Category Archives: Theology

Does regeneration precede faith in Christian salvation?

By Spencer D Gear

When the Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed to unbelievers and they respond to salvation, what happens first in the new convert – faith, repentance, regeneration or something else? When growing up in the evangelical church, I understood that regeneration referred to God’s work of causing me to be born again by the Spirit when I was saved. Was this correct or not?

Let’s read some prominent Calvinists.

Views of some leading Calvinists

R C Sproul states: “In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire Him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith” (1985, p. 186, emphasis added). Elsewhere, Sproul wrote. “Repentance is not the cause of new birth or regeneration; it is the result or fruit of regeneration” (1992, p. 193).

J I Packer’s view is that “regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause” (1993, p. 158). This is a gentle theological way of saying that regeneration precedes faith.

Charles Hodge considers that “regeneration does not consist in any act or acts of the soul…. Regeneration is an act of God…. It is God who regenerates. The soul is regenerated. In this sense the soul is passive in regeneration, which (subjectively considered) is a change wrought in us…. Regeneration subjectively considered, or viewed as an effect or change wrought in the soul, is not an act…. Regeneration is declared to be a new birth…. The first conscious exercise of the renewed soul is faith; as the first conscious act of a man born blind whose eyes have been opened, is seeing” (1975, pp. 7, 31, 32, 35, 41). So, the renewed, born again, soul receives regeneration and then exercises faith – regeneration precedes faith.

Wayne Grudem maintains that “Scripture indicates that regeneration must come before we can respond to effective calling with saving faith. Therefore we can say that regeneration comes before the result of effective calling (our faith). But it is more difficult to specify the exact relationship in time between regeneration and the human proclamation of the gospel through which God works in effective calling. At least two passages suggest that God regenerates us at the same time as he speaks to us in effective calling [1 Peter 1:23, 25 and James 1:18 NIV]” (1994, p. 700).

With this kind of thinking among leading Reformed thinkers, it is not surprising that it is conveyed to the people in contemporary Calvinistic churches.

The online Calvinists’ views

I’ve been doing some blogging (I’m ozspen) on Christian Forums and came across some Reformed Baptists who claim that regeneration precedes faith. Here are some of their statements:

“With all due respect if there’s no scriptural support for it [regeneration preceding faith] why are there truckloads of articles and sermons and books and church councils and creeds and confessions and statements of faith that use scripture to support it?… For example, here’s a giant article with links to at least 2 1-hour sermons on the topic and scripture is used the entire time.
Jesus Teaches Monergistic Regeneration by John Hendryx ” (Skala #23)

“Not “whosoever believes will be born of God,” but has been. You believe because you have been born of God. You are not born of God because you believe” (faceofbear #60).

“And regeneration happens temporally at the same time as faith. It’s not as if you are regenerated and then at a later point in time you have faith. It’s simultaneous. What we mean by regeneration precedes faith is that regeneration is necessary for a man to exercise faith. As prior to regeneration he is spiritually dead and hostile to God and cannot understand the spiritual things of God” (Skala #69);

But wait a minute: What is regeneration?

Let’s check a few theological definitions of the meaning of regeneration:

Charles Hodge, the Calvinist, claims there is “a consent almost universal” that the word regeneration “is now used to designate, not the whole work of sanctification, nor the first stages of that work comprehended in [Christian] conversion, much less justification or any mere external change of state, but the instantaneous change from spiritual death to spiritual life. Regeneration, therefore, is a spiritual resurrection: the beginning of a new life” (1975, p. 5).

Henry Thiessen, a non-Calvinist, states that “from the divine side, the change of heart is called regeneration, the new birth; from the human side it is called conversion. In regeneration the soul is passive; in conversion … it is active. We may define regeneration as the communication of divine life to the soul (John 3:5; 10:10, 28; 1 John 5:11, 12), as the impartation of a new nature (2 Pet. 1:4) or heart (Jer. 24:7; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26), and the production of a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10; 4:24)” (Thiessen 1949, p. 367).

Wayne Grudem, a Calvinist, defines regeneration as follows: “Regeneration is a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us. This is sometimes called ‘being born again’ (using language from John 3:3-8)” (Grudem 1994, p. 699).

John Miley, an Arminian, states briefly that “to be born of God is to be born into his family, and to become his child. Sonship is thus immediately from regeneration. This is the clear meaning of the Scriptures” such as John 1:12-13 and Galatians 3:26-27 (1989, p. 397).

Let’s check out a couple of leading exponents of Reformed theology to see what they think of the idea of regeneration preceding faith.

What was John Calvin’s view?

I was reading in Calvin’s Institutes where he equates repentance with regeneration. John Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.3.9-10, wrote:

9. Both of these we obtain by union with Christ. For if we have true fellowship in his death, our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin becomes dead, so that the corruption of our original nature is never again in full vigor (Rom. 6:5, 6). If we are partakers in his resurrection, we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which conforms us to the righteousness of God. In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, French, “une regeneration spirituelle;”—a spiritual regeneration. the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam. So the Apostle teaches when he says, “We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Again, “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds” and “put ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Again, “Put ye on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:23, 24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 4:16. Accordingly through the blessing of Christ we are renewed by that regeneration into the righteousness of God from which we had fallen through Adam, the Lord being pleased in this manner to restore the integrity of all whom he appoints to the inheritance of life. This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare. The greater is the effrontery of an impure raver and apostate, named Staphylus, who pretends that I confound the condition of the present life with the celestial glory, when, after Paul, I make the image of God to consist in righteousness and true holiness; as if in every definition it were not necessary to take the thing defined in its integrity and perfection. It is not denied that there is room for improvement; but what I maintain is, that the nearer any one approaches in resemblance to God, the more does the image of God appear in him. That believers may attain to it, God assigns repentance as the goal towards which they must keep running during the whole course of their lives.

10. By regeneration the children of God are delivered from the bondage of sin, but not as if they had already obtained full possession of freedom, and no longer felt any annoyance from the flesh. Materials for an unremitting contest remain, that they may be exercised, and not only exercised, but may better understand their weakness. All writers of sound judgment agree in this, that, in the regenerate man, there is still a spring of evil which is perpetually sending forth desires that allure and stimulate him to sin… (my emphasis).

There is no mention here of regeneration/repentance prior to faith.

What about that Calvinistic stalwart, C H Spurgeon?

C. H. Spurgeon (image courtesy The Spurgeon Archive)

If the theology of regeneration prior to faith is alleged to be true, it is a “ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him”, says C H Spurgeon. It is ridiculous because Spurgeon would be preaching faith to a person who was already saved. It would be preaching Christ to one who is already regenerated.

C H Spurgeon, in his sermon, “The Warrant of Faith”, seems to write against the idea that regeneration precedes faith:

Others say that the warrant for a sinner to believe in Christ is his election. Now, as his election cannot possibly be known by any man until he has believed, this is virtually preaching that nobody has any known warrant for believing at all. If I cannot possibly know my election before I believe—and yet the minister tells me that I may only believe upon the ground of my election—how am I ever to believe at all? Election brings me faith, and faith is the evidence of my election; but to say that my faith is to depend upon my knowledge of my election, which I cannot get without faith. is to talk egregious nonsense.
I lay down this morning with great boldness—because I know and am well persuaded that what I speak is the mind of the Spirit—this doctrine that the sole and only warrant for a sinner to believe in Jesus is found in the gospel itself and in the command which accompanies that gospel, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” I shall deal with that matter first of all, negatively, and then, positively.
1. First, NEGATIVELY; and here my first observation is that any other way of preaching the gospel-warrant is absurd. If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Where there is repentance there is faith already, for they never can be separated. So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it. Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners. “Nay,” saith one, “but we mean that a man must have some good desires towards Christ before he has any warrant to believe in Jesus.” Friend, do you not know what all good desires have some degree of holiness in them? But if a sinner hath any degree of true holiness in him it must be the work of the Spirit, for true holiness never exists in the carnal mind, therefore, that man is already renewed, and therefore saved. Are we to go running up and down the world, proclaiming life to the living, casting bread to those who are fed already, and holding up Christ on the pole of the gospel to those who are already healed? My brethren, where is our inducement to labour where our efforts are so little needed? If I am to preach Christ to those who have no goodness, who have nothing in them that qualifies them for mercy, then I feel I have a gospel so divine that I would proclaim it with my last breath, crying aloud, that “Jesus came into the world to save sinners“—sinners as sinners, not as penitent sinners or as awakened sinners, but sinners as sinners, sinners “of whom I am chief.”
Secondly, to tell the sinner that he is to believe on Christ because of some warrant in himself, is legal, I dare to say it—legal. Though this method is generally adopted by the higher school of Calvinists, they are herein unsound, uncalvinistic, and legal; it is strange that they who are so bold defenders of free grace should make common cause with Baxterians and Pelagians.

Spurgeon rightly states that it is an “unnecessary and ridiculous thing” to preach Christ to a person who is already regenerate. If regeneration happens first, then he is preaching Christ to people who already have it. Regeneration prior to faith is unbiblical theology and Spurgeon admits it up front.

But elsewhere he makes statements of regeneration prior to faith.

We see this particularly in his sermon, “Faith and Regeneration“, where he states:

“We must now pass on to show that WHEREVER IT [FAITH] EXISTS IT IS THE PROOF OF REGENERATION” in his sermon on.

“Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man”.

“Many men refuse to see more than one side of a doctrine, and persistently fight against anything which is not on its very surface consistent with their own idea. In the present case I do not find it difficult to believe faith to be at the same time the duty of man and the gift of God.”

So, he is making two apparently contradictory statements: (1) Regeneration precedes faith (this is the equivalent of irresistible grace), and (2) “If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate” (reference above).

Which is it to be? Regeneration prior to faith OR regeneration is NOT prior to faith?

What do the Scriptures state?

Surely this is the key factor. There are verses in Scripture, when understood in context, that teach that faith is logically prior to salvation/regeneration. Check out Luke 13:3; John 3:6-7, 16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:24-25; 5:1; Titus 3:5-7; and 2 Peter 3:9.

Let’s examine these Scriptures individually.

Luke 13:3: “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (ESV).[1]

To avoid judgment (perishing), this verse says that the condition is NOT regeneration first, but repentance. So, for anyone to experience salvation, repentance is required. This is a consistent message of Scripture (eg Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 26:20). These verses do not enforce the theology that regeneration must precede faith.

John 3:6-7, 16: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again'” (John 3:6-7). “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

New birth occurs at regeneration. Who is the creator of this new spiritual life? God Himself! In this chapter of John 3, Jesus makes it clear that faith is the condition for being born again, receiving the new birth, or being saved to experience eternal life. He states that “whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (3:15) and “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (3:16).
What is the means to the end of somebody obtaining salvation or becoming regenerate? Faith! The one who BELIEVES (has faith). That’s a conclusion reached by contextual hermeneutics (interpretation).

Acts 16:31: ‘And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you^(B) and your household”‘.

“[You] Believe in the Lord Jesus” and the person will be saved along with his household. The order is the same as for the verses in John 3; “belief” comes before salvation; thus faith is the condition on which a person receives God’s salvation through the Lord Jesus.

Romans 3:24-25: “And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins”

This incredible passage on justification mentions that justification and propitiation are “received by faith”. Yes, God planned this eternal life from before the world came into being (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2) and, thus, before anyone could receive this justification and propitiation, God planned that justification would be “received by faith”. This pattern is consistent in the NT that faith is first (eg John 17:20; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22; 10:9, 14; 1 Cor 1:21; Gal 3:22; etc, etc).

These verses are very clear that justification and propitiation for believers are received “by faith”. This is not eisegesis, but solid exegesis with contextual interpretation.[2]

Romans 5:1: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”.

The text is very clear that justification is received “by faith”. While God is the source through our Lord Jesus Christ, there is no statement here that justification (or regeneration) is the means by which we receive salvation. Justification comes “by faith”. Faith logically precedes justification.

Titus 3:5-7: “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, butaccording to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life”.

It is true that these three verses do not use the word “faith” but that regeneration and justification came to us “by his grace”. However this is not a statement to support the view that regeneration precedes faith.
Please note the very next verse where faith (believe) demonstrates faith’s necessity according to Titus 3:8: “The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people” (ESV). FAITH, those who believe, comes before good works. Faith is the means to salvation as v. 8 demonstrates and this leads to believers devoting themselves to the ministry of good works.

Eph. 2:8-9 is an explicit parallel to these verses in Titus, also written by Paul, where it is very definite that believers are “saved through faith“: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (ESV).

2 Peter 3:9 states, “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“.

The order here is that repentance comes before salvation/rescuing from perishing. The context is the day of the Lord coming (3:1-13) and scoffers coming in the last days (3:3) and challenging, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (3:4). Then there is a description of the heavens and the earth existing and being formed “by the word of God” (3:5). Then the deluge (great flood). By that same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire by the same word of God when judgment and destruction are coming on the ungodly(3:7).

How will people avoid this judgment and destruction? Contextual interpretation indicates that God is patient, not wanting any to perish and all to come to repentance (3:9). This is a core verse in the passage because it gives God’s remedy for escaping the judgment and destruction: “All should reach repentance”.

What about this verse?

Romans 10:17, in the ESV, states the order of salvation clearly: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”.

It does not say that faith comes from a preceding regeneration. The initial reading of the verse indicates that faith is produced by hearing the word of Christ and the word of Christ comes before faith. Here, the order that leads to salvation, by inference, is that someone is sent; there is preaching or evangelism; there is hearing of the word of Christ, and there is believing.

Conclusion

I have provided biblical support for the view that God is the source of salvation / regeneration and that a person’s faith/repentance is the means to receive that salvation.

The monergism[3] (that accompanies a view of irresistible grace) that Calvinists support (and reject synergism[4]) does not have biblical support in my understanding of Scripture (some details are above).

The scriptures are clear that human beings can resist the grace of God and some do that (Matt. 23:37) but God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to salvation/repentance (1 Tim. 2:3-5; 2 Peter 3:9). That’s what one would expect from the loving God (1 John 4:16) who loves everyone (John 3:16) and wants all to come to salvation/repentance (1 Tim. 2:3).

Synergism (God’s grace working with human free will) is God’s way for human beings to be saved. God’s gift must be received for regeneration, justification, propitiation, salvation to be experienced by any person. God acts and people receive. That’s Bible.

It is evident from the Scriptures that the Calvinistic doctrine on regeneration preceding faith is short on biblical evidence – it is in error. In addition, as Spurgeon has stated so well, it is ridiculous to preach the Gospel of Christ to someone who is already regenerated. Why preach faith in Christ for salvation to somebody who is already born again by the Spirit?

Regeneration preceding faith is described by Spurgeon as ridiculous, unsound, uncalvinistic, and legal. Sure sounds like he doesn’t believe in this error that is promoted by other Calvinists! But he is inconsistent, as quoted above. He does believe that “wherever [faith] exists it is the proof of regeneration”.

Notes:

[1] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles, 2001).

[2] When I presented these verses that I’m discussing here, on Christian Forums, I was told that “it seems to me that not a single verse you asserted teaches that regeneration precedes faith actually has anything to do with it at all. I am scared that you have read into these passages something that is not there. That’s called eisegesis” (Christian Forums –>Congregation–>Christian Communities–>Baptists, “John 1:11-13, Receiving Christ”, 2 April 2011, Skala # 112, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7545666-12/#post57130679 , accessed 2 April 2011).

[3] The “Monergism” website provides this definition of monergism: “The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. It is in contrast with synergism, the view that there is a cooperation between the divine and the human in the regeneration process. Monergism is a redemptive blessing purchased by Christ for those the Father has given Him (1 Pet 1:3, John 3:5,6, 6:37, 39). This grace works independently of any human cooperation and conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is effectually enabled to respond to the gospel call (John 1:13; Acts 2:39, 13:48; Rom 9:16)” (available at: http://www.monergism.com/ , accessed 3 April 2011).

[4] What is synergism? The evangelical Arminians state: ‘I believe the term “synergism” is not always accurately applied to the Arminian position. The word comes from the Greek synergos, which essentially means “working together”. While monergism (to work alone) may be an acceptable label for what Calvinists believe (God does all the work in salvation), synergism does not always rightly portray what Arminians have historically believed.

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

‘Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. God alone does the saving. God alone regenerates the soul that is dead in sin. God alone forgives and justifies on the merits of Christ’s blood. God alone makes us holy and righteous. In all of these ways salvation is entirely monergistic. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God’s saving work is conditional or unconditional. Arminians believe that God will not save until we meet the God ordained condition of faith. Faith may be understood as synergistic only in the sense that God graciously enables us to believe, but we are the ones who must decide whether or not we will believe” (Society of Evangelical Arminians, “Is Arminian theology synergistic?”, available at: http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/27, accessed 3 April 2011).

Anger with God over illness and death

(public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to hear of people who get angry with God over the sudden death of a loved one or of a younger person diagnosed with a terminal condition. We see it on www forums like this one, “How can I not be angry at God for taking my wife away?” The best answer to this question, chosen by voters on the forum was, “You have to know that God did not take your wife away from you”. Really?

Then there is a mother who gives another perspective:

I am 69, Mum of three, grandma to 11 and great grandma to 10, but nearly 11. I have had cancer five times. In my neck, breast, face, bowel and ovary. I have experienced Radio therapy, chemotherapy, and operations.
People have asked aren’t you angry with God. The answer is no, I’m not angry with God, He has brought me through it all, I am well and look after myself. I do my best and God does the rest.
Through it all I have learnt so much.

Anger with God over tragedy comes in this story:

I just heard another story of a family’s lives being turned upside down. Their son, who was preparing to graduate from college is now fighting for his life. His illness came from out of the blue, and it leaves this Christian family devastated. They want to know why this is happening and where the God who they’ve always believed in is. Why doesn’t our all powerful, sovereign God intercede? They are angry, confused, and hurt.

How should we respond to the news that a Christian man with a young family has been diagnosed with cancer, has been through chemotherapy, and the specialist has advised that he should get his house in order as he has only a few months to live?

(Cancer image Wikipedia)

Would the words of an old song say it the way it is or do we yearn for something other?

This world is not my home

I’m just a-passing through.

My treasures are laid up

Somewhere beyond the blue.

I have become aware of this situation in recent months. Here are some details (I have changed a few of the details to protect the innocent):

Please pray for a miracle for the healing of this man (aged in his 30s with 4 young children) who is an evangelical Christian.
This person has contacts around the world so there could be thousands praying for his healing. Please join these people and ask God to grant healing to this man who is in the prime of his life.
His condition is deteriorating and he is losing weight quickly. He may have only a few months to live.
Anger with God has been expressed over this illness.
Prayer was asked for God to perform a miracle and confound the medical profession and the logic of human wisdom.
May God be glorified!

How should we respond as evangelical Christian believers?

The natural human reaction is to become angry with God that a person in the ‘prime of life’ with children should die in this way. Is this a godly reaction? As those who have been born-again by the Spirit of God, what should be our response?

A well-known Scripture comes to mind: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). It is godly and not glib to say that with impending death of a loved one who loves Jesus, that God is working all things, including this possible death, “according to his purpose”. God would never ever do anything unjust or contrary to his perfect will. But I’m jumping ahead of myself.

There are some fundamentals that we need to understand to get death into perspective, whether death in the womb, as children and teens, middle aged or in older age. These are some of those fundamentals: (1) the sovereignty of God in life and death; (2) the need for compassion towards the needy, and (3) the Lord who still has the ability to heal if it is according to His will.

A. The sovereignty of God in life and death

When we look at deaths through cancer, HIV, accidents, disasters, and heart disease, some people find it difficult to believe in the God of sovereign control. When we turn on the TV news and see the floods, other disasters and crime around the world, how is it possible to even consider that a benevolent, perfect Lord God is in control of the universe?

How can we talk of God’s sovereignty when we consider the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot and Idi Amin?

Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot killing fields Cambodia Idi Amin

God always has authority over all nations. But wait a minute! How can this be possible in light of the genocides just mentioned, the slaughter in the Sudan, and the other evil in our world? For biblical perspectives on evil and suffering, see my article, “The ‘grotesque’ God, evil & suffering“. See also “Notes on the problem of evil” by Ron Rhodes and “The polemic shot in the foot” by Ravi Zacharias.

These are the core Christian beliefs regarding governments:

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended” (Romans 13:1-3 NIV).[1]

However, there is this qualifier: “Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than human beings!'” (Acts 5:29). This means that when the laws of governments clash with the laws of God, we must obey God rather than human governments.

What is meant by the sovereignty of God?

“By the sovereignty of God we mean that as Creator of all things visible and invisible, God is the owner of all; that He, therefore, has an absolute right to rule over all (Matt. 20:15; Rom. 9:20, 21); and that He actually exercises this authority in the universe (Eph. 1:11)” (Thiessen 1949:173).

This sovereign authority is not based on some impulsive, arbitrary, whimsical will, but on the wise and holy counsel of God Himself.

When it comes to understanding cancer, evil and disasters in our world, we need to consider another attribute of God. It is difficult for us to grasp the content of this verse from Psalm 139:16. It makes it clear that God is in charge of the times of a person’s beginning and end of life: “Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be”.

This verse gives us just a glimpse of God’s attribute of omniscience. The omniscience of God means that “He knows Himself and all other things, whether they be actual or merely possible, whether they be past, present or future, and that He knows them perfectly and from all eternity. He knows things immediately, simultaneously, exhaustively and truly. He also knows the best way to attain His desired ends” (Thiessen 1949:124).

Therefore, God has knowledge of the possible and the actual. From our human perspective, we call God’s knowledge of the future, foreknowledge. But from God’s viewpoint, “He knows all things in one simultaneous intuition” (Thiessen 1949:125).

In Psalm 139:16, we see an example of the omniscience of God. From a human view, it is God’s foreknowledge and we find it difficult to get our mind around the fact that all the days of every human being from formation in the womb to the last breath drawn, are known to God. This applies to my friend who is dying of cancer before reaching an old age. It is clear that pre-natal forming by God is indicated by the use of the language of “my body”. A person’s life begins in the womb and continues after birth until physical death and beyond – into the intermediate state. God’s omniscience sees all those days and they are written in God’s “book”. What an amazing insight into God’s attribute and of human existence!

There are verses in the New Testament that cause us to think of God’s omniscience in relation to life and death. Matthew 10:28-31 states:

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.[2] And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”

The one who determines what happens in life after death is the One Lord God Almighty. We are to fear Him with a godly fear.

Psalm 116:15 reminds us: “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his faithful servants”. God does not tell us that all will live to seventy[3] or eighty years (see Psalm 90:10). But he does assure us: “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21). The New Living Translation gives a beautiful rendition of this verse: “For to me, living means living for Christ, and dying is even better”. For dying of cancer at a young age to be seen as “even better” than living for Christ in the here and now, one must see life and death from God’s perspective. Too much of human misery is seen humanistically rather than theistically.

Corrie Ten Boom, a Nazi prison camp survivor and worldwide missionary, wrote in a letter in 1974:

Sometimes I get frightened as I read the Bible, and as I look in this world and see all of the tribulation and persecution promised by the Bible coming true. Now I can tell you, though, if you too are afraid, that I have just read the last pages. I can now come to shouting “Hallelujah! Hallelujah!” for I have found where it is written that Jesus said, “He that overcometh shall inherit all things: and I will be His God, and he shall be My son.” This is the future and hope of this world. Not that the world will survive but that we shall be overcomers in the midst of a dying world.

Betsy and I, in the concentration camp, prayed that God would heal Betsy who was so weak and sick. “Yes, the Lord will heal me,”, Betsy said with confidence. She died the next day and I could not understand it. They laid her thin body on the concrete floor along with all the other corpses of the women who died that day.

It was hard for me to understand, to believe that God had a purpose for all that. Yet because of Betsy’s death, today I am traveling all over the world telling people about Jesus.

What a beautiful way to see the meaning of death and its continuing impact for the good of the relatives who remain! Until we have the mind of Christ, we will not grasp God’s perspective on life and death. Paul reminded the Corinthian church:

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:14-16 ESV).

If Christians are still thinking naturally and not according to the Spirit of God, they will not understand how death for the believer is “even better” than living in this wicked world. The growing Christian with “the mind of Christ” discerns God’s sovereign will and omniscience in death happening at any age.

The theology of life, death and life-after-death needs to be taught in our churches, otherwise people will be shocked by cancer or sudden death that happens in youth or mid-life, rather than old age. I recommend John Piper’s message, “The death of a Spirit-filled man” for a fuller understanding of death and what follows for the believer.

God is sovereign Lord of life and death and his omniscience knows all that will happen in the future. But there is a dimension to life on earth that needs Christian understanding. See the article, “Is it wrong to get angry with God?”

B. The need for compassion towards the suffering & needy

In August 2008, The World Bank estimated that “at a poverty line of $1.25 a day, the revised estimates find 1.4 billion people live at this poverty line or below”. How should Christians respond to such a desperate need?

In this article I am discussing a Christian man with a young family and wife and he has only months to live. How should local Christians respond? Ephesians 4:32 provides insight: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you”.

“Compassionate” is also used by the NET and NAB Bibles. For “compassionate”, other translations use “tender-hearted” (KJV, NASB, NLT, ESV, NRSV). What is the meaning of the Greek, eusplagchnoi that is used here? It is a rare word that “indicates a very deep feeling, ‘a yearning with the deeply felt affection of Christ Jesus'”. A tender-hearted or compassionate person has “deep feelings of love and pity” (Hendriksen 1967:223).

We should not overlook the fact that Eph. 4:32 also exhorts Christians to “be kind”, which is a “Spirit-imparted goodness of heart, the very opposite of malice or badness mentioned in verse 31″ (Hendriksen 1967:223).

This deep love of Christ for the cancer sufferer must be expressed by believers through being alongside and caring for the sufferer. How can this be spoken to the sufferer? It involves being present, speaking and praying with the person who has cancer. This may involve practical actions to help the person and family at this point of need.

A parallel passage is Colossians 3:12-13:

“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you”.

Remember Matthew 25: 37-40 and the link of caring for the needy and the final judgment:

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'”.

The Golden Rule provides fundamental instruction: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:41). If you or I were in need of compassion or assistance in any way, would we appreciate those who were tender-hearted towards us? Of course! Therefore, the Christian’s obligation is to be that kind of person to others. The Christian is one who must care for the needy and suffering.

Alan Redpath wrote this of Nehemiah: “You never lighten the load unless first you have felt the pressure in your own soul. You are never used of God to bring blessing until God has opened your eyes and made you see things as they are” (in Swindoll 1998:110).

Yes, we need compassion for those who are suffering physically. But what’s the part of God in healing the sick?

C. I believe that it is possible for God to heal today.

Jesus healed the sick when he was on earth, but He has returned to the Father in glory. What role has God given to Christians after Jesus’ personal departure? I am of the view that miracles, including miracles of healing, are meant to continue and I have expounded on it in this article, “Are miracles valuable?” See also Jack Deere’s article, “Were miracles meant to be temporary?”

Here we have a few indications of the continuing ministry of miracles, including healing:

John 14:12 states, “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father”. First Corinthians 12:9 confirms that God has given “to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit” (see also vv. 28, 30). James 5:13-16 places a healing ministry within the church:

“Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective”.

The church needs to be taught that one of the roles of elders is to anoint the sick person with oil and “prayer offered in faith” (by the elders) will raise the sick person up if sins are confessed. The initiative is with the sick person to call for the elders for anointing and prayer.

What does it mean to say that prayer for healing is “offered in faith”? It is not prayer plus oil that leads to healing. God does bring healing in answer to prayer as is seen by the example of Hezekiah in Isaiah 38:1-6. But what is the prayer “offered in faith”? It has to deal with the faith of the sick person who called for the elders and from the elders who prayed. It is prayer that depends on the sovereign Lord. The prayer’s answer is with the Lord who heals. His sovereign will is to be obeyed. James is very clear about actions that must be done in accordance with the Lord’s will: “You ought to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that'” (James 4:15).

However, we must never overlook this fact that “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). This is the Christian tight rope: Prayer to the Lord by righteous people is effective in praying for the sick, but faith of both the sick and the elders are required. Also, God’s will, unknown to those who pray, is also involved in the outcome. Nevertheless, we are called to pray for the sick.

The teaching on the prayer of faith is not a verse to support a concept that “all who are anointed with oil, prayed for by elders, will be healed by God”. See my article in opposition to “blab it and grab it” theology as taught by some extreme charismatic leaders. Evangelical, charismatic theologian, Wayne Grudem, states:

“I do not think that God gives anyone warrant to promise or ‘guarantee’ healing in this age, for his written Word makes no such guarantee, and our subjective sense of his will is always subject to some degree of uncertainty and some measure of error in this life” (1994:1067 n35).

Also note that this praying for the sick is extended beyond the role of elders. James 5:16 states: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective”. Individual Christians are authorised to confess their sins to one another and pray for each other that a person “may be healed”.

God can and does heal, but we cannot command him to do so when we want it to happen. He is sovereign Lord and answers prayers according to His will.

D. Can we change God’s mind through prayer?

Will the praying of thousands of people for my friend’s healing make more difference than if only only a handful are praying? Can God’s mind with regard to healing a person be changed through the prayers of one or a multitude of prayers?

God does listen to righteous people when they pray, but God does not do what the righteous demand. God does whatever His righteous will determines. God’s language with Sodom & Gomorrah came in the form of a question, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18:25)

The Lord God Almighty will demonstrate His justice in the life and death of all who suffer and die. God’s perfect will must be done, but it is He who decides when the last breath is drawn, whether through a still birth, dying as a child, dying in middle age, or dying at a ripe old age. A Christian friend of mine died recently at the age of 103.

E. Catch a glimpse of heaven

The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). To the thief on the cross, Jesus gave this assurance, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Therefore, the Christian assurance is that at death he/she is ushered into the presence of the Lord which is “gain” or “even better” than life on earth (Phil. 1:21).

Therefore, why do Christians want to stay longer on the earth? It is a very human desire to remain with a spouse and children. But God has an “even better” location for the believer who dies physically, that is described as a place of “many rooms” (John 14:2).

What are the experiences of atheists, agnostics and Christian believers at death?

It is reported that Professor J.H. Huxley, the famous agnostic, as he lay dying suddenly looked up at some sight invisible to mortal eyes, and staring awhile, whispered at last, “So it is true.”

Sir Francis Newport, head of the English Infidel Club, said to those gathered around his death bed, “Do not tell me there is no God for I know there is one, and that I am in his angry presence! You need not tell me there is no hell, for I already feel my soul slipping into its fires! Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know that I am lost forever.”

Dwight L. Moody, the famous Christian preacher, awakening from sleep shortly before he died had just the opposite to say: “Earth recedes. Heaven opens before me. If this is death, it is sweet! There is no valley here. God is calling me, and I must go.”

“No, no, Father,” said Moody’s son, “You are dreaming.” “I am not dreaming,” replied Moody. “I have been within the gates. I have seen the children’s faces.” His last words were, “This is my triumph; this is my coronation day! It is glorious!” (from “What if there is a heaven?“)

Shortly before he died, John Bunyan, said:

“Weep not for me, but for yourselves; I go to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will, through the mediation of His Blessed Son, receive me, though a sinner, where I hope we ere long shall meet to sing the new song and remain everlastingly happy, world without end” (in Lutzer 1997:141)

Conclusion

Far too much hope is placed on living in this wicked world. It is “far better” to be in the presence of the Lord at death.

God has provided means of healing in this present age through medical science (which is not covered here) and the ministry of the church. However, God does not guarantee healing in this life. He does guarantee his sovereign will for all true believers. See my article, “Should God heal all Christians who pray for healing?”

The vision before the believer at death is:

Heaven’s Sounding Sweeter All The Time

Life has been so good, I can’t complain
When I’m down, God gives me strength to rise again
I get weary from the struggle of it all,
That’s when I listen, how I listen for His call

Chorus
Heaven’s sounding sweeter all the time
Seems like lately, it’s always on my mind
Someday I’ll leave this world behind,
Heaven’s sounding sweeter all the time

2. Oh, it’s hard to lose a loved one to the grave
but we have the blessed hope that Jesus gave
God’s gonna wipe all the tears from our eyes
When we meet Him in that land beyond the skies

Works consulted

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

Hendriksen, W. 1967. Ephesians, in New Testament Commentary: Expositions of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Lutzer, E. W. 1997. One minute after you die: A preview of your final destination. Chicago: Moody Press.

Swindoll, C. R. 1998. Swindoll’s ultimate book of illustrations & quotes. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

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

Notes:

[2] The NIV footnote is: “Or will; or knowledge”. The English Standard Version translates as: “And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father”.

[3] The language of older Bible translations such as the KJV was “threescore and ten” for seventy.

Whytehouse designs

Does the Bible teach limited atonement or unlimited atonement by Christ?

(public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

It has been a theologically contentious issue since the time of the Reformation, with even some dispute going back to St. Augustine. Did Jesus die for the sins of the whole world or did he die only for the sins of the elect – the church?

One supporter of limited atonement (Dr. C. Matthew McMahon ) wrote:

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is not limited in its power to save, but in the extent to which it reaches and will save certain individuals.

Limited atonement is a theological term that has been used for centuries to define a very important aspect of the Gospel. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine which states that Jesus Christ came and died for a limited number of people. He did not die, or redeem, every individual for all of time, but for some individuals, i.e. His sheep and His church. This does not mean that the power of His death could not have saved all men if He wanted to. The power and efficacy of His death in and through one drop of His blood could have saved a million-billion worlds. That was not what God intended. The Scripture does not dabble in “possibilities.” It does, however, state that the scope of His death is limited.

R. C. Sproul (1992:175) prefers the term definite atonement to limited atonement and he states that it refers “to the question of the design of Christ’s atonement” and what God intended in sending Jesus to the cross. He explained:

Christ’s atonement does not avail for unbelievers…. Some put it this way: Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for some. This, however, does not really get at the heart of the question of definite atonement…. The Reformed view holds that Christ’s atonement was designed and intended only for the elect. Christ laid down His life for His sheep and only for His sheep. Furthermore, the Atonement insured salvation for all the elect (Sproul 1992:176).

I John 2:2 would seem to be an excellent verse to establish Christ’s unlimited atonement – dying for the whole world of sinners: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (NIV).

How does Sproul interpret this verse? He admits that “this text, more than any other, is cited as scriptural proof against definite atonement”. His view is that if this verse is taken in this sense, “it becomes a proof text for universalism”. His way of viewing the text is

“to see the contrast in it between our sins and those of the whole world. Who are the people included in the word our?…. In this text, John may merely be saying that Christ is not only a propitiation for our sins (Jewish believers) but for the elect found also throughout the whole world…. The purpose of God in Christ’s death was determined at the foundation of the world. The design was not guesswork but according to a specific plan and purpose, which God is sovereignly bring to pass. All for whom Christ died are redeemed by His sacrificial act…. The Atonement in a broad sense is offered to all; in a narrow sense, it is only offered to the elect. John’s teaching that Christ died for the sins of the whole world means that the elect are not limited to Israel but are found throughout the world” (Sproul 1992:176-177, emphasis in original).

Talk about confusion. There is not a word in context of 1 John to speak of the elect as limited to Israel. What does the Bible teach?

By contrast, Lutheran commentator, R. C. H. Lenski (1966:399-400), while preferring the term expiation to propitiation, states that the Righteous One (Jesus, from 1 John 2:1) “suffered for unrighteous ones” and this was effective regarding the whole world.

John advances the thought from sins to the whole world of sinners. Christ made expiation for our sins and thereby for all sinners. We understand [cosmos] in the light of John 3:16 and think that it includes all men [meaning people], us among them, and not only all unsaved men [i.e. people] (Lenski 1966:400).

Did John Calvin (AD 1509-1564) support limited atonement? In the early days of his writing when he was aged 26, he completed the first edition of The Institutes of the Christian Religion. In the Institutes, he wrote:

I say with Augustine, that the Lord has created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed. Why he willed it is not ours to ask, as we cannot comprehend, nor can it become us even to raise a controversy as to the justice of the divine will. Whenever we speak of it, we are speaking of the supreme standard of justice (Institutes 3.23.5).

Here Calvin affirmed that God willed the destruction of unbelievers. Calvin continues:

their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not. It is certain, however, that it was just, because he saw that his own glory would thereby be displayed (Institutes 3.23.8)

While this description is tied up with Calvin’s view of double predestination, it is linked with the doctrine of limited atonement in that it would be impossible for God to predestine unbelievers to eternal damnation and yet provide unlimited atonement that was available to them, unto the possibility of salvation. That is the logical connection, as I understand it.

Roger Nicole has written an article on “John Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement”. This indicates that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement, but that it was a doctrine originated by Calvinists following Calvin.

Calvin’s first edition of The Institutes was in Latin in 1536 and this was published in a French edition in 1560.

John Calvin did progress in his thinking when he wrote his commentaries on the Bible later in life. His first commentary was on the Book of Romans in 1540 and his commentaries after 1557 were taken from stenographer’s notes taken from lectures to his students. He wrote in his commentary on John 3:16:

Faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish….

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life (emphasis added).

Thus John Calvin himself is very clear. He believed in unlimited atonement.

The following verses also affirm unlimited atonement:

John 1:29: “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'”

John 4:42: “They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'”

Acts 2:21: “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Romans 5:6: “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.”

2 Corinthians 5:14-15: “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.”

1 Timothy 2:3-4: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

1 Timothy 2:5-6: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men – the testimony given in its proper time.”

1 Timothy 4:10: “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”

Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.”

Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”

2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

1 John 4:14: “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.”

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Theologian, Henry C. Thiessen’s, summary of the sense in which Christ is the Saviour of the world is:

His death secured for all men a delay in the execution of the sentence against sin, space for repentance, and the common blessings of life which have been forfeited by transgression; it removed from the mind of God every obstacle to the pardon of the penitent and restoration of the sinner, except his wilful opposition to God and rejection of him; it procured for the unbeliever the powerful incentives to repentance presented in the Cross, by means of the preaching of God’s servants, and through the work of the Holy Spirit; it provided salvation for those who die in infancy, and assured its application to them; and it makes possible the final restoration of creation itself (Thiessen 1949:330).

Limited or definite atonement is clearly refuted by Scripture. Limited atonement is a false doctrine.

Works consulted

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

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

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

Whytehouse designs

Roman Catholic vs. Protestant views on theological authority

I have engaged in a discussion on the use of wine at the Lord’s Supper on a Christian Fellowship Forum thread, “Rebirth and resurrection”.

Richard, one of the moderators on the Forum, responded to me at #116 of this thread. He stated:

Consider for a moment the obverse of that. Where is it ever allowed to use anything other than real grape wine? Who has the authority to say you can use coconut juice? Who gave you the authority to use coconut juice? How was that authority given to you? I’ll maintain that nobody on earth has the authority to say you can use other than grape wine. And you don’t have the authority to use other either.

Why not coffee and donuts instead of bread and wine? It’s actually a serious question.

Chris is echoing Tradition when he says what he says. I suspect he has no particular chapter and verse. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with.
I’m not saying there is any line of Scripture that commands bread and wine, but I’ll bet the apostles would give you the strangest look before correcting you if you proposed anything other than real wheat bread and real grape wine.

Again, no line from Scripture, but for a Catholic Mass there has to be real grape wine or at least the partially fermented must of grape juice. It’s just da rulz and that’s that, at least for a Catholic.

I responded (see #125) as follows: Your position demonstrates the difference in the nature of theological authority between your understanding as a Roman Catholic and mine as an evangelical Protestant. You accept the authority of Tradition and of the Church, but for me as a Protestant, there is only one authority that is theopneustos (“Breathed out by God”) and that is Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV). Only Scripture and all Scripture is theopneustos. The Scripture does not affirm the “breathed out by God” position of tradition, councils, creeds or the church.

Tradition and creeds are interpretations of Scripture by fallible human beings. The Scripture (in the original writings) is the only infallible rule for faith and practice – biblically speaking.

<<Where is it ever allowed to use anything other than real grape wine?>>

It is practised in many places around the world. In my almost 50 years as a Christian, I have never attended or been a member of an evangelical Protestant Church that had other than grape juice and bread/wafer at the Lord’s Supper. They have been churches in Australia, England, Canada and the USA of Baptist, Australian Churches of Christ, and Pentecostal persuasion. We occasionally attend a local Presbyterian Church (my wife is their evening pianist for the service) and grape juice is used there for every Lord’s Supper celebration. OTHER THAN REAL GRAPE WINE is used in many Protestant churches around the world.

<<Who has the authority to say you can use coconut juice? Who gave you the authority to use coconut juice? How was that authority given to you? I’ll maintain that nobody on earth has the authority to say you can use other than grape wine. And you don’t have the authority to use other either.>>

That is your Tradition speaking, Richard. It is not from the Scripture which is breathed out by God. There is not a word in Scripture that says any church MUST use “real grape wine”. The only document with the authority of God is the Scripture.

<<Why not coffee and donuts instead of bread and wine? It’s actually a serious question. >>

It’s not a question, the answer to which relies on biblical authority. There is not one word in Scripture with the authority of God that states that “real grape wine” must be used in the memorial service (“do this in remembrance of me”, 1 Cor. 11:24 ESV) of the Lord’s Supper.

<<Chris is echoing Tradition when he says what he says. I suspect he has no particular chapter and verse.>>

I don’t expect that he will come back with the authoritative Scripture which states that one MUST use alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine for the Lord’s Supper, otherwise one is a sinner before God.

<<Again, no line from Scripture, but for a Catholic Mass there has to be real grape wine or at least the partially fermented must of grape juice. It’s just da rulz and that’s that, at least for a Catholic.>>

That is your Roman Catholic tradition speaking. There is no command of Scripture to assert Chris’s line that <<except in holy communion, where drinking a bit of wine is commanded of us>> (#78 of this thread). In #84 he wrote: <<God does command all to take bread and wine in communion with Christ and in Christ>>. There is ZERO command in Scripture to use wine in Communion at the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, Chris’s statement comes without biblical authority:

<<Is the use of coconut juice in communion wrong even sinful? YES, it is being disobedient. It may be EXCUSABLE sin, but it is sinful in terms of what it does. They should import some wine>> (#114 of this thread).

When there is no biblical command to drink wine at the Lord’s Supper, there can be no sin against God by using grape juice, coconut juice or any other drink.

From a Roman Catholic understanding of theological authority, see “Francis A. Sullivan’s argument with Archbishop Bertone”. Sullivan, a Jesuit priest, states:

The history of Catholic doctrine suggests the need of great caution in claiming that something has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, if there is reason to judge that a position on which there was a consensus in the past no longer enjoys such a consensus. In such a case, it would be wise to put off any peremptory declaration until it becomes clear whether a question has been raised that obliges the Church to look at an old problem in a new light and perhaps come up with a better answer to it.

In his defense of the authority of Scripture, Protestant theologian, Wayne Grudem, is correct in his summary: “All the words in Scripture are God’s words. Consequently to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God himself” (1994:81).

Reformed teacher, James White, defines sola scriptura: “Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority”.

Reformed systematic theologian, Wayne Grudem, has stated that “the sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly” (1994:127).

Heinrich Heppe, in his classic work on Reformed dogmatics, states that, “The only source and norm of all Christian knowledge is the Holy Scripture” (cited in R C Sproul, “Sola Scriptura: Crucial to Evangelicalism”).

Thus, these Reformed authorities, confirm that the doctrine of sola scriptura means that the only infallible source for all Christian knowledge is Scripture – not traditions, councils, creeds or the magisterium.

See my article, “The Bible’s support for the inerrancy of the originals“, for a Protestant defense of the authority of Scripture alone.

References

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

Copyright (c) 2010 Spencer D. Gear. This document is free content. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version. This document last updated at Date: 19 December 2013.

Whytehouse designs

Cessationists through church history

(image courtesy ChristArt)

Spencer D Gear

In my Contending Earnestly for the Faith[2] letter (March 2010, p. 25), I wrote that the following Christian leaders were cessationists (the gifts of the Spirit ceased when the Scriptures were complete). These include Athanasius, Luther, Calvin, Matthew Henry, C.H. Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, and a multitude of current leaders such as John MacArthur & Norman Geisler.

The editor’s note at the end of the letter stated: “I am not sure that you are quite right in labelling C. H. Spurgeon and possibly some of the others, whom you have named, as ‘cessationists’” (p. 26).

Let’s check the evidence. What did the people I mentioned believe about continuation or cessation of spiritual gifts?

John Piper, an outstanding expositor of the Scriptures from Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN, and founder of Desiring God Ministries, wrote: “Virtually all the great pastors and teachers of history that I admire and that have fed me over the years belong to the … group who believe that signs and wonders were only for the apostolic age (John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Benjamin Warfield, my own father). But I am not fully persuaded by their case”.[3] This is some of the evidence of cessationism from the history of the church.

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (north Africa) from 328 until his death in 373, was known for his tireless defense of the deity of Christ against the heresy of Arianism at the Council of Nicaea in 325. It is believed that he wrote his “Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit” while he was exiled in the desert between 356-361.[4] In those letters he wrote of “the blessed Paul who … did not divide the Trinity as you do, but taught its unity when he wrote to the Corinthians about spiritual gifts and summed them all up by referring them to the one God and Father, saying ‘there are different gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who works all of them in everyone’ (1 Cor. 12:4-6). For that which the Spirit imparts to each is provided from the Father through the Son. Everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son (Jn 16:15, 17:10); thus what is given by the Son in the Spirit is the Father’s gifts”.[5]

In context of his writing to Serapion, Athanasius makes no direct commitment either way to continuation or cessation that I was able to locate. However, his quoting from 1 Cor. 12:4-6, and using the present tense, “that which the Spirit imparts to each”, does not seem to point to these gifts as having ceased. However, it is by inference only. I have not been able to find a direct quote from Athanasius affirming either way.

However, another early church father, Chrysostom (347-407), a name that means “golden mouth” as he was an eloquent speaker, had a cessationist perspective. He was a contemporary of Athanasius’s later life, was Archbishop of Constantinople and defender of orthodoxy. He wrote of spiritual gifts as being obscure in his understanding. In his homily on 1 Cor. 12:1-2, He wrote, “This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity has produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?[6]

One of the greatest church fathers was St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo in northern Africa. He wrote that “in the earliest times, ‘the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues’, which they had not learned, ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance’. These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away”.[7]

In his later life, Augustine returned to a belief in the Lord’s supernatural ability to heal. I have documented this in my article, “The man who dared to change his mind about divine healing”.[8]

Martin Luther, from whom we Protestants owe a great deal in his leadership of the 16^th century Reformation. His teaching was a mixed bag concerning his statements on the gifts of the Spirit. He wrote of the continuation of gifts: “When you depart lay your hands upon the man again and say, These signs shall follow them that believe; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover‘“.[9] But he also wrote as a cessationist in his commentary on Galatians 4:1-9, “Paul explained the purpose of these miraculous gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 14:22, ‘Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.’ Once the Church had been established and properly advertised by these miracles, the visible appearance of the Holy Ghost ceased”.[10] Which perspective belongs to Luther’s theology?

Another leader of the Reformation, John Calvin, wrote that “the gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles, which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the new preaching of the Gospel marvelous forever… It now has nothing to do with us, to whom the administering of such powers has not been committed”.[11]

In his commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, writing of Mark 16:17[12] (“and these signs shall follow them that believe”), Calvin wrote, “When he says that believers will receive this gift, we must not understand this as applying to every one of them; for we know that gifts were distributed variously, so that the power of working miracles was possessed by only a few persons…. Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift [of miracles] to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in the Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give lustre to the gospel while it was new or in a state of obscurity”.[13]

Calvin seemed somewhat arbitrary when he wrote of the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in Ephesians 4. He believed that “only the last two [pastors and teachers] have an ordinary office in the church; the Lord raised up the first three at the beginning of his Kingdom, and now and again revives them as the need of the times demands”.[14] The functions of apostles, prophets and evangelists “were not established in the church as permanent ones, but only for that time during which churches were to be erected where none existed before, or where they were to be carried over from Moses to Christ. Still, I do not deny that the Lord has sometimes at a later period raised up apostles, or at least evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own [Reformation] day.”[15]

How would Calvin interpret John 14:12, which states: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father” (KJV)?

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Calvin wrote of John 14:12:

“ And shall do greater works than these. Many are perplexed by the statement of Christ, that the Apostles would do greater works than he had done I pass by the other answers which have been usually given to it, and satisfy myself with this single answer. First, we must understand what Christ means; namely, that the power by which he proves himself to be the Son of God, is so far from being confined to his bodily presence, that it must be clearly demonstrated by many and striking proofs, when he is absent. Now the ascension of Christ was soon afterwards followed by a wonderful conversion of the world, in which the Divinity of Christ was more powerfully displayed than while he dwelt among men. Thus, we see that the proof of his Divinity was not confined to the person of Christ, but was diffused through the whole body of the Church.

Because I go to the Father. This is the reason why the disciples would do greater things than Christ himself. It is because, when he has entered into the possession of his kingdom, he will more fully demonstrate his power from heaven.[16]

One of the problems that I see with Calvin’s interpretation is that he makes John 14:12 as applicable only to “the Apostles”, meaning Christ’s apostles of the first century. They would see “many and striking proofs” when they no longer had Christ’s bodily presence and he had returned to the Father.

The “greater works” were spoken to the Twelve, but Philip specifically. However, John 14:12 states that ” He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also”. It does not state that the greater works would be done by the Apostles, but by “he that believeth on me”. That sounds very comprehensive and not limited to the Twelve. D. A. Carson says it well: “Jesus’ ‘works’ may include more than his miracles; they never exclude them”.[17] The “greater works” is not easy to understand as it is unlikely that Christ was referring to “more works” as though the church would do more of them, as there was a common Greek word for “more”.

It is hardly likely that “greater works” could refer to greater examples of the supernatural. What could be greater than the raising of Lazarus from the dead? The meaning seems to point to the fact that Jesus was returning to the Father and that those who believed in Jesus, the church, would become the new order through which God’s miraculous gifts would be channelled, by the Holy Spirit’s ministry. But the meaning is not crystal clear to me.

St. Augustine of Hippo, in the fifth century interpreted the “greater works” as:

“What works was He then referring to, but the words He was speaking? They were hearing and believing, and their faith was the fruit of those very words: howbeit, when the disciples preached the gospel, it was not small numbers like themselves, but nations also that believed; and such, doubtless, are greater works. And yet He said not, Greater works than these shall ye do, to lead us to suppose that it was only the apostles who would do so; for He added, “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.” Is the case then so, that he that believeth on Christ doeth the same works as Christ, or even greater than He did? Points like these are not to be treated in a cursory way, nor ought they to be hurriedly disposed of”.[18]

A theologian such as Norman Geisler gets over this difficulty with his cessationist interpretation, “Jesus did promise that miracles would continue after His time, but not after the time of the apostles. In fact, it was specifically to the apostles with Him in the Upper Room that he made His promise that they would do greater miracles than He did (John 14:12; cf. 13:5ff)”.[19]

The Encyclopedia of Religion says that “both Luther and Calvin wrote that the age of miracles was over and that their occurrence should not be expected”.[20] This is a questionable statement, based on the above information.

What of Matthew Henry (1662-1714), the British Presbyterian Bible commentator? He stated in his concise commentary on 1 Cor. 12:12-26 that “spiritual gifts were extraordinary powers bestowed in the first ages, to convince unbelievers, and to spread the gospel”.[21]

Revivalist and theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703-58), wrote,

“The extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, such as the gift of tongues, of miracles, of prophecy, &c., are called extraordinary, because they are such as are not given in the ordinary course of God’s providence. They are not bestowed in the way of God’s ordinary providential dealing with his children, but only on extraordinary occasions, as they were bestowed on the prophets and apostles to enable them to reveal the mind and will of God before the canon of Scripture was complete, and so on the primitive Church, in order to the founding and establishing of it in the world. But since the canon of the Scripture has been completed, and the Christian Church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased”.[22]

Revivalist George Whitefield (1714-70) asked, “What need is there of miracles, such as healing sick bodies and restoring sight to blind eyes, when we see greater miracles done every day by the power of God’s Word?”[23]

John Owen, 17^th century British non-conformist theologian and Puritan, wrote: “Gifts which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties” [tongues, prophecy, healing powers] belong to “that dispensation of the Spirit [which] is long since ceased, and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastical delusion”.[24]

One of the champions of cessationism was B. B. Warfield, professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, 1887-1921. He is regarded by some conservative Presbyterians as the last of the great Princeton theologians before the split of the church in 1929. In his article, “Cessation of the Charismata”, he wrote that

“the theologians of the post-Reformation era, a very clear-headed body of men, taught with great distinctness that the charismata ceased with the Apostolic age. But this teaching gradually gave way, pretty generally throughout the Protestant churches, but especially in England, to the view that they continued for a while in the post-Apostolic period, and only slowly died out like a light fading by increasing distance from its source”.[25]

C. H. Spurgeon the prominent 19^th century Baptist preacher and pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, for 38 years, wrote that

“those gifts of the Holy Spirit which are at this time vouchsafed to the church of God are every way as valuable as those earlier miraculous gifts which are departed from us… As you would certainly inquire whether you had the gifts of healing and miracle-working, if such gifts were now given to believers, much more should you inquire whether you have those more permanent gifts of the Spirit which are this day open to you all, by the which you shall work no physical miracle, but shall achieve spiritual wonders of the grander sort”.[26]

In my preparation of this article, I engaged in email discussion with my friend, Philip Powell, who alerted me to several incidents in the life of C. H. Spurgeon which indicate that he was not a cessationist. Spurgeon provided these descriptions and an explanation, as supplied by Philip Powell (I have located the following quotes from other sources):

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-92) was the prominent Baptist preacher in England during the 19th century, who spoke of a “sermon at Exeter Hall in which he suddenly broke off from his subject, and pointing in a certain direction, said, `Young man, those gloves you are wearing have not been paid for: you have stolen them from your employer’. At the close of the service, a young man, looking very pale and greatly agitated, came to the room, which was used as a vestry, and begged for a private interview with Spurgeon. On being admitted, he placed a pair of gloves upon the table, and tearfully said, `It’s the first time I have robbed my master, and I will never do it again. You won’t expose me, sir, will you? It would kill my mother if she heard that I had become a thief’.” (see HERE)

“On another occasion while he was preaching, Spurgeon said there was a man in the gallery who had a bottle of gin in his pocket. This not only startled the man in the gallery who had the gin, but it also led to his conversion.” (see HERE)

Spurgeon gives further examples of his prophetic ministry:

“While preaching in the hall, on one occasion, I deliberately pointed to a man in the midst of the crowd, and said, `There is a man sitting there, who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays, it was open last Sabbath morning, he took nine pence, and there was four pence profit out of it; his soul is sold to Satan for four pence!’ A city missionary, when going his rounds, met with this man, and seeing that he was reading one of my sermons, he asked the question, `Do you know Mr Spurgeon?’ `Yes,’ replied the man `I have every reason to know him, I have been to hear him; and under his preaching, by God’s grace I have become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Shall I tell you how it happened? I went to the Music Hall, and took my seat in the middle of the place: Mr Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took nine pence the Sunday before, and that there was four pence profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul through him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul.'” (See HERE)

How does Spurgeon explain this prophetic ministry?

“I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it; and so striking has been my description that the persons have gone away, and said to their friends, `Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did; beyond a doubt, he must have been sent of God to my soul, or else he could not have described me so exactly.’ And not only so, but I have known many instances in which the thoughts of men have been revealed from the pulpit. I have sometimes seen persons nudge their neighbours with their elbow, because they had got a smart hit, and they have been heard to say, when they were going out, `The preacher told us just what we said to one another when we went in at the door.'” (See HERE)

Noted Reformed theologian and defender of the orthodox faith at Princeton Theological Seminary, Charles Hodge (1797-1878), wrote in his commentary on 1 Corinthians that “[the word of] knowledge and prophecy are to cease. They are partial or imperfect”.[27]

The contemporary, famed Bible expositor from Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA, John MacArthur Jr is renowned for his promotion of cessationism. In his exposé of the charismatic movement in Charismatic Chaos, he stated, “I am convinced by history, theology, and the Bible that tongues ceased in the apostolic age. And when it happened they terminated altogether. The contemporary charismatic movement does not represent a revival of biblical tongues. It is an aberration similar to the practice of counterfeit tongues at Corinth”.[28]

A leading contemporary exegete, theologian and apologist, Norman Geisler, teaches that “even though tongues are mentioned in the New Testament, it is possible that tongues are no longer for us…. Since apostles existed only in the New Testament (Acts 1:22) and since there were supernatural sign gifts given to apostles (2 Cor. 12:12), it follows that these sign gifts ceased with the apostles in the first century”.[29]

Cessationism is not a new development of the anti-charismatic movement. It has been evident throughout church history. However, there is another side to the cessationist arguments and it was provided by a very early theologian of the church.

Irenaeus was born in the first half of the second century (his birth date has been suggested between 115-125) and died towards the end of that century. As one of the first great theologians of the church, he was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus became bishop of Lyons, Gaul (France today).

Irenaeus assures us that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit had not disappeared by the end of the second century. He wrote in a leading refutation of Gnosticism, Against Heresies (written about 180):

“Those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ”.[30]

So Irenaeus knew of the practice of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit in his day. Thus, they did not cease with the death of the Twelve and the formation of the New Testament canon of Scripture. It is estimated that the last book of the New Testament was written about AD 95-96 (the Book of Revelation). Thus, Irenaeus refutes John MacArthur’s statement that “once the Word of God was inscripturated, the sign gifts were no longer needed and they ceased”.[31] Irenaeus clearly shows the existence of sign gifts in the church over 100 years after the completion of the canon of Scripture.

Irenaeus also provided us with the earliest undisputed authority for the authorship of the four Gospels: Matthew issued his Gospel among the Hebrews; Mark was the disciple and interpreter of Peter; Luke was a companion of Paul and recorded a Gospel preached by Paul; John, a disciple of the Lord, published his Gospel while he was in Ephesus in Asia.[32]

With John Piper and Irenaeus, I am not persuaded by the arguments of the cessationists. For a defence of the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit, I recommend Jack Deere’s chapter, ‘Were miracles meant to be temporary‘ (Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, ch 8).

Endnotes

[2] CETF refers to the magazine, Contending earnestly for the faith, published by Christian Witness Ministries, available from: www.cwm.org.au.

[3] “John Piper on the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit”, available at: http://reformedandreforming.org/2010/03/31/john-piper-on-the-continuation-of-the-gifts-of-the-spirit/ [Assessed 20 June 2010].

[4] See Brian LePort, 21 April 2010, “An Introduction to the The Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit by Athanasius of Alexandria”, available at: http://westernthm.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/leport-an-introduction-to-the-letters-to-serapion-on-the-holy-spirit-by-athanasius-of-alexandria.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[5] p. 186, available at: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=KrvXjxlRsP0C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=%22spiritual+gifts+Athanasius%22&source=bl&ots=bSy_5TDTTk&sig=M0eG3pAw_84LDTCcrR0aMmFZjh0&hl=en&ei=aTkdTLD7BIi8cY-4_P4M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[6] “Homily 29 on First Corinthians”, available at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220129.htm [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[7] Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 6:1-14, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [7:497-98].

[8] This article was originally published as, “The man who dared to change his mind about divine healing,” in the Pentecostal Evangel, September 11, 1983, pp. 18-20. It is available at: The leading church father who changed his mind about the supernatural gifts. I have written about him in St. Augustine: The leading Church Father who dared to change his mind about divine healing [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[9] “Letters of spiritual counsel” to one of his followers, available at: http://www.pentecostalpioneers.org/gpage.htm20.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[10] Available at: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal4-01.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[11] 1960. Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F. L. Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, p. 1467.

[12] Some of the earliest Greek manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20.

[13] John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark & Luke – vol. 3; Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18, available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.li.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[14] Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 1056.

[15] Ibid., p. 1057.

[16] Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom35.iv.ii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[17] 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, p. 495.

[18] Homily on John 14:10-14, available at: http://153.106.5.3/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.lxxii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[19] Systematic Theology, vol. 4, pp. 673-75).

[20] Cited in: http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/the-continuationistcessationist-debate-part-x/ [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[21] Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Bible, I Corinthians 12, “The variety of use of spiritual gifts are shown”, Bible Gateway, available at: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/Matthew-Henry/1Cor/Variety-Use-Spiritual-Gifts [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[22] Jonathan Edwards, “Love more excellent than the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit”, available at: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/charity2.htm [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[23] Arnold Dallimore 1970, George Whitefield: The life and times of the great evangelist of the eighteent-century revival, vol 1. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 348.

[24] The Works of John Owen, IV:518, cited in J. I. Packer, “John Owen on spiritual gifts”, available at: http://www.johnowen.org/media/packer_quest_for_godliness_ch_13.pdf [Accessed 20 June, 2010].

[25] Available at: http://www.the-highway.com/cessation1_Warfield.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[26] “Receiving the Holy Ghost”, sermon no.1790, vol. 30, Year 1884, p. 386, available at: http://adrianwarnock.com/2004/05/what-would-c-h-spurgeon-have-made-of-charismatics/ [Accessed 20 June 2010]..

[27] 1857-1859. I & II Corinthians (The Geneva Series of Commentaries). Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 272.

[28] Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, p. 231.

[29] 2005. Systematic Theology vol. 4. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse, p. 192.

[30] Against Heresies, II.32.4, available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxxiii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[31] Charismatic Chaos, p. 199.

[32] Against Heresies III.1.1, available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

A pre-millennial, post-tribulation end times understanding[1]

Flying Feet

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

There’s a lot of promotion in evangelical Christian circles of the dispensational pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture. On the popular level, this has been given lots of air-play in Tim LaHaye & Jerry B. Jenkins’ Left Behind series (Tyndale House Publishers 1995) . In fact, in the first Bible College I attended, this was the only view that was presented of eschatology. When I left college, I investigated other views and felt that I had been taught such a one-eyed understanding.

These are nothing more than beginning thoughts on an understanding of end times from a pre-millennial, post-tribulation perspective, which is the view which I believe has the best scriptural support.
I cannot find a Bible verse that tells specifically when the Rapture will happen. The Bible does not give specifics about the timing of the rapture.
What is the Rapture? It is a part of the resurrection of the church. Those who have died prior to Christ’s second coming will be resurrected from the dead and raptured – taken up (I Thess. 4:12-18).
At that resurrection, those believers who are still alive will be raptured with those who have died in Christ (1 Thess. 4:12-18).
At the Second Coming, the dead in Christ and the living in Christ will be gathered in the air to meet Christ (1 Thess. 4:12-18). This gathering is called “the harvest” at “the close of the age” according to Matt. 13:39, which states, “The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels” (ESV).
What does the Bible say about the time of the Resurrection and the Rapture? Matt. 24:21-31 states:

²¹For then there will be great tribulation such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. ²²And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. ²³Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. ²⁴For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. ²⁵See, I have told you beforehand. ²⁶So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. ²⁷ For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ²⁸ Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

²⁹“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ³⁰Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ³¹And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (ESV).

So, immediately after the great tribulation the Son of Man will come in the clouds with a loud trumpet call and Christian believers – the elect of God will be gathered (this is Christ’s second coming).

7. Mark 13:18-27 states:

¹⁸Pray that it may not happen in winter. ¹⁹For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. ²⁰And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. ²¹And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. ²² For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. ²³But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand. ²⁴“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, ²⁵and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. ²⁶And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. ²⁷And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. (ESV)

These two accounts of the Resurrection and Rapture state very clearly that believers (the elect) will be gathered (raptured) at Christ’s second coming.

Does it state when the Resurrection of believers and the Rapture will happen? Yes it does. It will be after the great tribulation. But we have further evidence

8. Second Thess. 2:1-4 further confirms when this will happen:

¹Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers [and sisters] ²not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. ³ Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, ⁴who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (ESV).

This event is often called the “abomination that causes desolation” as in Daniel 9:27. Daniel 11:31, 36 states:

³¹Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate…. ³⁶“And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done (ESV).

The Antichrist (1 John 2:18) will be revealed at the “abomination that makes desolate”, which will begin the Great Tribulation (see Revelation 17:1-13).

9. There is direct evidence for the resurrection of believers at the start of the Millennium, according to Revelation 20:4, “Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” (ESV)

10. Therefore, an instant, any moment Rapture of believers is not supported by these Scriptures. Instead, a great tribulation, an abomination must come first.

11. A pre-tribulation Rapture is a recent innovation. See:

12. In summary: The Bible states that the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the Rapture of the living in Christ will take place at Christ’s second coming, which will happen after the Great Tribulation. I can see no pre-tribulation rapture here. But there is an affirmation for the post-tribulation rapture, a theological position that is called historic premillennialism.

See my other articles on this topic:

Is the rapture of the church hogwash?

What is the origin of the pre-tribulation rapture of Christians?

Notes

[1] With some help from: http://www.lastdaysmystery.info/the_post_tribulation_rapture.htm [Accessed 11 April 2010].

Torn between life and death

By Spencer D Gear

Why is it that many of us will do many things to live longer but others want to end life now?

We go on diets to reduce the strain on our hearts and the cholesterol from the fatty foods that we eat.

A recent study in the USA found that if people want to be healthy and live longer, they should consume less red and processed meat.[1]

The research of half a million American middle-aged and elderly people who consumed four ounces of red meat a day (an amount equivalent to a small hamburger), found that there was a 30% higher chance that they would die in the next 10 years.

Most of these would die of heart disease and cancer. The risk was increased through eating sausage, cold meats and other processed meats.

But this desire to try to avoid death, is also seen in some treatments of cancer. In spite of severe side effects of chemotherapy, such as fever, chills & sweats, abnormal bleeding, severe vomiting, constipation, diarrhoea and abdominal pain, patients want to live longer to spend more time with their relatives and friends.

Why is it that we have this love of life and need to prolong the date of death? Could it be connected with our culture’s deep fear of death?

“I want to be with my loved ones who have gone before, but I’m not sure about that,” are among the comments I hear.

For others, life has become a burden and ending life sooner than later sounds like a good release. The euthanasia movement in Australia, Europe and the USA is pushing this line. “To die with dignity” sounds like a reasonable and responsible way of thinking until one sees how euthanasia is happening in countries such as Holland.

The recent series of articles in The Times (UK) demonstrates this continuing push for euthanasia and assisted suicide.[2] The Dutch experience shows that this push will not be limited to the terminally ill. After a three year inquiry, the Dutch Medical Association (as reported in the British Medical Journal) wants more freedom to kill. The report stated that “doctors can help patients who ask for help to die even though they may not be ill but ‘suffering through living.'”[3]

Some experience this ambivalence: Extend life as much as possible but end life if it becomes unbearable.

This is where the Easter message of the resurrected Christ has particular application. We do not have to guess about what happens at death. Here there is an opportunity of knowing why life must end and what lies beyond the grave. The physical resurrection of all human beings after death is firmly grounded in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, which we celebrate on Easter Sunday.

Jesus Christ himself affirms this. After raising a man from the dead, he said, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.”[4]

He demonstrated the reality of this through his own resurrection from the dead, which was a turning point in human history.

Because of Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead, there is a solid biblical, theological and historical basis for the belief that the souls of both believers and unbelievers survive death and will be raised again.

There is no reason for the believers in Christ to fear death as they are eternally redeemed. Are those who push for euthanasia certain of the destiny of those for whom they push for “death with dignity”?

Endnotes:

[1] Rob Stein, The Washington Post, 24 March 2009, “Daily red meat raises chances of dying early,” available from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html [Accessed 2 January 2010].

[2] A. C. Grayling, The Times (UK), 31 March 2009, “Allowing people to arrange their death is a simple act of kindness”, available from: Timesonline at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6005023.ece [Accessed 2 January 2010]. See other euthanasia & assisted suicide stories linked to this article.

[3] Tony Sheldon, British Medical Journal News roundup, Extract, 18 January 2005, “Dutch euthanasia law should apply to patients ‘suffering through living’ report says,” available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/330/7482/61 [Accessed 2 January 2010]. Sheldon’s full article may be viewed at: http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/right-to-die_lists.opn.org/2005-January/000555.html [2 January 2010]. I was alerted to this information by Weblog: Christianity Today, “Dutch doctors want to kill the healthy,” 13 March 2006, available from: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/januaryweb-only/51.0.html [Accessed 2 January 2010].

[4] John 11:25-26.

Evangelical vs liberal theology

This article from the Sydney Morning Herald, “The battle for hearts and souls,” is an example of what is tearing apart the Anglican communion. I am with the stand of Archbishop Peter Jensen of the Sydney Anglican Diocese. Some of this tension is seen in the article, “Yesterday’s Men” and “Lambeth diary: Anglicans in turmoil.” This is what happens when leaders stray from the core doctrines of biblical Christianity.

Whytehouse designs

Baptism and Salvation: I Peter 3:21

(public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

Does baptism save?

It seems as though this issue is clear – people need to be baptised to receive salvation. The Scriptures state that: “Baptism that now saves you” (I Peter 3:21) and Jesus is alleged to have stated, “”Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

This sounds clear enough, doesn’t it? In fact, I was interacting with Jeremy on a theological bulletin board. He stated: “Recent theology cannot make the truth of 1 Peter 3:21 go away — Baptism now saves you. This is a great and precious promise. Christians throughout all ages have found great comfort in that fact that their salvation did not rest on them, but on God who had chosen them through baptism. I do believe in baptismal regeneration and in infant baptism.”[1]

Baptismal regeneration is the theology that states: “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” This view is supported by “Roman Catholic teaching. . . Although there are different nuances in their teaching, such a position is held by many Episcopalians, many Lutherans, and by the Churches of Christ” (Grudem 1999, n10, p. 384).

Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach baptism as a necessity for salvation, i.e. baptismal regeneration? Let’s take a read:

I Peter 3:21 states: “And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[2] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (NIV).

The ESV reads: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Mark 16:16 states, as the words of Jesus, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (NIV).

Let me say up front that I Peter 3:21 is a difficult verse to interpret because:

It is a challenge to know exactly what Peter is saying in connecting “save” with the waters of Noah’s flood;
Elsewhere in the Scripture we know that salvation is by faith alone through Christ alone (see below);
In other places, the Bible teaches salvation and repentance prior to baptism;
Some verses used to support baptismal regeneration have better explanations.

Mark 16:16 does not teach baptismal regeneration

This verse is fairly easily dealt with on two counts:

1. Mark 16:9-20, the long ending of Mark, is not included in the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, so I am confident in not including it as part of the canon of Scripture. Mark 16:16 was a teaching that crept into the early church, but it is not original to Mark. See the explanations by Bruce Metzger (1964/1968/1992, pp. 227-228) and Walter W. Wessel (1984, pp. 792-793) in Appendix I.

2. Mark 16:16 states that “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” There is nothing in this statement about those who believe and are not baptised. In fact, we know that Jesus said to the dying thief on the cross, who did not have an opportunity to be baptised: “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). “It is simply absence of belief, not of baptism, which is correlated with condemnation” (Erickson 1985, p. 1098). Grudem (1999) contends that

it is doubtful whether this verse [Mark 16:16] should be used in support of a theological position at all, since there are many manuscripts that do not have this verse (or Mark 16:9-20), and it seems most likely that this verse was not in the gospel as Mark originally wrote it (n11, p. 384).

We also know that a Christian’s justification by faith, when he/she is declared righteous before God, happens at the point of faith in Christ and not at the time of baptism (see Rom. 3:20, 26, 28; 5:1; 8:30; 10:4, 10; Gal. 2:16; 3:24).

We’ll get to 1 Peter 3:21 shortly, but it is important to note that

The Bible teaches belief BEFORE baptism

We see belief or trust in Christ prior to baptism in passages such as the following:

1. Those who were baptised must be able to be discipled and taught to be obedient to Christ’s commands (Matt. 28:19-20).

2. One of the most profound examples is the thief on the cross. In Luke 23:42-43 we read of the thief asking Jesus, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus’ response was: “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” Obviously baptism was not compulsory for a person to enter into heaven.

3. Acts 2:38 gives the apostolic command: “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'”

4. Acts 2:41 affirms that belief precedes baptism: “Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.”

5. In Acts 10:47-48, those who were baptised were those who had “received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” This is hardly the language to support baptism for a an infant. It is the language of believers’ baptism.

Old Testament believers were saved without being baptised. Therefore, we should expect that salvation, without baptism, is seen in the New Testament.

Church historian, Earle E. Cairns, stated that for the early church, baptism was “an act of initiation into the Christian church [and] was usually performed at Easter or Pentecost . . . Baptism was normally by immersion; on occasion affusion, or pouring, was practiced. [There was the debate over] infant baptism which Tertullian opposed and Cyprian supported . . .” (Cairns 1954/1981, p. 119).

It was Martin Luther who rediscovered that “the just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17 KJV) or, “The righteous will live by faith” (NIV), which is a quote from Hab. 2:4. This is affirmed by Rom. 4:4-5; Titus 3:5-7 and Acts 16:31. The Scriptures do not support the view that the just shall live by faith and baptism. It could not be stated any cleared in Eph. 2:8-9, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast.”

Household baptisms

Sometimes the view is given that “I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8; these passages all refer to households being baptized. What an opponent of infant baptism must do is explain how they arrive at the conclusion that there were no infants or young children in these households. If infants were not intended to be baptized they would be excluded in the text, but we have no reason to believe that they are. In short there is nothing to exclude infants from baptism in the Bible.” This was Andy’s view when I interacted with him on the bulletin board.[3]

Let’s examine these examples provided by Andy.

1. “Household” baptism that was used by him to support infant baptism – 1 Cor. 1:16, which reads, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.” If we read that verse alone we could be led to think that this included infants and those who had not believed and these people could be members of households.

However, this is clarified in 1 Cor. 16:15 where we read that “the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints.” This verse clearly supports the opposite of infant baptism. They were Christian converts when they were baptised. They were not infants who were incapable of believing. They were converts to the Christian faith. Faith precedes baptism.

3. Acts 11:14 reads: “He [Peter] will bring you a message through which you and all

your household will be saved.” This is very clear. The “message” will be brought through which the “household will be saved.” The baptism referred to is not water baptism but the baptism in the Holy Spirit (11:16).

4. Acts 16:15 records what happened with Lydia who was “a worshiper of God” and “the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul” (16:14). Chapter 16:15 records, “When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. ‘If you consider me a believer in the Lord,’ she said, ‘come and stay at my house.’ And she persuaded us.”

It is clear here that Lydia was a believer (“the Lord opened her heart”) when she was baptised as she affirms, “if you consider me a believer in the Lord.” It is not stated directly here that the “household” believed, but the precedent is set elsewhere in the Scripture that “households” that were baptised had previously believed. This is also consistent with the New Testament principle that faith alone in Christ alone is what brings eternal salvation.

5. In Acts 18:8, we have another example of “household” baptism. This verse states that “Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.” Again, baptism happens after belief in the Lord is experienced and this applies to believing “households.” Therefore, infant belief is not possible.

First Peter 3:21

This verse states, “And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[4] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (NIV).

Let me state upfront that this is a most difficult verse to interpret because of the analogy of Scripture which refutes what this verse seems to be saying on the surface, “baptism that now saves you also.” This is especially in light of Colossians 2:12, “. . . having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” The key is “your faith in the power of God” and not through faith in water baptism. That’s what makes interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 a challenging task.

Remember Andy’s words to me? “Baptism now saves you. This is a great and precious promise” and that Christians through the centuries have been comforted by the “God who had chosen them through baptism. I do believe in baptismal regeneration and in infant baptism.”[5]

What are the issues from this verse that seem, on the surface, to teach that “baptism now saves you”?

1. What is the context?

In vv. 18-19, the context is the death of Christ for sins, the “righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (v. 19), the resurrection (“made alive by the Spirit”, v. 18), and Noah, the ark, and eight people being saved through the flood (v. 20).

It is this flood that is used in some association with baptism.

2. What does it means that “water symbolizes baptism”?

The word translated, “symbolizes,” in the NIV is the Greek, antitypos. “Baptism is an antitype . . . or counterpart of the type” (Blum 1981, p. 242). There is some kind of resemblance between the waters of the flood and baptism What is it? Baptism is a copy, representation or fulfilment of the Old Testament judgment that happened through the great flood.

The text allows for a resemblance between the flood and baptism. That is, as the flood waters cleansed the earth of man’s wickedness, so the water of baptism indicates man’s cleansing from sin. As the flood separated Noah and his family from the wicked world of their day, so baptism separates believers from the evil world of our day. Baptism, then, is the counterpart of the flood (Kistemaker 1987, p. 147).

3. In what sense can baptism be understood as that which “saves you”?

Does baptism bring salvation to the person baptised? In what sense can “save” be used here? We know from both Old and New Testaments that sins can be washed away.

· Psalm 51:2, ” Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.”
Ezekiel 36:25, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.”
Ananias told the apostle Paul to “get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16).
Titus 3:5, “He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.”

How can baptism save?

Baptism is a symbol for cleansing the believer from sin, but Scripture does not teach that baptismal water saves a person. Rather, a believer is saved because of Christ’s atoning death on the cross and his resurrection from the grave (Rom. 6:4). Baptism is a symbol of the shed blood of Christ that cleanses the believer from sin” (Kistemaker 1987, p. 148).

This becomes clear through the next statement that baptism is “not the removal of dirt from the body.” That’s an obvious analogy to reject. But baptism is “the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”

4. How is baptism related to “the pledge of a good conscience toward God” (NIV)?

There are two ways of understanding, “pledge,” subjective, as in the NIV, or objective, as in the ESV, “as an appeal to God for a good conscience.”

As in the NIV, the subjective meaning of “pledge” is that “we look at baptism from our point of view and express ourselves subjectively.” There is a majority of translators who prefer the subjective approach, where “pledge” means “response.” “In short, the believer receives not only the sign of baptism with water; he also responds by ‘keeping a clear conscience’ (see v. 16)” (Kistemaker 1987, p. 148). This kind of translation is supported by the KJV, NKJV, RV, ASV, NEB, Phillips, GNB, JB, NAB and NIV. So, baptism is the proper response of somebody who is already related to God through faith.

The objective meaning is that of the believer making an “appeal to God for a good conscience.” By appealing to God to help us, “we see the importance of baptism objectively. Without God’s aid we are unable to make a pledge to serve him” (Kistemaker 1987, p. 148). This type of translation is supported by the RSV, NRSV, ESV, MLB, NASB, Moffatt and ISV. In supporting the objective sense, Grudem (1994) interprets “but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience” to mean “an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction symbolized by the outward ceremony of baptism.” Grudem states that

we could paraphrase Peter’s statement by saying, “Baptism now saves you—not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents.” In this way, Peter guards against any view of baptism that would attribute automatic saving power to the physical ceremony itself (p. 974).

This seems the most satisfactory kind of explanation of a very difficult passage, to be in line with the scriptural emphasis of salvation through faith alone, trusting in Christ alone.

5. How can baptism that “saves you” be linked to “saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”?

This further indicates that the baptism which “saves you” is associated with the “the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Thus, it is an analogy of baptism, associating it with eternal salvation through Christ, through the resurrection of Christ. See verses such as 1 Cor. 15:3-4 and 1 Peter 1:3 for affirmations of the link between salvation and the death and resurrection of Christ.

What does Acts 22:16 mean?

The verse, being the words of Ananias, reads, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” This is a more extensive statement than that in Acts 9:16. However, according to Acts 9:17, the “scales fell from his eyes” (the equivalent of belief) before he was baptised (9:18).

So, does baptism “wash your sins away,” thus making belief unnecessary? Is this a verse in support of baptismal regeneration?

While Acts 22:16 refers to Paul’s baptism, the apostle clearly distinguished between the gospel and baptism: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel–not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17). It is the gospel that “is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:17), so baptism cannot have a salvific effect. Paul’s experience from Acts 9:17-18 involved a spiritual experience before baptism, so to “be baptized and wash your sins away” (Acts 22:16) cannot refer to baptismal regeneration.

Norman Geisler rightly concludes that “baptism then, like confession, is not a condition for eternal life but a manifestation of it. Baptism is a work that flows from the faith that alone brings salvation through the gospel” (2004, p. 498).

Examples from Church History

An example from the early church fathers was Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165), who wrote: “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, … are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated [born-again] in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated” (Schaff, n.d., First Apology, Chapter LXI). The regenerated were baptised.

Professor of Church History & Historical Theology, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, summarised the biblical and historical evidence:

The patristic statements linking infant baptism with the apostles are fragmentary and unconvincing in the earlier stages . . . Examples of believers’ baptism are common in the first centuries, and a continuing, if suppressed, witness has always been borne to this requirement . . . The development of infant baptism seems to be linked with the incursion of pagan notions and practices. Finally, there is evidence of greater evangelistic incisiveness and evangelical purity of doctrine where [believers’ baptism] is recognized to be the baptism of the NT (Bromiley 1984, p. 116).

The facts are: The Bible (including the Apostles) and the Church established in the New Testament practised believers’ baptism. Why the change to paedobaptism?

This is not the place for a comprehensive documentation and assessment of the baptismal practices throughout church history. However, this we can note:

During the fifth century the towering figure of Augustine of Hippo with his powerful reassertion of the doctrine of original guilt settled the issue for a thousand years. Paedobaptism became the norm, and as by then the great expansion of the church among adults had run its course, adult baptism became increasingly rare and almost unknown. With the decline of adult baptism went, too, the decline of the catechumenate, as instruction before baptism was replaced, of necessity, with instruction after baptism. Yet that instruction became increasingly strange to modern ears. For although baptized infants grew up believing that their baptism had brought them forgiveness, eternal life, membership of the church and entry into the family of God, their position in that family became increasingly insecure. In time, a vast system of priests, penances and pilgrimages was needed to preserve their spiritual lives, while even after the intercession of saints, the assistance of Mary, the prayers of the church and the indulgences of the pope, centuries in purgatory still awaited them after death before their souls were cleansed from sin and prepared for heaven” (Bridge & Phypers 1977, pp. 82-83).

Appendix I

1. Bruce Metzger

Bruce Metzger, who has had a long and distinguished career in the discipline of textual criticism, which attempts “to determine the original text of the biblical books” (Erickson 1985, p. 83), states that:

The long ending [of Mark 16:9-20] in an expanded form existed, so Jerome tells us, in Greek copies current in his day, and since the discovery of W earlier this [20th] century we now have the Greek text of this expansion . . .

None of these four endings commends itself as original. The obvious and pervasive apocryphal flavour of the expansion [ie the long ending] . . , as well as the extremely limited basis of evidence supporting it, condemns it as a totally secondary accretion.

The long ending [ie Mark 16:9-20, as in the Textus Receptus and, therefore, translated in the King James Version of the Bible], though present in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. For example, the presence of seventeen non-Marcan words or words used in a non-Marcan sense; the lack of a smooth juncture between verses 8 and 9 (the subject in vs. 9 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in vs. 9); and the way in which Mary is identified in verse 9 even though she has been mentioned previously (vs. 1) – all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark which ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished to provide a more appropriate conclusion. An Armenian manuscript of the Gospels, copied A.D. 989 (see Plate XIVb) contains a brief rubic of two words in the space at the end of the lat line of verse 8 and before the last twelve verses, namely Ariston eritsou (‘of the Presbyter Ariston’). Many have interpreted this as a reference to Ariston, a contemporary of Papias in the early second century and traditionally a disciple of John the Apostle. But the probability that an Armenian rubricator would have access to historically valuable tradition on this point is almost nil, especially if, as has been argued, the rubric was added in the thirteenth or fourteenth century.

The internal evidence of the so-called intermediate ending . . . is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Marcan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark’s Gospel. The mouth-filling phrase at the close (‘the sacred and imperishable message of eternal salvation’) betrays the hand of a later Greek theologian. [See Appendix II for a translation of this “intermediate ending.”]

Thus we are left with the short ending, witnessed by the earliest Greek, versional, and patristic evidence. Both external and internal considerations lead one to conclude that the original text of the Second Gospel, as known today, closes at xvi. 8″ (Metzger 1964/1968/1992, pp. 227-228).

2. Walter W. Wessel

External and especially internal evidence make it difficult to escape the conclusion that vv. 9-20 [of Mark 16] were originally not a part of the Gospel of Mark.

One further question arises: Did mark actually intend to end his Gospel at 16:8? If he did not, then either (1) the Gospel was never completed, or (2) the last page was lost before it was multiplied by copyists. . .

Thus the best solution seems to be that Mark did write an ending to his Gospel but that it was lost in the early transmission of the text. The endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking” (Wessel 1984, pp. 792-793).

Appendix II

The intermediate ending is translated by Metzger: “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” Metzger stated that this intermediate reading “is present in several uncial manuscripts of the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries . . . as well as in a few minuscule manuscripts . . . and several ancient versions” (1964/1968/1992, p. 226).

References:

Blum, Edwin A. 1981, ‘1 Peter’, in Frank E. Gaebelein (ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (vol. 12), Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 207-254.

Bridge, D. & Phypers, D. 1977, The Water That Divides: The Baptism Debate, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.

Bromiley, G. W. 1984, ‘Baptism, Believers”, in W. A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI.

Cairns, E. E. 1954, 1981, Christianity through the Centuries (rev. enl. ed.), Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.

Erickson, Millard J. 1985, Christian Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Geisler, Norman 2004, Systematic Theology: Sin, Salvation (vol. 3), Bethany House , Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Grudem, Wayne 1994, Systematic Theology: An introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England.

Grudem, Wayne 1999, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England.

Kistemaker, Simon J. 1987, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and of the Epistle of Jude, Evangelical Press, Welwyn, Hertfordshire.

Metzger, Bruce M. 1964, 1968, 1992, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.

Schaff, P. n.d., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus‘, Polycarp, ‘Christian Baptism’, Available from: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/anf01/htm/viii.ii.lxi.htm [17 March 2005].

Wessel, Walter W. 1984, ‘Mark’, in Frank E. Gaebelein (ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (vol. 8), Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House), Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 601-793.

Notes:

[1] Jeremy Jack’s response to OzSpen, “Christian History Project,” Open Issues, Trinity College of the Bible & Theological Seminary, TDelta forum, 12.51 am, 12 March 2005, at: http://go.compuserve.com/Trinity?MSG=116364 [17 March 2005]. This post is no longer available online.

[2] Or, “response.”

[3] Trinity Seminary’s Tdelta forum, ‘Christian History Project’, (Open Issues), Jeremy Jack’s response to OzSpen, 11.25 am, 11 March 2005, Available from, http://go.compuserve.com/Trinity?MSG=116354 [17 March 2005]. This post is no longer available online.

[4] Or, “response.”

[5] See footnote no. 1 above.

Copyright (c) 2009 Spencer D. Gear. This document is free content. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the Open Content License (OPL ) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version. This document last updated at Date: 25 June 2015.

Immortality of the Soul

Soul Nest

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

There is only one Person who is truly immortal – God Himself, as stated in 1 Tim. 6:15-16 (ESV), “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion.” Therefore, only God is immortal in the sense that He is the Owner and Originator of human life and he Himself has always existed.

Our immortality of the soul is in a derived sense and applies to all people, believers and unbelievers. Second Timothy 1:10 (ESV) speaks of God’s purpose and grace “which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”

I have found that many people (eg Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists) who object to the immortality of the soul are those who reject eternal punishment in hell for unbelievers. Let’s check out what the Bible says.

By immortality of the soul, I mean “the belief that human persons, at least in their spiritual dimension, consciously survive death and live on forever” (Geisler 1999:350). Or, for human beings, immortality means “deathlessness” (Hendriksen 1959:46).

C. S. Lewis wrote: “The earliest Christian documents give ascent to the belief that the supernatural or invisible part of man survives the death of the body” (1966:29).

Since the Bible teaches progressive revelation from the Old Testament (OT) to the New Testament (NT), we do not see a full expression of the immortality of the soul in the OT. Here’s a brief statement of what we find:

Old Testament and death

The OT affirms the hope of life after death in bodily terms. The doctrine of OT immortality is seen mostly in view of resurrection. Since human beings were created from the dust (Gen. 2:7), the expectation was that they would return to dust (Eccles. 12:7). However, this latter verse also teaches that “the spirit returns to God who gave it” (ESV). Therefore, the OT teaching does not support soul sleep, extinction or annihilation, but the human spirit going to God at death. We will see what that means for the just and unjust.

In the OT there are passages that support resurrection of people and that the dead would be brought back to life. See Scriptures such as Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; Job 19:25-27, and Ps. 49:14-15. Ps. 49:15 states, “But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me.”

In Isaiah there is evidence of the resurrection of the dead: “Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!” (26:19). In Dan. 12:2, we read, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” The language of “the dust of the earth” shows the OT doctrine of the physical resurrection of people after death. “Sleep” is using the language of the phenomenon we see when a person breathes his/her last breath. Soul sleep is not a biblical teaching.

While the Sadducees rejected the teaching on the material resurrection of the dead, the Pharisees supported it (Matt. 22:23, 28). Martha demonstrated her belief in the resurrection of the dead when she said after the death of her brother, Lazarus, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day” (John 11:24).

Jesus Christ and resurrection

Christ believed that the OT taught resurrection when he refuted the Sadducees. He told them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt. 22:29). Then Jesus quoted Exodus 3:6, 15: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32).

Note especially the closing statement here: “He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” The dead are living!!

Risen Indeed

(image courtesy ChristArt)

New Testament views on death

The NT teaches immortality after the resurrection, but it also teaches the conscious existence of the soul between death and the resurrection, in what is known as the intermediate state.

Christ’s promise to the thief on the cross was “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43 ESV). Stephen, the martyr, prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59 ESV). He did not pray, “Lord Jesus, send me to the grave in which to sleep until the resurrection of the just and unjust.”

Paul’s classic statement of the immortality of the soul is in 2 Cor. 5:8 (ESV), “Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” Paul as he was contemplating his own death, wrote: “I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better” (Phil. 1:23 ESV). There is no hint in Paul’s teaching of going to sleep in the grave before the resurrection of the just. He knew that when he died he would “be with Christ.” How does that compare with this life? It is “far better.”

Some contend that in I Corinthians 15 (ESV) Paul is correcting a false doctrine in Corinth of the immortality of the soul. Nowhere does Paul even hint at this. He wrote this passage to correct a false doctrine: “How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (I Cor. 15:14 ESV).

This passage of I Cor. 15 corrected a Sadducees-kind-of false doctrine, that there is no resurrection of the dead. It is fallacious to say that Paul was correcting a false doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Paul’s punch line is in v. 16: “For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.” Immortality of the soul means that the soul continues in conscious existence after death and will be reunited with the body in the resurrection of all people.

When we go to the book of Revelation, we find an example of the souls of martyred people who are conscious and in heaven: “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne” (Rev. 6:9). But as for the wicked, even the beast and the false prophet who were thrown alive into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20) were alive 1,000 years later (Rev. 20:10). What will happen to the devil, the beast and the false prophet? “They will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10). There’s no soul sleep here!

In Matt. 17:3 (ESV) we read, “And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.” Here Moses and Elijah, who had been dead for hundreds of years, were alive and conversing about Christ’s death on the Mount of Transfiguration. There’s no soul sleep here!

Luke 23:43, “Today you will be with me in Paradise” [1]

This section is based on a response to TrustAndObey on Christian Forums:

You ask some very good questions here that need good answers:

Let me ask you this, okay? Did Jesus go to paradise that day?
What does Scripture tell us?
Scripture tells us that Christ did not ascend to the Father the day that He died on the cross.
There are significant questions that need to be answered about Luke 23: 43, “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” Questions such as:

1. Jesus was in the tomb for 3 days. How does this verse harmonise or contradict the meaning of what happened to Jesus at death?

2. Didn’t Christ ascend to Paradise only after the resurrection?

3. If this is true, how could he make a promise like this to the dying thief?

I think that you are pointing to these kinds of questions. These are excellent questions.

You wrote:

“You have to remember that the original language was written without any punctuation at all. . . I submit for your consideration that the comma was in the wrong place in Luke 23:43. If the verse read “Verily, verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in Paradise” we wouldn’t have a big contradiction. That would still be a promise from Christ Himself, but it wouldn’t give a timeline of when.”

Let’s take a read of major translations of Luke 23:43 to see what Greek scholars from around the world think of your suggested translation (punctuation):

And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (ESV)
Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” (NIV)
And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.” (NASB)
And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (NLT)
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. (KJV)
And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (NKJV)
And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” (NET Bible)
He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’ (NRSV)
And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (RSV)
Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (ISV)
Jesus said to him, “I promise you that today you will be in Paradise with me.” (TEV/GNB)
He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (NAB)
He answered, ‘I tell you this: today you will be with me in Paradise” (NEB)
He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (REB)
He answered him, ‘In truth I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (NJB)

Of all these major translations, using the best of Greek scholars in the world, not one of them agrees with your suggested translation / punctuation of Luke 23:43 (ESV). But there is one translation that does agree with you: “And he said to him: ‘Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” Have a guess which translation this is? It’s the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. From my understanding of NT Greek, the New World Translation is one of the most dishonest translations in the areas in which it translates according to preconceived Watchtower doctrine.

Koine Greek not only did not have any punctuation, but also it didn’t have any spaces between words. It didn’t distinguish between lower case and upper case. Some manuscripts are written in cursive (lower case) and others are uncial (all capitals) writings. In fact, most of the earliest manuscripts were uncial. The word order is nothing like what we have in English as the declensions (of nouns, adjectives) and conjugations (verbals) of words determine their places in the sentence.

Your desire to want to move the comma in Luke 23:43 (ESV) is a common technique by those who don’t want to deal with the immortality of the soul taught in this verse. When Jesus said to the thief, “today you will be with me in Paradise,” he was saying to the thief that after Jesus died on that very day, Jesus’ soul (or spirit) went immediately into the presence of the Father in heaven, even though Jesus’ body was in the grave.

Some want to disagree, claiming that Paradise is different from heaven. However, in both of the other NT uses of Paradise, they clearly mean heaven – as in 2 Cor. 12:4 (ESV), which was the place where Paul was caught up in his revelation of heaven. Also in Rev. 2:7 (ESV) we find that Paradise is the place of the tree of life, which is clearly heaven according to Rev. 22:2, 13 (ESV).

Conclusion

The immortality of the soul for all people is the teaching of orthodox Christianity and has been throughout its existence. Of course there have been a few exceptions, but these have been infinitesimal compared with the millions of orthodox teachers and followers in the history of the church. This led Robert Morey to state correctly: “From the classic Greek philosophers to the present time, the immortality of the soul has been accepted as immediately reasonable and virtually self-evident. . . For nearly two thousand years, with rare exceptions, Christians have generally believed in the immortality of the soul” (Morey 1984:68-69).

Immortality of the soul means that eternal salvation is the experience of the Christian from the moment he/she is committed to Christ as Saviour and Lord. Death means immediate translation into the presence of the Lord in Paradise for believers. For unbelievers, the immortality of the soul means continuous existence in the place of eternal punishment – hell – at the point of death. Denying the immortality of the soul is denial of orthodox biblical teaching.

To the question, “Are human beings immortal?” the answer is, “Yes, in the sense that their existence never ends.”

References

Norman L. Geisler 1999, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

William Hendriksen 1959, The Bible on the Life Hereafter, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

C. S. Lewis 1966, Miracles, Macmillan Co., New York.

Robert A. Morey 1984, Death and the Afterlife, Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, TrustAndObey’s comments at: http://www.christianforums.com/t2279341-after-death.html&page=5#post19815123 [Accessed 10 November 2005.]

Views of some leading Calvinists

The online Calvinists’ views

But wait a minute: What is regeneration?

What was John Calvin’s view?

What about that Calvinistic stalwart, C H Spurgeon?

But elsewhere he makes statements of regeneration prior to faith.

What do the Scriptures state?

Conclusion

Notes:

How should we respond as evangelical Christian believers?

A. The sovereignty of God in life and death

B. The need for compassion towards the suffering & needy

C. I believe that it is possible for God to heal today.

D. Can we change God’s mind through prayer?

E. Catch a glimpse of heaven

Conclusion

Works consulted

Notes:

Works consulted

Recommended reading:

Notes

Endnotes:

Does baptism save?

Mark 16:16 does not teach baptismal regeneration

The Bible teaches belief BEFORE baptism

Household baptisms

First Peter 3:21

1. What is the context?

2. What does it means that “water symbolizes baptism”?

3. In what sense can baptism be understood as that which “saves you”?

4. How is baptism related to “the pledge of a good conscience toward God” (NIV)?

5. How can baptism that “saves you” be linked to “saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”?

What does Acts 22:16 mean?

Examples from Church History

Appendix I

1. Bruce Metzger

2. Walter W. Wessel

Appendix II

References:

Notes:

Old Testament and death

Jesus Christ and resurrection

New Testament views on death

Luke 23:43, “Today you will be with me in Paradise” [1]

Conclusion

References

Notes: