Category Archives: Salvation

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

Through the cross

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

There has been controversy for centuries in Christian circles over whether Christ died for the sins of the whole world or only for the sins of those elected to salvation – the believers. One Bible helps to clarify this. Or, does it?

First John 2:1-2 (ESV) states:

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

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

In the early stages of this article, I’m relying heavily on I Howard Marshall’s commentary and its summary of the controversy (Marshall 1978:117-120).

Here are some of the issues with this word:

1. When it is used outside of the Bible, it conveys the meaning of ‘an offering made by a man in order to placate the wrath of a god whom he has offended. It was a means of turning the god from wrath to favorable attitude’ (Marshall 1978:117).

2. However, in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT) – the LXX – the meaning has been debated. Westcott and Dodd argued that in the OT, ‘the scriptural conception … is not that of appeasing one who is angry, with a personal feeling, against the offender; but of altering the character of that which from without occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship’ (in Marshall 1978:117). Therefore, they concluded that

3. In secular sources, the word means ‘propitiation’ (placating an offended person), but in the Bible it means ‘expiation’ (a means of neutralising and cancelling sin (Marshall 1978:117). However, neither of these words is in common use in the English language so modern translations offer a paraphrase. The NIV and NRSV use, ‘atoning sacrifice’, which tries to combine two ideas: an atonement for sin and an offering to God (a sacrifice). The TEV used ‘the means by which our sins are forgiven’ while the NEB used ‘the remedy for the defilement of our sins’, the latter seeming to be closer to the meaning of expiation (Marshall 1978:117-118). The ESV, NKJV and NASB retain ‘propitiation’.

4. L Morris and D Hill objected to the Westcott and Dodd interpretation and showed that in the OT ‘the idea of placating the wrath of God or some other injured party is often present when the word-group in question is used…. The meaning in the present passage would then be that Jesus propitiates God with respect to our sins [the Greek preposition peri]. There can be no real doubt that this is the meaning’ (Marshall 1978:118).

5. In 1 John 2:1, the thought of Jesus as our advocate [NIV: ‘One who speaks to the Father in our defense – Jesus Christ, the Righteous One’] is of one who is pleading the cause of the guilty sinners before a judge in order to obtain pardon for ‘acknowledged guilt’. ‘In order that forgiveness may be granted, there is an action in respect of the sins which has the effect of rendering God favorable to the sinner. We may, if we wish, say that the sins are cancelled out by the action in question. This means that the one action has the double effect of expiating the sin and thereby propitiating God. These two aspects of the action belong together, and a good translation will attempt to convey them both’ (Marshall 1978:118).

6. How does one find an English word that combines expiation and propitiation? ‘Atoning sacrifice’ is an attempt but I find that it de-emphasises the propitiation too much. I can’t see a way around this except for a preacher to make sure he/she explains 1 John 2:1-2 together and that needs to include both the advocate and the propitiation. A ‘propitiatory advocate’ could be a way around that, but the English language is too clumsy to put it that way as many people don’t understand the meaning of ‘propitiatory’ because it is not used in contemporary English in my part of the world.

Some other views on the meaning of propitiation

Leon Morris (courtesy Wikipedia)

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

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

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

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

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

(Henry C Thiessen, photo courtesy www.pinterest.com)

2. Henry Thiessen wrote that

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

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

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

Wayne Grudem (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

3. Wayne Grudem’s assessment was:

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

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

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

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

4. There was no reference to ‘propitiation’ or ‘expiation’ in Paul Tillich’s Systematic theology (Tillich 1968).

Rudolf Bultmann Portrait.jpg Rudolph Bultmann (courtesy Wikipedia)

5. What of Rudolph Bultmann’s view of propitiation? Ben C Blackwell of Dunelm Road’s summary of Bultmann’s view was in, ‘Bultmann on Paul’. He states:

For those under faith Bultmann (following in his methodology of doing word studies) begins by discussing “righteousness” as the Jewish eschatological pronouncement of right relationship at the judgment. However, with the advent of Christ, righteousness is now a present reality experienced by believers, and it is in Romans 5-8 that Paul shows the Jews how an eschatological righteousness can be seen as present.

Bultmann then moves on to the concept of grace and the salvation-occurrence of Christ. Just as God’s wrath is active and eschatological, so his grace must also be and it is found in the death-and-resurrection of Christ and our experience of it. He lays out metaphors/explanations of this salvation-event in Paul’s understanding:

Propitiatory sacrifice – juristic (but meaning of resurrection is not highlighted pg. 300)

Vicarious sacrifice – instead of us, in place of us – very similar to propitiatoryl

Redemption – redeemed, ransomed – freedom from punishment/guilt of sin but also powers of the Age;

Participation into death of divinity through sacraments – like Mystery Religions;

Participation into incarnation-death-resurrection/exaltation – like Gnostics

It is this last category that Bultmann focuses after this point. Since the incarnation and resurrection didn’t historically happen, believers are joining in the cosmic relationship with the cosmic Gnostic Redeemer by faith, which is a self-surrender, an utter reversal of one’s previous self-understanding. This process is appropriated to the individual through the proclamation of the word. Bultmann explains: “The union of believers in one soma with Christ now has its basis not in their sharing the same supernatural substance, but in the fact that the in the word of proclamation of Christ’s death-and-resurrection becomes a possibility of existence in regard to which a decision must be made, in the fact that faith seizes this possibility and appropriates it as the power that determines the existence of the man of faith” (302). By entering into this cosmic union, the eschatological event is replayed in individual lives–it it the eschatological Now found in the proclamation of the word and sacraments.

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

Tillich, P 1968. Systematic theology (3 vols combined). Digswell Place, Welwyn, Herts: James Nisbet & Co Ltd.

Notes

[1] Grudem’s footnote was: ‘See the detailed linguistic argument of C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935), pp. 82-95. Dodd argues that the idea of propitiation was common in pagan religions but foreign to the thought of Old Testament and New Testament writers (Grudem 1994:575, n. 11).

Controversies: Once saved, always saved

Ribbon Salvation Button

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

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

(courtesy ChristArt)

A. Doubts about Arminians even being Christian

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

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

(2) Michael Horton has stated:

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

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

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

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

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

B. John 10:28-29 and eternal security

These verses read:

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand (ESV).

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

Let me put it another way.

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

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

Now which is corect (sic)?

No man, not even yourself can take you out of God’s hand, or is sin and man more powerful than God?

Either Jesus and scriptures are correct, or Jesus told a lie and subsequently the scriptures lie also, which means sin and man are more powerful than God.[4]

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

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

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

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

The gracious power of God is comprehensively sufficient to protect every born-again Christian believer forever. But a believer can in the end be lost, because salvation is conditional. None of our enemies will be able to snatch us out of the Father’s/Jesus’ hands.
BUT … BUT, any Christians can turn from Jesus, enter into disbelief, commit apostasy and perish by wilful acts of their own. That’s what John 15:6 teaches: ‘‘If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away….’.

Therefore, John 10:28-29 is not an absolute that guarantees once-saved-always-saved (which, by the way, is not biblical language). Eternal life is granted to those who continue to believe. We know this from verses in John such as John 3:36; 6:47,

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

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

1. People can commit apostasy

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

Chuck Templeton (from Brad Templeton’s photo site)

I know people for whom this has happened and is continuing to happen – apostasy – and they were once vibrant Christians. Consider Charles Templeton, one of Billy Graham’s associates in Billy’s early days of ministry with Youth for Christ. See ‘Death of an apostate’.

Lee Strobel interviewed Templeton for Strobel’s book The case for faith (2000:9-46). Here is a grab from that interview:

And what about Jesus? I wanted to know what Templeton thought of the cornerstone of Christianity. “Do you believe Jesus ever lived?” I asked.

“No question,” came the quick reply.

“Did he think he was God?”

He shook his head. “That would have been the last thought that would have entered his mind.”

“And his teaching – did you admire what he taught?”

“Well, he wasn’t a very good preacher. What he said was too simple. He hadn’t thought about it. He hadn’t agonized over the biggest question there is to ask.”

“Which is …”

Is there a God? How could anyone believe in a God who does, or allows, what goes on in the world?”

“And how do you assess this Jesus?” It seemed like the next logical question – but I wasn’t ready for the response it would evoke.

Templeton’s body language softened. It was as if he suddenly felt relaxed and comfortable in talking about an old and dear friend. His voice, which at times had displayed such a sharp and insistent edge, now took on a melancholy and reflective tone. His guard seemingly down, he spoke in an unhurried pace, almost nostalgically, carefully choosing his words as he talked about Jesus.

“He was,” Templeton began, “the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I’ve ever encountered in my life or in my readings. His commitment was total and led to his own death, much to the detriment of the world. What could one say about him except that this was a form of greatness?”

I was taken aback. “You sound like you really care about him,” I said.

“Well, yes, he is the most important thing in my life,” came his reply. “I . . . I . . . I . . . ,” he stuttered, searching for the right word, ‘I know it may sound strange, but I have to say . . . I adore him!” . . .

” . . . Everything good I know, everything decent I know, everything pure I know, I learned from Jesus. Yes . . . yes. And tough! Just look at Jesus. He castigated people. He was angry. People don’t think of him that way, but they don’t read the Bible. He had a righteous anger. He cared for the oppressed and exploited. There’s no question that he had the highest moral standard, the least duplicity, the greatest compassion, of any human being in history. There have been many other wonderful people, but Jesus is Jesus….’

“Uh . . . but . . . no,’ he said slowly, ‘he’s the most . . .” He stopped, then started again. “In my view,” he declared, “he is the most important human being who has ever existed.”

That’s when Templeton uttered the words I never expected to hear from him. “And if I may put it this way,” he said as his voice began to crack, ‘I . . . miss . . . him!”

With that tears flooded his eyes. He turned his head and looked downward, raising his left hand to shield his face from me. His shoulders bobbed as he wept. . . .

Templeton fought to compose himself. I could tell it wasn’t like him to lose control in front of a stranger. He sighed deeply and wiped away a tear. After a few more awkward moments, he waved his hand dismissively. Finally, quietly but adamantly, he insisted: “Enough of that” (Strobel 2000:20-21).

Chuck Templeton, Torrey Johnson and Billy Graham in a publicity photo for the European trip taken in the YFC offices in Chicago, about March 1946. (Billy Graham Center Archives, Wheaton College) [courtesy Justin Taylor].

However, Hebrews 6:4-6 is very clear about what happens to those who apostatise from the faith: ‘It is impossible to restore [them] again to repentance’ (6:4).

What, then, is apostasy?

Apostasy refers to

defection from the faith, an act of unpardonable rebellion against God and his truth. The sin of apostasy results in the abandonment of Christian doctrine and conduct. With respect to the covenant relationship established through prior profession of faith (passive profession in the case of baptized infants), apostates place themselves under the curse and wrath of God as covenant breakers, having entered into a state of final and irrevocable condemnation. Those who apostatize are thus numbered among the reprobate. Since the resurrection of Christ, there is no distinction between blasphemy against Christ and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt 12:31-32; Heb 6:4-6 ; 10:26-29 ; 1 John 5:16-17) [Karlberg 1996].

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

I have to be honest with what the text says, based on the tenses of the original language.

I do not think that you will like this kind of news (and it shouldn’t be new news for you), but that is what the texts say.

And have a guess what? First Timothy 1:19 and Hebrews 6:4-6 confirm that this can happen. People can continue to believe or to discontinue in belief. They then move from eternal life to eternal damnation. That’s how I see the Bible unfolding.

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

I replied:[9]

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

Also he wrote, ‘Now, regarding the Hebrews passage, I’m sure your (sic) familiar with Kittles (sic)?’ His name is spelled Kittel.
I agree with the Greek exegesis of Kittel (I have the 10 volumes of the Theological Dictionary that he co-edited with Gerhard Friedrich) where he explained that a person who commits apostasy cannot be brought again to repentance. That’s Bible!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I respectfully come to a different conclusion to yours.

C. Conditional security in John’s Gospel

Another poster wrote:[10]

John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you ?abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.

This shows the principle and is why in John 15:6 those branches that are burned do not abide in His word as opposed to those in v7.

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

My response was:[11]

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

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

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

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

His response was somewhat unexpected:[12]

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

I’m not of the view that we are agreeing with the need to continue to believe and that it is possible for a genuine believer to commit apostasy. So I replied:[13]

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

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

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

D. Continuing belief needed for eternal security

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

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

Let’s check out …

E. R C H Lenski, a Lutheran, on John 10:28-29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(courtesy ChristArt)

F. Is any kind of reconciliation possible?

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

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

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

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

Therefore, Olson reaches the conclusion that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the nature of free will is another point where Calvinism and Arminianism diverge and where no middle ground seems possible. Because of their vision of God as good (loving, benevolent, merciful), Arminians affirm libertarian free will. (Philosophers call it incompatibilist free will because it is not compatible with determinism)…. Arminians do not believe in absolute free will; the will is always influenced and situated in a context. Even God is guided by his nature and character when making decisions. But Arminians deny that creaturely decisions and actions are controlled by God or any force outside the self (Olson 1986:75).

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

is compatible with determinism. This is the only sense of free will that is consistent with Calvinism’s vision of God as the all-determining reality. In compatibilist free will, persons are free so long as they do what they want to do – even if God is determining their desires. This is why Calvinists can affirm that people sin voluntarily and are therefore responsible for their sins even though they could not do otherwise. According to Calvinism God foreordained the Fall of Adam and Eve, and rendered it certain (even if only by an efficacious permission) by withdrawing the grace necessary to keep them from sinning. And yet they sinned voluntarily. They did what they wanted to do even if they were unable to do otherwise. This is a typical Calvinist account of free will.[18]

Once again it is difficult to see how a hybrid of these two views of free will could be created. Could people have freely chosen to do something different than they actually did? Some Calvinists (such as Jonathan Edwards) agree with Arminians that people have the natural ability to do otherwise (e.g., avoid sinning). But what about moral ability? Arminians agree with Calvinists that apart from the grace of God all fallen humans choose to sin; their will is bound to sin by original sin manifesting itself as total depravity (Olson 2006:75).

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

Arminians do not call this free will because these people cannot do otherwise (except in terms of deciding which sins to commit!). From the Arminian perspective prevenient grace restores free will so that humans, for the first time, have the ability to do otherwise – namely, respond in faith to the grace of God or resist it in unrepentance and disbelief. At the point of God’s call, sinners under the influence of prevenient grace have genuine free will as a gift of god; for the first time they can freely say yes or no to God. Nothing outside the self determines how they will respond. Calvinists say that humans never have that ability in spiritual matters (any possibility in any matters). People always do what they want to do, and God is the ultimate decider of human wants even though when it comes to sin, God works through secondary causes And never directly causes anyone to sin. These two views are incommensurable. To the Arminian, compatibilist free will is no free will at all. To the Calvinist, incompatibilist free will is a myth; it simply cannot exist because it would amount to an uncaused effect, which is absurd[19] (Olson 2006:75-76, emphasis added).

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

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! ¹⁵For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. ¹⁷For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” ¹⁸So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

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

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

Therefore, there can be no reconciliation on the concepts of free will between Arminians and Calvinists while they maintain the positions as expounded above.

G. Conclusion

The conclusion is that none the twain shall meet. Calvinists will continue to believe in unconditional eternal security and Reformed/classical Arminians will continue to believe that it is possible for a person to commit apostasy for whom there is then no repentance possible to return to salvation.

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

Is prevenient grace still amazing grace?

The injustice of the God of Calvinism

Some Calvinistic antagonism towards Arminians

Other writings to confirm conditional security

I have written on this topic elsewhere. See:

Spencer Gear: Conversations with a Calvinist on apostasy

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

Matthew Murphy: Practical Problems with OSAS

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

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

Matt O’Reilly: Eternally secure, provided that…

Spencer Gear: What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Spencer Gear: Does God want everyone to receive salvation?

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

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

Spencer Gear: Calvinists, free will and a better alternative

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

Steve Jones: Calvinism Critiqued by a Former Calvinist

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

Karlberg, M W 1996. Apostasy, in W A Elwell (ed), Baker’s evangelical dictionary of biblical theology. Available at BibleStudyTools.com, http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/apostasy.html (Accessed 8 July 2013).

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

[5] Danv8#74, ibid.

[6] DeaconDean#75, ibid.

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

[8] OzSpen#79, ibid.

[9] OzSpen#93, ibid.

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

[11] OzSpen#94, ibid.

[12] iwbswiaihl #96, ibid.

[13] OzSpen#98, ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blatant misrepresentation of Arminians by Calvinists

Jacob Arminius (courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

If you want to read some of the theological misrepresentations of Arminianism, take a visit to the ‘Soteriology’ directory of Christian Forums on the Internet. It was here that I met jamantc whose icon told me that he was an ‘elected predestinarian’. My alarm bells began to ring because my experience on this forum was with Calvinists who tended to be dogmatic TULIP advocates and anti any other view. They especially detested the theology of Arminians like myself.

Jamantc wrote (take note of his misspelling of Abel):

Cain and Able (sic)

Two things I notice on all forums that debate Calvinism and Arminianism is that they resemble Cain and Able (sic). Like Arminianism Cain was a man of the world that held back from God because he seemed to think it was about himself and who God created man for his own glory and not God creating man for His Own glory. Able (sic) was like a Calvinist, He brought everything to God as a first offering, knowing that everything was about God and what God had done for him that he could never do on his own and lived a life that glorified God and made God the center and not himself. Cain destroyed Able (sic) from jealousy and if the Arminian could, he would wipe Calvinism from the face of the earth as well. Like Able (sic), Calvinist are hated for giving God all glory and taking the center off himself and knowing that he was created for God’s glory alone. I really do enjoy being hated for giving God all the glory for who I am and for all He has done for me that I couldn’t do myself. Me being hated for God sake tells me that I am not of the world as Cain (or the Arminian). If one hates me for giving God the glory for all I am and all I have, then their issue of hate is not with me, but with God Himself since He created me to give Him all the glory. A man centered gospel in not of God and glorifies only man and not God. Thank You Lord for making me who I am and one that takes no credit for that and give You all the glory as you don’t merely suggest, but as You command! The Arminian hating the Calvinist is like Cain hating Able (sic), his problem wasn’t with Able but with God for making Able (sic) glorify Him for who He is.[1]

A. How bad can a Calvinist distort Arminian theology?

My response was:[2]

Please, please learn to spell Abel. You have wrongly spelled his name 7 times in your post.

Here you have given a blatant misrepresentation of Arminianism by associating it with “A man centered gospel in not of God and glorifies only man and not God”. You have flamed Arminians to boot!

I as a Reformed/classical Arminian take the Fall into sin and its consequences very seriously. It is simply false to state that Arminianism is ‘a man-centred Gospel’. You don’t know Arminianism very well for you to misrepresent the Arminian Christian like this.

In his ‘Declaration of Sentiments’ that were delivered to the Dutch government state officials about a year before his death, Arminius made this declaration of human beings to make it VERY CLEAR that Arminianism is NOT a man-centred Gospel:

in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace’ (Arminius, Works of Arminius, v 1, 3.6.3, ‘The free will of man‘).

Could anything be clearer? Arminius believed in regeneration ‘by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit’. That is NOT a man-centred Gospel.

I asked him: ‘Would you please quit your misrepresentation of Arminians on Christian Forums?’

B. What others thought of the Calvinist’s false views

Others in this thread on the forum noted the disparaging comments towards Arminianism by this poster:

‘A sad form of misinformed prejudice from someone supposed to be filled with the Spirit of Christ. And this response from one who is neither Cal nor Arm. But I must say such a misrepresentation always only comes from this side. OP’s intended to provoke from contentious spirits wanting to rekindle the 500 year old war they started. Sad, really sad, confess your sin to God, He will forgive you and cleanse you. So why do you hate them so while accusing them of being the ones who hate?… Do you have a persecution complex? I will pray for you’.[3]

‘Well, I’m speechless. Anyone else?’[4]

‘You shouldn’t be surprised if you get an indignant reaction to suggesting that God decided who would and who would not believe (and have eternal life) irrespective of God’s foreknowledge of men’s choices.
Your OP [original post] is unnecessarily inflammatory’. [5]

‘Forced analogy. No thanks’.[6]

‘It is a rather glaring false analogy and fallacious association all rolled into one’.[7]

‘Love one another….. nah, not today’.[8]

‘I weep…truly….though if I were an Arminian I would be offended by this provocative misrepresentation of their view, but then they usually do not file complaints with the Mods so I will weep for Jam… praying for him since yesterday’.[9]

C. How Arminius promoted God-centred salvation

(Courtesy CCEL)

Let’s check out a few quotes from Arminius himself to refute the human-centred view of the Calvinist concerning Arminian salvation. I was alerted by these by a leading Arminian theologian, Roger E. Olson, in his chapter, ‘Myth 8: Arminianism is a human-centered theology’ (in Olson 2006:127-157). Olson’s sub-heading of the chapter is, ‘An optimistic anthropology is alien to true Arminianism, which is thoroughly God-centered. Arminian theology confesses human depravity, including bondage of the will’ (Olson 2006:137).

Let’s look at Arminius’ theology of salvation.

1. Salvation and grace

I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace. From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free-will. For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, “is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?” That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not. With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered (Arminius n d, vol 1, 3.6.4, ‘The grace of God’, emphasis added).

Arminius promoted support of the need for grace to free the will, but this grace from God is resistible. Therefore, Arminius most certainly was God-centred in his approach to the grace of God and salvation.

2. Grace to free the will

Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace. That I may not be said, like Pelagius, to practice delusion with regard to the word “grace,” I mean by it that which is the grace of Christ and which belongs to regeneration. I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good. It is this grace which operates on the mind, the affections, and the will; which infuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good desires into the actions, and bends the will to carry into execution good thoughts and good desires. This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and co-operates lest we will in vain. It averts temptations, assists and grants succour in the midst of temptations, sustains man against the flesh, the world and Satan, and in this great contest grants to man the enjoyment of the victory. It raises up again those who are conquered and have fallen, establishes and supplies them with new strength, and renders them more cautious. This grace commences salvation, promotes it, and perfects and consummates it. I confess that the mind of a natural and carnal man is obscure and dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, that his will is stubborn and disobedient, and that the man himself is dead in sins (Arminius n d, vol 2, 9.6, ‘Grace and free will’).

The grace of Christ is needed to bring salvation according to Arminius, thus making Arminianism a God-centred theology. This grace from God commences salvation; promotes it; perfects it, and consummates it. Arminianism is God-centred theology but this grace from God is resistible.

3. Children of wrath unless liberated by Christ Jesus

All men “are by nature the children of wrath,” (Ephes. ii. 3,) obnoxious to condemnation, and to temporal as well as to eternal death; they are also devoid of that original righteousness and holiness. (Rom. v. 12, 18, 19.) With these evils they would remain oppressed forever, unless they were liberated by Christ Jesus; to whom be glory forever (Arminius n d, vol 1, 5.8, ‘The effects of this sin’).

All people are by nature children of wrath and cannot be liberated from such oppression unless they are liberated by Christ Jesus who is to be glorified forever. Arminianism again endorses a God-centred approach to liberation leading to salvation.

4. God’s preceding grace needed for salvation

Arminius maintained that ‘no man believes in Christ except he has been previously disposed and prepared, by preventing or preceding grace, to receive life eternal on that condition on which God wills to bestow it, according to the following passage of Scripture: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John vii. 17.)’ (Arminius n d, vol 2 9.8.19, ‘On faith’).

So God wills preceding grace that leads to eternal salvation, thus confirming that Arminianism is God-centred theology.

Jamantc is not the only kind of person to misrepresent Arminianism in print, on the Internet, or elsewhere. Roger Olson demonstrated how well-known Calvinists have done this. He gives examples that ‘some Calvinist accusations against Arminian theology demonstrate a nearly complete lack of knowledge or understanding of classical Arminian literature’ (Olson 2006:137). He mentions:

Edwin H Palmer in Five points of Calvinism (1972:19, 27; in Olson 2006:137-138);
James Montgomery Boice in Whatever happened to the Gospel of grace (2001:167; in Olson 2006:138);
Michael Horton, ‘Evangelical Arminians,’ Modern Reformation 1 (1992:15-19; in Olson 2006:139);
W Robert Godfrey, ‘Who was Arminius?’ Modern Reformation 1 (1992:7, 24; in Olson 2006:139-140);
Richard A Muller, God, creation, and providence in the thought of Jacob Arminius (1991:234, 271; in Olson 2006:140);
Robert A Peterson and Michael D Williams, Why I am not an Arminian (2004:39, 115-117; in Olson 2006:141).

When these leading authors misrepresent the teachings of Arminius, what hope does a person have in a Christian forum on the Internet? However, it is a warning for me as a convinced Reformed Arminian that when I critique Calvinism, I need to be accurate in the Calvinistic theology I am criticising. These misrepresentations of Calvinists of the views of Arminius and Arminianism I have taken as a warning to the possibility of any one of us to not know the opposition’s point of view.

It is a serious sin to misrepresent another’s theology.

D. Conclusion

A person would have to be ignorant of Arminius’ writings or set out deliberately to misrepresent his works, for that person to conclude that Arminius promoted ‘a man centered gospel [that is] not of God and glorifies only man and not God’.

Therefore, jamantc was promoting a false representation of the Arminian view of salvation (a straw man logical fallacy). Roger Olson’s conclusion applies to jamantc as much as to any others who misrepresent Arminianism:

The only conclusion possible is that many Calvinist critics of Arminianism have wittingly or unwittingly borne false witness against Arminius and Arminians: they have distorted beyond recognition Arminian theology about humanity. Anyone who reads real, historical Arminian literature on this subject [whether Arminianism promotes human-centred theology] will be amazed at the discrepancies between what is widely said about Arminian doctrine and what Arminians have actually written about humanity (Olson 2006:141).

I highly recommend Roger Olson’s book (Olson 2006), as it sets out to correct the myths of Arminianism that are so often promoted in theological circles and provides the correct Arminian position (realities), quoted from primary Arminian sources – including Arminius himself.

Works consulted

Arminius, J n d Works of James Arminius (online), 3 vols. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works1 (Accessed 22 December 2013).

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

Notes

[1] jamantc#1, Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Cain and Able’, 21 December 2013. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7794043/ (Accessed 22 December 2013).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen#11, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7794043-2/ (Accessed 22 December 2013).

[3] Ibid., pshun2003#2.

[4] Ibid., Ignatius21#3.

[5] Ibid., janxharris#4.

[6] Ibid., drstevej#5.

[7] Ibid., Tzaousios#6.

[8] Ibid., Sayre#8.

[9] Ibid., pshun2003#10.

Did Jesus die for the sins of the whole world?

(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

This discussion has been continuing since the Calvinistic-Arminian debates of the Reformation period. But it is alive and well today. There are a couple Scriptures that stand out as affirming an unlimited atonement (i.e. Christ dying for the sins of every person in the world). These are:

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

Hebrews 2:9, ‘But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone’ (ESV).

A plain reading of the text indicates that Jesus death is the propitiation (to appease the wrath of God’ for ‘our sins’ (presumably referring to Christians) AND ‘for the sins of the whole world’. Unlimited atonement is the fairly obvious reading of 1 John 2:2, except if one is a Calvinist. Hebrews 2:19 states that Jesus ‘suffering of death’ meant that he did ‘taste death for everyone’. Does everyone mean all the people in the world or only a limited number? That is what is involved in some of this Arminian-Calvinist debate as I found out when interacting on a Christian forum on the Internet.

On Christian Forums, an Arminian started a thread and asked:

If faith is a gift from God exclusively to the elect, and not everyone is elect, then there are some people that have no access to salvation.

I want to ask, if I may, if the Calvinists here on CF agree with this statement?[1]

Calvinists condone God’s being selective and conditional

This is a predictable and accurate response from an Arminian, ‘Calvinists say that this gifting of faith is done so selectively and unconditionally; it’s got nothing to do with anything good or bad that a man might do, they say’.[2]

The response was unsurprising from a Calvinist: ‘That’s because there is no such thing as a man who is good or a man who does anything good’.[3]

God decrees all sin and evil

(courtesy ChristArt)

I replied to the Arminian:

The plot gets even thicker with some Calvinists.[4] Take the late Edwin Palmer, a Calvinist theologian, who stated that, ‘All the Five Points of Calvinism hang or fall together’ (2010:84). He continued, ‘To emphasize the sovereignty of God even more, it is necessary to point out that everything is foreordained by God’ and

although all things, unbelief and sin included, proceed from God’s eternal decree, man is still to blame for his sins. He is guilty. It is his fault and not God’s….
To emphasize the sovereignty of God even more, it is necessary to point out that everything is foreordained by God. Not only is God omnipotent, so that the nations are to him a drop in the bucket or as a fine coating of dust on weighing scales (Isaiah 40), but he also “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11).
It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin. If sin was outside the plan of God, then not a single important affair of life would be ruled by God. For what action of man is perfectly good? All of history would then be outside of God’s foreordination: the fall of Adam, the crucifixion of Christ, the conquests of the Roman Empire, the Battle of Hastings, the Reformation, the French Revolution, Waterloo, the American Revolution, the Civil War, two World Wars, presidential assassinations, racial violence, and the rise and fall of nations.
In two instances, the Bible is especially clear in teaching that everything, including sin, is ordained by God: the selling of Joseph and the crucifixion of Christ (Palmer 2010:103, 100, emphasis added).

I find that that kind of statement about the absolute sovereignty of God’s foreordination of sin and evil, by Palmer, has horrific ramifications.

It means that every act of a reprobate in paedophilia, rape, violence of person-to-person, the Holocaust, the Gulag, Nero’s slaughter of Christians, the rape of Christian women fleeing Syria today by Muslim men at check points (according to Barnabas Fund) and every other evil act imaginable by individuals, groups and nations is attributed to the sovereignty of God in decreeing sin and evil. This is not only a reprehensible view – as I understand it – but it is not consistent with Scripture. How is it possible to harmonise Palmer’s perspective of the sovereignty of God who decrees all of the sin and evil in the world, with an appeal to the Scriptures? This especially relates to the character of God, his goodness and justice/righteousness.

See my article: Limited atonement conflicts with God’s goodnes

How would a Calvinist reply?

(courtesy ChristArt)

It was predictable:

If God doesn’t decree sin, that means sin happens for one of two reasons:

1) God is powerless to stop it;
2) God can stop it, but chooses not to, for no reason whatsoever. Since he didn’t decree it, it means he has no purpose for allowing it to happen. Yet he allows it arbitrarily.

Pick your poison Oz.

I’d prefer to say that God has a purpose for sin, and he uses it to accomplish His purposes, as he “works all things according to the counsel of His own will”.

So which do you prefer? #1 or #2?[5]

Notice his pejorative language to me, ‘Pick your poison Oz’. This flaming language does not help rational discussion. This was my response:[6]

There’s no picking of poison here. That’s a false and defamatory accusation. You don’t seem to be able to tolerate those, like myself, who oppose your view of God decreeing all of the sin and evil in the universe, so what do you do? You make a derogatory comment towards me of telling me: ‘Pick your poison Oz’. That’s horribly insulting!

Please quit your pejorative language towards me!

You don’t seem to be able to differentiate between God’s ordaining all of the sin and evil in the universe (your Calvinism) and God’s permitting sin and evil (my Reformed Arminianism).

John Piper (courtesy Wikipedia)

Roger E Olson (courtesy Baylor University)

See Andrew Wilson’s article, ‘Piper and Olson: Does God Ordain All Sinful Human Choices?‘ I endorse Wilson’s conclusion:

So I don’t see any biblical grounds for saying that God ordains all sinful human choices, and I agree with David Bentley Hart (and Roger Olson) that Calvinists often do not distinguish clearly enough between what God ordains and what he allows. (I’ve been asked in the past why I believe ordaining and allowing are different; my usual response is to say, “because they’re different”. When you use two words that have different dictionary definitions – “commanding, giving orders for” versus “permitting” – the burden of proof is on the guy who thinks they mean the same thing, not the guy who thinks they mean different things.) From where I’m standing, the Bible does say that God ordains some sinful choices, but it does not say that God ordains all sinful choices. And if that makes me a woolly, fluffy, Amyraldian, four point, lily-livered, half-baked, big girl’s blouse of a 1536 Calvinist, then so be it.

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

Sea God's Will

(courtesy ChristArt)

The Calvinist, advocating God’s decreeing sin and evil, wrote:

If they deserve damnation, I fail to see how anything is wrong with that. He could have saved zero people and sentenced 100% of humanity to damnation, and been just to do so.

Further, your own view is censorious too, because God set up a stipulation for his mercy: belief. He didn’t have to do that. He could have saved everyone, but chose not to. He could have made the stipulation for salvation “be a human being”, but He didn’t. Thus, in your view too, He chose to be selective as to who He lets into heaven.

You act like only Calvinists beleive (sic) God saves some, but not all, when you believe the very same thing.

Please don’t come back and say that ‘none of us deserved anything from God’ because the fact, from a Calvinistic understanding, is that God discriminately, selectively, unconditionally, irresistibly, provides a limited atonement for some, but damns the rest and they cannot do anything about it because it is done ‘selectively and unconditionally’.

The fact that you think all men don’t deserve hell is noted.[7]

Note the invention here. Not once have I ever stated or inferred that I ‘think all men don’t’ deserve hell’. That’s a straw man fallacy that Skala invented to try to discredit me. It’s an under-hand, deceptive tactic that is absolutely false. I do believe all people who do not repent and have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, will go to hell. Here are a few of my articles dealing with the existence of hell:

Torment in OT hell’;

Hell and judgment’;

Where will unbelievers go at death?’

Eternal torment for unbelievers when they die’;

‘Will you be ready when death comes?’

‘Refutation of the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of what happens at death’;

Immortality of the soul’;

Are there degrees of punishment in hell?’

I had written to this hot Calvinist who supports TULIP that it also doesn’t sit well with 1 Tim 2:3-4, AND 2 Peter 3:9. His reply was: ‘Your misuse of scripture (the way satan does) is noted’.[8] This is abominable, insulting, inflammatory language. He continued:

Let it be known that Oz and Janx do not think all men deserve hell.

I mean, you can tell this just based on their arguments and objections.

If you truly believed all men deserved hell, why would you object to God letting them go there without first trying to save them or giving them an opportunity to escape?

A judge does not have to give a criminal a “chance of escape” in order for his sentence to be just. He can just outright send the criminal to prison, because it’s what his crimes deserve.[9]

I was pointed in my reply:[10]

This is your invention about my theology. Thus, it is a straw man fallacy. We cannot have a rational discussion when you make a false accusation about my theology.

I DO NOT believe as you accuse that I do not believe all people deserve hell. What I do not believe is your unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace from TULIP when it comes to salvation.

Please quit your false accusations about my theology.

I wrote again:[11]‘My own view is not censorious because I affirm 1 John 2:2 as an accurate reflection of God’s view towards the damned: “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world”. Please quit your false accusation against my view when you state: ‘The fact that you think all men don’t deserve hell is noted’. Not once have I stated that. I don’t believe that. You have created another straw man logical fallacy.

This is a rather typical Calvinistic reply to get around the content of 1 John 2:2:

John was writing to Jewish Christians.

He is the propitiation for our sins (Jews), and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (Gentiles).

Thus is does not mean that He is the propitiation for the sins of every individual. It is self evident that Christ did not turn away God’s wrath from every individual. Come on!

You guys need to take courses in logic. You also need to do a biblical study on the word “kosmos” (world). It NEVER means every individual. It ALWAYS is specific to a GROUP of men.[12]

My response to this was:[13]

I have taken courses in English language, Greek language, German language, logic and biblical studies.

Where in 1 John does it state that 1 John is written only for Jews? If that is the case, I’m out – because I’m a Gentile. Please show me from 1 John where this message only applies to Jews. John was correcting false doctrine in relation to the incarnation and he was writing to readers who doubted Jesus divinity because of the false teachers of a teaching like Gnosticism.

You have imposed on 1 John 2:2 a view that is not there, thus making it your eisegesis. You have read into it what it does not say. Your problem of hermeneutics would be easily overcome if you would be open to the fact that God allows human response to receive salvation. John 1:12 applies, ‘But to all who did receive him’. It does not say, ‘To all the elect who did receive him and were irresistibly drawn to him’.

Problem with access or lack of will

One response from a Presbyterian Calvinist was: ‘Someone asked what you mean by access. It’s not an idle question. Calvinists would say that the non-elect have just as much access to salvation as the elect. Our problem isn’t lack of access but lack of will’.[14] Another Calvinist’s response was: ‘Wrong! Jesus died for the Elect only. Therefore, the non-elect have no more access to salvation than Ishmael had to the covenant of salvation’.[15] It is not unusual on a Christian forum on the Internet to get that kind of response from a Calvinist.

Did Jesus die only for the elect or for the whole world? I replied[16]that his statement contradicts Scripture:

‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world‘ (1 John 2:2 ESV). It does not say t hat Jesus is a propitiation for the sins of some of the world, but for ‘the whole world’. To make ‘the whole world’ equal only the elect, makes language meaningless.

‘For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time’ (1 Tim 2:5-6)

‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God (John 3:16-18).

This is crystal clear: God loved the whole world; those who believe are saved and those who do not believe are condemned. ‘Whoever believes’ is God’s invitation. It is not, ‘Whoever believes and is in God’s unconditional elect’.

‘But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Heb 2:9).

Dr. Paul Reiter has summarised the Scriptural teaching on this issue. FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE? HE DIED…

For all (1st Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6).
For every man (Heb. 2:9).
For the world (John 3:16).
For the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
For the ungodly (Rom. 5:6).
For false teachers (2 Peter 2:1).
For many (Matthew 20:28).
For Israel (John 11:50-51).
For the Church (Eph. 5:25).
For “me” (Gal. 2:20).

A helpful reply

A beneficial, faith-building reply of edification came from a Calvinistic Presbyterian, Hedrick, who began by discussing John’s audience when he wrote 1 John:

First John isn’t Romans. There’s no sign of Jew vs Gentile in the context.

If you want to read limited atonement into this passage, it’s better to use Calvin’s interpretation. He see[s] “you” as the church he was writing to, and the whole world as a global view of believers throughout the world.

However I find the summary in OzSpen’s list, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780…/#post64319067, persuasive. The problem with these arguments on the extent of the atonement is that they take an individualistic view that is foreign to the NT. In the Gospels and Paul we have a cosmic view of Jesus’ activity. He has defeated Satan, and begun the establishment of God’s rule. At least conceptually, he has atoned for the whole world. That doesn’t mean that every individual is saved. But it means that in principle he has reconciled the whole world. Of course the Kingdom is currently the seed growing secretly, so not everyone is actually participating in the restored Kingdom. But at least in principle, there’s a complete, cosmic victory.

I would say that in the NT view, the extent of the atonement is cosmic, but with an understanding that individuals participate in it by faith. I think there’s a difference between saying that the scope is cosmic and saying that it is universal. Objectively, the Kingdom of God is a cosmic reality. Christ has won the victory. Death is defeated. But at the moment not all individuals are part of the Kingdom. That’s where election applies. God calls us. It may well be that he doesn’t call us equally. Certainly not everyone hears it. But this call is a call to participate in a Kingdom founded on Christ. In the Synoptics, we “enter” the Kingdom. It’s a thing that exists independent of us. John 1 reminds us of Gen 1. God loves the world, and is restoring or recreating it as it was meant to be. 3:16-17 shows both sides of the picture. God loves the world. Jesus came not to condemn anyone, but to save the whole world. But he who believes in him is saved.

I should note that John is also one of the books that at times implies some kind of election, though I doubt it’s double predestination. But for John a cosmic extent of the atonement coexists with election, and in places also with a view that “the world” is hostile territory.[17]

Another replied to the list (above by Dr Paul Reiter) of those for whom Christ died:

Great list, Oz. Here’s some more categories that Christ came to save:

For whom did Jesus come to save?

The sick, the lost, the poor, the unrighteous, the ungodly, and sinners.

Matt 9:12, On hearing this, Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Are just the elect “sick”?

Luke 19:10, For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. Are just the elect “lost”?

Luke 4:18, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. Are just the elect poor?

1 Peter 3:18, For Christ died for sins once FOR ALL, the righteous (Christ) for the unrighteous (humanity, all of them), to bring you to God. Are just the elect unrighteous?

Rom 5:6, You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Are just the elect ungodly?

Mark 2:17, On hearing this, Jesus said to them, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, butsinners. Are just the elect sinners?

Isa 61:1, The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

If Christ died for just the elect, then reformed theology leads to universalism, because of these verses. That means the non elect are neither sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, or sinners. So they don’t need salvation. And Christ wouldn’t need to die for any of them.[18]

Can there be any reconciliation?

Theoretically, yes! Practically, very difficult!

There are at least two issues here:

1. Both Arminians and Calvinists insist that they are obtaining their information from the Scriptures. Calvinists support limited atonement while Arminians support unlimited atonement. It’s an issue of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation). Until there is an open, honest examination of all of the Scriptures relating to the atonement, with both Calvinists and Arminians laying aside their presuppositions to examine the Scriptures as objectively as possible, I can’t see a possibility of reconciliation.

2. There is a propensity for preachers to follow the flow of the denomination to which they belong. I cannot see Presbyterian and Reformed denominations accepting preachers who are Arminian. I cannot see Arminian denominations such as the Wesleyan, Methodist, Nazarene, and some Pentecostals, accepting Calvinistic preachers in the pulpit.

Therefore a stalemate is reached. There is little movement in the Arminian-Calvinistic debate.

Works consulted

Palmer, E H 1980/2010. The five points of Calvinism: A study manual (online), 3rd edn. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books. Part of this book is available free as a Google Book HERE.

Notes:

[1] janxharris#1, Christian Forums, Soteriology, ‘If faith is a gift from God’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352/ (Accessed 18 October 2013, emphasis in original).

[2] janxharris#71, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-8/.

[3] Skala#77, ibid.

[4] OzSpen#78, ibid.

[5] Skala#80, ibid.

[6] OzSpen#84, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-9/.

[7] Skala#87, ibid.

[8] Skala#92, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-10/.

[9] Skala#93, ibid.

[10] OzSpen#95, ibid.

[11] OzSpen#99, ibid.

[12] The Boxer#106, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-11/.

[13] OzSpen#115, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-12/.

[14] hendrick#12, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-2/.

[15] The Boxer#104, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-11/.

[16] OzSpen#111, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-12/.

[17] Hedrick#136, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-14/.

[18] FreeGrace2#186, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-19/#post64324860, emphasis in original.

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

Spencer D Gear

A Lutheran, Dr Richard P Bucher, wrote:

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

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

Passages that warn of loss of salvation

(image courtesy ChristArt)

My response was:[2]

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

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

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

Paul to Timothy gives another example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How should I respond?[5]

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

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

Good Book

(image courtesy ChristArt)

Is the Book of Hebrews addressing Christians or Jews?

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

There were these additional problems in context:

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

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

What about John 10?

Another person wrote:

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

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

What should be an appropriate response?[7]

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

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

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

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

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

Is once saved, always saved a deception?

Another person asked of me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did the early church fathers believe?

Saint Irenaeus.jpg

Irenaeus (Wikipedia)

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

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

Tertullian 2.jpg

Tertullian (image courtesy Wikipedia)

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

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

Martin Luther on eternal security

Martin Luther (image courtesy Wikipedia)

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

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

What about Jacob Arminius’s views?

James Arminius 2.jpg

Jacobus Arminius (image courtesy Wikipedia)

It is worthy of quoting him at some length in his segment on ‘The Perseverance of the Saints’:

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

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

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

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

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

Notes:

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

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #53.

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

[4] Op cit., Behe’s Boy #56.

[5] Ibid., OzSpen #65.

[6] Ibid., sdowney717 #48.

[7] Ibid., OzSpen #55.

[8] Ibid., extraordinary #54.

[9] Ibid., OzSpen #60.

[10] Ibid., Behe’s Boy #67.

God’s foreknowledge and predestination/election to salvation

(images courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

Within the evangelical Christian community, there are two prominent views on how human beings are elected by God to salvation. They are the views of Calvinism and Arminianism. See examples of these views:

Arminianism: Roger Olson, ‘Election is for everyone‘;

Calvinism: J I Packer, ‘Election: God chooses his own’;

In a discussion on God’s predestination/election and foreknowledge on a Christian Forum, this was stated:

It can’t be “both”, it’s either one or the other. One is the cart, the other is the horse. Either God’s grace is the driving engine behind a man’s salvation, or the man is. Either Christians in heaven will be saying “the reason I’m here is because God chose me” or they will be saving “The reason God chose me is because I decided to be here.[1]

My response was:

(image courtesy Bethany House)

Salvation that involves the omniscience of God and the free choices of human beings is God-centred. That’s how God has revealed this situation in Scripture and Geisler has attempted to demonstrate this – Chosen but Free.[2] They are understood as based on God’s omniscience. It is a very God-centred doctrine of salvation, straight from the authoritative God of Scripture.

I would not be supporting such a view if it were not what is found in Scripture. I’m committed to the inerrancy of Scripture in the autographa [the original documents of Old and New Testaments).

It seems that it is your Calvinistic interpretation that wants to place any view other than yours as the creation over the Creator. This is clearly not the case with Geisler (1999) and it is not my view.The choices of human beings are ‘free’ in the sense that God has extended to all human beings common grace (see Titus 2:11).

Your example of your son is not adequate for the discussion we are having because with your son you are dealing with how to set parameters for discipline, because you love him. With the eternal God, he is revealing how his love for the whole world makes salvation available to all. As I understand them, unconditional election and irresistible grace involve forced love. Geisler has labelled this as ‘divine rape’ – not nice terminology, but it does try to get to the essence of forced love for salvation.

I support your view of ‘the wise and immutable choices of God’, but it is the basis on which those immutable choices are made about which we disagree. Are you promoting an immutable decree in predestination? I’m promoting predestination/election, based on the foreknowledge of God and that involves freedom of individuals to voluntarily love or reject God’s offer of salvation when the Gospel is shared or preached.

Mine is a God-centred theology of salvation that incorporates the Gospel, God’s omniscience in foreknowledge, election that includes human beings freely choosing to respond favourably to the Gospel. It is genuine free will that God has given to all.[3]

How would Apologetic_Warrior, a Presbyterian and Reformed believer, respond? Before looking at his response to my post on foreknowledge, it is important to note his emphasis in a previous post,

Sorry but election by “free” choices of men is “man centered” doctrine if there ever were such a thing. Of course Geisler does not come right out and speak in those terms, he is blind to the fact, cannot see the forest for the trees. So let me rephrase, Geisler does not intentionally place the creation over the Creator, but he does so unintentionally based on his philosophical presuppositions.

If Geisler and yourself believe in original sin and total depravity, in what sense can man’s choices be said to be “free”? Free of what to what?[4]

Now to his response about foreknowledge in Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2. It was fairly predictable. It is a common response I receive from the Reformed who don’t believe that salvation and God’s foreknowledge are associated with election/predestination. He wrote:

Neither of those verses support what you would like for them to support.

If we interpret “those whom he foreknew” in the sense you suggest, let me ask you this, are we therefore to interpret that as God foreknowing some but not others? No, God foreknows everyone’s destiny in the knowledge sense of the term. Because the phrase limits the number of persons (those), I believe a more accurate rendering would be “those whom he foreLoved”, as we already know of instances in Scripture where to “know” someone (“Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived”) is to love intimately.

Neither of the verses give the cause or basis of election, and neither is it contradiction for the Calvinist to agree that there is a tie between election and foreknowledge….and predestination and sovereignty. What you read into foreknowledge is the “choices of men”, where we Calvinists read the free choices of God on the basis of His love and mercy, according to His will and His purpose, for His glory.[5]

Here was my response:[6]

‘For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified’ (Romans 8:29-30; emphasis added).

‘He foreknew’ is the Greek proegnw, aorist, active indicative of proginwskw, which means ‘know beforehand, in advance, have foreknowledge of something… Choose beforehand someone’ (Arndt & Gingrich p. 710). Therefore, your statement, ‘I believe a more accurate rendering would be “those whom he foreLoved”‘, is your own opinion and is not based on the etymology of the word.

Proginwsko means to foreknow, to know in advance. The preposition pro that begins this verb does not change the meaning of ginwsko (I know), but simply dates it, the same preposition is associated with proorizo, I predestine in advance in Rom 8:29. This divine action reaches back to eternity.

We need to note that the verb for knowing is ginwsko and not oida, to know about someone, intellectual apprehension. Proginwsko refers to a knowing relationship that is a personal relationship between the knower and the person known. So it becomes plain that when God foreknew, in his omniscience He foreknew in personal relationship. This does not refer to what you want it to mean, ‘foreloved’, but to know personally in relationship through foreknowledge.
Therefore, when Jesus said concerning the unbelievers and judgment, ‘I never knew you’, Jesus did not know the wicked with the affection of a personal relationship.

Romans 8:29 most definitely refers to foreknowledge of God, a personal relationship of knowing by God with believers. I am not imposing my meaning on the text. I’m exegeting the text, based on etymology of foreknowledge.

So one of the fundamentals in understanding God’s election of a person to receive salvation, is God’s foreknowledge according to Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:1-2.

Works consulted

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

Lenski, R C H 1936. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. This commentary was originally published by the Lutheran Book Concern in 1936. The Hendrickson Publishers’ edition was printed in 2001.

The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to…

(image courtesy LibraryThing)

Notes:

[1] Apologetic_Warrior #388, Christian Forums, Soteriology, ‘Is rejecting Christ a sin?’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-39/ (Accessed 8 July 2013).

[2] 1999. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

[3] Ibid., OzSpen #386.

[4] Ibid., Apologetic_Warrior #385.

[5] Ibid., Apologetic_Warrior #401.

[6] Ibid., OzSpen #405, with some guidance from R C H Lenski (1936:556-557).

What kind of faith did the demons have?

Faith Fearful Demon

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

James 2:19 states, ‘You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!’ (ESV). If the demons have the same kind of faith as Christian believers, who do they believe and shudder, but remain demons who are estranged from God.

There was an interesting discussion on line in which a person stated:

Look up the word faith in the greek theta (sic) used throughout the NT, its a word that literally means to trust with certainty.

Please reason with your own logic. By your logic, our faith is unsustainable because then we wouldn’t know anything. And if we don’t know with certainty, as scripture says we can as Christ says we can, then the faith means nothing. For its relative and flimsy like all other world religions. Please, think critically and study scripture. For it’s the word of God Himself. May He guide you.[1]

My response was, ‘The noun, faith, in the Greek is pistis. The verbal form (I have faith, I believe), pisteuw, is found in James 2:19. How then do you understand this verse in relation to faith being trust with certainty?’[2] His reply was:

Let’s clarify using that verse. the word James uses in v. 19 is, pisteueis. this is derived from Pistis, it does mean and imply a belief/giving credit towards something. but not used in the same way as its derivative. For example, James earlier uses Pistis, from peitho, which literally means to persuade/ in general it implies such a KNOWLEDGE, assent to, and confidence in CERTAIN divine truths, especially those of the gospel, as produce of GOOD WORKS. ( Acts 3:16;17:31; Matt. 17:20 i.e. James 2:14.

Though related, those words are used in complete different contexts.[3]

What should be the response to this kind of challenge, based on the etymology of the Greek pistis (faith)? My reply was: ‘In James 2:19, pisteueis, is a verb, 2nd person, singular, present indicative, active. It is from the base verb pisteuw (I believe). While pisteuw and pistis (a noun) have a common root, we must not confuse the use of a verb with the use of a noun’.[4]

He came back with, ‘I agree. But that only strengthens the fact that our faith is based on trusting in what we’ve come to KNOW as CERTAIN. (refer to my post before with scripture and the greek definition)’.[5]

[6]If I am to accept this person’s understanding of pisteuw in James 2:19, that ‘our faith is based on trusting in what we’ve come to KNOW as CERTAIN’, then I need to understand that this is the kind of faith that the demons have and shudder, based on that faith.
Surely that is not what he was intending to mean! If not, then pisteuw does not always mean what he has stated it to mean. The demons certainly don’t have saving faith that knows and is certain. Therefore, relying on the etymology of the word does not solve the nature of faith for demons in James 2:19.
In his commentary on James, D. Edmond Hiebert, helps me in my understanding of the nature of the demons’ faith:

James - By: D. Edmond Hiebert

Courtesy Christianbook.com

With one stunning remark James shatters the value of such an orthodox faith if it is inoperative: “the demons also believe, and shudder.” “Also” (kai), perhaps “even,” places such an inoperative faith on the level of the demonic. They also believe in one transcendent God. No atheists or skeptics are among them…. In the story of the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:1-10; Luke 8:26-33; cf. also Mark 1:23-24) we have a clear illustration of such a faith on the part of the demons. These malicious supernatural spirits, engaged in seeking to possess and torment men, readily confessed God’s existence and omnipotence; but their “faith” did not transform their character and conduct or change their prospects for the future. They establish the sad truth that “belief may be orthodox, while the character is evil.” [quoting W. Boyd Carpenter]
The only effect that their faith has upon the demons is that they “shudder” (phrissousin). The verb, occurring only here in the New Testament, means “to bristle,” conveying the picture of a horror that causes the hair to stand on end. The present tense pictures this as their characteristic reaction whenever they face the reality of the eternal God. While this term is not strictly applicable to spirits, yet it effectively conveys the intensity of the horror that seizes the demons when confronting God. They have an intense unquestioned belief in God’s existence and power, but their faith brings them no peace or salvation. They are fully aware that doom awaits them at the hands of the infinitely perfect God (Matt. 8:29; 25:41; Luke 8:31) (Hiebert 1979:187-188).

What, then, is the nature of faith for the demons? It cannot be that of the committed Christian who has faith which is commitment to Christ and that leads to salvation that is demonstrated by good works for God. ‘Faith without works is dead’

Reference

Hiebert, D E 1979. The epistle of James: Tests of a living faith. Chicago: Moody Press.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘We don’t know’, ChristianLife08#22, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7741434-3/ (Accessed 9 May 2013).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen#24.

[3] Ibid., ChristianLife08#25.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen#26.

[5] Ibid., ChristianLife08#27.

I can’t do it on my own – the testimony of Nick Vujicic

Nick Vujicic, courtesy Wikipedia

By Spencer D Gear

I have seen a news item on Australian TV’s ‘60 Minutes’ program about Nick Vujicic who was born without legs and arms from tetra-amelia syndrome, 4 December 1982. For limbs, he has only what he calls a chicken leg of a foot.

However, I was introduced to his victorious Christian testimony in this YouTube video, God is sufficient (it has German subtitles but all of the talking is in English). Enjoy! And praise God for the opportunities He gives, no matter what the disability in life.

Here is an amazing story with amazing apologetic impact. My trials and difficulties, three bouts of rheumatic fever as a child and 4 mitral valve surgeries as an adult, are trivial compared with this man’s, but his testimony for Christ is amazing. His God is sufficient for him to have a victorious life in the midst of severe disabilities.

Nick was born to a Serbian pastor and his wife in Brisbane, Australia. Read his story in Wikipedia, Nick Vujicic. This article states that ‘Vujicic graduated from Griffith University at the age of 21 with a double major in accountancy and financial planning’. Did you get it? Without arms and legs and he completed a bachelor’s degree with a double major by the age of 21? He certainly can’t do it on his own. His God is sufficient for all his needs.

On 10 February 2012, Nick married Kenae Miyahara in California, USA. See the story, ‘Limbless evangelist Nick Vuijicic honeymoons with new wife in Hawaii’. At the time of this writing, they are expecting their first child. See, ‘Limbless Evangelist Nick Vujicic Announces Breaking News: We are Expecting!’ (The Gospel Herald, 22 August 2012).

Is there any disability that you have that could be more severe than Nick’s? I found this testimony to be an amazing testimony and defense of the vibrant Christian faith in such a practical ministry to school youth and to prisoners (in the YouTube video).

He has a developing ministry, Life without Limbs. Read some more of this inspiring man’s message in, ‘Who validates you?’

Courtesy Wikipedia

designRed

Does 2 Peter 3:9 teach universalism?

Image result for clipart universalism public domain

(public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

Thanks to the availability of the Internet, the teaching on universalism, even ‘Christian universalism’ is being promoted on the Internet.[1]

Does 2 Peter 3:9 teach the doctrine that all human beings will eventually receive God’s salvation? ‘Christian universalism’, as promoted by Eric Stetson, believes

‘the Good News that ALL people are God’s children and NO ONE will be left behind!
There is NO burning hell of torture where billions of souls who “sinned too much” or “chose the wrong religion” will suffer forever. Contrary to what most Christians today believe, such a horrible idea was not taught by Jesus and is not found anywhere in the original Hebrew Old Testament or Greek New Testament’ (emphasis in original).

Is this biblical teaching or not? The promoter on Christian Forums claimed that 2 Peter 3:9 teaches that all human beings will be saved. Second Peter 3:9 (ESV) 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 context of 2 Peter clearly indicates that 2 Peter 3:9 does not teach the false doctrine of universalism. We know 2 Peter 3:9 is not teaching universalism for these reasons:

2 Peter 3:9 includes the statement that the Lord (God) is “not wishing that any should perish” (ESV). What does this mean in the context of 2 Peter. Is it teaching the doctrine of Christian universalism or is it referring to something different?

We know that Peter is not teaching universalism because of 2 Peter 2:3 and 2 Peter 3:7. Verse 3 of chapter 2 says that the false prophets and false teachers (2 Pt 2:1) who teach and they “secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them” (2:1-2). What is this heretical teaching doing, “bringing upon them swift destruction” (2:1) and “their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep” (2:3). So for the false teachers and false teachers there is no universal salvation as some want to proclaim but their “swift destruction” will be brought upon them and it is destruction that is not asleep. So, universalism for the false teachers is false teaching. The larger context of 2 Peter 3:9 clearly refutes it.

Romans 9:22 teaches a similar message where “vessels of wrath are prepared for destruction”. This is not universalism. That is false teaching that goes contrary to the Scriptures.

Does God want the false teachers to be saved according to 2 Peter 3:9? Most certainly, but they disregard God’s patience toward them and choose to reject God’s salvation and thus will suffer “swift destruction”. It’s guaranteed by the Lord.

Second Peter 3:7 speaks of “the destruction of the ungodly”. The ungodly cannot experience the wrath of God and any kind of universal salvation. They will experience “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly”. Universalism is not only a bad joke but absolutely false teaching in light of what 2 Peter states will happen to the ungodly, the false teachers and false prophets. We must be honest with the immediate context of 2 Peter 3:9 and with the entire book of 2 Peter. The ungodly person’s destiny is judgment and destruction from the Lord God.

God wants all to come to repentance and gives extra time for that to happen (2 Peter 3:9), but the false prophets and false teachers in Peter’s day and today, do not seek God’s salvation, God’s way. Their destiny, according to 2 Peter 2:1 is “swift destruction”. We cannot get universalism out of that verse.

This is orthodox Bible teaching – there is eternal punishment (destruction) coming to the ungodly with God’s judgment.

The CARM apologetics ministry has excellent material online to refute universalism.

Endnotes

[1] I met an example of this on Christian Forums, in the thread, “What is the point in free will?” with a person promoting the view that ‘God MORE than just “desires” none [to] perish. He INTENDS that none perish – 2 Pet 3:9‘.

An Arminian view of faith in Christ

(Arminius, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to hear Calvinists state that Arminians do not believe that faith is a gift of God.[1] Is this true or false?

Part of #5 of the “Statement of Faith” of the evangelical Arminians states this about the gift of faith and the ability to believe:

In and of themselves and apart from the grace of God human beings can neither think, will, nor do anything good, including believe. But the prevenient grace of God prepares and enables sinners to receive the free gift of salvation offered in Christ and his gospel. Only through the grace of God can sinners believe and so be regenerated by the Holy Spirit unto salvation and spiritual life.

The following is a good summary of grace and faith from an Arminian perspective:

Freed by Grace {to Believe} (Article 4)

Because of Total Depravity and Atonement for All … God calls all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, and graciously enables those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith.
God regenerates those who believe in Christ (faith logically precedes regeneration).
God’s saving grace is resistible, which is to say that he dispenses his calling, drawing, and convicting grace (which would bring us to salvation if responded to with faith) in such a way that we may reject it. Those who hear the gospel may either accept it by grace or reject it to their own eternal destruction.
Apart from the realm of pleasing the Lord and doing spiritual good, people often have free will, which means that, with respect to an action, they can at least either do the action or refrain from doing it. People often have genuine choices and are therefore correspondingly able to make choices.
God has ultimate and absolute free will. His choice to supernaturally free the will of sinners by his grace to believe in Christ is a matter of the exercise of his own free will and sovereignty.

I cannot find any teaching in the Bible that confirms that saving faith is for a select few people. The Bible assumes that “whoever believes” is a statement to indicate that faith is available to all. Anyone who says “yes” to Jesus, repents and receives Him, and so exercises saving faith. This is what is taught in:

Luke 13:3;
John 3:16, 18; 6:29; 11:40; 12:36;
Acts 16:31; 17:30; 20:21;
Heb. 11:6, etc.

Note especially the words of Acts 17:30 where God “commands all people everywhere to repent”. Since God commands all to repent, those who choose to respond positively to God’s command when the Gospel is presented, are saved. Those who reject, are damned. Those who respond with faith have faith as a gift of God, graciously enable by God himself. But this offer of God’s gift of salvation is able to be resisted and rejected.

We get this understanding from the Scriptures:

Jesus said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37 NIV). The ESV translates as, “You would not”. The meaning is the same. They could reject Jesus’ offer.
Jesus made a similar kind of statement of a person’s ability to reject Him in John 5:39-40: “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life (NIV).
John 1:12 is crystal clear of a person’s need to receive Christ to become children of God: “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (NIV).
John affirms this meaning in 1 John 5:1, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…” (NIV)
However, this salvation, is all of God, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this [salvation][2] is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV).

What is the meaning of Ephesians 2:8?

This verse has been one of the battlegrounds for Arminians and Calvinists. Is faith the gift of God and does regeneration precede faith, or does faith precede regeneration? R. C. Sproul, a Calvinist, maintains that

Regeneration is the theological term used to describe rebirth…. Regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit upon those who are spiritually dead (see Ephesians 2:1-10)…. Regeneration is not the fruit or result of faith, regeneration precedes faith as the necessary condition for faith…. We do not decide or choose to be regenerated. God chooses to regenerate us before we will ever choose to embrace Him.[3]

So, being born again (regeneration), comes as God acting sovereignly on the unbeliever before he/she can have faith in Christ. That’s the Calvinistic view.

By contrast, the Arminian theologian, John Miley, sees it quite differently:

There are prerequisites which cannot be met without our own free agency. There must be an earnest turning of the soul to God, deep repentance for sin, and a true faith in Christ. Such are the requirements of our own agency. There is no regeneration for us without them. Yet they are not possible in the unaided resources of our own nature. Hence there must be a helping work of the Spirit prior to his work of regeneration.[4]

At the lay level, this is battled out on Christian forums on the Internet.[5] Let’s look at the gender of some of the nouns and the demonstrative pronoun in this verse:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8 ESV).

The noun, grace – charis – is feminine gender;
The noun, faith – pistis – is feminine gender;
The demonstrative pronoun, this/that – touto – is neuter gender.

So it is very clear in Greek that touto, neuter, cannot refer back to the antecedent feminine nouns – charis and pistis. If the demonstrative this/that was meant to refer to grace or faith, there is a perfectly good Greek way of expressing this. The demonstrative would be the feminine, taute.

To what does “this/that” refer if it is not to grace or faith? Verse 8 tells us that “it is the gift of God’, thus referring to salvation by grace through faith.

What did John Calvin state about Ephesians 2:8?

On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.

His meaning is, not that faith in this verse is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.

One of the greatest NT Greek scholars of the 20th century, Dr. A. T. Robertson, noted this of Eph. 2:8,

“Grace” is God’s part, “faith” is ours. And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine taute, and so refers not to pistis (feminine) or to charis (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.[6]

If Paul wanted “that/this” to refer to grace or faith, there was a regular Greek way of doing it. He would have used the same gender for “this/that” as for “faith” or “grace”. Paul would have written taute and not tauto for the demonstrative in this Scripture. But he did not use this grammar. Instead, by using the neuter, tauto, Paul refers to the whole process of salvation by grace through faith.

Even the Calvinist, F. F. Bruce, stated of Eph. 2:8,

But the fact that the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ is neuter in Greek (tauto), whereas ‘faith’ is a feminine noun (pistis), combines with other considerations to suggest that it is the whole concept of salvation by grace through faith that is described as the gift of God.[7]

So Ephesians 2:8, based on the Greek grammar does not teach that faith is an irresistible gift straight from God that a person has no say about and cannot reject. This verse says that salvation is of God (and affirmed by Eph. 2:9). But Eph 2:8 does not demonstrate that salvation is a deterministic born again (regeneration) experience that is imposed on a person without his/her consent – which the Calvinists believe.

To use John Miley’s language, “Regeneration is a true sphere of the divine monergism.[8] [But] there is also a sphere of synergism”.[9]

Notes:

[1] For an example of the back-and-forth on this topic, see the thread, “On what basis does God elect?” in Christian Forums.com.

[2] See what follows for an exegetical understanding of why “this” refers to salvation and not to “grace” or “faith”.

[3] R C Sproul 1992. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, pp. 171-172.

[4] John Miley 1893/1989. Systematic Theology, vol 2. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, pp. 336-337.

[5] One example is on Christian Forums.com, “What precedes what – faith regeneration” (Accessed 2 September 2011).

[6] A T Robertson 1931. Word Pictures in the New Testament: The Epistles of Paul, Vol IV. Nashville, Tennessee: Boardman Press, p. 525, emphasis in the original.

[7] F F Bruce 1961. The Epistle to the Ephesians. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, p. 51.

[8] Monergism is based on the Greek, monos (meaning ‘single’), plus ergon (meaning work’). The Century Dictionary defines monergism ‘in theology as the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration – that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration (The Century Dictionary 1890, p. 287).

[9] Miley, vol. 2, p. 336. What is synergism? “Arminius proposed what we might call an evangelical synergism. Synergism is any belief in cooperation between the human will and agency on the one hand, and God’s will and agency on the other hand” (Roger E. Olson 2005. ‘Confessions of an Arminian Evangelical’, (Accessed 30 August 2011).