divine monergism.

There is also a sphere of synergism. Regeneration is not an absolute work of the Spirit. We have already shown its conditionality. There are prerequisites which cannot be met without our own free agency. There must be an earnest turning of the soul to God, deep repentance for sin, and a true faith in Christ. Such are the requirements of our own agency. There is no regeneration for us without them. Yet they are not possible in the unaided resources of our own nature. Hence there must be a helping work of the Spirit prior to his work of regeneration. There is such help. The Holy Spirit enlightens, awakens, and graciously draws us. All this may be without our consent. And even despite our resistance. We may finally resist, or we may yield to the gracious influences, and be born of the Spirit. Here is the sphere of synergism.[1]

Here’s how my opponent began:

Listen you have to know that a synergistic view of Salvation is not even Biblically Christian. It was judged a heresy at the synod of Dordt and it is a heresy today. You place yourself in Gal 1:6-9 Arminianism is another gospel which is NO gospel= no salvation.[2]

What is monergism regarding Christian salvation?

This article from Wikipedia, ‘Monergism’, gives a good, summary definition:

Monergism describes the position in Christian theology of those who believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, works to bring about effectually the salvation of individuals through spiritual regeneration without cooperation from the individual. Monergism is most often associated with Calvinism (like many American Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed) and its doctrine of irresistible grace and in particular with historic doctrinal differences between Calvinism on the one hand and Arminianism on the other.

What is synergism in relation to Christian salvation?

For fairness, I would like to use the Wikipedia article on synergism to define the theology, but the article is too slanted in favour of Calvinism for a balanced perspective.

Simply stated, ‘Synergism [is] any system that affirms some kind of cooperative interaction between the divine and the human in the process of salvation…. It is entirely possible for one to affirm the cooperative interaction of both divine and human while still affirming that the process of salvation begins entirely with God’s salvific (not common) grace’.[3]

See Norman Geisler’s ‘Monergism vs. Synergism’. His summary statements are that monergism:

It is not supported by the Bible;
It is not supported by the church fathers;
It is not supported by the attribute of God’s omnibenevolence;
It is not supported by man’s God-given free will.
It is inconsistent.

Monergistic antagonism

Untimely Words

ChristArt

A person responded to me on Christian Forums (online) with some inflammatory antagonism towards my Arminian/synergistic views. He wrote:

You say: “Synergistic Christian” That name is an oxymoron, no such animal. It doesn’t matter what anyone says, what does God say? Look, this is more important than a heart attack okay? You have no idea what you’re doing. You’re playin (sic) with fire. All of you in this “synergistic safe house” are like a smokers emporium, you’re all dieing (sic) with your false gospel. Isa 8:20 And I come in and all the demons of hell are screaming “have you come to disturb us before our time?” Matt 8:29 Yeh I am, are you able to get up and get out of there? You will have to be “quickened” Eph 2:1 to do it. There is no spiritual life in believing as you do. “as a man thinks so is he” If you think contrary to God’s word you get death, the second death the lake of fire. Rev 22:18 The fire of falsehood you so loved in life, you’ll have in death for eternity Rev 14:11.[4]

[5]See what he does with his presuppositional imposition on me for my theology? His presuppositions include:

Synergist Christians do not fit his Calvinistic soteriology, so they are wrong.
What does God say? That means, ‘What do Calvinists say?’
Only Calvinists (non-synergists) know the biblical teaching on the gospel and salvation.
I have no idea what I’m doing in supporting synergism, but Calvinistic supporters of monergism know what they are doing. They are the only people who can get the doctrine of salvation correct.
Synergism is a false gospel according to Calvinistic monergism.
There is no spiritual life in understanding the Scriptures from a synergistic perspective.
Those who believe in synergism are ‘the demons of hell’.
The fire of falsehood of synergism sends people to damnation.

He confuses his interpretation of what the Scriptures say and calls it what God says. He is absolutist in his view that monergists are correct and synergists (as he understands synergism) are wrong and are going to hell. He doesn’t seem to be able to differentiate between what God says and his interpretation of the biblical text.

After his and my responses above were deleted, he came back to me with a similar kind of language:

A synergistic view of salvation that is two or more agents (in this case the sinner and God) to effect the result of salvation is a false gospel or another gospel as Paul calls it in Gal 1:6-9 faith of this sort is not the “faith of God’s elect” Titus 1:1 but rather a self conjured faith in the idol of imagined free-will, producing no salvation but eternal damnation.[6]

Is monergism vs synergism creating a wrong antithesis?

Ben Henshaw explains how the terms synergism and monergism get confused in his article, ‘Is Arminian Theology Synergistic?‘[7]

For some, the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism boils down to whether salvation is monergistic or synergistic. I believe the term “synergism” is not always accurately applied to the Arminian position. The word comes from the Greek synergos, which essentially means “working together”. While monergism (to work alone) may be an acceptable label for what Calvinists believe (God does all the work in salvation), synergism does not always rightly portray what Arminians have historically believed.

The word itself, when taken in a grammatically strict sense, is not a very good description of what Arminians believe regarding salvation. Arminians do not believe that both God and man “work” together in salvation. We believe that we are saved “by faith from first to last” (Rom. 1:17). Since faith is antithetical to works (Rom. 3:20-28; 4:2-5; 9:32; 10:5, 6; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:9), it is a misnomer to label Arminian soteriology as synergistic in the strictest sense of the word.

Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. God alone does the saving. God alone regenerates the soul that is dead in sin. God alone forgives and justifies on the merits of Christ’s blood. God alone makes us holy and righteous. In all of these ways salvation is entirely monergistic. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God’s saving work is conditional or unconditional. Arminians believe that God will not save until we meet the God ordained condition of faith. Faith may be understood as synergistic only in the sense that God graciously enables us to believe, but we are the ones who must decide whether or not we will believe.

F. Leroy Forlines put it well in The Quest for Truth when he said,

“I believe that saving faith is a gift of God in the sense that the Holy Spirit gives divine enablement without which faith would be impossible (John 6:44). The difference between the Calvinistic concept of faith and my concept of faith cannot be that theirs is monergistic and mine is synergistic. In both cases it is synergistic. Active participation in faith by the believer means it must be synergistic. Human response cannot be ruled out of faith. Justification and regeneration are monergistic. Each is an act of God, not man. Faith is a human act by divine enablement and therefore cannot be monergistic.” (Forlines 2001:160).

If faith were monergistic then it would not be the person believing, but God believing for the person. Faith is the genuine human response to God’s call, and the means by which we access His saving grace (Rom. 5:1, 2). It is still God’s grace that saves, but that grace must be received by faith, and the nature of faith is such that it can never be properly called a “work”.

Does this mean that man is the determiner of salvation and not God? Absolutely not. God has determined that those who believe in His Son shall be saved, and that determination is absolute and unchangeable (Jn. 3:16-18, 36). We simply determine whether or not we will meet the God ordained condition of faith.

See the article on the Society of Evangelical Arminians website, ‘The False Antithesis Between Monergism and Synergism: A Lesson from Historical Theology’.

Conclusion

Gratefully, there are not many like the hostile person I met on Christian Forums who is prepared to announce my damnation in the hell of fire because I believe in a synergistic view of salvation. When I asked a Lutheran on the Forum, who believes in monergism, if he would say that there is no eternal salvation for those who believe in a synergistic view of salvation through Christ, his response was:

Of course not. That would be works-righteousness, placing the onus of salvation in the power and capacity of man. Grace being grace, however, must mean that the onus is on the saving power of Christ, who by His Means creates faith in us—not a mental assent to doctrine, but a saving, justifying faith. Such faith even the unlearned and the infant can have—according to the gracious work of Christ alone.

Making such doctrinal minutia intrinsic to our eternal salvation ignores the whole point of what makes Grace Grace; and further draws focus away from Christ and His Cross toward ourselves and our ability.[8]

Ben Henshaw’s view (as above) is to the point and is as good and brief as any I have read recently:

The word itself [synergism], when taken in a grammatically strict sense, is not a very good description of what Arminians believe regarding salvation. Arminians do not believe that both God and man “work” together in salvation. We believe that we are saved “by faith from first to last” (Rom. 1:17). Since faith is antithetical to works (Rom. 3:20-28; 4:2-5; 9:32; 10:5, 6; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:9), it is a misnomer to label Arminian soteriology as synergistic in the strictest sense of the word.

Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. God alone does the saving. God alone regenerates the soul that is dead in sin. God alone forgives and justifies on the merits of Christ’s blood. God alone makes us holy and righteous. In all of these ways salvation is entirely monergistic. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God’s saving work is conditional or unconditional. Arminians believe that God will not save until we meet the God ordained condition of faith. Faith may be understood as synergistic only in the sense that God graciously enables us to believe, but we are the ones who must decide whether or not we will believe.

See my other articles:

An Arminian view of faith in Christ;

Is prevenient grace amazing grace?

Calvinists, free will and a better alternative;

Does regeneration precede faith in Christian salvation?

What is the nature of human free will?

Is it possible or impossible to fall away from the Christian faith?

Calvinistic excuses for rejecting Jesus’ universal atonement;

Once Saved, Always Saved or Once Saved, Lost Again?

References:

Forlines, F L 2001. The quest for truth: Answering life’s inescapable questions. Nashville, Tennessee: Randall House Publications.

Notes:

[1] John Miley 1893. Systematic Theology (online), vol 2. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, available at: www.lcoggt.org/General/Miley/REGENERATION_MILEY.doc (Accessed 19 July 2012).

[2] Christian Forums, Theology (Christians Only), Christian Scriptures, ‘Did God stop “dictating” his Word after the Book of Revelation?’, kevinmccue #43, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7554361-5/#post61004583 (Accessed 19 July 2012).

[3] Marc Cortez,‘Synergism is not semi-Pelagianism’, Everyday Theology, available at: http://marccortez.com/2010/11/20/synergism-is-not-semi-pelagianism/ (Accessed 19 July 2012).

[4] Ibid #46. This post has since been removed from the thread after I complained about the inflammatory nature of the post and a moderator of the Forum advised me that this poster was using ‘flaming’ language and the post was deleted.

[5] This was my response a OzSpen, ibid. #47. However, since #46 has been removed, so has been my response at #47.

[6] Ibid., kevin mccue #56.

[7] Available at: http://evangelicalarminians.org/is-arminian-theology-synergistic/. Also available from kangaroodort, Arminian Perspectives, July 25, 2007, available at: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/is-arminian-theology-synergistic/ (Accessed 1 August 2013). Could kangaroodort be Ben Henshaw? At the time of posting this article to my homepage, Ben Henshaw’s article was no longer available online from the Society of Evangelical Arminians. I wrote them to inquire why it had been removed and am awaiting a reply.

[8] ViaCrucis, Christian Forums, #53, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7554361-6/ (Accessed 19 July 2012).

What is the nature of human free will?

Free Gift

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to get questions from Christians like, ‘What, exactly, do you mean by free will?’[1] This can become an especially animated discussion between Arminians and Calvinists in theological discussions.

When we ask, ‘What is the nature of free will or free choice?’ we may be asking: How long is a piece of string in theological terms? If we are going to answer this question with biblical accuracy, we will need to ask further questions about:

Free will / free choice and the power of God (see Isa 45:11-13; 46:4; Jer 32:16-44; Acts 4:24-31);
Free choice and the decrees of God (Rom 8:28; Eph 1:9, 11; 3:11);
Free choice and the salvation of human beings (Tit 2:11; Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; Matt 18:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 16:31; 17:30; Phil 1:39; 1 Jn 3:23);
Free choice as it is related to God’s providence (Jas 4:2);
Free choice and God’s foreknowledge (Rom 8:29-30; 2 Cor 6:1-2; 1 Pt 1:1-2);
Free choice and a human being’s moral nature (Jn 1:12-13; 7:17; Rom 3:26; Heb 3:7-8, 15; 4);
Free choice and Adam’s original sin (the origin of the sin of the human race) [Gen 3:1-8; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-22; 1 Tim 2:13-14];
Free choice and human depravity (Deut 6:4-5; Matt 22:35-38; Rom 2:14; 7:18; 8:14; 2 Tim 3:4);
Free choice and eternal security/perseverance of the saints (Jer 3:12, 14, 22; Hos 14:4; Mt 24:13; Mk 4:16-17; 7:21-23; Jn 6:66-67; 13:10-11; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31; 2 Pt 2:20-22; 1 Jn 2:19)[listed in Thiessen 1949:524].

I’ll make a brief attempt at an understanding of human free choice, but this will not be an adequate understanding without biblical knowledge of the above 9 points, with some biblical references provided.

From a human point of view, we understand God’s knowledge of the future is foreknowledge. But from God’s point of view, He knows all things ‘by one simultaneous intuition’ (Thiessen 1949:125).

Simply stated, the nature of human free will or of human free choice is, according to Norman Geisler, ‘the power of contrary choice’ (Geisler 2003:444). This is a basic and simple definition: ‘Free will or free choice is the power of contrary choice’ and it is not taken away from human beings by God’s sovereignty.

In my understanding, God gave to Satan (Lucifer) and to Adam the power of free choice before the Fall. However, to discuss free choice, God’s sovereignty and human depravity will take a lot of space that I have not attempted here.

This view of free will, the power of contrary choice, is not incompatible with God’s complete sovereignty over human choice as God’s omniscient attribute knows absolutely what every free choice will be. God cannot be the one who decrees sinful actions. Why?

We know God cannot sin. We know that he cannot lie (Heb 6:18; Titus 1:2) and he cannot be tempted by evil and he cannot tempt people with evil (James 1:13). This is the nature of our Lord God Almighty:

The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he’ (Deuteronomy 32:4 ESV)

That is not the way Jonathan Edwards saw it:

That we should say, that God has decreed every action of men, yea, every action that they do that is sinful, and every circumstance of those actions . . . and yet that God does not decree the actions that are sinful as sinful, but decrees [them] as good, is really consistent.

We do not mean by decreeing an action as sinful, the same as decreeing an action so that it shall be sinful; but by decreeing an action as sinful, I mean decreeing [it] for the sake of the sinfulness of the action. God decrees that it shall be sinful for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof, whereas man decrees it for the sake of the evil that is in it (The Miscellanies of Jonathan Edwards #85).

1. Free will and the power of God

Power

(image courtesy ChristArt)

God’s omnipotence means that God ‘is able to do whatever He wills; but since His will is limited by His nature, this means that God can do everything in harmony with His perfections’ (Thiessen 1949:126). So this means that God cannot do whatever is contrary to his perfect nature. The implications are:

God is ‘pure and cannot stand the sight of evil’ (Habakkuk 1:13 NLT).

God cannot deny who he is (2 Tim 2:13 NLT);

It is impossible for God to lie (Heb 6:18 NLT);

God never tempts anyone and God himself is not tempted to do wrong (James 1:13 NLT).

It should be self evident that the God who created logic could not do that which is a self-contradiction. Since the spirit is immaterial, it is contradictory to speak of a material spirit – and a square circle. God can do what he wills with his power, but

God has limited Himself to some extent by the free will of His rational creatures. That is why He did not keep sin out of the universe by a display of His power; that is also why he does not save anyone by force (Thiessen 1949:126).

These Scriptures teach the all-powerful nature (omnipotence) of God: Genesis 17:1; Job 42:2; Jeremiah 32:17; Matthew 19:26; Luke 1:37 and Revelation 19:6.

2. Free choice and God’s foreknowledge

Custom Made

(image courtesy ChristArt)

What is the meaning of God’s knowing everything? This is called God’s omniscience.

‘By the omniscience of God we mean that He knows Himself and all other things, whether they be actual or merely possible, whether they be past, present, or future, and that He knows them perfectly and from all eternity. He knows things immediately, simultaneously, exhaustively and truly. He also knows the best ways to attain His desired ends’ (Thiessen 1949:124)

How does this apply to God’s knowing the future and His foreknowledge? Henry Thiessen again: ‘From man’s standpoint God’s knowledge of the future is foreknowledge, but not from God’s since He knows all things by one simultaneous intuition’ (Thiessen 1949:125). This means that God’s foreknowledge includes:

Knowledge of the past, present and future (Isa 46:9; Daniel 2 and 7; Matthew 24 and 25; Acts 15:18);

Knowing that Israel would become prosperous and then practice idolatry, despise God and the intentions of these people – their wickedness (Deut 31:20-21);

The future work of Cyrus (Isa 44:26-45:7);

The Messiah would come (Micah 5:2);

What would happen to Jesus at his crucifixion and what wicked people would do to him in fulfillment of Scripture (Acts 2:23; 3:18);

Thiessen emphasised that foreknowledge did not mean cause: ‘We must not confuse foreknowledge with the predetermining will of God. Free actions do not take place because they are foreseen, but they are foreseen because they will take place’ (1949:126).

Thiessen (1949:126) cites Charles Hodge, a Calvinist, in support of this position: ‘That free acts may be absolutely certain, is plain, because they have in a multitude of cases been predicted. It was certain that the acts of Christ would be holy, yet they were free’ (Hodge 1979:401).

So, in God’s economy, God’s foreknowledge involves free acts but God’s foreknowledge does not cause a free action to happen in human beings. It knows a free action will lead to a certain effect.

3. Conclusion

Free will is defined as the power of contrary choice that has been given by God to all human beings. This operates within the sovereignty of God. God has put parameters around his power by allowing the free will of His rational creatures – human beings.

God’s attribute of omniscience means that He knows Himself and all other things, whether they be actual or merely possible, whether they be past, present, or future, and that He knows them perfectly and from all eternity.

From a human perspective, we can say that God knows the future through his attribute of foreknowledge (a dimension of omniscience). However, from God’s viewpoint, he knows all things ‘by one simultaneous intuition’ (Thiessen 1949:125).

‘Free actions do not take place because they are foreseen, but they are foreseen because they will take place’ (Thiessen 1949:126). God’s foreknowledge does not cause a free action to happen in human beings. It knows a free action will lead to a certain effect.

We can praise the Lord that he did not make robots or lemmings when he created human beings. He created them with genuine free will and that was not cancelled by the fall into sin and the depravity of the human race. How that can be, is contained in the infinite wisdom of God. Human beings find it difficult to grasp this concept of free will being still available to human beings although they are in bondage to sin before conversion to Christ.

4. See also my articles:

‘Did God create evil?’

‘Calvinists, free will and a better alternative’;

‘How a Calvinist can distort the meaning of 2 Peter 3:9’;

References

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

Hodge, C 1979 reprint. Systematic theology, vol 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘The “free will” dilemma’, nobdysfool #325, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7746203-33/#post63269032 (Accessed 29 July 2013).

Is it possible or impossible to fall away from the Christian faith?

Spencer D Gear

A Lutheran, Dr Richard P Bucher, wrote:

The same Paul that could triumphantly state that he was convinced that nothing in all creation “shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39), could also write, “Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize” (1 Cor. 9:26-27). By these latter words Paul freedly (sic) admitted the possibility that even he, the great Apostle, could “be disqualified,” that is, fall away (Bucher 1998).

I’ve been in this kind of discussion many times on Christian forums on the Internet. Here’s an example of one fellow wrote: ‘There are no passages that threaten Christians with losing their salvation’.[1]

Passages that warn of loss of salvation

(image courtesy ChristArt)

My response was:[2]

You know there are passages that warn against loss of salvation and Hebrews 6:4-8 is a classic example. I know that you want to interpret this passage differently as loss of salvation doesn’t fit in with your theological presuppositions. These verses read:

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned (Heb 6:4-8 NIV)

We’ve debated loss of salvation at length on Christian Forums on several occasions. I have a lengthy exposition of this passage at, ‘Once saved, always saved or once saved, lost again‘.

Paul to Timothy gives another example:

18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme (1 Timothy 1:18-20 ESV).

Hymenaeus and Alexander have so shipwrecked their faith that Paul handed them over to Satan to deal with what they had done. He called it as an example of blasphemy. Shipwrecking one’s faith is blaspheming God, in Paul’s understanding.

Lutheran commentator, R C H Lenski. in his commentary on 1 Tim 1:19 wrote:

The Greek permits Paul to continue with three consecutive relative clauses; in English we should use independent clauses. The first is to be construed with “a good conscience” and not also with “faith,” for “the faith” appears in the relative clause: “which some by thrusting away (or: having thrust away) made shipwreck regarding the (their) faith.” When they thrust aside their conscience which tried to hold them to the prophecies they had learned from faithful teachers they made shipwreck of their very faith. One cannot keep his faith while he plays fast and loose with the prophecies (Word). He will have to silence his conscience, make it cease crying out against such practice, and then his faith is wrecked whether he admits it or not (Lenski 1937:532, emphasis added).

Clearly this is another example, this time from Paul, of people who thrust away, made shipwreck, could not keep their faith. But this does not fit in with eternal security presuppositions of a Calvinist.[3] Falling away refers to Jewish sacrificial system.

There was another person who responded to my stated interpretation of apostasy in Hebrews 6:4-6. He wrote:

The reason that a person would fall away as indicated by this passage in Hebrews 6 would be if they were once Jewish and returned to the sacrificial system of the old covenant after having “tasted the heavenly gift” – and then went back to the sacrificial system – then they have fallen away – and worse have no chance of ever getting back. So who around here does this apply to?

The main point of the passage from Hebrews 6 is to demonstrate that the old sacrificial system of the old covenant is not only worthless but dangerous to Jews who might be considering going back to it.

It is not talking about sinning or breaking the law leading to falling away. Its (sic) talking about going back to a system of works based salvation leading to a person falling away. I find it ironic that someone would use this passage to defend the idea that someone could fall away when the very thing that would make such a person fall away is by going to a system of works instead of trusting in God’s grace for salvation.[4]

How should I respond?[5]

That’s not what Heb 6:4-8 says in context. In fact, the English Standard Version has a heading, ‘Warning Against Apostasy’, that begins at Heb 5:11 and continues to Heb 6:12. Obviously these translators of the Greek NT disagree with your view. They consider it relates to apostasy, ‘a total desertion of or departure from one’s religion, principles, party, cause, etc’ (an online dictionary definition of ‘apostasy’).

The context tells us that these Christians (‘in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son’, Heb 1:2 ESV) asked, ‘How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard’ (Heb 2:3). This is dealing with a message to those who are experiencing this ‘great salvation’ from Jesus the Son.

Good Book

(image courtesy ChristArt)

Is the Book of Hebrews addressing Christians or Jews?

Could it be that this person’s current theological worldview does not permit him to see that apostasy can be committed and salvation lost?

There were these additional problems in context:

They need someone to teach them ‘AGAIN the basic principles of the oracles of God’ as they were not able to get into solid food but were drinking milk instead (5:12 ESV);
Those who live on milk are ‘unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child’ (5:13);
‘Solid food’ is for the mature, those who have ‘powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil’ (5:14).
These Christians are challenged to move from an elementary doctrine of Christ, to maturity (6:1);
Part of this movement from the immature to the mature doctrine is to understand the seriousness of committing apostasy (Heb 6:4-8).
‘We desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end‘ (6:11).

Here we are dealing with immature Christians who need to move from milk to solid food and part of that movement is to understand how serious falling away (apostasy) from the faith is, and their need to have assurance of their faith UNTIL THE END.

What about John 10?

Another person wrote:

Jesus says it very simply.
John 10:25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

v28, Jesus gives them eternal life.
‘ETERNAL’ means forever does it not?
Second part of the verse says something very significant.
“and they shall never perish”
Well who are we going to believe? Lets believe what Jesus has already said about these things.
“NEVER” does not allow for any other thing to happen.
But of course this is only for the elect of God, who are on the straight, narrow path, not the broad wide world on the path to destruction.[6]

What should be an appropriate response?[7]

This person’s listing off of proof texts does not support his view. When I examine the Greek text of John 10:28-29, this is what I find. These verses place a very different emphasis than his conclusion that “they shall NEVER perish.”

These verses demonstrate the conditional nature of salvation by use of the present tense in Greek, stating that continuing to believe is the condition required for eternal life to be experienced and for being in a position where there are no deleterious salvific consequences.

Here in John 10:27-28 we learn: “My sheep hear [present tense, continue hearing] my voice, and I know [present tense, continue knowing] them, and they follow [present tense, continue following] me. I give [present tense, continue to give] them eternal life, and they will never perish [aorist, perish as a fact of action], and no one will snatch [future tense, snatch in the future] them out of my hand”. Here the need for a continuation of belief is necessary to prevent a future snatching of believers from the Father’s hand.

This person’s promotion of unconditional eternal security in this passage has changed the biblical meaning from continuing to believe, which produces eternal life, into believing as a momentary act and they NEVER perish.

Arminius’s words are wise and consistent with the biblical revelation of John 10:27-28 and other verses. He wrote that it is “impossible for believers, as long as they remain believers to decline from salvation” (Arminius 1977:281).

Is once saved, always saved a deception?

Another person asked of me:

My only question is … Where did the OSASers fall into their deception?
In the cradle? On Granny’s lap? At an OSASer’s dinner table? In an OSAS church pew?
Oh, there are a multitude of possibilities … that’s why we have so many of ’em.[8]

I was rather subjective in my following response:[9]

My view is that it comes from the theological worldview known as Calvinism. I cannot find unconditional eternal security in an inductive exegesis of Scripture (as I’ve attempted to show in my exegesis of John 10:28-29 above).

This, for me, raises a bigger issue: What causes Christians to have blind spots in these areas? I can have them, you can have them; others can have them. The BIG issue in my hermeneutics is: How can I be consistent with the original languages in my interpretation of Scripture? What do we do when Scripture disagrees with our own present theological worldview? To be honest, for me I must change my view when an inductive study of Scripture proves me wrong.

I had to do this almost 50 years ago when I was saved and raised as a Baptist teenager with an OSAS view. Then I went to Bible College in the 1970s, followed by seminary, and found that an inductive study of Scripture forced me to abandon OSAS. It was a BIG move for me to make from OSAS to salvation can be lost. What made it even worse is that two of my close friends from Bible college days, one an outstanding evangelist and the other a brilliant expositor, or no longer serving the Lord. They have abandoned their faith. So I know that salvation can be lost from an inductive study of Scripture and from personal experience with believers.

I also had to do this with my background of support of cessationism with regards to the gifts of the Spirit.

What I have found is that most people who cling to a particular theological model (and I used to be one of them), cling to that position in spite of verses to the contrary. There seems to be a filtering out of verses that contradict one’s presuppositional views.

This fellow was persistent in his requirement what Heb. 6:4-8 was not addressing Christians who committed apostasy from the faith:

The apostasy spoken of in Hebrews is returning to the OT sacrificial system over trusting in Jesus. Clearly this is what the threat is addressing. The author wants to move on from talking about repentance from dead works and faith in Christ – which is what he is addressing in vs 4-6. It’s the returning to dead works that causes a person to be in apostasy.[10]

What did the early church fathers believe?

Saint Irenaeus.jpg

Irenaeus (Wikipedia)

Irenaeus (ca. 125-202), bishop of Lyons, ‘e was most influenced by St. Polycarp who had known the apostles or their immediate disciples’. It was he who wrote in one of his most celebrated publications:

‘Christ shall not die again in behalf of those who now commit sin, for death shall no more have dominion over Him…. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom (Against Heresies 4.27.2).

Tertullian 2.jpg

Tertullian (image courtesy Wikipedia)

Tertullian (b. ca 160), the son of a centurion and a pagan until middle life, wrote,

But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery…. For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? Is not this gift taken away from many? (Tertullian, On Repentance, ch. 6).

Martin Luther on eternal security

Martin Luther (image courtesy Wikipedia)

In his commentary on Galatians 5:4, he wrote:

Ye are fallen from grace.
That means you are no longer in the kingdom or condition of grace. When a person on board ship falls into the sea and is drowned it makes no difference from which end or side of the ship he falls into the water. Those who fall from grace perish no matter how they go about it…. The words, “Ye are fallen from grace,” must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians 5:4).

What about Jacob Arminius’s views?

James Arminius 2.jpg

Jacobus Arminius (image courtesy Wikipedia)

It is worthy of quoting him at some length in his segment on ‘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.

Thus, Arminius, whose views have been most often associated with loss of salvation and repudiation of eternal security, actually stated that the one who is ‘a true believer’ (presumably meaning that he/she continues as a true Christian, cannot either totally or finally commit apostasy and fall away from the faith. The key is: Is that person continuing to trust in Jesus for salvation?

Thus it is evident from Scripture, some early church fathers, and evangelical leaders such as Martin Luther that it is possible to fall from grace and lose salvation, and thus experience the wrath and judgment of God.

I don’t believe that the promoters of eternal security are deceived. I place it within their hermeneutical system and the methods they use. However, there is a decided bias that seems to come from traditional interpretations (generally Calvinistic) that they have bought into.

Works consulted

Arminius J 1977. The Writings of James Arminius, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Bucher, R R 1998. Is a Christian “once saved, always saved?” February. Lexington, KY: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, available at: http://www.orlutheran.com/html/once.html (Accessed 29 July 2013).

Lenski, R C H 1937. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc (originally published by Lutheran Book Concern, The Wartburg Press, and Augsburg Publishing House).

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums.com, Soteriology, ‘A super-short summary of God’s plan of salvation’, Hammster #46. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7762232-5/ (Accessed 29 July 2013).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #53.

[3] From his many posts, I know that Hammster promotes Calvinism.

[4] Op cit., Behe’s Boy #56.

[5] Ibid., OzSpen #65.

[6] Ibid., sdowney717 #48.

[7] Ibid., OzSpen #55.

[8] Ibid., extraordinary #54.

[9] Ibid., OzSpen #60.

[10] Ibid., Behe’s Boy #67.

Calvinistic excuses for rejecting Jesus’ universal atonement

By Spencer D Gear

John Calvin (courtesy Wikipedia) Jacob Arminius (David Bailly 1620)

I was engaged in discussion on a Christian forum about the meaning of 1 John 2:2 , which states, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world’ (ESV).

The issue at stake is the meaning of Jesus’ ‘propitiation for our sins’ (our, referring to believers), but also ‘for the sins of the whole world’. Calvinists do not want ‘the whole world’ to refer to the entire humanity in the past, present and future. For them, Jesus didn’t die an atoning death for the whole world but only for the elect.

A Calvinist responded,

[In 1 John] the scripture says no such thing about Him being a “provision” for sins! It says that He IS the propitiation for our (Jew’s) sins, and not for ours (Jews) only, but also for the sins of the whole world (Gentiles).” John was writing to Jews telling them that Christ was the propitiation for Gentiles also.

The scripture says, “He IS the propitiation for sins….”

The Arminian says, “He is the provision for sins….”[1]

I responded, ‘Nowhere in 1 John 2:2 does it state what you said: “He IS the propitiation for our (Jew’s) sins”. Not a word about the Jews in that verse. That is your insertion’.[2]

A Calvinist replied:[3]

John was writing to Jewish Christians saying that Christ IS the propitiation for our (Jew’s) sins, and not for ours (Jews) only, but also for the sins of the whole world (Gentiles).

Paul said a similar thing in Romans chapter eight. In 7:1 He said that he was writing to them that “know the law” (Jews). He continues to address Jewish Christians specifically from 7:1 to 11:13 where he begins to address the Gentiles specifically. So he is addressing Jews throughout chapter eight. In verse verse 22 he says that the “whole creation” (Gentiles) groans with birth pangs. Then he says that we (Jews) ALSO groan within ourselves waiting for the redemption of the body.

John was speaking exactly in the same manner as Paul. For Paul the whole creation was the Gentiles. They groan in birth pangs, and we (Jews) also groan within ourselves. Likewise, for John the “whole world” was the Gentiles. John said that Christ IS the propitiation for our (Jew’s) sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (Gentiles).

John and Paul were NOT speaking about every human being. You should not give promises to those to whom God has made no promise.

The following was my response:[4]

You provided not one reference from 1 John to demonstrate that John was writing to Jews. That does not leave a good impression with me when I’m addressing a verse in 1 John 2:2 and you go to Romans to try to demonstrate that both Paul and John were addressing Jewish ‘our (Jew’s) sins’ and Gentiles ‘the whole world’. That’s called eisegesis – bringing in a meaning that is not there in the text.

In fact, some who have written detailed commentaries on 1 John disagree with this poster on First John being written to Jewish Christians.

The ‘Introduction’ in the English Standard Version of the Bible to First John states that ‘John wrote this general letter to congregations across Asia Minor (now Turkey) in the late first century A.D.’ (p. 1127).

(Courtesy Augsburg Fortress)

R C H Lenski, in his commentary on 1 John, states that:

This letter is an encyclical that is intended for the congregations that were under John’s special care; it was occasioned by the antichristian teachings of Cerinthus and of his following. It is usually supposed that this letter was written only to congregations in the province of Asia (1966:363).

(Courtesy BookFinder.com)

Calvinist commentator, Simon J Kistemaker, wrote of the ‘recipients of I John’ that

Tradition holds that John wrote his epistles during his ministry in Ephesus, and that his first epistle was addressed to a church or group of churches whom the author knew well. Succeeding Paul and Timothy, John was a pastor in Ephesus until his death in about A.D. 98. From Ephesus he wrote his epistles, presumable to Gentile audiences rather than to readers who were Jewish Christians (Kistemaker 1986:207-208, emphasis added)

These commentators also disagree with your Jewish audience: I Howard Marshall, F F Bruce, and James Montgomery Boice.

So this evidence points to a Gentile, not a Jewish, audience who received this letter of First John and it was written to churches in Asia Minor to correct the false doctrine of Cerinthus, opponent of St. John or an early form of Gnosticism.

Bibliography

Kistemaker S J 1986. New Testament Commentary: James, Epistles of John, Peter, and Jude. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Lenski, R C H 1966. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of the epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (special permission of Augsburg Fortress).

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Is rejecting Christ a sin?’ The Boxer #609. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-61/ (Accessed 12 July 2013).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #611.

[3] Ibid., The Boxer #641 (emphasis in original).

[4] Ibid., OzSpen #649.

Does God’s grace make salvation available to all people?

Ribbon Salvation Button

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

It is common in Arminian vs Calvinist discussions for Arminians to proclaim that God’s grace offers Jesus’ salvation to all people. And this verse is one of the cornerstones of understanding the “all people” who have this grace of salvation offered.

Titus 2:11-12 reads: ‘For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, ¹²training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age’ (ESV).[1]

I encountered one fellow on a Christian forum who stated: ‘The verse says this grace brings salvation teaching to renounce ungodliness. Are you saying it doesn’t actually do that since apparently it comes to people and they reject the Gospel?[2]

How should I respond? This is what I stated:[3]

It’s amazing what you leave out of a verse. You should have begun your post with, ‘The verse says this grace brings salvation to all men [people] teaching to renounce ungodliness….’

Verse 11 in the Greek begins, ‘Appeared [aorist tense] for the grace of God saving to all men….’

As to ‘the grace … saving to all men’, Lutheran exegete and commentator, R C H Lenski, stated:

the grace … saving for all men.” Here is the universality of this saving grace, which is in direct contradiction to Calvin’s limited grace, who writes in his Commentary, published in Geneva in 1600, p. 542 … “Yet, he (Paul) does not understand individual men but rather notes orders or diverse genera of life,” i. e., “classes in life,” and he does this because slaves have just been mentioned as being one such class. To Calvin “all men” = some slaves, some young men, some young women, some old women, some old men. He has a similar exegesis of other passages, for instance, John 3:16: “God so loved the world,” regarding which he says that “the world” is mentioned only because there was nothing in the whole world to call forth God’s love.
12) This wondrous grace which is “saving for all men” is now operative in us (in Paul, Titus, the Cretan Christians), “educating (or training us as a pais or boy is educated, this verb is found also in I Tim. 1:20; II Tim. 2:25) us, that, having denied the ungodliness … we live sober-mindedly,” etc. (Lenski 1937:919-920).

Emeritus professor of New Testament at Regent College, Vancouver BC, Canada and editor of Eerdmans’ New International Commentary series on the New Testament, Gordon D Fee (ordained with the Assemblies of God), wrote of Titus 2:11,

An explanatory for opens the paragraph and thus closely ties verses 11-14 to 2-10. It proceeds to explain why God’s people should live as exhorted in 2-10 (so that the message from God will not be maligned [v. 5] but instead will be attractive [v. 10]): because the grace of God that brings salvation to all people has appeared.
In the Greek text all of verses 11-14 form a single sentence, of which the grace of God stands as the grammatical subject. But contrary to the NIV (and KJV), Paul does not say that this grace appeared to all men; rather, as almost all other translations have it, and as both Paul’s word order and the usage in 1 Timothy 2:3-6 demand it, what has appeared (see disc. on 1 Tim. 6:14; epiphaneia) is grace from God that offers salvation to all people.
Paul does not indicate here the reference point for this revelation of God’s grace. Most likely he is thinking of the historical revelation effected in the saving event of Christ (v. 14; cf. 2 Tim. 1:9-10), but it could also refer existentially to the time in Crete when Paul and Titus preached the gospel and Cretans understood and accepted the message (cf. 1:3 and 3:3-4). That at least is when the educative dimension of grace, emphasized in verse 12, took place (Fee 1988:194, emphasis in original).

These evangelical commentators who are committed to a high view of Scripture affirm, contrary to Calvin, that Titus 2:11 affirms that what has appeared is grace from God that offers salvation to all people. Period! Full stop!

The kind of response to this post was predictable from the Calvinists. Here are a couple of examples:

‘Bringing now means offering. Got it’.[4]

My response was:

Why don’t you do your own Greek exegesis on the aorist, epephane (Titus 2:11), from epiphainw?

Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives the meaning in the passive voice (as here), ‘show oneself, make an appearance’ (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:304).

So are you going to challenge Arndt & Gingrich’s etymology of the word?

It doesn’t matter whether one uses ‘bringing’ or ‘offering’, the meaning is the same as I understand it. It refers to the Epiphany of Christ’s Incarnation that brought, offered salvation to the whole world – the entire race of humanity – ALL.[5]

Here was another Calvinistic response to my post:

Appeal to authority fallacy. The verse says nothing about ‘offering salvation’. There you go attempting to shoehorn your free will-ism in there again.

‘These evangelical commentators who are committed to a high view of Scripture affirm, provide exegesis of the text that is contrary to Calvin’ [myy citation above]

It’s also contrary to the Bible.[6]

I responded in this way: [7]

That’s exegesis speaking and you don’t seem to like it.

But I consider it is rather contradictory when you claim that it is my tradition speaking but you don’t state that your tradition is doing some speaking through you in this thread.

Now answer the exegesis that Lenski and Fee provided. I gave them as examples, not as promoting a genetic fallacy, but to demonstrate that I am not the only exegete who comes to conclusions different to Calvin and griff.

The Nizkor Project’s explanation of the genetic fallacy contains this qualification, ‘It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise)’.

I have provided expert exegesis from Lutheran and Assemblies of God scholars who contradict your and Calvin’s view on Titus 2:11. It is a perfectly legitimate approach as Lenski and Fee have expertise in their area – NT Greek Exegesis.

Works consulted

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

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

Notes:

[1] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible citations are from the English Standard Version.

[2] Christian Forums, Soteriology, Is rejecting Christ a sin, griff #510, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-51/ (Accessed 10 July 2013).

[3] Ibid., OzSpen #535.

[4] Ibid., Hammster #536.

[5] Ibid., OzSpen #541.

[6] Ibid., griff #537.

[7] Ibid., OzSpen #538.

[8] This is ‘a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur’ (4^th rev & augmented edn 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).
Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.