Category Archives: Theology

Is it possible for a Christian to commit apostasy?

Green Salvation Button

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

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

Contrasting evidence for King Solomon

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

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

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

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

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

BUT, BUT …

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

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

When do people lose their salvation?

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

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

The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

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

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

J I Packer (photo courtesy InterVarsity Press)

J I Packer’s theology on the ‘perseverance of the saints’ is:

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

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 6 and losing salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

A possible contemporary example of apostasy

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

Courtesy McClelland and Stewart (publishers)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Patton’s comment was:

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

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

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

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

As for Solomon?[6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

[3] Ibid., Hammster#38,

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

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

[6] Ibid., OzSpen#63.

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

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

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

Camel capers at the time of Abraham – baloney!

Camels at Pyramids, Egypt (courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

In February 2014, some of you may have been exposed to what seems like a tirade of derogatory comments in the mass media about camels recorded in the Book of Genesis; Genesis can’t be trusted, and the Bible is unreliable.

6pointblue Genesis 24:64 records this: ‘And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she dismounted from the camel’ (ESV).

6pointblue Leviticus 11:4 makes is clear: ‘Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you’.

Was it a camel or not? Verses like these have come under criticism by the archaeologists who are saying that

camels were first introduced to Israel around the 9th century BCE, centuries after they were depicted in the Bible as Patriarch-era pack animals, new carbon dating of the earliest known domesticated camel bones found in Israel shows.

The research, conducted by Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel-Aviv University, challenges ”the Bible’s historicity.” The discrepancy “is direct proof that the [Biblical] text was compiled well after the events it describes,” according to a statement released by the university on Monday.

The researchers examined ancient copper smelting sites in the Arava Valley, in southern Israel, and discovered that “camel bones were unearthed almost exclusively in archaeological layers dating from the last third of the 10th century BCE or later,” and that “all the sites active in the 9th century in the Arava Valley had camel bones, but none of the sites that were active earlier contained them.”

(The Times of Israel, 5 February 2014)

This is a sample of the negative comments I’ve read in the mass media online:

‘Camels had no business in Genesis‘ (New York Times, 10 February 2014).
‘Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say‘, Fox News (6 February 2014).
‘Earliest Camel Bones Contradict Bible, Archaeologists Say‘, (Nature World News, 5 February 2014).
‘Camel bones discovery suggests biblical inaccuracies‘ (Statesman, 6 February 2014).
‘Camel archaeology contradicts the Bible‘ (The Times of Israel, 5 February 2014).
‘Will camel discovery break the Bible’s back?‘(CNN, 11 February 2014)

Abram’s Journey from Ur to Canaan (József Molnár, 1850) (courtesy Wikipedia)

We could go on and on with examples trying to disprove the accuracy of the Bible, especially the camels at the time of Abraham. But, what’s the truth? Should we chuck out the Book of Genesis as an unreliable piece of literature that should be treated as containing myths? Or should we treat it as Jesus did? You’ll find some of Jesus’ evidence in the articles,

‘Jesus, the New Testament and Genesis‘;

‘The use of Genesis in the New Testament‘; and

‘Genesis: Real, reliable, historical‘.

I recommend equipping yourself for a rebuttal of these mass media anti-Genesis views by becoming acquainted with the issues in these articles:

Lita Cosner’s article, ‘Camels and the Bible‘ (Creation Ministries International, 11 February 2014). I’m grateful for those who know their Bible and the scientific literature and have material available to demonstrate the futility of the anti-Genesis charges.
See another refutation of the anti-camel stance in, ‘Camels in Genesis Prove Old Testament is ‘Very Accurate,’ Professor Claims as He Refutes Archaeologists’ Findings‘ (Christian Post).

Here’s some more evidence in support of camels at the time of Abraham:

‘Theology professor counters claim that camel bones disprove Bible, explains Abraham owning camels‘ (Global Dispatch, 17 Feb 14).
‘Abraham, Camels and Egypt, or, Where did Abram get his Camel from?Genesis 12:1‘ (Studylight.org).
‘Is the Bible Wrong about Camels?‘(Stand to Reason).

I pray that you will be equipping the people in your church to provide a defence of the Christian faith when this kind of opposition comes. There are enough links here to get you started with a few opportunities for equipping in your church over the next few weeks. We are blessed that there are equipping ministries who have researchers and writers to deal with these issues – and provide us with ready information to pass on to our church people.

Let’s not miss the opportunity.

Calvinist misrepresents the Reformed

Courtesy Google (public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

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

The OP had asked:

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

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

Calvinist vs Arminian antagonism

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

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

Ashby begins his article in this publication,

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

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

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

Jacob Arminius wrote concerning total depravity and free will:

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

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

Arminians and Calvinists in the same denomination

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

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

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

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

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

What’s the truth?

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

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

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

[6] Op cit branchofthevine#53.

Prop it for what?

Waves of Affliction

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

By Spencer D Gear

Who’s propping it up?

This is a pointer to a theological term that is not on the top of the seeker-sensitive theological hit parade. It’s out of favour even among some evangelicals. It has caused considerable controversy in theological circles.

Dr Gary Long introduced the controversy reasonably well:

In discussing the design or extent of the atonement, there are three key doctrinal terms which are related to the priestly sacrifice of Christ on earth, that is, to the finished work of Christ. These terms are redemption, propitiation and reconciliation. Evangelical Arminians and Calvinistic “four point” universalists or modified Calvinists hold that there is a universal design of the atonement which provides salvation for all mankind without exception or which places all of Adam’s posterity in a savable state. They contend that there is a twofold application of these three doctrinal terms — an actual application for those who believe, a provisional application for those who die in unbelief. The historic “five point” or consistent Calvinist² asserts that these terms have no substitutionary reference with respect to the non-elect. In contrast to the former who hold to an indefinite atonement, the consistent Calvinist, who holds to a definite atonement, sees no purpose, benefit or comfort in a redemption that does not redeem, a propitiation that does not propitiate or a reconciliation that does not reconcile, which would be the case if these terms were applicable to the non-elect (‘Propitiation in 1 John 2:2’).

First John 2:1-2 reads in the ESV,

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. ²He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

In 1 John 2:2, the Greek noun used that the ESV translates as ‘propitiation’ is hilasmos, which the NIV translates as ‘atoning sacrifice’. There has been much debate among Greek scholars as to the meaning of the noun form which is found in one other place in the NT and that’s in 1 John 4:10. The verbal form is in a few other verses.

What’s the meaning of ‘propitiation’ in 1 John 2:2?

I’m relying on I Howard Marshall’s commentary summary of the controversy (Marshall 1978:117-120).
Here are some of the issues with this word:
1. When it is used outside of the Bible, it conveys the meaning of ‘an offering made by a man in order to placate the wrath of a god whom he has offended. It was a means of turning the god from wrath to favorable attitude’ (Marshall 1978:117).
2. However, in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT) – the LXX – the meaning has been debated. Westcott and Dodd argued that in the OT, ‘the scriptural conception … is not that of appeasing one who is angry, with a personal feeling, against the offender; but of altering the character of that which from without occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship’ (in Marshall 1978:117). Therefore, they concluded that
3. In secular sources, the word means ‘propitiation’ (placating an offended person), but in the Bible it means ‘expiation’ (a means of neutralising and cancelling sin (Marshall 1978:117). However, neither of these words is in common use in the English language so modern translations offer a paraphrase. The NIV and NRSV use, ‘atoning sacrifice’, which tries to combine two ideas: an atonement for sin and an offering to God (a sacrifice). The TEV used ‘the means by which our sins are forgiven’ while the NEB used ‘the remedy for the defilement of our sins’, the latter seeming to be closer to the meaning of expiation (Marshall 1978:117-118). The ESV, NKJV and NASB retain ‘propitiation’.
4. L Morris and D Hill objected to the Westcott and Dodd interpretation and showed that in the OT ‘the idea of placating the wrath of God or some other injured party is often present when the word-group in question is used…. The meaning in the present passage would then be that Jesus propitiates God with respect to our sins [the Greek preposition peri]. There can be no real doubt that this is the meaning’ (Marshall 1978:118).
5. In 1 John 2:1, the thought of Jesus as our advocate [NIV: ‘One who speaks to the Father in our defense – Jesus Christ, the Righteous One’] is of one who is pleading the cause of the guilty sinners before a judge in order to obtain pardon for ‘acknowledged guilt’. ‘In order that forgiveness may be granted, there is an action in respect of the sins which has the effect of rendering God favorable to the sinner. We may, if we wish, say that the sins are cancelled out by the action in question. This means that the one action has the double effect of expiating the sin and thereby propitiating God. These two aspects of the action belong together, and a good translation will attempt to convey them both’ (Marshall 1978:118).
6. How does one find an English word that combines expiation and propitiation? ‘Atoning sacrifice’ is an attempt but I find that it de-emphasises the propitiation too much. I can’t see a way around this except for a preacher to make sure he/she explains 1 John 2:1-2 together and that needs to include both the advocate and the propitiation. A ‘propitiatory advocate’ could be a way around that, but the English language is too clumsy to put it that way as many people don’t understand the meaning of ‘propitiatory’ as it is not used in contemporary English in my part of the world.

Some other views on the meaning of propitiation

1. Leon Morris refers to hilasmos related words in Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17 and 1 John 2:2; 4:10. His exegesis of the word indicates that it means,

the turning away of wrath by an offering…. Outside the Bible the word group to which the Greek words belong unquestionably has the significance of averting wrath…. Neither [C H] Dodd nor others who argue for “expiation” seem to give sufficient attention to the biblical teaching….

The words of the hilaskomai group do not denote simple forgiveness or cancellation of sin which includes the turning away of God’s wrath (e.g. Lam. 3:42-43)….

The whole of the argument of the opening part of Romans is that all men, Gentiles and Jews alike, are sinners, and that they come under the wrath and condemnation of God. When Paul turns to salvation, he thinks of Christ’s death as hilasterion (Rom 3:25), a means of removing the divine wrath. The paradox of the OT is repeated in the NT that God himself provides the means of removing his own wrath. The love of the Father is shown in that he “sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10)….

The consistent Bible view is that the sin of man has incurred the wrath of God. That wrath is averted only by Christ’s atoning offering. From this standpoint his saving work is properly called propitiation (Morris 1984:888).

2. Henry Thiessen wrote that

the New Testament represents Christ’s death as appeasing God’s wrath. Paul says, God set Him forth as a “propitiatory” (sacrifice) (Rom. 3:25); and Hebrews represents the mercy seat in the tabernacle and temple of the “propitiatory (place) (9:5). John declared that Christ is the “propitiation” for our sins (1 John 2:2:4:10); and Hebrews declares that Christ “propitiates” the sins of the people (2:17) (Thiessen 1949:326)

Thiessen quotes W G T Shedd in support of this view – based on the Old Testament:

The connection of ideas in the Greek translation appears therefore to be this: By the suffering of the sinner’s atoning substitute, the divine wrath at sin is propitiated, and as a consequence of this propitiation the punishment due to sin is released, or not inflicted upon the transgressor. This release or non-infliction of penalty is ‘forgiveness’ in the biblical representation (Shedd II:391, in Thiessen 1949:326).

3. Wayne Grudem:

Romans 3:23 tells us that God put forward Christ as a “propitiation” (NASB) a word that means “a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath to the end and in so doing changes God’s wrath to favor.” Paul tells us that “That this was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:25-26). God had not simply forgiven sin and forgotten about the punishment in generations past. He had forgiven sins and stored up his righteous anger against those sins. But at the cross the fury of all that stored-up wrath against sin was unleashed against God’s own Son.

Many theologians outside the evangelical world have strongly objected to the idea that Jesus bore the wrath of God against sin.[1] Their basic assumption is that since God is a God of love, it would be inconsistent with his character to show wrath against the human beings he has created and for whom he is a loving Father. But evangelical scholars have convincingly argued that the idea of the wrath of God is solidly rooted in both the Old and New Testaments: “the whole of the argument of the opening part of Romans is that all men, Gentiles and Jews alike, are sinners, and that they come under the wrath and the condemnation of God.”

Three other crucial passages in the New Testament refer to Jesus’ death as a “propitiation”: Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; and 4:10. The Greek terms (the verb hilaskomai, “to make propitiation” and the noun hilasmos, “a sacrifice of propitiation”) used in these passages have the sense of “a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God – and thereby makes God propitious (or favorable) toward us.” This is the consistent meaning of these words outside of the Bible where they were well understood in reference to pagan Greek religions. These verses simply mean that Jesus bore the wrath of God against sin.

It is important to insist on this fact, because it is the heart of the doctrine of the atonement. It means that there is an eternal, unchangeable requirement in the holiness and justice of God that sin be paid for. Furthermore, before the atonement ever could have an effect on our subjective consciousness, it first had an effect on God and his relation to the sinners he planned to redeem. Apart from this central truth, the death of Christ really cannot be adequately understood (Grudem 1994:575).

I hope this helps to clarify the fact that both Old and New Testaments affirm the necessity of a blood sacrifice to appease the wrath of God. Jesus’ death was that propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). However, that propitiation is only potential until a person chooses to believe in Jesus to receive God’s propitiation.

This free will choice (human responsibility) in salvation is only possible because God provides prevenient grace to all people, enable them to respond in faith when the Gospel is proclaimed to them. Salvation (repentance and faith) is available only because God takes the initiative.

Works consulted

Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Marshall, I H 1978. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Epistles of John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Morris, L 1984. Propitiation. In W A Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology, 88. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

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

Notes:

[1] Grudem’s footnote was: ‘See the detailed linguistic argument of C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935), pp. 82-95. Dodd argues that the idea of propitiation was common in pagan religions but foreign to the thought of Old Testament and New Testament writers (Grudem 1994:575, n. 11).
Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 12 November 2015.

Sent to hell by God: Calvinism in action?

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

By Spencer D Gear

How would you respond to these kinds of claims?

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

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

‘Nobody receives injustice at God’s hands’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

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

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

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

He continued his straw man allegation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

Starting point: All humanity deserves hell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The injustice promoted by Calvinism

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sure sounds like forcing to me.

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

How would a Calvinist reply?

This was his comeback:[11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over and over again

Round And Round Clip Art

(courtesy clker.com)

I replied:[12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calvinists on the merry-go-round

(courtesy Google public domain)

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

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

Consequences of Calvinistic theology

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

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

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

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

1. Scriptures: God is not partial

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

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

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

2. Scriptures: Salvation available for all

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My response was:[25]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives….

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

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

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

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

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

Calvinistic preterition

(courtesy ChristArt.com)

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

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

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

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

A better alternative to TULIP

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

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

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

Some further reading

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

Notes:

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

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

[3] Ibid., Hammster#180.

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

[5] Ibid., Hammster#180.

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

[7] Ibid., OzSpen#208.

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

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

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

[11] Ibid., Skala#219.

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

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

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

[15] Ibid., Hammster#224.

[16] Ibid., Skala#225.

[17] Ibid., Hammster#228.

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

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

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

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

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

[23] Ibid., OzSpen#251.

[24] Ibid., Hammster#253.

[25] Ibid., OzSpen#256.

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

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

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

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

(courtesy clker.com)

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 5:15-19:

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

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

Norm Geisler comments about these verses:

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

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

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

Works consulted

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

Notes

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

Is Jesus coming soon or quickly?

(courtesy Google, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

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

1. One man’s vision of the final day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Soon or quickly? Does it matter?

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

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

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

But is that a correct conclusion?

3. ‘Soon’ in English

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

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

4. ‘Quickly’ in English

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. False predictions have come and gone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody knows when He is coming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Conclusion

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

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

Isaiah 13:6-9

New Living Translation (NLT)

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

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

[4] Ibid., ozspen#13.

[5] Ibid., Harold#14.

[6] Ibid., ozspen#15.

[7] Ibid., Harold#17.

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

Famed heart doctor tells the dramatic story of how a patient of his was ‘raised from the dead’ after prayer

Ribbon Healing Button

Award winning journalist, Dan Wooding, has granted permission for the republication of his article that tells the amazing, true story of a person being raised from the dead by God through prayer of a cardiovascular specialist. The article follows:

ASSIST News Service (ANS) – PO Box 609, Lake Forest, CA 92609-0609 USA
Visit our web site at: www.assistnews.net — E-mail: [email protected]

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Famed heart doctor tells the dramatic story of how a patient of his was ‘raised from the dead’ after prayer

(On 22 November 2015 this article was no longer available at this link, but it was available at Breaking Christian News at: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=4216).

Dr. Chauncey W. Crandall IV produces evidence at the 4th Annual World Christian Doctors Network conference in Miami, Florida

By Dan Wooding
Founder of ASSIST Ministries

MIAMI, FL (ANS) — The audience of 120 doctors from 50 countries sat in stunned silence as a renowned heart doctor produced evidence of how, after he had prayed for a patient who had died and was being prepared for the morgue, was brought back to life after prayer.

Dr. Crandall
(courtesy https://chaunceycrandall.com/)

Dr. Chauncey W. Crandall IV, who serves at the Palm Beach Cardiovascular Clinic in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, made his dramatic presentation on Friday, July 13th at the 4th Annual World Christian Doctors Network Conference in Miami, Florida.

He produced dramatic evidence that was shown on the screen and then, afterwards, agreed to tell the story to ANS in an interview.

Dr. Crandall began by saying that the dramatic incident took place almost a year ago in West Palm Beach, Florida.

“We had a fifty-three year old man who came to the emergency room with a massive heart attack and actually his heart had stopped,” he said. “The medical people had worked on him for over forty minutes in the emergency room and then declared him dead.

“They called me in to evaluate the patient towards the end of his treatment where they had unsuccessfully tried to revive him. The nurse was preparing his body to be taken down to the morgue when the Holy Spirit told me to ‘turn around and pray for that man.’ When the Holy Spirit talks to you, you have to respond. It’s sometimes a quiet voice and this was a quiet voice and to honor the Lord I did turn around and I went to the side of that stretcher where his body was being prepared.

Black with death

Dr. Crandall making his presentation at the World Christian Doctors Network conference in Miami

“There was no life in the man. His face and feet and arms were completely black with death and I sat next to his body and I prayed, ‘Lord, Father; how am I going to pray for this man? He’s dead. What can I do?’ All of a sudden, these words came out of my mouth, ‘Father, God, I cry out for the soul of this man if he does not know You as his Lord and Savior, please raise him from the dead right now in Jesus name.

“It was amazing as a couple minutes later, we were looking at the monitor and all of a sudden a heart beat showed up. It was a perfect beat; a normal beat; and then after a couple more minutes, he started moving and then his fingers were moving and then his toes began moving and then he started mumbling words.

“There was a nurse in the room — she wasn’t a believer — and she screamed out and said ‘Doctor Crandall, what have you done to this patient?’ And I said, ‘All I’ve done is cry out for his soul in Jesus name.’

“We quickly rushed the gentleman down to the intensive care unit, and the hospital was by now buzzing about the fact that a dead man had been brought back to life. After a couple of days he woke up. He had an amazing story to tell after I had asked him, ‘Where have you been and where were you on that day that you had that massive heart attack? You were gone and we prayed you back to life in Jesus name.’

Thrown in the trash

“He said, ‘Doctor Crandall, it’s the most amazing thing. I was in a dark room and there was no light. It was complete darkness and I felt I was in a casket and I kept repeating that I was so disappointed.’ He said the disappointment came from the fact that none of his family, friends or colleagues, had come to visit him. Then he told me, ‘All of a sudden, these men came in and they wrapped me up and they threw me in the trash.’

“Dan, he was in hell that day and as he told me that story, I cried out, ‘Lord, this gentleman needs to accept You as Lord and Savior.’ I then explained the salvation message to this man as he sat in that bed and I held his hand and I cried out, ‘Father God, in the name of Jesus, I pray that this man accepts you as his Lord and Savior right here in the intensive care unit.’ He held out his hand and accepted Christ as his Savior with tears rolling down from his eyes and now he’s a child of God.

“I told him, ‘You never have to be thrown in the trash into total darkness now. The life of Christ is in you and the light of the kingdom of Heaven is on you now.”

I asked Dr. Crandall if there had been any brain damage to the patient.

“No there was no brain damage at all; his brain was completely normal,” he said. “I was most concerned about his hands because his fingers were completely black and he had some numbness in his fingers and his feet, but now that is totally resolved.”

I asked Dr. Crandall if he could give the name of the man and he said he couldn’t as the patient had requested that it would not be revealed.

“All I can say is that he was fifty-three years old and he was a car mechanic,” he said. “He had a family that were believers, but he left them twenty years ago because he didn’t believe in the Lord. His family continued to pray for twenty years for his salvation, and his ex-wife was on her hands and knees praying for the salvation of her ex-husband, who came to know the Lord that day.”

I then asked the doctor if he had seen other similar miracles in his practice.

“I’ve been witness to three cases of people being raised from the dead,” he said. “One other case was when another patient came to the hospital with a massive heart attack. It was on the very day that I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and I’d been praying for weeks that I would receive this mighty baptism that the Lord can give us. We were working on this patient that came in again with a massive heart attack and who didn’t survive in the operating room.

“All of a sudden, that Baptism of the Holy Spirit hit me and I started speaking in a spiritual language and crying over this patient in the operating room theater who had passed away. And then, within five or ten minutes, the heartbeat came back and life came back to this patient. Once again, the nurses who are not believers looked at me as if to say, ‘There goes Doctor Crandall on another case.”

I concluded the interview by asking Dr. Crandall what he would like to say to doctor’s who do not believe in supernatural healing.

“I would just like to say to my colleagues and physicians out there, that the Lord is real. We’ve seen many miracles and we pray for our patients daily. There is not one week that goes by that we don’t see a mighty miracle in our office. The people need this; they need the power of Christ in their life and they need the power of Christ for healing.

“I would just encourage my fellow doctors to get involved in a church, meet with a minister, and attend a healing service run by people that believe in the power of Jesus Christ. We love our colleagues in medicine we pray for them.”

Background on Dr. Crandall:

Dr. Crandall serves at the Palm Beach Cardiovascular Clinic in Palm Beach Gardens. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in anthropology from Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Va. and was awarded a M.D. degree from Universidad Centro de Estudios Tecnicos Escuela de Medicina Republica Dominicana. In addition, he has done post-doctoral work as an intern and as a resident in medicine at Yale University School of Medicine; as a fellow in cardiology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine; and as an intervention cardiology fellow at the Medical College of Virginia. He has served as an instructor in the Department of Medicine, Cardiology Division at Beth Israel Hospital, Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and at the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond. He also has served as an associate faculty member at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C. and as a visiting professor at St. George’s University School of Medicine in Granada, West Indies.

Dr. Crandall has been in private medical practice since 1995 and holds medical staff privileges at Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center and Jupiter Medical Center. A noted lecturer both nationally and internationally, Dr. Crandall has spoken on topics including heart transplant, interventional cardiology, preventive cardiology and cardiology health care of the elderly. He is married to Deborah Newell Crandall. They are parents to two sons, Christian Pierce and Chadwick Baxter.

For more information on the World Christian Doctors Network, go to www.wcdn.org.

Note to the broadcast media. An MP3 audio file of the interview with Dr. Crandall is available for broadcast from Dan Wooding at [email protected]. If you would like to interview Dr. Crandall, just send me a message at the same e-mail and I will forward your request to him directly.

* I would like to thank Robin Frost for transcribing this interview.

Dan Wooding is an award winning British journalist now living in Southern California with his wife Norma. He is the founder and international director of ASSIST (Aid to Special Saints in Strategic Times) and the ASSIST News Service (ANS). He was, for ten years, a commentator, on the UPI Radio Network in Washington, DC. Wooding is the author of some 42 books, the latest of which is his autobiography, “From Tabloid to Truth”, which is published by Theatron Books. To order a copy, go to www.fromtabloidtotruth.com. [email protected].

** You may republish this story with proper attribution.
Send this story to a friend.

ASSIST News Service is brought to you in part by Gospel for Asia. GFA’s Bridge of Hope program is designed to rescue thousands of children in Asia from a life of poverty and hopelessness by giving them an education and introducing them to the love of Christ. For only $28 a month, you can cover the cost of one child’s tuition, books, uniforms, one or two meals a day and a yearly medical checkup—and your child, his family and community will hear the Gospel as a result. To learn more about Gospel for Asia’s Bridge of Hope program, visit our website at www.gfa.org/child or call 1-800-WIN-ASIA (United States) or 1-888-WIN-ASIA (Canada).

Was Judas saved and then lost?

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

By Spencer D Gear PhD

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

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

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

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

What better place to start than with the Scriptures?

Good Book

ChristArt

What do the Scriptures state?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Church Fathers (courtesy Wikipedia)

Let’s check out a few of the church fathers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green Salvation Button

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

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

My response was:[7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reply was:[10]

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

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

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

These are biblical facts and not heretical facts.

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

Calvinists refuse to accept loss of salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Works consulted

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

[7] Ibid., OzSpen#29.

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

[9] Ibid., Hammster#25.

[10] Ibid., OzSpen#30.

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

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

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

Papyrus Roll Clip Art

clker.com

By Spencer D Gear

One fellow claimed there were only three options and he put it into a poll:

Poll: Should the resurrection account of Mark 16:9-20 be removed from the bible?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Poll Options

Should the resurrection account of Mark 16:9-20 be removed from the bible?

yes

I do not know

View poll results

His assessment was:[1]

Should the resurrection account of Mark 16:9-20 be removed from the bible?

Many new bible versions question whether Mark 16:9-20 should be in the bible. This is done in footnotes or the use of single or double brackets around the passage. As far as I know not a single bible actually leaves out the passage, which contains the description of the resurrections of the Lord Jesus, a record of the apostles and some others seeing Him, words that Jesus Christ spoke and a declaration of His ascension into heaven.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul declares that gospel of salvation as the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Lord. So the resurrection, as the apostles as eyewitnesses, should be in the Gospel according to Mark.

Here is the passage from the King James Bible: Mark 16:9-20

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Should the resurrection account of Mark 16:9-20 be removed from the bible?

He asked for those who voted ‘yes’ to reply. I did:[2]

I voted ‘yes’

Why? I voted in the affirmative because my research has found that some of the earliest MSS (manuscripts) do not include Mark 16:9ff. I support the statement that precedes these verses in the ESV, ‘Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20’.
In addition, I believe this section teaches false doctrine. It seems to have an apocryphal flavour. This false doctrine includes:

Baptismal regeneration (Mk 16:16);
Picking up serpents with their hands and drinking deadly poison will not hurt people (16:18).
‘They will lay their hands on the sick, and THEY WILL recover’ (16:18). We know that there is no guarantee that laying hands on the sick will lead to recovery from sickness. That is the Lord’s sovereign work.

There are 4 actual endings in the MSSs from v 9ff. Which one do you support?

The long ending, Jerome told us, was in Greek copies in his day.

There are 17 non-Markan words in Mk 16:9ff and the lack of a smooth transition from 16:8-16:9 indicates that there are features in 9ff that were added by someone who knew something of a form of Mark’s Gospel that ended abruptly at 16:8 and he/she wanted a smoother conclusion.

There is an Armenian MSS of the Gospels copied about AD 989 that contains 2 words at the end of v 8 and before vv 9-20. They are Aristion eritsou (‘of the Presbyter Aristion’). Some have interpreted this to refer to Aristion, a contemporary of Papias in the early 2nd century. Papias has been traditionally understood to be a disciple of the Apostle John (this information from Bruce Metzger 1991:227). Could it be that Aristion added these words?

So there are a number of reasons why I reject Mark 16:9-20 as being in the original text.

You are wrong!

Here is his response to my post:[3]

Mark 16:16 is not baptismal regeneration at all. It is baptism by the Holy Spirit. The verse itself shows that.
Paul in Acts 28 did have viper bite him and it had no effect. This is string evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is indeed original.
Paul also laid his hands on someone who recovered in Acts 28. This is string evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is indeed original.
These signs do disappear in the New Testament but that too matches Mark 16:9-20.
The rest of your response is full of assumptions and presuppositions.
Your extraordinary claim that all English Bibles are in error must be proved beyond all doubt.

My reply was:[4]

He claimed: ‘Mark 16:16 is not baptismal regeneration at all. It is baptism by the Holy Spirit. The verse itself shows that’.

My response: The context doesn’t indicate Spirit baptism but ‘whoever believes and is baptized will be saved’.

He claimed: ‘Paul in Acts 28 did have viper bite him and it had no effect. This is string evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is indeed original’.

My reply was that Paul’s being bitten by a viper in Acts 28:3f and not being killed, is very different theology from ‘picking up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them’.

He claimed: ‘Paul also laid his hands on someone who recovered in Acts 28. This is string evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is indeed original.’

My response was that laying hands on a person and that person is healed is different from the theology of Mk 16:18, ‘They WILL lay their hands on the sick, and they WILL recover’. Many people have had pastors and elders lay hands on the sick and pray for them and they HAVE NOT recovered from that sickness. I’m one such person. Healing from laying hands on the sick is not guaranteed. That’s determined by the sovereign God and there is no guarantee THEY WILL recover.

He came again: ‘These signs do disappear in the New Testament but that too matches Mark 16:9-20.’

Not according to Mk 16:17, ‘These signs will accompany those who believe’. It is expected that there will be ‘those who believe’ from the time of Jesus to the time of his second coming. See also John 14:12.

His view was, ‘The rest of your response is full of assumptions and presuppositions.’

Yes, I have presuppositions, but I try to back them with evidence. Let’s not overlook that both of us operate from presuppositions.

He claimed, ‘Your extraordinary claim that all English Bibles are in error must be proved beyond all doubt.’

My response was: I have never made such a statement. You have misrepresented my view.

Options for Mark 16:9-20 being in canon of Scripture

At one point this fellow stated: ‘Yes, no, or I do not know does indeed covers (sic) all choices’ (of his poll re Mk 16:9-20 being included in the Bible).[5]

My response was:[6]

These could be some of the choices:

Yes
No
I do not know
Some oldest MSS do not include 16:9-20;
Early MSS & other ancient witnesses don’t have 16:9-20;
There is serious doubt about whether 16:9-20 belongs in Mark;
Some ancient versions add 16:9-20; others leave it out.

These are but examples. There are more than 3 options.

Some further points

These are some further points I made:

The statement was made by another, ‘Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 declares that the gospel of salvation includes the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore the gospel according to Mark must have it. It would never have been accepted if it did not have it’.[7]

My response was:[8]

This is circular reasoning. Just because 1 Cor 15:1-4 declares the gospel of salvation involving Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, that does not place a requirement on what should appear in Mark’s version of the resurrection.

What God has permitted for Mark 16:1-8 to be Mark’s version of the resurrection and what is in the other gospels, is what God provided in his authoritative Scripture.
I Cor 15:1-4 does not dictate the extent of what should be in Mark when the other details of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus are in the FOUR Gospels.
It is circular reasoning to require that 1 Cor 15 dictates what should be in Mark.

’We need to be clear on something about Jesus’ resurrection. We have no record of any eyewitnesses who saw the actual resurrection of Jesus. Not a single person saw the resurrection – based on the NT evidence.

We do have evidence of people who spoke with, touched, and ate with Jesus after his resurrection. But that is not the same as these people being eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection’.[9]

A person wrote:[10]

The Bible gives warnings about adding to or taking away from the Bible.

Deuteronomy 4:2
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you

Deuteronomy 12:32
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
32 “[a]Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

Revelation 22:18
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book.

My brief reply was:[11]

Proof texting does not help this discussion for these reasons:

1. You quote 2 verses from Deuteronomy about not adding to the Word. But what does the New Testament do? It ADDS to the Word of the OT. There are issues of interpretation that must be dealt with to understand what’s going on here. Quoting from Deut without this discussion is not helpful.

2. Then you quote Rev 22:18, which is a common one for questioning those who discuss whether or not Mk 16:9-20 should be in or out of Scripture. But you did not discuss these matters:

Rev 22:18 was written at the end of a single book when it was composed. It was not in the canon of Scripture when originally written. Therefore, how can it relate to the entire OT and NT when it seems more likely to apply only to the Book of Revelation? There needs to be questions around this question rather than providing proof texts.
Also, how do you know what is the exact content of the canon of Scripture to know that one is adding to or subtracting from it? Does the canon include Mk 16:9-20 or is it an addition? This question of bibliology needs to be pursued. This is not possible with proof texting.
I find that proof texting leaves too many questions unanswered – and especially in a discussion like this.

A fellow replied:[12]

That makes two doubting Thomases?
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe’ (John 20:27).

My response was:[13]

Sounds like there are 3 of us.

I’m one who wants to be honest with the evidence from the Gospels. We have records of eyewitnesses who walked and talked with Jesus AFTER his resurrection and BEFORE the ascension. But, to my knowledge, there was not a single witness to his actual resurrection.

In many ways I’m pleased about that as such people could have found it difficult to maintain their humility. However, we have all the evidence in the NT that the Lord wanted us to have.

Works consulted

Metzger, B M 1992. The text of the New Testament. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Notes:

[1] SavedByGraceThruFaith#1, Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘Should the resurrection account of Mark 16:9-20 be removed from the bible?’ 27 December 2013. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7795110/ (Accessed 2 January 2014).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen#6.

[3] Ibid, SavedByGraceThruFaith#19, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7795110-2/,

[4] Ibid., OzSpen#21, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7795110-3/.

[5] Ibid, SavedByGraceThruFaith#5, http://www.christianforums.com/t7795110/.

[6] Ibid., OzSpen#27, http://www.christianforums.com/t7795110-3/.

[7] Ibid., SavedByGraceThruFaith#8, http://www.christianforums.com/t7795110/.

[8] Ibid., OzSpen#27, http://www.christianforums.com/t7795110-3/.

[9] Ibid., OzSpen#25.

[10] Ibid., SharolL#20, http://www.christianforums.com/t7795110-2/.

[11] Ibid., OzSpen#29.

[12] Ibid., SkyWriting#30.

[13] Ibid., OzSpen#31, http://www.christianforums.com/t7795110-4/#post64776358.