An Examination Of Calvinism and How It Has Influenced Us

August 6-9, 2012 Alpharetta, Georgia

Hosted by Allan Turner

! 2 Table of Contents

God’s Sovereignty By Allen Dvorak………………………………………………………… 5

Man’s Free Will By David Norfleet………………………………………………………. 25

The Foreknowledge of God By Marc Gibson………………………………………………………… 39

Does the Bible Teach Salvation “By Grace Through Faith” Or “By Law Through Works,” and What Is the Difference? by Kent Berman………………………………………………………… 59

What Does the Bible Really Teach about Predestination? By Allan Turner…………………………………………………………. 69

Who are the Elect, and Why? by Dan Chaney…………………………………………………………. 77

“Blessed Assurance”: What Does the Bible Really Teach about the Perseverance of the Saints? by Paul Ayres……………………………………………………………. 93

What Does the Bible Mean When It says that God Is “For Us”? by Allan Turner…………………………………………………………..101

The Impact of Calvinism on the Lord’s Church by Chris Reeves…………………………………………………………109

A New Development in Realized Eschatology: Examining the Theology of Kurt M. Simmons by Allan Turner…………………………………………………………..133

! 3

! 4 God’s Sovereignty

By Allen Dvorak

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner…” (Matthew 20:1). Jesus told a parable about a landowner who hired laborers for his vineyard. Some were hired early in the day, others later in the day and still others even later. When the time came for the workers to be paid, the landowner gave all of them the same wage. Those who had worked the longest complained at the unfairness they perceived in his action, but the landowner asserted his right to do what he pleased with what was his: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?” In the words of the landowner we see an indirect affirmation of the sovereignty of God, the Creator.

Atheists obviously do not acknowledge the sovereignty of God (except for the sake of argument in order to deny His existence!) inasmuch as they do not even admit His existence, but with few exceptions, individuals associated with Christianity accept the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Although some might have a skewed view of divine sovereignty, it seems that all at least pay “lip-service” to this truth.

A good definition is often “half the battle” and such is the case with the concept of sovereignty. The basic meaning of sovereignty is not difficult to understand. We understand that a sovereign (noun) is simply a ruler who has “supreme power or authority,” a definition of sovereignty. A sovereign (adjective) nation is one that has power over its own affairs, i.e., has “freedom from external control: autonomy.”1

Norman Geisler comments that “sovereignty means ‘what a sovereign has,’ namely control over his kingdom. God’s sovereignty – the idea that God is in control of the whole universe – is a doctrine clearly taught in the Bible.”2 In his brief article for the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, H. B. Kuhn states that “the term ‘sovereignty’ connotes a situation in which a person, from his innate dignity, exercises supreme power, with no areas of his province outside his jurisdiction. A ‘sovereign’ is one who enjoys full autonomy, allowing no rival immunities.”3 Bob Deffinbaugh writes, “The meaning of sovereignty could be summed up in this way: To be sovereign is to possess supreme power and authority so that one is in complete control and can accomplish whatever he pleases.”4 Richard Strauss comments, “The dictionaries tell us that sovereign means chief or highest, supreme in power, superior in position, independent of and unlimited by anyone else.”5 It should be noted that not everyone accepts these definitions of a sovereign. For instance, Bruce Reichenbach gives a different view of sovereignty:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 “Sovereignty.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition. 2 Geisler, Chosen But Free, 13. 3 “Sovereignty of God,” ZPEB, Vol. 5, 498. 4 Deffinbaugh, 1. 5 Richard Strauss, The Joy of Knowing God. (Loizeaux Brothers, 1984), 118. Cited by Bob Deffinbaugh. ! 5 The sovereign also has power, with or without limitations. The relation of the sovereign to the fundamental laws and the source of the sovereign’s authority help determine the kind of powers the sovereign has, what their limits are, and to what extent they may be employed. If there are certain necessary laws, the sovereign’s power is determined and limited by these laws. If the power of the sovereign is derived from the consent of the governed, then his power will be limited by the governed, whose consent may be withdrawn under certain circumstances. Historically, unauthorized taxations and military conscription are examples of such circumstances.6

In human experience, every sovereign is limited in his authority by the amount of territory s/he can practically control. Although a sovereign may have virtually absolute authority within his domain, he may, by contrast, have practically no authority or influence outside of that domain. Webster even includes this fact within one definition of sovereign, i.e., “one who exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere.”7

Divine sovereignty, of course, refers to the power or authority of God over all of His creation. Unlike human sovereigns, God is not limited in either His power or authority by His own nature or the dominance of others, as will be seen in the various assertions of divine sovereignty in Scripture. Geisler summarizes his understanding of divine sovereignty as follows: “A God who is before all things, beyond all things, creates all things, upholds all things, knows all things, and can do all things is also in control of all things. This complete control is called the sovereignty of God.”8

Kuhn notes further: “As applied to God, the term ‘sovereignty’ indicates His complete power over all of creation, so that He exercises His will absolutely, without any necessary conditioning by a finite will or wills. The term does not occur in Scripture, although the idea is abundantly implied.”9

Verbal Affirmations of Divine Sovereignty

It is probably an exaggeration to say that God’s sovereignty is asserted on virtually every page of Scripture, but the concept is woven so completely throughout the Scriptures that such a statement is not far from the mark. Consider these direct statements, affirming God’s sovereignty:

Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. (Deuteronomy 4:39; Moses)10

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 “God Limits His Power,” in Predestination and Free Will, 105. 7 Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition. 8 Geisler, Chosen But Free, 26. 9 ZPEB, Vol. 5, 498. 10 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version. ! 6 2 No one is holy like the Lord, For there is none besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God…6 The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up. 7 The Lord makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and lifts up. 8 He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He has set the world upon them. (1 Samuel 2:2, 6-8; Hannah’s song)

Then Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said: “O Lord God of Israel, the One who dwells between the cherubim, You are God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. 16 Incline Your ear, O Lord, and hear; open Your eyes, O Lord, and see; and hear the words of Sennacherib, which he has sent to reproach the living God. 17 Truly, Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands, 18 and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were not gods, but the work of men’s hands—wood and stone. Therefore they destroyed them. 19 Now therefore, O Lord our God, I pray, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You are the Lord God, You alone.” (2 Kings 19:15-19; Hezekiah’s prayer)

Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, The power and the glory, The victory and the majesty; For all that is in heaven and in earth is Yours; Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, And You are exalted as head over all. 12 Both riches and honor come from You, And You reign over all. In Your hand is power and might; In Your hand it is to make great And to give strength to all. (1 Chronicles 29:11-12; David’s benediction)

Then Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, before the new court, 6 and said: “O Lord God of our fathers, are You not God in heaven, and do You not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations, and in Your hand is there not power and might, so that no one is able to withstand You?” (2 Chronicles 20:5-6; Jehoshaphat)

If He takes away, who can hinder Him? Who can say to Him, “What are You doing?” (Job 9:12)

14 With Him are wisdom and strength, He has counsel and understanding. If He breaks a thing down, it cannot be rebuilt; If He imprisons a man, there can be no 15 release. If He withholds the waters, they dry up; If He sends them out, they 16 overwhelm the earth. With Him are strength and prudence. The deceived and the 17 deceiver are His. He leads counselors away plundered, And makes fools of the 18 19 judges. He loosens the bonds of kings, And binds their waist with a belt. He 20 leads princes away plundered, And overthrows the mighty. He deprives the trusted 21 ones of speech, And takes away the discernment of the elders. He pours contempt 22 on princes, And disarms the mighty. He uncovers deep things out of darkness, 23 And brings the shadow of death to light. He makes nations great, and destroys 24 them; He enlarges nations, and guides them. He takes away the understanding of the chiefs of the people of the earth, And makes them wander in a pathless

! 7 25 wilderness. They grope in the dark without light, And He makes them stagger like a drunken man. (Job 12:13-25; Job’s response to Zophar)11

But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does. (Job 23:13; Job)

Look, in this you are not righteous. I will answer you, For God is greater than man. 13 Why do you contend with Him? For He does not give an accounting of any of His words. (Job 33:12-13; Elihu)

Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him? Everything under heaven is Mine. (Job 41:11; God)

I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. (Job 42:2; Job)

The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, “Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand: 25 That I will break the Assyrian in My land, And on My mountains tread him underfoot. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, And his burden removed from their shoulders. 26 This is the purpose that is purposed against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. 27 For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?” (Isaiah 14:24- 27)

One would expect to find statements of God’s sovereignty especially among the psalms inasmuch as many of the psalms are songs of praise to Him. Note the following examples:

2 For the Lord Most High is awesome; He is a great King over all the earth…. 7 For God is the King of all the earth; Sing praises with understanding. (Psalm 47:2, 7)

For the Lord is the great God, And the great King above all gods. 4 In His hand are the deep places of the earth; The heights of the hills are His also. 5 The sea is His, for He made it; And His hands formed the dry land. (Psalm 95:3-5)

But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. (Psalm 115:3)

For I know that the Lord is great, And our Lord is above all gods. 6 Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. (Psalm 135:5-6)

The New Testament also contains direct statements of the divine sovereignty. Consider these examples: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 Job describes God as the One “in whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind” (12:10). ! 8

I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, 14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, (1 Timothy 6:13-15; ESV)

John, to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, (Revelation 1:4-5)

These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful. (Revelation 17:14)

Affirmation of Divine Sovereignty in Historical Narratives

Many other statements could be cited as well, but these serve as a powerful witness in scripture to the truth of divine sovereignty. In addition to these direct statements, the divine sovereignty is affirmed many times in the historical narratives of the Scriptures.

For instance, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar learned of the sovereignty of God the hard way (Daniel 4). The king had a dream that troubled him, but the wise men of his kingdom could not interpret it. When Daniel was finally called to interpret the dream, he informed Nebuchadnezzar that the dream was a warning. Acknowledging that Nebuchadnezzar had “become strong,” the prophet informed him that, according to the dream, he would be humbled until “seven times” had passed over him, “till you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses” (4:25).

A year later, the events predicted in the dream were set into motion. King Nebuchadnezzar boasted of his power and majesty as evidenced by the magnificent city of Babylon and immediately God gave him the promised lesson! Daniel 4 is a unique chapter in the Scriptures in that it begins and ends with the words of the Babylonian king. Deffinbaugh comments:12

As I searched the Scriptures for a concise definition of divine sovereignty, I was surprised to learn where the definition was found. It was not in the New Testament, not from the pen of the apostle Paul, not from Moses in the Law, and not from one of the great prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah. The clearest definition of God’s sovereignty comes from the lips of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. There we

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12 Deffinbaugh, 3. ! 9 find not a begrudging acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty, but an expression of worship and praise.

Nebuchadnezzar praised the God “who lives forever: For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’” (4:34b-35). The purpose of this story was specifically to affirm the sovereignty of God, a truth sorely needed to be understood by a people captive in a foreign land.

The book of Genesis provides us with an explanation of how Jacob’s family ended up in Egypt. The brothers of Joseph were envious of him because of the favoritism of their father Jacob (Genesis 37). Initially planning to kill Joseph when the opportunity presented itself, they sold him into slavery instead and he was carried by Midianite traders to Egypt. Chapter 38 takes us back to Canaan for an explanation of why Jacob’s family needed to migrate to Egypt. Returning to the life of Joseph in chapter 39, we follow his eventual rise to a position of authority in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh. When his brothers came to Egypt to buy food in a time of famine, Joseph tested them for the presence of brotherly love. After they had passed the test, he revealed to them who he really was (45:3). They were understandably troubled by the revelation; as Joseph reminded them, they had sold him into slavery! However, Joseph believed the will of God to have been accomplished in his coming to Egypt:

…God sent me before you to preserve life… 7And God sent me before you to preserve a posterity for you in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. 8 So now it was not you who sent me here, but God; (Genesis 45:5b, 7- 8a; Joseph)

Unlike other occasions in which God acted directly and miraculously to accomplish His will, it would seem obvious that God used the evil decision of Joseph’s brothers to accomplish His desire for Jacob’s family as a whole. Surely this is an illustration of divine sovereignty in addition to whatever we might conclude about the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will (to be discussed later in this manuscript).

The well-known story of the plagues sent by God against the land of Egypt is also an affirmation of His sovereignty. The suffering caused by the plagues resulted in the release of the Israelites, but it seems clear that the plagues were also intended to demonstrate the superiority of God over all the gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12; see also Numbers 33:11). Jethro, father-in-law of Moses, summarized well the lesson of the plagues: “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the gods; for in the very thing in which they behaved proudly, He was above them” (Exodus 18:11).

The prophet Jeremiah was instructed by the Lord to go to the house of the potter for an illustration (Jeremiah 18). Jeremiah watched the potter as he formed a vessel on the wheel, but the vessel was marred and so the potter made another vessel out of the same

! 10 clay as it seemed good to him. The Lord revealed the application of the potter illustration for the nation of Israel in words that also assert His sovereignty over all the nations:

“O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.” (Jeremiah 18:6-10)

The story of Queen Esther in the time of the Persian hegemony likewise illustrates the sovereignty of God. The machinations of the wicked Haman (Esther 3), if unopposed, would have resulted in the annihilation of the Jews. The elimination of God’s chosen nation would have meant the failure of numerous specific prophecies concerning the Messiah and future blessings upon God’s spiritual people. It is interesting that God’s name does not even appear in the book of Esther, but His hand in accomplishing the physical salvation of the Jews is quite evident.13 Nor is there any direct statement of divine sovereignty. Nevertheless, although a demonstration of divine providence (the manifestation of divine sovereignty?) as well, the story of Esther, especially as those historical events relate to the redemptive plan, is also most definitely an illustration of divine sovereignty.

Moving to the historical narrative of the New Testament, we will observe one more confirmation of the divine sovereignty. This particular example is similar to that of Joseph and his brothers in that it clearly illustrates the conflation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Peter noted in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost that it was part of the divine plan of redemption that Jesus die on the cross. As the apostle affirmed to his hearers, Jesus was “delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). The word delivered means “lit., ‘given up’ (ek, ‘out of,’ didomi, ‘to give’), ‘delivered up’ (to enemies, or to the power or will of someone), is used of Christ in Acts 2:23.”14 Louw-Nida comments that the word is “pertaining to being handed over to someone—‘handed over, betrayed.’”15 The question that arises is: Who handed Jesus over to be crucified, to be put to death? Is this verse speaking of God Himself or Judas the betrayer? The answer is: “Yes!” As already noted, it was part of God’s plan that Jesus die on the cross (see Psalm 22!), but the specific means by which Jesus came into the custody of the Jews was through the betrayal of Judas. The juxtaposition of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility (a consequence of his freedom) is seen in the comment of Jesus at the Last Supper: “But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!” (Luke 22:21-22).16 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 13 Jensen, 244. 14 Vine, et. al., 157. 15 Louw-Nida, 484. 16 Packer, 27. ! 11

Chapters 9-11 of Romans constitute a definite unit in Paul’s argument for justification by faith. As Paul explained the relationship of physical Israel to the New Covenant, he began by affirming the right of God to make whatever choices He wished. Responding to hypothetical questions regarding the fairness of God’s choices, the apostle emphasized the sovereignty of God by using an illustration similar to the one already mentioned in this study (Jeremiah 18-19) – the potter and his clay.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Romans 9:19-21)

In summary, we should never deny what the Scriptures affirm and, as seen thus far in this study, they declare with finality that God is sovereign over all of His creation.

However, to affirm the sovereignty of God actually raises a number of questions. The simple existence of sovereignty, for example, doesn’t define the extent to which the sovereign exercises control, even in the arena of divine sovereignty, notwithstanding some of the definitions offered for sovereignty. It is precisely these issues, the amount of control exercised and the means by which it is exercised, upon which much disagreement in the religious world turns.

Implications of Divine Sovereignty

It should already be obvious to the reader that the topic of divine sovereignty is intimately related to the biblical concepts of divine foreknowledge, predestination and human free will. Because these three topics are the subject of individual lectures within this series of studies, I will not engage in an in-depth discussion of any of them. Nevertheless, no discussion of divine sovereignty would be complete without some acknowledgement of the “tension” that exists between the doctrines of divine sovereignty and human free will.

In Predestination & Free Will, the editors succinctly state the tension between divine sovereignty and human free will:

The Christian faith presents us with a dilemma. On the one hand, we believe that God made us morally responsible beings with the ability to make meaningful moral decisions. If we were not able to make meaningful decisions, then why would Scripture exhort us to turn from evil things or to lead godly lives? If we were not responsible for freely choosing our actions, then how could God justly reward or punish us for them? On the other hand, Christians also believe that God has sovereign control over all earthly affairs.17 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17 Basinger & Basinger, ed., 7. ! 12

An examination of the tension between divine sovereignty and human free will is not a mere theoretical discussion. Such a discussion is eminently profitable because of the practical implications for the believer’s daily life. Consider the following statement:

This tension exists not only in theory but also in the practice of Christian discipleship. What we believe does (and should) affect how we live. How Christians view the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom has a direct bearing on how they respond to various issues in their lives. But living out our beliefs in relation to divine sovereignty and human freedom presents significant problems. While most Christians believe in both divine sovereignty and human freedom, when faced with real-life situations, we/they often tend to emphasize one to the exclusion of the other.18

The Certainty of Human Free Will

Like the sovereignty of God, the idea that man has the capacity to make decisions freely is a doctrine that runs throughout Scripture. In fact, as already noted in the book Predestination & Free Will, it can be said, in a general way, that every encouragement from God to do good and every warning about doing evil is a tacit acknowledgement of the freedom of humans to choose between the two (“If we were not able to make meaningful decisions, then why would Scripture exhort us to turn from evil things or to lead godly lives?”19). It seems pointless (and perhaps hypocritical – “permit me this folly!”) for God to warn man about the consequences of sin if the truth is that he is unable to choose the good.

Scripture records that from the beginning of man’s history he has been given the choice between good and evil. For instance, God set blessings and curses before the people of Israel as they were preparing to cross into the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 11:26-28; 28:1-68). Whether they were blessed richly or severely punished would depend upon their choices. Of course, the delineation of options (although implicitly suggesting a choice exists) does not by itself prove that man has free will to choose one or the other, but it is a cruel God who offers hope when He knows (and has determined by His sovereign will) that there is none!

Joshua later challenged the Israelites to choose whom they would serve (Joshua 24:15). Did the people really have a choice of which god they would serve…or were they actually predestined by God to choose the path of idolatry that they eventually trod?

Jesus invited “all you who labor and are heavy laden” to come to Him and He would give them rest (Matthew 11:27). Was the Lord’s invitation an empty gesture? Jesus later grieved over the coming fate of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37), noting that He “wanted to gather your (Jerusalem’s – asd) children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 18 Ibid, 8. 19 Ibid, 7. ! 13 wings, but you were not willing!” This passage is conclusive proof that man can choose a path other than the one desired by the Lord.

Obviously, many other passages could be cited (and more evidence from Scripture will no doubt be offered in the lecture specifically on human free will), but these are sufficient to establish the proposition that man has free will, even as God has absolute sovereignty.

A Battle of Doctrines?

In his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J. I. Packer describes the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will by the term antinomy, which he defines as follows:

It is an apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths. An antinomy exists when a pair of principles stand [sic] side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable. There are cogent reasons for believing each of them; each rests on clear and solid evidence; but it is a mystery to you how they can be squared with each other. You see that each must be true on its own, but you do not see how they can both be true together.20

Packer emphasizes the word apparent in his explanation because he believes that the two principles can both be true at the same time without contradiction. Not all are convinced that the contradiction is only apparent! J. L. Mackie expresses the “apparent incompatibility” between divine sovereignty and human free will in this way:

There is a fundamental difficulty in the notion of an omnipotent God creating men with free will, for if men’s wills are really free this must mean that even God cannot control them, that is, that God is no longer omnipotent.21

Solutions

Norman Geisler presents an admittedly simplistic summary of the different viewpoints regarding the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will. He describes these three positions as the Extreme Sovereignty View, the Extreme Free Will View and the Balanced View.22 As their names suggest, the first view “places sovereignty over free will,” the second view “places free will over sovereignty,” and the third view “attempts to balance sovereignty and free will, accepting both as basic biblical truths and seeking to reconcile them without making one or the other dominant to the exclusion of the other.”23

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20 Packer, 24. 21 “Evil and Omnipotence,” God and Evil: Reading in the Theological Problem of Evil, ed. Nelson Pike, p. 57. Cited by Turner in The Christian and Calvinism, 42. 22 Geisler, Chosen But Free, 15-21. His descriptive terms, although technically accurate, may also be a bit prejudicial! 23 Ibid, 17, 18. ! 14

In Predestination & Free Will, four views of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will are presented (by four different authors) with attention paid to the spectrum to be found even within the thinking of determinists and indeterminists. For instance, writing from a Calvinistic and determinist viewpoint, co-author John Feinberg makes a distinction between soft determinism (also known as compatibilism) and hard determinism.24 The primary distinction between soft determinism and hard determinism lies in the motivation for man’s decisions. Feinberg explains it this way:

Instead, like many other determinists, I claim that there is room for a genuine sense of free human action, even though such action is causally determined. This kind of freedom cannot be indeterministic, of course. Instead, determinists who hold to free will distinguish two kinds of causes which influence and determine actions. On the one hand, there are constraining causes which force an agent to act against his will. On the other hand, there are nonconstraining causes. These are sufficient to bring about an action, but they do not force a person to act against his will, desires or wishes. According to determinists such as myself, an action is free even if causally determined so long as the causes are nonconstraining. This view is often referred to as soft determinism or compatibilism, for genuinely free human action is seen as compatible with nonconstraining sufficient conditions which incline the will decisively in one way or another.25

It is beyond the parameters of this lecture to give a detailed summary of the four views, but I mention them to illustrate the point that there is a great deal to be said about the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will beyond the obvious fact that both are doctrines affirmed in Scripture and it may be hard to understand how they can both be true at the same time!

In the statements of some Calvinists, there seems to be little room for the exercise of human free will, although sometimes there are ingenious ways of claiming such exists.26 For them, the doctrine of divine sovereignty means that everything that happens does so because God ordered it to be so (hard determinists!). Consider these statements:

Therefore, whatever comes to pass in any part of creation, at any time in history, does so because the omniscient God knew it as a possibility, willed it as a reality by His omnipotence, and established it in His divine plan or Purpose.27

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 24 Basinger & Basinger, 20-26. 25 Basinger & Basinger, 24-25. 26 For instance, Loraine Boettner claims, “God so controls the thoughts and wills of men that they freely and willingly do what He has planned for them to do.” (Biblical Doctrines, 222; cited by Turner in The Christian and Calvinism, 38). In other words, man has the freedom of choice, but he willingly always chooses what God wants him to choose. Thus, as Turner (37) correctly notes, “Calvinists give lip-service to man’s free will, but they do not really believe in it.” 27 Spencer, 16. ! 15 Men may connive and scheme, following the counter plan of their god, Satan, but they cannot bring to pass so much as one act contrary to the will and plan of God who foreordained all of history from the largest event to the most insignificant.28

Everything was infallibly determined and immutably fixed by God from the beginning, and all that happens in time is but the accomplishment of what was ordained in eternity.29

Consider the consequences of the above statements in such matters as the choice of a spouse, economic decisions in families and even my personal sin. Does the Bible teach this view of divine sovereignty?

In truth, such statements stem from the viewpoint that God cannot possibly be sovereign if man can choose to act contrary to His will. Thus, even when man sins by violating the divine standard, his action was decreed by God!

The reason for this discussion of divine sovereignty is its relationship to the theological system of Calvinism. As will no doubt be explained in more detail in other lectures, the five cardinal tenets of Calvinism are intimately tied to one another. The human race became totally depraved when Adam, the federal head of our race, sinned. All men are thus unable to respond to the call of salvation by virtue of their own unregenerate will (Total Inherited Depravity). God, however, chose unconditionally (Unconditional Election) before the foundation of the world those who would be saved (and, by implication, those who would be condemned). Since the condemned do not need atonement, Jesus died only for the elect (Limited Atonement). The elect will be enabled to come to Christ through the irresistible grace of the Holy Spirit (Irresistible Grace) and, once sanctified, can never so sin as to be lost again (Perseverance of the Saints). If one accepts the doctrine of total inherited depravity, the other four tenets seem logical enough!

It could also be argued that divine sovereignty (an incorrect view of it!) is essentially the foundation for the whole system of theology known as Calvinism. God’s choice of the elect was a manifestation of His sovereignty. The choice of specific individuals to be saved (the elect) was according to the good pleasure of God and independent of any choices made by those individuals. Accordingly, the implication of divine sovereignty, to the Calvinist, is that these chosen individuals must be saved. After all, can God truly be sovereign if those whom He has chosen to be saved can, in fact, be lost? If their salvation is the will of God, can God truly be sovereign if any man can defy the will of God by making freewill choices that result in his damnation? The Calvinist reasons that the sovereignty of God must guarantee the salvation of the elect regardless of their moral behavior.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 28 Ibid., 20. 29 Spencer, 20. The quotation is from Loraine Boettner (no source given). ! 16 The Will of God30

Does man actually have the freedom to act contrary to the “will of God”? To resolve the antinomy between divine sovereignty and human free will, we must understand that the “will of God” is used with more than one meaning in Scripture.

For instance, the Scriptures sometimes speak of God’s will in a decretive or decreed sense. When used in this sense, the will of an omnipotent God cannot be thwarted or frustrated. “Whatever God proposes, and Himself carries out, will, in fact, happen.”31 Some of the biblical passages previously cited in affirmation of divine sovereignty describe the will or purpose of God in this way.

…O Lord God of our fathers, are You not God in heaven, and do You not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations, and in Your hand is there not power and might, so that no one is able to withstand You? (2 Chronicles 20:6; Jehoshaphat)

If He takes away, who can hinder Him? Who can say to Him, “What are You doing?” (Job 9:12)

I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. (Job 42:2; Job)

For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?” (Isaiah 14:27)

The Calvinist always sees the divine will in the decretive sense and, logically enough, cannot see how man can defy God’s will in this sense without divine sovereignty essentially being nullified. However, the Scriptures also speak of God’s will in a preceptive sense. When used in this sense, the will of God describes what He desires for men to do. God’s preceptive will sets forth a path for man to follow, but man’s free will allows him to choose whether to obey or disobey that will. The Lord’s comment in His Mountain Sermon is an excellent example of this use of “will”: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).32 Jesus affirms that those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of heaven. If this is the “decreed will” of the Father (as opposed to His preceptive will), how could any man fail to do the Father’s will? Will all men then go to heaven? Neither Jesus nor Calvinists affirm so (Luke 13:23-30).

If God’s preceptive will is essentially what He wishes for man to do, but does not force man to act in a particular way (i.e., allows for human free will), then it is axiomatic that man will sometimes choose a path that God does not desire. In fact, the apostle Paul claimed that this is true of all men (Romans 3:23). Those actions, in opposition to God’s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 30 Although not extensively footnoted, I have relied heavily on the thinking of Allan Turner in The Christian and Calvinism (particularly chapter 2) for my conclusions in this section. 31 Turner, 15. 32 Turner, 16. ! 17 preceptive will, might be described as God’s permissive will. Although the freedom that God permits under His preceptive will virtually guarantee that sin will be committed, sin can hardly be described as God’s preceptive will (e.g., Jeremiah 19:5)! Thus, as Turner notes, “There is a sense in which this third category is related to the second, God’s preceptive will.”33

Turner offers this concise summary of the uses of the “will” of God:

It is true, then, that whatever happens is God’s will. Everything that transpires falls within the sovereign will of God in one sense or another. However, it is absolutely crucial to understand that there are three different senses in which this may be true: (1) Sometimes a thing occurs because God decides it will happen, and then He makes it happen. This we have called God’s decretive will and it seems to be limited mostly to His working out the “scheme of redemption.” (2) Sometimes a thing occurs because God desires it and man decides, of his own free will, to do what God desires. This we have identified as God’s preceptive will and has to do with God’s commandments or precepts. (3) Sometimes a thing occurs because of the agency of an individual or group of individuals, and God permits it to happen. We have called this God’s permissive will. Included in this category are sinful or careless acts like murder, or the death of one caused by the actions of a drunken driver. Even tragedies that occur through the natural processes would fit in this category. All three of these categories can be classified as “God’s will,” but only the first category is God’s will in any causative sense. And even though God is Sovereign Ruler of the universe, categories two and three remind us that we must allow the Sovereign Ruler to respect the integrity of the freedom He has so graciously accorded His creation. 34

Understanding the ways in which the “will” of God is used in Scripture takes away the sting of one of the atheist’s favorite arguments – the existence of evil. The atheist maintains that a God truly sovereign and wholly good would not allow the evil that is so evident in our world. Thus, God must not exist! The presence of evil in this world, however, is the direct result of a God who, in His sovereignty, graciously allows man to make choices, some of which are not according to His preceptive will.

The existence of evil in the world does not argue against the sovereignty of God. The fact that evil exists does not negate the absolute control of God. The story of Job is a good illustration of this truth. In his effort to show that Job would not worship God if he wasn’t bribed first, Satan suggested to God that He should “stretch out [His] hand and touch all that he has” and Job would curse God to His face (1:9-11). God did not strike Job, but rather said to Satan, “Behold all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person” (1:12). If God had “touched” Job, why would it have been necessary to give Satan any prohibition? God permitted Satan to “touch” Job, but limited the extent of the “touch,” an illustration of absolute power and permissive will. The same concept can be seen in chapter two as well.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 33 Turner, 17 (footnote #11). 34 Turner, 19. ! 18 Satan is identified as the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and “ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), but God is sovereign and thus Satan can do only what he is permitted by God to do (e.g., 1 Corinthians 10:13). It should also be remembered that neither man nor Satan can defy the preceptive will of God with impunity. The certainty of the final judgment is part of the decretive will of God!

The Synergy of Divine Sovereignty and Human Free Will

Divine sovereignty and human free will are not “combatants,” but rather they work together. Packer wrote:

We shall proceed now according to this maxim. In what follows, we shall try to take both doctrines perfectly seriously, as the Bible does, and to view them in their positive biblical relationship. We shall not oppose them to each other, for the Bible does not oppose them to each other. Nor shall we qualify, or modify, or water down, either of them in terms of the other, for this is not what the Bible does either. What the Bible does is to assert both truths side by side in the strongest and most unambiguous terms as two ultimate facts; this, therefore, is the position that we must take in our own thinking…In the Bible, divine sovereignty and human responsibility are not enemies. They are not uneasy neighbors; they are not in an endless cold war with each other. They are friends, and they work together.35

Although a rough illustration,36 the way that divine sovereignty and human free will work together can be seen in the parent/child relationship. The parent has control over the child, the capacity to ensure that the child is not hurt. The parent ultimately controls the parameters of the child’s behavior, but will allow the maturing child on occasion to make his own choices. The child’s choices, in no way, negate the authority or power of the parent. The parent may even, for the purpose of instruction, allow the child to make unwise choices that result in suffering.

It has already been noted in this study how divine sovereignty and human free will are clearly seen to be working together in some well known historical narratives. In the story of Joseph, Joseph observed several times that his brothers had sold him into slavery (Genesis 45: 4, 5; 50:15-21). At the same time (in the same conversation!), he also affirmed that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (Genesis 45:5, 7, 8). It was obviously God’s will that the family of Jacob be moved to Egypt for its preservation (Genesis 45:5) and purity (Genesis 38). The means by which the sovereign God accomplished His will was through the freewill choices of Joseph’s brothers -- sinful choices, no less! Note also the affirmation of Joseph about his rise to power (Genesis 45:9) and the way in which that accomplishment involved the evil choices of others (e.g., Potiphar’s wife).

We earlier cited the story of Esther as evidence of divine sovereignty. It was God’s will that His people be preserved from the evil designs of Haman. Although God parted the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 35 Packer, 39-40. 36 Illustrations have a tendency to “break down,” if pressed far enough. ! 19 Red Sea to allow His people to escape the Egyptians at the time of the exodus, He did not intervene in a similar fashion in Esther’s time. The accomplishing of God’s will came through the freewill choice of Esther, who risked her life to gain an audience with the Persian monarch. What if Esther had not chosen to go unbidden into the king’s presence? Paraphrasing Mordecai’s words to Esther, “God will find another way!” (4:14 – “For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”).

Jesus predicted His betrayal and the method of His death (Matthew 20:17-19; 26:1-5, 14- 16). As previously mentioned, the element of divine sovereignty in that event is evident (Acts 2:23). Nevertheless, the means by which Jesus was taken into custody involved the freewill choice of His disciple, Judas Iscariot, to betray Him to the chief priests and scribes, a choice for which he was held responsible (Luke 22:22; Matthew 26:24).37

Conclusion

The fact that the Calvinist misunderstands the sovereignty of God should not cause Christians to shy away from embracing this biblical doctrine, even if we do not ourselves understand in many instances how human free will and divine sovereignty co-exist. It may be that we will never understand the way that an omniscient and omnipotent God works in the affairs of men because we have finite natures.

In point of fact, divine sovereignty is critical to our salvation. For instance, the fervor of our prayers is affected by the sovereignty of God. Why should we pray without ceasing and fervently if there is no one listening who has the power and authority to answer our requests? As Packer observes:

I do not intend to spend any time at all proving to you the general truth that God is sovereign in his world. There is no need; for I know that, if you are a Christian, you believe this already. How do I know that? Because I know that, if you are a Christian, you pray; and the recognition of God’s sovereignty is the basis of your prayers. In prayer, you ask for things and give thanks for things. Why? Because you recognize that God is the author and source of all the good that you have had already, and all the good that you hope for in the future. This is the fundamental philosophy of Christian prayer. The prayer of a Christian is not an attempt to force God’s hand, but a humble acknowledgment of helplessness and dependence.38

Our confidence in the precious promises of God rests upon His sovereignty. To believe that He is benevolent is not enough; can He fulfill what He has promised? What good are promises if the One who makes them is incapable of fulfilling them? Praise be to our God who is Able! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 37 Carson, 26. Carson cites Saul and the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15) and Abimelech and the Shechemites as two other examples in which “the purpose of God is reached without radical intervention.” 38 Packer, 15. ! 20

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith— 27 to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen. (Romans 16:25-27)

! 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Basinger, David, and Randall Basinger, eds. Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Carson, D.A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002.

Geisler, Norman L. Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2010.

Geisler, Norman L. and Peter Bocchino. Unshakable Foundations. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2000.

Jensen, Irving L. Jensen’s Survey of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.

Jowers, Dennis W., ed. Four Views on Divine Providence. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.). New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Packer, J.I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Pink, Arthur W. Objections to God’s Sovereignty Answered. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005.

Pink, Arthur W. “The Sovereignty of God.” The Nature of God. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005.

Schreiner, Thomas, Bruce A. Ware and others, eds. Still Sovereign. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.

Spencer, Duane Edward. TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Tenney, Merrill C. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

The Holy Bible. The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.

! 22 Turner, Allan. The Christian & Calvinism: A Critical Examination of Determinism. Roswell, GA: Allanita Press Publishing, 2007.

Vine, W. E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996.

Internet articles

Akin, Daniel L. “Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility.” SBCLIFE (Journal of the Southern Baptist convention). http://sbclife.org

Deffinbaugh, Bob. “The Sovereignty of God in History.” http://bible.org/seriespage/sovereignty-god-history

Spurgeon, Charles H. “Divine Sovereignty.” (Sermon delivered May 4, 1856). The Spurgeon Archive. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm

! 23

! 24 MAN’S FREE WILL

By David Norfleet

D.A. Carson in his work entitled, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, makes the following statement as a means of introducing the topic:

Both theology and philosophy wrestle with the tension which exists between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility….It lies at the heart of questions about the nature of God, and it poses difficult conundra about the meaning of human ‘freedom’.1

This “tension” Mr. Carson speaks of poses a number of questions, the answers to which ultimately serve as a foundation of our faith: If God is sovereign, can we in any meaningful way speak of human free will? If there is human free will, does that impinge on God’s sovereignty and omnipotence? Must God be reduced to accommodate the freedom of human choice? The answers to these questions impact our understanding of salvation, prayer and its answers, and even our concept of the nature of God. As Jack Cottrell wrote, “But for the Christian the most important aspect of the issue is the explanation of biblical teaching about God’s relationship to human thoughts, attitudes, decisions, and actions.”2

Both sides of this “tension” are well attested to throughout scripture. Notice the following passages in support of the sovereignty of God:

Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours is the dominion, O Lord, and You exalt Yourself as head over all. 12 Both riches and honor come from You, and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might; and it lies in Your hand to make great and to strengthen everyone. (1 Chronicles 29:11-12)

Why should the nations say, “Where, now, is their God?” But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. (Psalm 115:2-3)

Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all the deeps. (Psalm 135:6)

The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. (Proverbs 16:1)

The Lord has made everything for His own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Proverbs 16:4)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, 1. 2 Cottrell, …God the Ruler, 161. ! 25 !

The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps. (Proverbs 16:9)

Just as with God’s sovereignty the concept of man’s free will is also strongly and clearly supported in scripture. There are countless passages where human beings are commanded to obey, choose, believe, and are held accountable if they fail to do so. Notice just a small grouping of these texts:

See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: 27 the blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, which I am commanding you today; 28 and the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I am commanding you today, by following other gods which you have not known. (Deuteronomy 11:26-28)

Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, of the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:14-15)

…that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. (Romans 10:9-10)

But, not only does the Bible support both these truths in a large number of disparate passages, both of these truths come together in many passages. We will only look at three passages to notice the interconnectivity and interplay of these two concepts.

The first of these passages is Genesis 50:19-20. After the death of their father, Jacob’s sons approach Joseph and beg him not to take revenge on them for having sold him into slavery. Joseph’s response is instructive: “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result….”

We can better understand what Joseph says if we first carefully observe what he does not say. Joseph does not accuse his brothers of planning and executing a wicked plot that would have spiraled out-of-control if God had not come in at the last moment. Nor does he say that God’s intention was to send him to Egypt in luxury, but their actions threw those plans awry.

What Joseph says is that in one and the same event the brothers intended evil and God intended good. God’s sovereignty in the event, issuing in the plan to save millions of people from starvation during the famine years, does not reduce the brothers’ evil; their evil plot on the other hand does not make God contingent. Both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are assumed to be true as John Hartley said: “God can handle every

! 26 ! situation for those who trust him, no matter how complicated or foreboding, to bring good out of human hate, greed, and jealousy.”3

Another text in which this intersection of human free will and God’s sovereignty can be noticed is Isaiah 10:5-19. This passage is typical of many in the Prophets. God addresses the cruelest superpower of Isaiah’s day: “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose is My indignation, 6 I send it against a godless nation and commission it against the people of My fury to capture booty and to seize plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets” (10:5-6). The context makes clear that the people against whom God is sending the Assyrians is none other than His own. God is angry with His people for their sin, and so He is sending the Assyrians against them. Even so, God here pronounces a woe on the Assyrians in connection with this mission. Why? It is because the Assyrians are responsible for their choices and actions. Therefore when the Lord has finished His work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem (utilizing the Assyrians as His rod), He would say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness” (10:12). “Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it...? Therefore the Lord, the God of hosts, will send a wasting disease among his stout-warriors; and under his glory a fire will be kindled like burning flame” (10:15-16).

Here we find God using a military power as if it were nothing more than a tool – an ax or a saw – to accomplish His purposes of bitter judgment. But that does not mean the Assyrians are not responsible for their actions. Their “arrogant heart” and the “pomp of his haughtiness” and, above all, their pride in thinking they have made themselves strong are all offensive to the Almighty, and He holds them accountable. They may be tools in His hands, but that does not absolve them of responsibility.

Perhaps the most revealing of the texts that we could consider is Acts 4:23-30. As this text opens, Peter and John, freshly released from arrest, report their experiences to the Christians living in Jerusalem. After this deliverance, their response is prayer. Their prayer begins with an affirmation of God’s sovereignty (4:24). It continues to outline the working-out of God’s scheme of redemption despite human efforts to the contrary. They speak of the kings of the earth and the rulers gathering together to oppose the Lord and His Anointed One, they think of the most shocking instance of this rebellion against the God who created them: “For truly in this there was gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel” (4:27). These Christians understood that the most wretched fulfillment of Psalm 2 was revealed in the events leading up to the cross. An ugly conspiracy to pervert justice and gain political advantage was nothing other than a conspiracy against God Himself, and against His Anointed One.

But the prayer of these Christians does not stop there. They realistically outline the blame to be laid at the feet of Herod, Pontius Pilate, and various Gentile and Jewish authorities, and then they add: “…to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (4:28). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 Hartley, 367. ! 27 !

The tension between man’s free will and God’s sovereignty comes to head at the cross. Gareth Reese summarizes the matter: “The Gentiles and Jews, the government and religious officials, who took part in His crucifixion, were acting of their own free will, yet they were doing just as God had planned for them to do.”4 It was here at Calvary this tension must come to crisis point in the minds of all Christians as D.A. Carson indicates: “At Calvary, all Christians have to concede the truth of these two statements [regarding man’s free will and God’s sovereignty], or they give up their claim to being Christians.”5

Between the Tension

To affirm either of these facts to be true and biblical invariably raises questions, and even a cursory review of the two seemingly contradictory options forces us to acknowledge the tension the interaction of these ideas presents. Cottrell points to this idea in the following citation:

If God is absolutely sovereign, he must be in complete control of his creation. Does this mean that he must cause or in some other sense determine everything that happens? If so, does this include the choices and decisions of human wills? But if God determines every decision of our wills, does this not destroy our freedom? Does not such sovereignty rule out freedom of will? On the other hand, if we really are free to make our own choices, does this mean that God has somehow lost control of the world? Is his sovereignty diminished? Does this make man a kind of co-creator alongside of God? In short, is it really possible to maintain divine sovereignty and human freedom at the same time?6

Historically people have, in an effort to synthesize these ideas and resolve the “apparent contradictions,” gone to one extreme or the other, emphasizing God’s sovereignty or man’s free will at the expense of the other. As we attempt to understand these concepts and their interplay with one another, it will be helpful to have a basic understanding of these extreme views as well the additional problems they create.

Extreme Sovereignty

One extreme view places the emphasis on the sovereignty of God to the exclusion of the free will of man. This view typically held by Five-Point Calvinists is also known as determinism. John Calvin in his work titled, Institutes of the Christian Religion, articulates the basic premise of this position:

To sum up, since God’s will is said to be the cause of all things, I have made his providence the determinative principle for all human plans and works, not only in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 Reese, 190. 5 Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers, 156. 6 Cottrell, …God the Ruler, 161. ! 28 ! order to display its force in the elect, who are ruled by the Holy Spirit, but also to compel the reprobate to obedience.7

Calvin sums up his whole doctrine of God’s providence and determinism thusly: “No wind ever arises or increases except by God’s command.”8 This extreme view emphatically states all events are the direct result of God’s causative will, and to suggest otherwise would impugn the sovereignty of God as can be seen in this quotation from R.C. Sproul:

The movement of every molecule, the actions of every plant, the falling of every star, the choices of every volitional creation [creatures who chose], all of these are subject to his sovereign will. No maverick molecules run loose in the universe, beyond the control of the Creator. If one such molecule existed, it could be the critical fly in the eternal ointment.9

In other words there is no such thing as time or chance or even the free will of man. If such existed, God would not be sovereign or in control.

As we consider the extremes of this argument, we can see there are a number of difficulties arising from this view:

1. Obviously, this view does not take into account those biblical passages that speak of man’s ability to choose and bearing the repercussions of those choices. Most determinists attempt to give lip service to man’s free will, but in the end whatever tack they take becomes empty as it must ultimately submit to their predominant or extreme view of God’s sovereignty. Cottrell has coined the term “compatibilists” to describe their attempts to reconcile the two, but as already mentioned they do not seek this compatibility in an effort to harmonize the two clearly taught scriptural ideas but rather sovereignty must always supersede free will.10 R.C. Sproul provides an example of these types of machinations as he attempts to make a distinction between God’s decretive and permissive will, and thus allowing room for man’s free will. But, in the end it is only lip service: “What God permits, he decrees to permit.”11 2. This tunnel vision in regard to God’s sovereignty also is the foundational basis for the Calvinist doctrine of T-U-L-I-P. Even though this doctrine contravenes Scripture in numerous places, ascribing sin to the guiltless through Adam in contradiction to Ezekiel 18:1-29 and Deuteronomy 1:39, making God partial in His dealing with the Elect in contradiction to Acts 10:34. And even their total depravity dogma is called into question in passages such as Luke 8 and the Parable of the Sower, yet it is still doggedly clung to in deference to their extreme view of the sovereignty of God.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7 Calvin, 232. 8 Ibid, 206. 9 Sproul, 172. 10 Cottrell, …God the Ruler, 175. 11 Sproul, 173. ! 29 ! 3. The major issue with this extreme view is that it impugns the nature of God Himself by associating Him with sin or, in some explanations, even causing sin. The goodness of God is clearly attested to in Scripture (Romans 2:4). His absolute holiness is affirmed (Isaiah 6:3). He does not approve evil (Habakkuk 1:13) or even tempt anyone with evil (James 1:13-17). But, despite those clear statements of scripture the determinist must still, in order to support his view of sovereignty, place God’s reputation in jeopardy as he attempts to explain sin. Notice this attempt by Jonathan Edwards:

If by “author of sin,” is meant the permitter, or not hinderer of sin and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I don’t deny that God is the author of sin.12

Most Calvinists would deny that God forced Adam to sin against his will, but ordinary language dictates that one is the “author” of something simply by rendering it certain. And their understanding of God’s sovereignty renders Adam’s sin certain. This is further expounded upon by Loraine Boettner:

Even the sinful actions of men [including Adam’s first sin] can occur only by his [God’s] permission. And since he permits not unwillingly but willingly, all that comes to pass – including the actions and ultimate destiny of men – must be, in some sense, in accordance with what he desired and purposed.13

Boettner is a little more candid on his thoughts when he wrote: “God has a definite purpose in permission of every individual sin, having ordained it for His own glory.”14

Some attempts are even more plain, and do not obfuscate the point they are making by clever language. Gordon Clark says it most forthrightly: “[I]f a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it.”15

But rather than a doctrine with a scriptural basis, it is a doctrine that defames God, or as David Bentley Hart aptly describes it, is a “theological fatalism” that “defame[s] the love and goodness of God out of a servile and unhealthy fascination with his ‘dread sovereignty.’”16

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12 Edwards, 399. 13 Boettner, 30. 14 Ibid, 251. 15 Clark, 221. 16 Hart, 89. ! 30 ! Extreme Free Will

Like a pendulum, theological arguments tend to go from one extreme to another. In this instance, in a reaction to extremes regarding the sovereignty of God, others have advanced a position advocating extreme free will. This position has been labeled in many different ways from Extreme Arminianism, self-determinism, Free Will Theism, or Open Theism.

According to this position, God does not have rigid control over the universe. He sovereignly gave away some sovereignty to His creatures when He gave them free choice. The future is not fixed but open to our free choices to help determine it. Our free choices can change the future. Ultimately; however, this position calls God’s foreknowledge into question.

To the Open Theist, God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will are intrinsically and axiomatically incompatible. Their reasoning for this conclusion would proceed along lines similar to this syllogism:

1. Whatever is infallibly known in advance must be determined. 2. A freely chosen event cannot be determined by another. 3. Therefore, what is infallibly foreknown cannot be freely chosen.

The problem with their reasoning is that the second premise is false for there is no contradiction between God knowing what will occur in the future and causing it to occur. Wayne Jackson succinctly deals with the illogical nature of this argument:

God’s foreknowledge does not nullify human free will or man’s ultimate accountability. To know what will happen does not make one responsible for what does happen. Foreknowledge is not causative; God knew that humanity would stray even “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8), but personal sin is a choice of the human will (Matthew 23:37; John 5:40; 7:17; Revelation 22:17).17

Open Theists also would argue against God having infallible knowledge of future free acts because they are unknowable (They do believe or say they believe in omniscience, but they limit it to the idea that God can only know what is knowable and man’s choices are not knowable until they are made.). They would argue thusly:

1. The future has not yet actually occurred. 2. Truth is what corresponds to what actually is. 3. Therefore, it is impossible to know something is true before it actually occurs.

Again, there are major issues with this reasoning as it disregards the transcendence of God as well as contradicting revelation. God’s transcendence or distinction from His creation includes the phenomenon of time. Throughout Scripture, God is identified as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17 Christian Courier, “The Doctrine of Open Theism” ! 31 ! everlasting and eternal (Genesis 21:33; Deuteronomy 33:27; Isaiah 40:28; Romans 16:26). What that means, is that God is eternal not only in a quantitative sense, but He is also eternal in a qualitative sense in that He exists outside the flow of created time and is not bound by its limitations.18 This thought is expressed by Emile Brunner, who is cited by Jack Cottrell:

…As for the Creator, the limitations and laws of the created world do not limit Him, because it is He who posits them and creates them, so also for Him the barriers of the temporal – the separation into past, present, and future – do not exist. God includes and comprehends Time within His Presence; He does not eliminate it, but He fulfills it. God’s Being is not timeless; but it is full of time, fulfilling time; all that is temporal is present in Him in the same way, or, to put it more correctly: He is present in the Temporal as a whole as He wills….19

In other words God stands outside the flow of time, and His experience and consciousness are not restricted to a single present moment. In a sense He stands above time, so that His consciousness embraces the whole of time.

The basic biblical teaching about God’s transcendence over the flow of time and ultimately His foreknowledge can be found in His great series of challenges to all the false gods and idols in Isaiah 40-48. God’s claim to be the one true God is based within these texts on His exclusive ability to know the whole scope of history at once, to see it from beginning to end at one and the same moment. God challenges the false gods to recite past history perfectly and to foretell the future. They cannot, but He can, because He is God; and His transcendence of time proves it.

“Present your case,” the Lord says. “Bring forward your strong arguments,” the King of Jacob says. 22 “Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; 23 declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods; indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. 24 Behold, you are of no account, and you works amounts to nothing; he who chooses you is an abomination. 25 I have aroused one from the north, and he has come; from the rising of the sun he will call on My name; and he will come upon rulers as upon mortar, even as the potter treads clay. 26 Who has declared this from the beginning, that we might know? Or from former times, that we might say, ‘He is right!’? Surely there was no one who proclaimed, surely there was no one who heard your words.” (Isaiah 41:21-26)

It is because He stands above time and can see it all from beginning that He can announce His plans and carry them out.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 18 Jack Cottrell, …God the Creator, 253-254. 19 Ibid., 256. ! 32 ! Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, “My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure”; 11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it. (Isaiah 46:9-11)

Any such explanation of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will that trespasses upon God’s transcendence fails as it ignores what God says about Himself.

Balance

Within the two extreme positions we can either affirm sovereignty and deny human free will or we can affirm human free will and deny divine sovereignty. Or even better still, there is a third more moderate and scriptural approach: we can take both at biblical face value and then determine how they relate to one another in a more balanced view.

For the Christian, the starting point of any analysis of sovereignty and free will must be the scriptures, and they clearly affirm that both are undeniably true. We have previously looked at several examples of this being true, but I would like to add two more passages for consideration.

In Acts 2:23, Luke records Peter’s sermon on Pentecost: “…this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.” In this one passage we have both the foreknowledge and sovereign will of God and man’s free will in action. That is, the death of Jesus came about the way it did because of both of these factors. On the one hand, God had predetermined that Jesus would die as a propitiation for the sins of the world; this was His plan for saving the world. Gareth Reese says it in this manner: “The death of Jesus was resolved on by God before it took place.”20 The details of how this would be accomplished were planned in relation to God’s foreknowledge of the historical situation and the character and choices of men such as Judas. And yet despite being resolved by God, Peter points the accusative finger at the audience assembled on Pentecost revealing them to be “…actors in the darkest scene of prophetic vision….”21

The very same ideas are expressed in Peter’s second recorded sermon in Acts 3:12-18. But, to reach this conclusion or attempt at a balanced view we must acknowledge two facts that make the interplay between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will comprehensible or even possible, and that is the ideas of divine self-limitation and relative independence.

The first of these ideas is God’s self-limitation. God freely chose to limit Himself in creation thus allowing the free will of man. Cottrell summarizes this argument well: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20 Reese, 64.! 21 McGarvey, 33. ! 33 !

On the one hand creation is a necessary condition of God’s unlimitedness; but on the other hand, by choosing to create, God imposed some definite limitations upon himself. When God created the world he gave it a real existence apart from himself…. This applies particularly to the created spirits who were endowed with free will. When God created angels and men with the ability to choose between good and evil and thus in a real sense to choose their own destinies, he limited the extent of his own involvement in the history of his own world. He committed himself to respect the integrity of man’s free will choices, and thereby placed himself in the position of sometimes having to react to the actions of man, and of sometimes having to permit things to happen that he does not specifically desire.22

Henry Thiessen remarked on this self-limitation in this way as it pertains to man’s sin: “That is why He did not keep sin out of the universe by a display of His power; that is also why He does not save anyone by force.”23

Initially, this concept may seem like a paradox or even a contradiction of the sovereignty or transcendence of God. The reality is, it is not, because the limitations placed upon God by creation are self-limitations. God is not limited by nature but by choice. And since it is a matter of God’s own choice, and since there are no limitations imposed on God from without, the fact of creation does not in any way contradict or infringe upon His complete sovereignty over what He has made. Cottrell’s citing of Emil Brunner serves to re- enforce this statement:

…God limits Himself by creating something which is not Himself, something “over against” Himself, which he endows with relative independence. Thus it is God Himself who creates this limitation – hence He is also free to remove it. He creates it, He limits Himself, in order that a creature may have room alongside of Himself, in whom and to whom He can reveal and impart Himself….24

Another key to our understanding these concepts is our understanding and defining of our free will. I have borrowed a term from Jack Cottrell which I think works well to describe what I think biblical free will is, and that term is relative independence.25

Relative independence means that man is allowed to exercise his power of free choice without interference, coercion, or foreordination by God in the regular course of things. But, at the same time it is relative as because God maintains the right to intervene in order to influence and direct human decisions and behavior when His purposes call for it which is sometimes called special providence. A number of examples could be cited such as God and Pharaoh’s interaction in Exodus 6-11, Balaam and his donkey in Numbers 22, or even Mordecai’s acknowledgment of God’s potential involvement in Esther’s rise to

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 22 Cottrell, …God the Creator, 243. 23 Thiessen, 126. 24 Cottrell, …God the Creator, 244. 25 Cottrell, …God the Ruler, 191.! ! 34 ! prominence in Esther 4:14. These citations are but a few that point to God’s special providence, but yet the individual’s free will is still preserved.

Conclusion

Do we have to choose between sovereignty and freedom? Not unless one or the other of them is misinterpreted in an extreme sense. But, if we understand them in balance with one another, it relieves the supposed tension and more importantly, it is in harmony with the Bible itself.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! 35 ! ! BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Press, 1948.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Library of Christian Classics 20-21; Editor John T. McNiell; Translator Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1959.

Carson, D.A. A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1992.

Carson, D.A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002.

Clark, Gordon H. Religion, Reason, and Revelation. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Press, 1961.

Cottrell, Jack. What the Bible Says About God the Creator. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000.

Cottrell, Jack. What the Bible Says About God the Ruler. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000.

Edwards, Jonathan. Freedom of the Will in The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1957.

Geisler, Norman L. Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2010.

Hart, David Bentley. The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Press, 2005.

Hartley, John E. New International Biblical Commentary: Genesis. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2000.

McGarvey, A Commentary on Acts of Apostles. Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, Ninth Edition, n.d.

Olson, Roger E. Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervans, 2011.

Packer, J.I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Packer, J.I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

! 36 !

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament History: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Acts. Moberly, MO: Scripture Exposition Books, 2005.

Sproul, R.C. What is Reformed Theology? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing, 1987.

Thiessen, Henry C. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1949.

Turner, Allan. The Christian & Calvinism: A Critical Examination of Determinism. Roswell, GA: Allanita Press Publishing, 2007.

Internet articles

Christian Courier, “The Doctrine of Open Theism” http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1465-the doctrine-of-open-theism (accessed June 12, 2012).

! 37 !

! 38 ! The Foreknowledge of God

By Marc W. Gibson

After researching and studying the subject of the foreknowledge of God, several questions begged to present themselves as I began this paper: Did God foreknow that I would write this paper? If so, how long has He foreknown this fact? Did God’s foreknowledge allow my contingent, freewill choice as to the structure and content of this paper, or did God foreknow how and what I would write simply because He foreordained it beforehand? Or is it the case that God could not have known what I would write because it is impossible for God to know future, freewill choices before they actually take place? Or could it possibly be that God chose to limit His omniscient knowledge so that He would not know the contents of my paper beforehand? Perhaps I should ask these very same questions as to my choice of this particular topic – was it truly my freewill choice, or was it forced upon me because God already knew what I would choose? Do I truly have free will? Does God know absolutely everything – past, present, and future? Can God’s absolute foreknowledge and my free will exist together without contradiction? (whew!!)

These questions aptly illustrate the wide range of issues involved in this awesome subject, as well as the range of theories offered concerning the nature and function of the foreknowledge of God. Significant differences are found among evangelical scholars as well as among brethren of the churches of Christ. Though lip-service is given by nearly all to the omniscience of God and the free will of man, positions have been strongly advocated that diminish (at the very least) either the omniscience of God or the free will of man. It is my hope that this study will help concentrate our minds upon the grandest subject that the human mind can contemplate – the nature of our eternal God, and, in particular, His omniscience and foreknowledge.

Defining Omniscience and Foreknowledge

Omniscience is a word combining “omni-” (all) and “science” (knowledge). It has the basic meaning of “having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.”1 God, being omniscient, knows everything that is knowable and knows it perfectly. He knows the truth about everything, everywhere, at every time.

Foreknowledge is the “knowledge of something before it exists or happens; prescience.”2 It is the ability to know beforehand of some future event, person, or outcome. It will be argued here that omniscience is an innate characteristic of deity, and that foreknowledge is an essential part of omniscience. God cannot be omniscient without !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omniscience?s=t 2 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foreknowledge?s=t

! 39 possessing foreknowledge. The issue then becomes the nature and extent of this foreknowledge.

Though there is much philosophical theorizing in discussions about the foreknowledge of God, it will be a fundamental feature of this paper to give biblical evidence and reasoning for any and all conclusions. The Bible is the inspired word of God and fully sufficient for teaching man the particular details that God reveals of His nature and character. It is when men ignore or depart from the truth of the Bible that serious error and contradictions arise. Not every specific question of man will be answered or curiosity satisfied by the teachings of holy writ, but we can know what we need to know, especially to answer the foolish errors of the untaught and unstable. Where the Bible does not speak, we should remain silent out of respect for the secret things that belong to God (Deut. 29:29).

Biblical Evidence of Man’s Free Will

The Bible clearly affirms that man was created as a free moral agent, a being that is granted by God with free will to choose either a good path or a bad path. This is why the Spirit of God admonishes man to “ponder the path of your feet” (Prov. 4:26). The Israelites of old were given the choice of “life and good, death and evil” and admonished to “choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” (Deut. 30:15, 19). They had free will and were expected to use it responsibly according to the good way revealed to them. Jesus extended the great invitation to all who labor and are heavy laden with sin to come to him, take his yoke, learn from him, and find rest for the soul (Matt. 11:28-30). This is a direct appeal to the free will of man. The same Jesus lamented that unbelieving Jerusalem of His day was “not willing” to come to Him (Matt. 23:37). In light of these passages (and many more), can anyone doubt that the Bible affirms the free will of man?

Man is fully responsible for his own sins (Ezek. 18:20; Isa. 59:1-2). Final judgment will be based on man’s willingness to hear and obey the divine standard of God (Matt. 7:21- 23; 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 5:10). This is why God desires all men to be saved by obeying the gospel of Christ of their own free will (Rom. 1:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Acts 22:16; Rev. 22:17).

Biblical Evidence of God’s Omniscience and Foreknowledge

The Psalmist stood in awe of God’s power and knowledge:

He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite. The Lord lifts up the humble; He casts the wicked down to the ground (Psalm 147:4-6).3

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 All Bible quotations are taken from the New King James Version unless otherwise noted.

! 40 The Psalmist speaks of God’s understanding as “infinite.” The Hebrew text literally reads “cannot be numbered [‘ayin micpar].” It is a word play on what is said in verse four that God can count the “number [micpar] of the stars.” The point is that God can number the seemingly infinite collection of stars, yet His divine knowledge/understanding cannot be so “numbered” for it is truly infinite and boundless in every way.4 This is a clear and powerful affirmation of God’s omniscience.

God’s knowledge ranges from the greatest (numbering of the stars) to the most insignificant details of creation: the number of hairs on our head and when a single sparrow dies (Matt. 10:29-30). God’s omniscient knowledge of creation is perfect and, therefore, God’s knowledge of His most glorious creation – man – is just as perfect.

In Psalm 139:1-6, David contemplates God’s omniscient knowledge of every detail of his life and concludes that “such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it” (v. 6). God knows the very thoughts of our hearts (Jer. 17:9-10; Lk. 16:15; Heb. 4:12-13). Truly, there is “no searching of His understanding” (Isa. 40:28). This same point is made by the apostle Paul when he spoke of the “depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33). Again, the scriptures affirm that God “knows all things” (1 Jn. 3:20).

Such omniscience provides God with a perfect knowledge of the past so that we have a perfect record of history in the Bible. God has perfect knowledge of the present, for the “eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Prov. 15:3). In this simple statement we see the convergence of the “all-natures” of God: God is all-present because He is all-powerful and is, therefore, all-knowing. God also has a perfect knowledge of the future. This is the basis of God’s claim to inspired prophecy (Isa. 46:10).5 But this point is what is at issue in this paper. Just how perfect, or absolute, is God’s knowledge of the future? What does the Bible reveal concerning divine foreknowledge?

The Bible clearly affirms that an omniscient God necessarily possesses foreknowledge of those things which are future. This is an identifying mark of deity and godhood. In exposing the futility of man-made idols, God challenges them to provide both accurate historical truths about the past and things to come:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 The following quote by A. W. Tozer makes a good point concerning the infinite nature of God: "If there were a point where God stopped, then God wouldn't be perfect. For instance, if God knew almost everything, but not quite everything, then God wouldn't be perfect in knowledge. His understanding! wouldn't be infinite... God, to be God, must be infinite in all that He is. He must have no bound and no limit, no stopping place, no point beyond which He can't go. When you think of God or anything about God you'll have to think infinitely about God" (Psalm 147, The Agora Bible Commentary, www.christadelphianbooks.org/agora/comm/19_psa/psab49.html) 5 A more expanded discussion of these points can be found in my chapter “The ‘All’ Power, Knowledge, and Presence of God” in The Nature of God (Don Hastings and Marc Gibson, Bowling Green: One Stone Press, 2012).

! 41 Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; let them show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods… (Isa. 41:22-23)

God continues to proclaim the fact of His foreknowledge. God is not just able to foreknow, but He actually does foreknow and declare future things:

Behold the former things have come to pass, and new things I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them (Isa. 42:9)

And who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, since I appointed the ancient people. And the things that are coming and shall come, let them show these to them. Do not fear, nor be afraid; have I not told you from that time, and declared it? (Isa. 44:7-8a)

Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the Lord? (Isa. 45:21)

I have declared the former thing from the beginning; they went forth from My mouth, and I caused them to hear it. Suddenly I did them and they came to pass…Even from the beginning I have declared it to you; before it came to pass I proclaimed it to you… (Isa. 48:3, 5)

Specific demonstrations of divine foreknowledge (other than the numerous messianic prophecies – see 1 Pet. 1:11 “Spirit of Christ…testified beforehand”) include God’s prediction of Israel’s rebellion (Deut. 31:16-21), the kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2:31-45), the names and works of Josiah and Cyrus (1 Kgs. 13:2; Isa. 44:28– 45:4), to name just a few. Jesus demonstrated foreknowledge in His prediction of the fall of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1-45), Peter and Judas’ betrayals (Jn. 13:21; Lk. 22:34), and Peter’s death (Jn. 21:18-19). The book of Revelation is a prophecy of “things which must shortly take place” (Rev. 1:1; 22:6).

The foreknowledge of God is specifically mentioned in the deliverance of Jesus to be crucified (Acts 2:23; 4:28),6 and in the salvation of those who answer the call of Christ (Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:2). Two Greek words are used: prognosis meaning a prediction, a knowing beforehand, is used only of God and is translated “foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2); proginosko meaning to know [ginosko] before [pro] is translated “foreknow, foreordain, knew before” (Acts 26:5; Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:17).

The question still remains if the foreknowledge of God is absolute (unlimited in the sense that God knows all future contingent free will choices of man) or is limited by the nature of real time or by God Himself. Along with this is the question of the effect on the free will of man. Various positions on these issues will be considered next. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 The “determined counsel” and “purpose” of God is also mentioned in these passages to emphasize that God’s foreordained will was being fulfilled in the death of Jesus at the hands of wicked men.

! 42

Views of Divine Foreknowledge among Evangelicals

Without question, a very real tension is felt among many evangelical scholars between affirming the foreknowledge of God and preserving the free will of man. Some have gone to extremes that have resulted in greatly diminishing one or the other, while others seek to find full compatibility between the two doctrines.7 We first examine two extremes:

Calvinist (Reformed) View

The Calvinist view is so named because it is traced back to the teachings of John Calvin (and some take it back further to Augustine). Here is what Calvin said concerning God’s foreknowledge and foreordination in the fall of Adam:

The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.8

This view emphasizes the sovereignty of God by asserting that God preordained (predestined) from eternity all things that would come to pass.9 Since God foreordained all things, He obviously knows all that shall come to pass. While some speak of “freedom,”10 this view denies that man is a self-determining, freewill being. The Calvinistic view of the sovereign grace of God leaves absolutely no room for man to turn to God by his own free will and render obedience to the gospel plan of salvation.11

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7 This debate has been called “one of the most controversial theological issues disputed among evangelicals. Indeed, some claim it is the most heated controversy to hit evangelicalism since the inerrancy debate of the 1970s” (Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, 9). 8 The Institutes of the Christian Religion, III, 23, 7 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.pdf) 9 The predestination and election debate is fought mainly between Calvinism and Arminianism (see Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Free Will, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986). 10 Paul Helm takes the position that salvation by irresistible grace “ensures true human freedom” (Divine Foreknowledge, 170). Of course, he means freedom from total inherited depravity because Calvinism denies that man can freely access or resist the grace of God. God must determine by unconditional election who will be saved and who will be lost because man is too depraved in sin to choose, by his own will, what is good. 11 Consider the rather brash statement and reference to Martin Luther by Charles Spurgeon in his sermon Free Will – A Slave: “Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, ‘If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.’ It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us!

! 43 Calvinists believe that to affirm the free will of man denies, to a large extent, the sovereignty of God. If man controls his destiny in any way, then God is not in total control. But the Calvinist must reassess whether this assumption is true. Perhaps this is what God who is in control wanted from the very beginning! The only way to create free moral agents (mankind) is to allow man to determine his destiny, and this is exactly what He did. In fact, this coincides perfectly with conditional promises (if…then…) throughout scripture.

Causation is also a major part of the debate: Is the foreordination (predestination) of God the cause of what God foreknows (as Calvin believed)12 or is God’s foreknowledge the cause of what He has foreordained? This specific debate especially interests those who assume determinism to be true, such as Calvinists. Non-determinists do not believe that God has foreordained all things (as Calvinists teach), so one aspect is not entirely dependent on the other.

The Calvinistic view runs into problems on two fronts. First, the many Bible passages that affirm that man has the capacity, and responsibility, to respond to the gospel call. Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). When the gospel was preached, men and women were called to obey the gospel (Acts 2:38, 40; 3:19; 16:31). Man is expected to avoid temptation by freely choosing the way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13). Final judgment will be based on what a man does, not on a preordained choice by God (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:13). Second, the problem of evil and God must be faced. If God preordained all things, then evil must also be included. If man does not cause evil by free will choice, the only other ultimate cause has to be God, and this is unthinkable, even blasphemous. Man bears the responsibility for his own sins (Psa. 51:3-4; Isa. 59:1-2; Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 3:9-18).

The Bible affirms the foreknowledge of God and the free will of man. The Calvinist position is that the foreknowledge of God is incompatible with the free will of man, resulting in a denial of the free will of man. The Calvinist position contradicts the Scriptures and should be rejected.

Open-Theism View

In a typical “swing-the-pendulum” to the other extreme, a view has arisen that emphasizes the free will of man, but offers a diminished view of the foreknowledge of God. Open theists agree with Calvinists that “strong omniscience entails strong predestination” and reject the compatibility of free will and absolute foreknowledge.13 In !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is ‘Alpha and Omega’ in the salvation of men.” (http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm) 12 Calvin clearly stated this view in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, both in the quotation in the text and in the following: “The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny; but it is greatly caviled at, especially by those who make prescience its cause. We, indeed, ascribe both prescience and predestination to God; but we say, that it is absurd to make the latter subordinate to the former” (III, 21, 5). 13 Clark Pinnock, Predestination and Free Will, 156. Pinnnock also states his agreement with Loraine Boettner that “foreknowledge entails foreordination” (footnote 26, 157).

! 44 this they make a false assumption that leads to a false dichotomy. They (opposite of the Calvinists) end up diminishing the absolute foreknowledge of God to uphold the absolute free will of man.

The Open-Theism view states that while God knows the past and present perfectly, the future is partially open, that is, undetermined and unknowable.14 It is yet to come to pass, therefore, even God cannot know what is not yet reality. Open theists further explain that God has ordained some future things, but not all things. God knows the future to the extent that He has settled it, but no further. The rest (the choices and actions of free individuals) is open to various possibilities (“maybes”) that God will learn along the way.15

The scriptural evidence pointed to by open theists include the conditional prophecies about cities and nations. If a city repented after being threatened with punishment by God (such as Nineveh [Jonah 3]) God would “change His mind” [repent, relent] concerning that city. God left the future open to certain “possibilities” and reacts accordingly to man’s free will decisions. If God had foreknown that a city or nation would freely decide in a certain way, that decision would not truly be free but predetermined by the foreknowledge of God. Thus God must leave some of the future “open” to preserve the free will of man.

The open theist sees evidence of “openness” in God expressing regret (Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:11), confronting the unexpected (Isa. 5:4), changing His mind (Jer. 18:4-10), testing people (Gen. 22:12), and showing flexibility (2 Kgs. 20:1-6). Such descriptions of God are taken literally and any possibility that anthropomorphic language is being ascribed to God is rejected.16

Like the Calvinist, the open theist finds himself in a scriptural bind. He must explain away the very clear passages that affirm the infinity of God’s knowledge.17 It puts him in the untenable position of arguing that God does not know all things past, present, and future, and, in fact, cannot know all future things, and yet still try to affirm that God really is omniscient.18 While this view may seem at first to explain some troublesome passages, it goes too far in stripping God of His omniscient foreknowledge, putting Him at the whim of man’s fickleness and making the divine plan prone to unintentional error due to lack of divine knowledge. There must be another more scripturally consistent

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14 For a more detailed explanation of the open-theism view, see Gregory Boyd (Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, 14-47) and Clark Pinnock (Predestination and Free Will: Four Views, 143-162). 15 Open theists will need to explain how God knew the free will choice of the Israelites to rebel against His law (Deut. 31:16-21) and how Jesus knew the free will choice of Peter to deny Him three times (Lk. 22:34). 16 Biblical anthropomorphism is the projection of human characteristics on God to give a framework by which the material/physical may relate to the invisible/spiritual. 17 Such as Psalm 147:5 and 1 John 3:20. 18 This leads to suggestions that some prophecies only involved God predicting, or anticipating, what would happen based on someone’s character (see Boyd on Peter’s denial - Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, 20-21). It also leads to outright contradictory statements: “Hence the omniscient God perfectly expected (but was not certain) that Israel would turn to him” (Ibid., 25). How can the One who is omniscient also be “not certain”?

! 45 interpretation. The next two views seek a middle ground more consistent with the scriptural evidence.

Simple Foreknowledge View

This view finds itself in the middle of the Calvinist and Open-Theism views. This view states that God simply knows the future (leaving open the question of just how God knows the future).19 The future is actually in the future, and God sees that future through some type of “time telescope.”20

This view sees no contradiction in the fact that God can simply foreknow all future contingent freewill choices of man. God’s foreknowledge is not the cause of such choices, but the choices are the cause of the foreknowledge. Calvinists and other determinists would argue the opposite with the following syllogism:21

Necessarily, whatever God foreknows comes to pass

And

God foreknew that x would come to pass,

therefore, it follows that

Necessarily, x will come to pass.

To transfer the necessity of the first premise to the conclusion without the second premise being necessary is fallacious. Since the conclusion is not necessary, it should be changed to:

Therefore, x will come to pass.

Furthermore, it is not necessary that x will come to pass if y could come to pass (and it could because I am a free moral agent), and if y did come to pass, then the second premise would be:

God foreknew that y would come to pass

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19 See David Hunt (Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, 65-103) for a rather in depth presentation of this view. 20 Some argue that God is atemporal, or above time, and sees all the past, present, and future in an eternal NOW (this is known as the Boethian view of time), but the simple foreknowledge view argues for temporal reality which means “simply that time, in the sense of a succession of moments and the experience of past/present/future, is a part of God's own essence or being” (Jack Cottrell, Understanding God: God and Time, 5). 21 This syllogism is from Allan Turner, The Christian & Calvinism, (Roswell: Allanita Press Publishing, 2007), 47.

! 46 But this would contradict the determinist’s basic premise that God’s foreknowledge is the cause of all that comes to pass. A syllogism is needed that is both logical and scriptural. In contrast to the fallacious and unscriptural determinist/Calvinistic syllogism, observe a syllogism of the Simple Foreknowledge view:

Necessarily, whatever comes to pass God foreknew,

And

x comes to pass,

therefore, it follows that

God foreknew that x would come to pass.

Since I have freewill choice, I could choose to do y instead of x, which would be accurately reflected by God’s absolute foreknowledge in this parallel syllogism:

Necessarily, whatever comes to pass God foreknew,

And

y comes to pass,

therefore, it follows that

God foreknew that y would come to pass.

Observe that the causation of my action is not God’s foreknowledge, but my action is the causation of God’s foreknowledge. God’s foreknowledge is before (chronologically) my action, but my action is also before (logically) God’s foreknowledge. God can, and does, foreknow my freewill actions without compromising my free will.22 Allan Turner gives a good summation:

What this all means is that the future, contingent, free will choices of men and women are not settled by God’s foreknowledge; instead, God’s foreknowledge is settled by the reality of the future events themselves. The fact that God, from His viewpoint in eternity, sees them “ahead of time” does not mean these events will happen because God sees them; rather, they are going to happen because of the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 22 I can amaze my family with my rapid solution of the puzzles on “Wheel of Fortune” because they do not know that I saw the answers on another channel a half hour earlier. My “foreknowledge” of these answers does not mean that I did anything to fix them in my favor beforehand. I just simply foreknew the answers before the next showing of that episode. This example is not entirely analogous, but I think it makes the point.

! 47 genuine free moral agency of those involved. Again, the fact that God sees them ahead of time does not make them happen in any causative sense.23

The simple-foreknowledge view reflects the balanced teaching of the Bible: upholding the absolute foreknowledge of God while maintaining the complete free will of man. How this view might deal with problematic passages referenced by the open-theism view will be noticed later.

The one matter this view does not address is specifically how God foreknows future contingent choices of free moral agents. The next view seeks to address that issue.

Middle-Knowledge View

The Middle-Knowledge view24 is similar to the simple foreknowledge view in that it affirms the biblical compatibility between the absolute foreknowledge of God and the free will of man. What it adds is a means by which we can understand how God can foreknow future contingent free will choices of individuals.25

The key to the middle-knowledge view is counterfactual knowledge, that is, what “would” have happened “if” another set of circumstances had been in place. We consider counterfactual knowledge all the time – “I would have mown the grass if it hadn’t rained today” or “If I had gone to that restaurant, I would have ordered seafood.” This knowledge of what would happen (feasible possibilities) is found in between what could happen (all possibilities) and what will happen (actual reality).26

How this relates to God and foreknowledge is illustrated by the following portrayal of God’s knowledge prior to and after His creative decree:27

Natural Knowledge: God knows the range of possible worlds [O O O O O …]

Middle Knowledge: God knows the range of feasible worlds [O O O O] ----- Divine Creative Decree -----

Free Knowledge: God knows the actual world [O]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23 Christian & Calvinism, 48. 24 This view is often referred to as Molinism, named for the sixteenth century Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina. 25 For a full exposition of the middle-knowledge view, see William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God, and his contribution to Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, 119-143. 26 William Lane Craig uses the story of Ebenezer Scrooge from A Christmas Carol to illustrate this. The Spirit of Christmas Yet To Come showed the cold-hearted, greedy Scrooge what would happen if he did not change his ways (he died a despised individual, Tiny Tim died). That counterfactual knowledge is what motivated Scrooge to change and bring about what we know did happen (he became kind and generous, Tiny Tim lived) (see Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, 119-120). 27 I am indebted to William Lane Craig for this illustration (see Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, 123).

! 48 One can see from the above illustration why this knowledge is known as “middle” knowledge, coming in between the natural and free knowledge of God. In this middle knowledge, God is able to employ His counterfactual knowledge to assess the range of feasible worlds that He could create, choosing that one world we actually exist in now. He chose this particular world because it fulfilled His will most perfectly.28 By this means of middle knowledge, God is able to foreknow by His omniscience every possible freewill choice that could be made in every possible circumstance in every possible world. Using the same logic employed by the simple-foreknowledge view, God’s foreknowledge is not the cause of our choices. Rather our freewill choices are already acknowledged/recognized by God in His absolute omniscience.

Are there biblical arguments for the reality of God’s middle knowledge? The fact that God knows counterfactual knowledge (what would happen) is argued to be a necessary implication of His omniscience, but certain Bible passages are interpreted as demonstrating it.

In 1 Samuel 23:6-13, after saving the town of Keilah from the Philistines, David stays there while Saul plots to besiege David and his men there. David inquires of the Lord through the ephod of Abiathar the priest whether Saul will come, and if so, whether the men of Keilah will deliver him and his men to Saul. God’s answer demonstrates knowledge of counterfactuals:

Then David said, “O Lord God of Israel, Your servant has certainly heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah to destroy the city for my sake. Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as Your servant has heard? O Lord God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will deliver you.” So David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah and went wherever they could go (vv. 10- 13a).

God revealed to David that if he were to remain in Keilah, Saul would come and that the men of Keilah would deliver David and his men to Saul. Since, in fact, the men of Keilah never did deliver David and his men to Saul (because David left and Saul halted his expedition), how could God have known this? By some kind of a divine hunch or guess? David trusted that God could tell him the truth of what would happen if he were to stay, because David believed that God’s knowledge is infinite. If he wanted a hunch or guess, David could have asked the wisest among his men, or Abiathar, to give him that much. The omniscient God is able to foresee all possible choices in all possible circumstances that could be made by free beings, and David knew that only God could reveal to him true, counterfactual knowledge. This is one example pointed to of God using His “middle knowledge.”

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 28 This may be helpful in better appreciating the phrase “before the foundation of the world” as applied to the when God knew and planned how He would work His eternal purpose (see Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8).

! 49 In Jeremiah 38:17-18, Jeremiah sets before king Zedekiah two very different results depending on whether he would surrender to Babylon or not. God knew perfectly what would happen in either circumstance. The fact that God knew in His foreknowledge what Zedekiah would do (not surrender) did not change the fact that Zedekiah would make a freewill choice. God laid out the consequences of either action so that Zedekiah and others would have no excuse for their evil actions. Many conditional promises or threats are to be understood in this light. God makes it very clear the consequences of our actions, even though He foreknows our free choices. The free choice is still ours to make and the consequences to accept.

It is also claimed that Jesus demonstrated middle knowledge in His statements about what would have been (see Jn. 15:22, 24; 18:36; Matt. 26:24). Of special note is Matthew 11:20-24, when Jesus declared woe upon the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. He stated that if the mighty works which were done in them had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented, and Sodom would have remained. Again, was this just a messianic hunch, hyperbolic language, or does this demonstrate middle knowledge of an omniscient Creator?29

A potential problem with the middle-knowledge view is that it is largely philosophical, relying a great deal on human reasoning and making it difficult to grasp. The biblical arguments have to be studied carefully to see if this view truly has merit. I personally believe that it deserves more consideration. It is a serious attempt to understand how God’s absolute foreknowledge is compatible with the free will of man. It also gives a helpful context for God’s providence, and how He can influence man to make the proper choices through His word and other non-miraculous means. If God knows what a person would freely do in any situation, He can help guide us into such circumstances where we will make the best choice. But the final choice is still ours and our responsibility. The other views encounter difficulties explaining how God’s providence can work within their interpretations of God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will.

Views of Divine Foreknowledge within Churches of Christ

When we look at the views among brethren of the churches of Christ, we see two basic positions: 1) God has absolute foreknowledge of all future contingent freewill choices, and 2) that God does not know some aspects of the future, either because He cannot know future contingent freewill choices or limits His own knowledge of certain future things.

Absolute Foreknowledge

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 29 Some see these scriptural examples as ambiguous. It is argued that God may only be surmising the possible actions of Saul and the men if Keilah based on His knowledge of their present character, and that Jesus is using hyperbole in His reference to the repentance of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to illustrate how depraved the other cities are. I personally find these interpretations unsatisfactory in that they undermine the true force of these passages if indeed what God/Jesus claimed would have happened never really would have happened.

! 50

The Absolute Foreknowledge position is stated by Allan Turner when he wrote: “…there is absolutely no reason for the Bible believer to ever doubt God’s genuine foreknowledge of the future, contingent, free will choices of His creatures.”30 This he bases on the passages of Scripture that speak of the infinity of God’s knowledge and that God knows all things (Psa. 147:5; 1 Jn. 3:20). From this position he refutes the Calvinist and Open- Theism positions.31

No Foreknowledge of Contingent Freewill Choices

Ken Green stated the following position in a discussion with Allan Turner:

My contention is that where there is absolute foreknowledge of future choices and actions, those who perform said choices and actions are not truly free.

But the Scriptures teach that human beings are free agents, fully capable of making moral choices. Therefore, there can be no absolute foreknowledge of the contingent free will choices of human beings.32

Green’s position is basically the Open-Theism view discussed earlier. He agrees with the Calvinists that absolute foreknowledge and free will is incompatible but runs to the other extreme to limit God’s omniscience, and thus falls into the same open-theistic error of diminishing the foreknowledge of God to maintain the free will of man.

God Limits His Own Foreknowledge

Other brethren find it helpful to argue that God, of His own will, limits His foreknowledge in certain circumstances. They feel this helps to explain problematic passages such as Genesis 18:21; 22:12 and all conditional prophecies. God learns, experiences, feels, and reacts just as we would as time unfolds. It is not that God cannot know, but that He chooses not to know.

T. W. Brents stated it this way:

…so, in the morning of the first day, God could have looked down the stream of time and have seen the secret intentions of every heart that would ever be subjected to His law, but, in infinite mercy, He saw fit to avoid a knowledge of every thing incompatible with the freedom of the human will and the system of government devised by Him for man.33

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 30 The Christian & Calvinism, 46. 31 In his debate with Ken Green, Turner denied the following proposition: The omniscience of God, particularly His foreknowledge, does not include the contingent free will choices of human beings. 32 “A Discussion on the Foreknowledge of God.” Gospel Anchor, November 1989, 10. 33 The Gospel Plan of Salvation, 96-97 (emp. his). Brents also notes that Adam Clarke took the same position.

! 51 Clinton Hamilton wrote:

To say that God must foreknow a thing is to limit His omnipotence to choose not to know except under a given set of circumstances. Must God foreknow? No. He can choose to know some other way such as to give a command and observe the response to it.34

Frank Jamerson’s statement implies that God could choose not to know some things:

Omniscience implies that God has the power to know anything He chooses to know.35

While this is a compelling view, it is clearly a limiting of God’s foreknowledge in an attempt to explain God’s actions and words in certain passages. But is this the only choice we have in interpreting these passages?

Examining Some Problematic Passages of Scripture

Our main objective is to discern what the Bible teaches. Certain difficult passages are at the center of any discussion of divine foreknowledge. To these we now give attention.

Genesis 18:21

In the context, God appears to Abraham in a theophany and states that He “will go down now and see whether they [Sodom and Gomorrah] have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.” This statement must be interpreted in the light of the clear teaching that God’s understanding is infinite and He knows all things (Psa. 147:5; 1 Jn. 3:20). Does this language suggest that God has somehow and for some unexplained purpose limited Himself and His knowledge (perhaps because this is a theophany) or is this an example of anthropomorphic language describing God’s knowledge to Abraham so that his finite mind could relate to divine actions? Anthropomorphism will be discussed in the next passage.

Genesis 22:12

Abraham is tested by God when he is commanded to offer his son, Isaac, as a burnt offering. Just before he is about to slay him, Abraham is told, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” Did God limit His foreknowledge so that He could learn what Abraham would do, or did God foreknow Abraham’s decision? First, we must understand that God knows the hearts of all and knew Abraham’s heart (1 Chron. 28:9: Heb. 4:13). This was not a matter of knowledge that God had to learn by

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 34 “From Heaven or From Men,” Guardian of Truth, February 17, 1994 35 “The Omniscient God,” Guardian of Truth, January 17, 1985

! 52 testing. Rather it was a demonstration of Abraham’s faith for him and for us (Rom. 4:18- 22; Jas. 2:21-23).

Second, we must be careful in our interpretation that we do not contradict clear passages declaring God’s infinite knowledge. If the literal meaning would cause a contradiction, we must look to a figurative use of language. The accommodative language of anthropomorphism is common in scripture when describing God.36 God is said to have hands (Ex. 7:5), a face (Num. 6:25), eyes and ears (Psa. 34:15), arms (Psa. 89:10). An omnipotent God is said to rest (Ex. 20:11), an omnipresent God asks Adam where he is (Gen. 3:9), and an omniscient God says, “now I know” (Gen. 22:12). This is also applicable to God’s statement in Genesis 18:21.

Allan Turner noted this use of accommodative language in his discussion with Green:

The Lord’s language to Abraham, when compared with other passages, must be understood as being accommodative. What I mean by accommodative is that the Lord adapted or adjusted His language in consideration of Abraham’s position as a finite creature…God was simply dealing with Abraham where he was in time just as he deals with us all…37

This view and interpretation of these passages is both consistent with the use of Biblical anthropomorphic language in general and the overall revelation of God’s omniscience.

Jeremiah 18:5-10

This passage is a statement to Israel reminding them that if a nation turns from its evil, God will relent from bringing harm upon it, and vice versa. The point made here by open theists is that God can and will change His mind, so He could not have already known what He would do. This passage is a conditional promise by God that He will react accordingly to man’s actions good or bad. Man needs to know that his actions have consequences consistent with God’s will. The fact that God foreknows the free choices of men and nations does not change this! God can use accommodative language to explain this principle so that we understand that God is consistent with His rewards and punishments, and our choices will determine God’s judgments toward us. God’s purpose is settled from eternity (Eph. 3:10-11) – we must fit our lives into God’s plan to reap everlasting life in the end (Gal. 6:7-8). Jeremiah 19:5

In this passage, God speaks concerning Judah’s building of high places to Baal and burning their sons with fire to Baal, that it was that “which I did not command or speak,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 36 David Hunt queries, “Now ask yourself, how could such a being be revealed to us except by anthropomorphizing him?” (Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, 54). 37 Gospel Anchor, November 1989, 12, 14. Turner inexplicably dropped this line of argument in later writings on the foreknowledge of God culminating in his chapter on the subject in The Christian & Calvinism (2007). Why he did not continue this line of argument is a question I look forward to posing to him.

! 53 nor did it come into My mind.” This does not suggest that God had less than infinite knowledge, but simply that it was never in His divine purpose (did not command or speak) to have His people act in such pagan, idolatrous ways. They had transgressed God’s law in doing so.

Mark 13:32

Here Jesus states that of “that day and hour no one knows…nor the Son, but only the Father.” If Jesus is God, how could He possess anything less than infinite knowledge? Let us understand that the incarnation (God in the flesh) put certain limitations on Jesus’ omnipresence and, obviously, His omniscience. But not totally, for He was still able to know what was in the hearts of men (Jn. 2:24-25) and foreknow other things to come (Jn. 21:18-19). The date of His return was withheld from Jesus at that time, but these were special circumstances when the Word assumed the role of the Son and was on earth in the form of flesh and blood.

A Biblical and Personal View of the Foreknowledge of God

One simply cannot deny or diminish what is affirmed in Psalm 147:5 – the understanding of the Lord is infinite. All truth – past, present, future – is known to God. It is not just that He is capable of knowing all things, but that He actually does know all things (1 Jn. 3:20). All other scripture must be interpreted in a way consistent with this unequivocal truth.

Whether God is temporal (in time) or a-temporal (above time) is not critical to this discussion.38 I prefer a view that combines both – God, who inhabits eternity (Isa. 57:15 – “eternal time”?), is not confined to the dictates of earthly time (Psa. 90:4; 2 Pet. 3:8), but acts within His creation in recognition of our time – past, present, and future.39 He declares that He knows “from ancient times things not yet done” (Isa. 46:10). Am I in a position to limit His knowledge to just certain “things not yet done”? If so, I would create a contradiction with the infinite knowledge of God which is confirmed in scripture. Therefore, I see no reason to limit God’s foreknowledge to accommodate a literal interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

I believe in the absolute foreknowledge of God as an innate part of the omniscient nature of God. I believe that this is fully compatible with the free will of man, since simple foreknowledge does not result in foreordination, but results from God’s infinite knowledge. God foreknows what I will freely choose to do. I still have the freedom to do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 38 For further reading on this subject, see God and Time: Four Views, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press: 2001. 39 My view is similar to Jack Cottrell’s description of God as metatemporal: “God is temporal, but he is not merely temporal. He is metatemporal. He both exists in time, and transcends time. The latter is true in reference to his creation. When God created our world ex nihilo, he brought into existence this whole universe of both space and time. God did not create time as such, but he created our time. God’s own time is infinite; created time is finite. God does not transcend his own time, but he transcends created time” (Understanding God: God and Time, 7)

! 54 something different than what I may actually do. If I did choose to do differently, then God’s foreknowledge would have been different, perfectly matching what I freely chose to do.

How exactly God foreknows all things is not fully revealed by God. Certain scriptures appear to teach that God possesses counterfactual knowledge which would be expected with One who possesses omniscience. This would suggest that God, in His omniscience, foreknew before creation all possible worlds and all possible outcomes, and determined what world He would create to fulfill His purpose. Therefore, in what is called middle knowledge, God foreknew all future contingent freewill choices of mankind. All men are still responsible for their own actions, good or bad.

Summing up, these facts and conclusions are scripturally affirmed:

1) God knows the present perfectly (Psa. 33:13-15; Prov. 15:3). 2) God knows the past perfectly (Mal. 3:16; Psa. 56:8). 3) God knows future foreordained events (Isa. 44:28; Acts 2:23). 4) God knows future contingent freewill choices (Deut. 31:16-21; Lk. 22:34). 5) Since God knows all things perfectly (Psa. 147:5; 1 Jn. 3:20), He, therefore, possesses absolute foreknowledge of all future foreordained events and contingent freewill choices.

Any passage of scripture that presents God as having to learn something not previously known should be understood as an example of anthropomorphism commonly used to relate the spiritually infinite to the materially finite.

In the end, let it be understood that the absolute foreknowledge of God and the free will of man is entirely compatible in biblical teaching. Not every question or issue has been addressed that could be raised, but a foundation is laid on which to build a consistent, scriptural view of our eternal, omniscient God.

Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5)

! 55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Basinger, David, and Randall Basinger, eds. Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Beilby, James K. and Paul R. Eddy, eds. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Cottrell, Jack. What the Bible Says about God the Creator. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1983. ! Craig, William Lane. The Only Wise God. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999.

Ganssle, Gregory E. God and Time: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Hall, Christopher A. and John Sanders. Does God Have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

Hastings, Don and Marc Gibson. The Nature of God. Bowling Green, KY: One Stone Press, 2012.

The Holy Bible. The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.

Turner, Allan. The Christian & Calvinism. Roswell, GA: Allanita Press Publishing, 2007.

Vine, W. E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996.

Internet articles

“An Exegetical Study of God’s Foreknowledge.” (author unknown). http://www.icstc.com/bg/will/fore.html

Biblile, Nick. “Foreknowledge of God.” http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Nick/foreknowledge.htm

Brents, T. W. The Gospel Plan of Salvation. http://www.oldpaths.com/archive/brents/thomas/wesley/1823/gosplan.html#PG92

Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.pdf

! 56 Cottrell, Jack. “Understanding God: God and Time.” Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Evangelical Theological Society, Toronto, Ontario, November 20-22, 2002. http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Understanding%20God,%20God%20and%20Ti me.pdf

Felker, Johnny. “Difficulties with God’s Foreknowledge.” http://truthchasers.com/Sermons/Expository/081703p.pdf<

“Foreknowledge and Free Will.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (rev. Aug. 25, 2011). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

Frame, John. “Foreknowledge and the Free Will of Man.” http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/foreknow_frame.html

Green, Ken and Allan Turner. “A Discussion on the Foreknowledge of God.” Gospel Anchor, November 1989 (9-14), December 1989 (10-15), January 1990 (11-16), February 1990 (4-8), westsidechurchofchristphoenix.com/ForeknowledgeofGod

Hamilton, Clinton. “From Heaven or From Men.” Guardian of Truth (February 17, 1994) 5-7. http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume38/GOT038042.html!

Jamerson, Frank. “The Omniscient God.” Guardian of Truth (January 17, 1985) 41-42. http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume29/GOT029025.html

Pink, A. W. “The Foreknowledge of God.” The Attributes of God. http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_04.htm

Pratt, Jr., Richard L. Excerpt on Open-Theism from Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions. http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Foreknowledge-of-God/

“Psalms” (Psalm 147). The Agora Bible Commentary (ChristadelphianBooksOnline) http://www.christadelphianbooks.org/agora/comm/19_psa/psab49.html

Spurgeon, Charles. “Free Will – A Slave.” (Sermon delivered December 2, 1855). The Spurgeon Archive. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm

Stewart, Don. “Does God Know Everything That Could Possibly Happen?” http://truthchasers.com/Sermons/Expository/081703p.pdf< < Telford,

! 57 Turner, Allan. “God’s Knowledge In View Of Genesis 18 & 22: Is It Limited?” http://allanturner.com/article04.html

Turner, Allan. “Ode To The Unknown God (Part II).” http://allanturner.com/magazine/archives/rm0506/Ode002.html

Turner, Allan. “The Foreknowledge of God.” (November 23, 1998). http://allanturner.com/calbk_4.html

! 58 Does the Bible Teach Salvation “By Grace Through Faith” Or “By Law Through Works,” and What Is the Difference?

By Kent Berman

Introduction

God’s plan of redemption for all men has always been by grace through faith in Jesus Christ since “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:3-14). The promise of God’s grace for all men was first given to Abraham predating any formal existence of law, Mosaic and Christian alike.1 Whether Jew or Greek, God has given His word to all people that He may have a relationship with man as a Father, all for His glory.2 God created man in His image and gave him the ability to know and to choose between righteousness and wickedness.3 God has given laws and ordinances from the beginning originally speaking through the patriarchs, then through the prophets and the law of Moses, and finally in these last days through His Son.4 Tragically, all of mankind has broken His law, causing the inevitable curse of the law to befall each and every one who is accountable, the curse of death and damnation.5 Thus, God prepared the way of salvation “by grace through faith” for all mankind.6 He paid the price in our place to justify sinners before God.7 In the sections that follow, we will examine the doctrines taught pertaining to this subject as we consider the relationship between faith and works, the Ephesians, Pharisees, Judaizers among the Galatians, and conclude where God’s promises began, with Abraham.

Two Peas in a Pod

If faith and hope go together like peas and carrots, then faith and works are two peas in a pod, or in the analogy used by the Holy Spirit, like body and spirit.8 Many today draw a line after faith or perhaps confession and call anything beyond that line a work. The Bible does not teach such a concept and, candidly, neither does common sense. What the Bible actually says is that faith is a work.9 Many passages bring out the very close relationship faith and obedience share, specifically, that the faith that saves is an active or obedient faith.10 Paul lays out the simple process by which faith comes in his letter to the Romans: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Genesis 22:17, 18; Galatians 3:5-9, 13, 14, 26-29 2 Galatians 3:26-29; 2 Corinthians 6:16-17; 1:20 3 Genesis 1:26; Deuteronomy 30:19, 20 4 Hebrews 1:1, 2 5 Romans 3:9-20, 23; Galatians 3:10; Romans 8:2; James 2:10 6 Ephesians 2:8; Romans 8:1-3 7 Ephesians 1:7; Romans 3:24-26 8 James 2:26 9 John 6:29; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11 10 John 3:36 - compare NKJV and ESV; Hebrews 3:18, 19; James 2:14-26

! 59 …that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation... For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:9, 10, 13)

This passage plainly teaches that belief is a work of the heart and confession, a work of the mouth. Yes, it takes work to call on His name and to believe:

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14)

In order to believe and call on the name of the Lord, one must put in the effort to hear and understand the word, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Additionally, Paul was told by Ananias to be baptized to wash away sins as part of calling on the name of the Lord.11 The Bible does talk about faith alone, (i.e. without works), but it teaches that it is dead and does not result in salvation.12 But neither I nor James is asserting that salvation is “by law through works.” To paint a more complete picture, let us consider some examples from the Scriptures.

Saved Like the Ephesians

Many today would like to be saved like the Ephesians. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul said, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” That we may understand the gift under discussion and how to receive it, let us delve deeper into what the Bible says regarding these brethren and the events that led up to their salvation.

Paul came to Ephesus in his second missionary journey and reasoned with the Jews who compelled him to stay longer, but he was not able.13 Apollos also came to Ephesus and “spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:24, 25). In Paul’s third missionary journey, he again returned to Ephesus and found disciples who had not heard the entirety of the gospel, these had only been baptized into John’s baptism of repentance. Paul declared to the disciples that John was preparing the way of the Lord that people should believe that He is the Christ. Acts 19:1- 9 records these events, and tells of their hearing of the gospel, belief, repentance, baptism in the name of Jesus, and receiving of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, verses 10-20 record Paul’s work for three years spreading the gospel to Jews and Greeks, working miracles, causing many to believe, confess, and repent. Ephesus was the temple guardian of the Greek goddess Diana, and the surge of Christianity provoked many to wrath spawning an uprising and persecution of the disciples.14 Toward the end of Paul’s third journey, he !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 Acts 22:16 12 James 2:19, 24, 26; John 12:42 13 Acts 18:19-21! 14 Acts 19:23-41

! 60 met with the elders of the church in Ephesus in Miletus and testified of how he taught the whole counsel of God to both Jews and Greeks including repentance and faith in Christ. He further warned of false teachers who would seek to lead away disciples after themselves.15

While imprisoned in Rome, Paul penned the letter to the Ephesians.16 Ephesians 1 opens by addressing the saints and faithful in Christ and declares that they have been chosen by God to be holy and without blame.17 How were the Ephesians made holy and without blame? Was it through perfect law keeping or “by grace through faith”? Ephesians 1:6 teaches that the praise and glory belongs to His grace, which made them “accepted in the Beloved,” and verse 7 states that they were redeemed through His blood, having their sins forgiven according to His rich grace. It was not through perfect law keeping then, for they had sinned, but by grace they were reconciled to Christ and made heirs.18 Paul summarizes the events recorded in Acts: the Ephesians heard, trusted, believed, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit for the promise of inheritance (i.e. eternal life) and for God’s glory.19

Given the context, we are able to understand Ephesians 2:1-12 more clearly and thus know how to be saved like the Ephesians. This text teaches that the Ephesians were dead in sin and made alive by God, that their reconciliation and spiritual renewing was by God’s rich mercy, great love, kindness, and gift of grace. Paul further teaches in verses 14-22 that both Jews and Gentiles receive reconciliation by the same blood of Christ, and that we are all one body and one temple. Thus, it mattered not whether some had been practitioners of the old law or not; all having sinned would be saved by the same blood of Christ. There was no work the Jews or Gentiles could have done to save themselves, and there was no boasting in their reconciliation, for it was truly by God’s gift of grace through faith!

But the Ephesians’ salvation was not through faith alone, without any works. Clearly the record and pattern set forth in the case of the Ephesians included many good works prior to Paul’s pronouncement that they had been saved “by grace through faith.” What if the Ephesians had not bothered to listen to and reason with Paul and Apollos? What if they did not believe? What if they refused repentance or baptism? What if they neglected to continue in the gospel, establishing churches and appointing elders? What if they forsook Christ in the face of fierce popular dissent and persecution or were led away by false teachers? Would the letter to the Ephesians still read the same way?20 Furthermore, in Ephesians 2:10, Paul says, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” From the beginning of time, God has given man law and required man to obey His law. Even in

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15 Acts 20:16-38 16 Ephesians 3:1; 4:1; 6:20 17 Ephesians 1:1-4 18 Ephesians 1:10, 11 19 Ephesians 1:13-14 20 Ephesians 1:1

! 61 providing a way to reconcile fallen man through grace, it has always been God’s plan and purpose for man to walk in good works, conform to His image, and glorify His name.21

The apostle John conveys a potent message directly from Christ to the church in Ephesus in The Revelation.22 In this message, Christ commends the Ephesians for their work, labor, patience, perseverance, and resistance of false teachers.23 Yet He rebukes them for leaving their first love, and even refers to the brethren as “fallen” (Revelation 2:4, 5). Here, love is described as one of the “first works.” Love is an attribute of God, a central theme in His word, and the basis of His plan of redemption.24 Love is also one of the first principles that inspire the lost to come to God and begin a new walk with Him.25 But the Lord doesn’t stop there, and neither will I. He urges the church to “repent and do the first works” or else be separated from fellowship with Him (Revelation 2:5). What if the Ephesians refused to repent and failed to continue steadfastly in the work of love? Would grace alone save them, apart from these works and obedience to Christ’s commandments? Clearly the answer is emphatically “No”! Christ’s seal of authority behind the message underscores the significance of the commandments therein. It is Jesus who saves by grace, and He has set conditions that His people must keep His law. But even as we strive to do so, there is no room for boasting among the faithful.26 We must all humbly confess that we are unprofitable servants, having done only what was our duty to do.27 The Lord demands obedience to His law, yet He reconciles the fallen. He forgave the Ephesians when they first believed and obeyed, and He offered to forgive them again if they would repent, thus offering salvation by God’s great gift of grace.

Not Like the Pharisees

The Pharisees are perhaps the Scriptures’ foremost example of men who sought salvation by law and the inherent fallacy of such a path. The weakness of man in that all have sinned renders the law unable to save and binds man to the curse of death.28 Of course, the law was never intended by God to save or make man righteous, but rather to bring men to Christ.29 Christ fulfilled and established the Law, and the Pharisees fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah by blindly failing to see the Messiah though He was right before their eyes.30 How marvelous that they could be so blind! How could they miss the climactic moment (if the coming of the Christ was the climactic moment, then the second coming will be the grand finale) of God’s plan of redemption though they were living in it and even themselves fulfilling prophecies concerning Him?31 They were focused on law for

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 21 Ephesians 1:3-14 22 Revelation 1:4, 5, 11 23 Revelation 2:1-7 24 1 John 4:8; Mathew 22:35-40 25 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15 26 Ephesians 2:9 27 Luke 17:7-10 28 Romans 3:9-20, 23; Galatians 3:10; Romans 8:2; James 2:10; Hebrews 7:17-19 29 Galatians 3:19-25; Romans 10:1-4; John 1:17; Acts 13:38, 39 30 Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:44; Romans 3:31; Matthew 13:14-17! 31 Matthew 21:4-5; 26:56; 27:9-10, 35

! 62 the sake of law, self-justification through law keeping, pride, and traditions. They were not focused on God, or love, or seeking the Christ, which were the purpose of the law in the first place.32 This is the eventuality of law focused (pharisaical) religion, while it may begin with an idolization of the law of God, and while it claims to be of God, it is not genuinely of God and actually leads very far from Him.33 It is man-focused, that is, focused on man’s works and the promotion of man. Pharisaical religion leads to self- righteousness, self-deception, haughtiness toward others, even hatred, hypocrisy grown out of insincerity, and before long, a departure into false teaching with the binding of man-made laws. An unhealthy idolization of law leads to all of this great wickedness! In point of historical fact, the culmination of pharisaical religion ultimately entailed those claiming to be sons of God becoming His greatest enemies – and even crucifiers! How awesome it is that God fulfilled His purpose of love even through such lawless men as these, a plan that could redeem even the very ones who put His Son to death.34 Therefore, let us take great caution neither to be idolizers of law nor to seek salvation through law!

While the Pharisees as a political party may not exist today, roots of pharisaical religion are, I believe, still strong in the hearts of some brethren. Any religion that lacks love must of necessity venture deeper and deeper into pharisaical tendencies. Law without love uses the realm of religion as a source to feed man’s baser desires of pride and rivalry. The law of Christ without love loses its luster and primary appeal and renders itself ineffective, for love is the only way any can be made righteous.35 Thus, law without love leads to hypocrisy, as even its proponents do not keep it perfectly.36 An idolization of law, even the law of Christ, that is not first for the purpose of love for God and all men makes for a modern day Pharisee. The law is not an end in itself; it serves a greater purpose of love and glory.37 A negative mindset is often a sign of a law focused Christian, for they have surely failed to realize salvation is apart from perfect law keeping by Jesus Christ, and thus have no joy in hope.38 An obsession with being right just for the sake of being right (i.e. pride) leads to idolization of law and unprofitable rivalry. After all, it is not man’s righteousness that saves, but God’s.39 Some preachers spend all their time on “the issues,” controversy, and negative “thou shalt not” lessons seeming almost to enjoy the abundance of paper-thin targets to be easily decimated with God’s law; I cannot help but see shoots of pharisaical religion springing up within them. From some such preachers, any lessons on positive topics seem shallow, lacking emotion, and uninspiring, while they are quite capable of producing passionate epilogues on “the issues.” May I humbly suggest that more time needs to be spent in private meditation and public proclamation of positive and good things?40 Some can even be quoted saying “positive preaching is shallow and lacks substance.” While that is true in many !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 32 Matthew 23; Luke 18:9-14; Matthew 15:7-9; John 8:19, 37-47; 1 Timothy 1:5 33 Matthew 15:8-9 34 Luke 23:34a; Acts 2:14-38 35 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Matthew 5:44, 48; John 3:16 36 Matthew 23:1-4; Galatians 6:13 37 Galatians 5:14; 6:13-14 (KJV); Romans 10:4 38 Romans 5:1-11; Romans 3:20-31 39 Romans 1:16-17 40 Philippians 4:8

! 63 mainstream churches today, it is also true that there are tremendous riches and depths of God’s love to be studied, meditated upon, and proclaimed!41 Man’s compulsion with rivalry is witnessed in every aspect of life from sports, to politics, to nationality, and unfortunately religion. At the core is a seeking of pride, belonging, and fulfillment. While Christians are truly at war with Satan and evil, it is not for the sake of earthly rivalry among men, it is for God’s glory and victory!42 Our fulfillment should be in knowing and glorifying God and saving souls!43 Paul could have taken pride in his credentials, but counted all things loss for Christ.44 In the grand scheme of things, God will defeat his archrival Satan along with his followers, and Christians will share in the victory.45 But here on earth, our role in that war is not to revel in our separateness from or superiority to the weak and lost. Such an attitude makes for a modern day Pharisee, known for offering hasty judgment and very little mercy to those who need it.46 The Lord has cautioned that He will judge the judgmental in like manner.47 Additionally, idolization of law leads one away from the law into man-made false doctrines. This is most ironic as idolizers of law spend most of their time defending the law and combating “false doctrine,” yet the Pharisees exemplified this perfectly with their traditions and hedges they built around the law.48 While they fancied themselves as being extra- righteous, they failed even to keep the weightier matters of the law, committing the woeful error of hypocrisy and extreme self-righteousness.49 We must acknowledge that idolization of law today will quickly lead Christians down the same path into binding where God has not bound and drawing lines of fellowship based upon our affiliations with others who keep our own man-made laws. Finally, the Pharisees were predominantly concerned with being pleasers of men.50 I have witnessed brethren joking about, belittling, and even insulting others who believe differently, enjoying the hearty “Amen” and laughter of like-minded brethren at the expense of visitors and weak members who may believe the error being targeted that particular day. This is the height of Pharisaical hypocrisy, for they woefully transgress and place a stumbling block even as they “defend the truth.” We must expose error and proclaim truth, but we must do so in the right spirit.51 To qualify, I firmly believe in standing unwaveringly for and defending truth, but it must be done in love and with the right heart for the purpose of serving God and saving souls, else it leads down a winding path of darkness and betrayal. Additionally, we ought to spend much time rejoicing and doing good, not just combating evil.52 Let us guard against attitudes of law without love, idolization of law, negative thinking, obsession with being right, compulsion with rivalry, man-made laws, and a

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 41 Ephesians 3:8, 9, 17-21; Romans 10:15 42 Ephesians 6:10-20; Revelation 15:1-4 43 Luke 19:9, 10 44 Philippians 3:1-9 45 1 Corinthians 15:56, 57; 1 John 5:4, 5; Revelation 15:1-4 46 Luke 18:9-14 47 Matthew 7:1-5 48 Matthew 15:8, 9 49 Matthew 23:23, 24 50 Matthew 23:5-12 51 Galatians 6:1-2; Matthew 18:6-7; 1 Corinthians 13 52 Galatians 6:9, 10; Romans 6

! 64 desire to please men. Let us cut out roots of pharisaical religion from our hearts and walk in love.53

Not Like the Judaizers

In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he confronts hypocrisy among some of the Jewish disciples and even a digression to return to the law. Driven by fear of persecution, Peter, Barnabas, and others would not openly associate with the Gentiles who were of the Faith.54 Further, the brethren followed in traditions of observing “days, months, seasons and years” (Galatians 4:10). Again to avoid persecution and because of pride in tradition, some sought to continue the practice of circumcision.55 So what? Does it really matter? At issue is whether or not we are saved “by grace through faith” or “by law through works.” There is a difference, and it absolutely matters! Paul begins by reasserting that justification is not by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus.56 He then dramatically describes his conversion:

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

Why the need to put to death the old man? Because he was dead in sin, condemned by law.57 Why the need to put away the law? Because law cannot bring about righteousness or justification.58 Under the law is bondage to keep the law and to pay the penalty for breaking it, but under Christ and the new covenant of promise through Abraham is freedom and adoption as sons.59 Therefore, to cling to the “weak and beggarly elements” of the law is to remain under bondage (Galatians 4:9). Salvation cannot be by law and by grace, it is either by grace or it is by law, for to cling to the law causes one to fall from grace back into hopeless debt to keep the whole law.60

If the old law is dead, and salvation is now of grace and not law, then was Paul calling the Galatians to lawlessness? Most certainly not! In Galatians 5:13-14, Paul calls the brethren to liberty, but liberty is not license. In Galatians 5:6, Paul says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” So, while salvation is not “by law through works,” Paul is teaching that saving faith works. In Galatians 5:16-26, Paul discusses Spirit-led living versus flesh-led living. If Christ is living in us, and the flesh has been crucified, we ought to walk in love according to the Spirit:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 53 Ephesians 5:1-3 54 Galatians 2:11-13 55 Galatians 6:12, 13 56 Galatians 2:16 57 Galatians 3:10-12 58 Galatians 3:21 59 Galatians 4:1-7, 21-31; 3:15-18, 26-29 60 Galatians 5:1-6

! 65 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14)

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:2)

While the old law and covenant have passed away, there is a new law and covenant in effect, the law of Christ.61 Christ did not do away with law entirely, but with the old law that served as a tutor and a copy, He ushered in a new covenant of grace with a better sacrifice that is able to put away sin.62

Conclusion: Saved Like Abraham

Abraham received the promise that in him a heavenly blessing would touch all nations. Abraham, while considered by the Hebrews to be their father, was in a much more significant sense, the father of all believers, both Jew and Gentile, and it was by belief that he was made righteous.63 Conclusively, all people of all races and under all dispensations (e.g. Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian), are saved “by grace through faith” just as Abraham, the Ephesians, and the Galatians:

And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29)

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.” (Galatians 4:28)

Salvation is not “by law through works,” but, praise be to God, “by grace through faith”:

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Galatians 6:7-10)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 61 Galatians 4:21-31 62 Hebrews 9:16-28 63 Galatians 3:5-9, 13-14, 26-29

! 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Holy Bible. The New King James Version. Copyright ©1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Turner, Allan. The Christian & Calvinism. Roswell, GA: Allanita Press, 2007.

! 67

! 68 What Does the Bible Really Teach about Predestination?

By Allan Turner

The Bible tells us the “Father of glory,”1 the “Lord of glory,”2 and the “Spirit of glory”3 are all three involved in a great endeavor to bring “many sons to glory.”4 This plan, appropriately called the Scheme of Redemption, both originated and culminates in eternity.5 When one reads the verses cited, it is difficult to avoid the idea that this glorious scheme is, in the mind of God, a “done deal.” But not a done deal the way the Calvinists claim. Yes, the Greek word proorizo, translated in the KJV as “predestinate,” does mean to “predetermine,” “decide beforehand,” or “foreordain.”6 However, this does not mean that God made a choice of those He would save independent of anything they would do of their own free wills, as Calvinists wrongly teach. Instead, God decreed in eternity (i.e., He predestinated) that those who were going to be saved would be conformed to the image of His Son, as Romans 8:29 says.

Contrary to the determinists’ point of view, God did not choose individuals to be saved unconditionally. Instead, based upon His foreknowledge, He predestinated (or determined beforehand) those who would be saved conditionally (i.e., those who would be conformed to the image of His Son). As Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:4-5:

...just as He [the Father] chose us in Him [Jesus Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

Consequently, when the divine Logos came to this earth as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 in order to “taste death for everyone,”7 He did so for the ultimate purpose of redeeming those who would be the “many sons” and “many brethren” of Hebrews 2:10 and Romans 8:29. And, although the Father foreknew those who would be conformed to the image of His Son, the actual work of atonement was not limited to just these individuals, for it is not now, nor has it ever been, God’s desire that anyone should perish.8 Even so, it is only those who are conformed to the image of His Son (i.e., those who are “predestined to...adoption as sons”9) who will eventually be saved. Concerning

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1Ephesians 1:17 21 Corinthians 2:8 31 Peter 4:14 4Hebrews 2:10 5Romans 8:29, 30 6See Strong’s Concordance 7Hebrews 2:9 82 Peter 2:9 9Ephesians 1:5! ! 69 these, Paul wrote, “Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”10

The theological concepts of “universal salvation” and “once saved, always saved” are not taught in the Bible. However, the idea that God knows those who are His—not just now but forever—is something that is clearly taught in the Bible.11 In fact, it is this group (who are also known by God individually) that Paul wrote about in 2 Corinthians 3:18, where he said:

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

In other words, as we see the glory of the Lord (i.e., the fullness of His grace and truth),12 we are being transformed into the image of His Son.13 Without being “conformed” or “transformed” into His image, one can neither become a Christian nor remain a Christian. This image, disposition, or mind to which all true Christians must be conformed is perfectly explicated by the earthly existence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and is referred to in Philippians 2:5-8. Those of us who live in the flesh, like the Word who took upon Himself flesh, must humble ourselves just as He humbled Himself. We must become obedient even unto death, just as He did.

With all this said, anyone who thinks this means that the Christian must live perfectly in order to be saved is seriously mistaken. Yes, Jesus lived perfectly sinless in all His doings,14 and we believe it is this perfection that Jesus was referring to when He told Philip: “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’”15

And, as we have already learned, the Bible makes it clear that we must be conformed to the Lord’s image; but the Bible teaches us just as clearly that the only way we can possess perfection is by the gift of righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ.16

Addressing this very point, Paul said to Titus:

But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.17 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10Romans 8:30 112 Timothy 2:19; cf. Luke 10:20; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; Romans 8:29-30 12John 1:14 13Romans 8:29 14John 8:29, 34, 46; cf. 1 John 3:5, 8-9 15See John 14:6-11 16Romans 3:21-22; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9 17Titus 3:4-7 ! 70

Then, writing to the Ephesians about the same thing, Paul said:

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.18

These passages, if they mean anything, and they mean a lot, teach that a man isn’t saved by his perfect doing (i.e., works), for under such a system, all are found wanting. With this said, it is time to notice what the Scriptures say about the righteousness of God (viz., the imputed righteousness) that is ours by “grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”19

Sinless Perfection Vs. Imputed Righteousness

As some grudgingly admit, “walking in the light”20 is not sinless perfection. I say “grudgingly,” because after hearing a brother in Christ upbraid another for teaching that walking in the light is not sinless perfection, I talked with this individual about what I thought were his misrepresentations of the position of the one being critiqued, who was, as is too often the case, not present to defend himself. After discussing the issue for a while, I finally asked him this question: “Do you believe that walking in the light is sinless perfection?” After a long pause, he said: “No.” “But,” he continued, “it’s dangerous for us to say so publicly because those in the pews, who are not as studied as we are, will take this and run off into Calvinism.” I was both shocked and sickened by the hypocrisy and clerical superiority I saw and heard that day.

Yes, like many others, I believe some have gone too far in their interpretation of 1 John 1:5-10. In fact, some believe and teach what I think is egregious error on this passage. Even so, this does not give me or anyone else the right to misrepresent either this passage or what someone might have said about it.

When we read 1 John 1:5-10, it is clear that God is not just “in the light,” as verse seven points out, but “God is light,” as verse five indicates. This means that righteousness is not a standard by which God is to be judged—instead, God is the standard! Sinful creatures that we are, we will always find ourselves coming up short of this standard.21 It is true that when the Light of the world22 took upon Himself flesh and lived among us He was

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 18Ephesians 2:4-9 19See Romans 3:21-24 201 John 1:7 21See Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16 22John 1:9; 9:5 ! 71 perfectly righteous in all His thinking, saying, and doing. Nevertheless, as we, His followers, “walk in the light as He is in the light,” this will not be a perfect walk—we will make mistakes; we will sin. To deny this is to call God a liar.23 However, when we do sin—and again the Bible says we will—we will confess our sin, if we are truly “walking in the light”(v. 9), and ask the Lord to forgive us, and then confidently trust that He has, in fact, done so.24

Now, although no flesh has any cause to glory in His presence,25 because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,26 as we become obedient to Christ, we do receive a “righteousness of God” that is not our own.27 The New Testament refers to this as imputed righteousness.28 Some—the Calvinists are notorious for this—have mistakenly thought that the righteousness imputed to the obedient believer entails Jesus’ perfect life. In other words, many wrongly think that God no longer sees the sins of His saints when He views them. According to this doctrine, when God looks at Christians, He only sees the perfect doings of Jesus while He was here on this earth—perfect doings which have now been imputed or accredited to us. This view is completely false! The righteousness imputed to the obedient believer is not derived directly from the Lord’s perfect life. Instead, our imputed righteousness derives from the fact that Jesus’ sacrificial death satisfied the debt we owed for our sins.29 In this way, according to Romans 4:5, and this way only, we, “the ungodly,” have been justified.30 Thus, if God has so justified us, who is it that can bring a charge against God’s elect and make it stick?31

But, and here is another critical point, although we are no longer under a system of perfect law-keeping for justification, we are “under law toward Christ.”32 As we follow Him as absolute Lord of our lives,33 we are under obligation to be conformed to His image while He was here on earth so we can one day be conformed to His glorified image in heaven.34 As we do so, we become involved in those works (i.e., righteous deeds) God previously prepared for us: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”35 By doing so, we are able to “prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”36 In fact, the Bible teaches that the Lord redeemed us from “every lawless deed” and purified us as His own special people that we might be “zealous for good works.”37

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 231 John 5:10 24Verse 9; see also 1 John 5:14, 15 251 Corinthians 1:29 26Romans 3:23 27Romans 1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9 28See Romans 4:11, 23-25 29Romans 5:18 30Acts 13:39; Romans 3:24; Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:4-7 31Romans 8:33 321 Corinthians 9:21 33Acts 2:36; Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:6 34Romans 8:29 35Ephesians 2:10 36Romans 12:2 37Titus 2:14 ! 72 These good works reflect the glory of God, just as Jesus of Nazareth reflected the glory of God in the works He performed while here on this earth.

Today, as we develop the mind of Christ, we reflect God’s glory. Although the reflection of this glory is not perfect, as it was in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, it is glorious nevertheless. Beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, we “are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.”38 Notice that Paul wrote, “from glory to glory.” We believe this expression means that as we follow Jesus as Lord, we are being transformed from the glory we now reflect in Christ to the glory we will eventually have in heaven. Now, neither this passage nor any others in the Bible teach that once we have been saved from our past sins by our obedience to Christ, we will always be saved. On the contrary, like Jesus, we too must be faithful unto death.39 The Bible teaches that a child of God can be eternally lost.40 At the same time, the Bible teaches that the same foreknowledge that allowed God to know His plan for redeeming man would not fail,41 is the same foreknowledge that allowed Him to know beforehand that “many sons” would be brought “to glory” through His Son, Jesus Christ.42 We believe that the “to glory” in this verse is equivalent to the “to glory” of 2 Corinthians 3:18. Consequently, it refers to the eternal glory that we will one day share with our glorified Lord.43 These passages, of course, refer to the glorified human body (i.e., the “it” of 1 Corinthians 15:42-44) of which Jesus now partakes and which we, if we remain faithful unto death, will one day share.

Jesus, The Man, The Firstborn Among Many Brethren

Contrary to what some among us appear to think, Jesus did not quit being a man when He returned to heaven, but even now continues in heaven as a “man”44 who, as our Mediator, lives to make intercession for us.45 In this regard, it is interesting to note that Jesus, in Colossians 1:18, is referred to as the “beginning, the firstborn from the dead.” “Beginning” here, I think, has reference to Jesus being the “Beginning of the creation of God,”46 which is not referring to the old creation, which the Lord, as Logos, was very much involved in, but the new creation which exists only in connection with Christ.47 Therefore, I believe this expression (i.e., “the beginning”) refers specifically to His position as the “firstborn from the dead,” which, in this case, means not only preeminence but also first in occurrence.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 382 Corinthians 3:18 39Revelation 2:10 40Hebrews 10:26-31; 2 Peter 2:20-22; Revelation 3:5 41Acts 2:23 42Hebrews 2:10 43Romans 8:18-23; 2 Corinthians 4:17-5:5; Philippians 3:20, 21; Colossians 3:4; 1 Peter 5:1-4, 10 441 Corinthians 15:48; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 10:12, 13 45Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25 46Revelation 3:14 472 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15 ! 73 Jesus’ resurrection was the first ever of its kind. That is, He is the only one who has been raised from the dead, never to die again.48 But the time is coming when His saints will be resurrected and glorified as well.49 Therefore, Jesus’ resurrection and glorification may be viewed as the beginning of the “new heavens and the new earth” of 2 Peter 3:13. The process,50 which will be accomplished when death has been totally destroyed by the resurrection of all the dead and the glorification of those justified by the precious blood of our Lord, has already begun! In His revelation to John, the Lord from heaven says: “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.”51

Without The Resurrection, We Have Absolutely No Hope

Jesus’ resurrection is not only the beginning point of God’s new creation; it is actually the very foundation of it. The power of His endless, indestructible, or indissoluble life, according to Hebrews 7:16, is the life upon which all life depends.52 It infuses into our souls, sustains a living church in the midst of a lost and dying world, and offers hope for the new creation to come.53 It is this the apostle Paul refers to as, “the power of His resurrection.”54 It does not surprise us, then, that in the midst of a description of the nature of the resurrected body, Paul refers to Jesus as the second and last Adam.55 Jesus, our elder brother,56 as the result of His resurrection, is the beginning of a new family that, unlike those of the first Adam, will be like Him. When we are raised, we will bear His likeness, “that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.”57 Again, this is the reason for our hope.58 Consequently, at this very moment, “...we all, with unveiled face, beholding in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.”59 In 2 Corinthians 4:3-6, Paul said it this way:

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 48Acts 13:34; Romans 6:9 49See again Philippians 3:20, 21 50See Romans 8:29, 30 51Revelation 1:17, 18 52John 5:21, 26; 14:6; Acts 3:15; Galatians 2:20 53See Acts 23:6; 1 Corinthians 15:19; Ephesians 1:17-22; Colossians 1:5 54Philippians 3:10 551 Corinthians 15:45-49 56Galatians 4:4-7; Hebrews 2:10, 11; 12:1-8 57Romans 8:29 581 Peter 1:3; 3:15 592 Corinthians 3:18 ! 74

In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the guarantee of the judgment that will one day take place upon all those who reject Him, for God “...has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”60

“Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.”61 Finally, with Peter, we say:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.62

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 60Acts 17:31 612 Corinthians 5:11a 622 Peter 3:10-13! ! 75

! 76 Who Are The Elect, And Why

By Dan Chaney

I do not know how I can talk about election without talking about predestination. In his book The Faith Once For All, Jack Cottrell makes the point “in reference to persons there is no significant difference between predestination and election.”1 So, I imagine that many of the same verses will be covered, but with slightly different objectives.

Limitations

“A necessary caution in view of the whole subject is that here…“we only know in part,” and in a very limited part. The treatment of “election” has at times in Christian history been carried on as if, less by the light of revelation than by logical processes, we could tabulate or map the whole subject…Where this has been done…where election has been placed in the foreground of the system of religious thought and allowed to dominate the rest…the truth has (to say the least) too often been distorted into an error…For example, the revelation of a positive Divine selection has been made by inference to teach a corresponding rejection ruthless and terrible…For such a thought, not even the darkest words of Rom. 9:18 give Scriptural excuse.”2

The Biblical Doctrine of Election

What immediately comes to mind when you hear the words “election” or “predestination?”

• Some might think you are teaching Calvinism.

• Many might recognize these as biblical words (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:4-5, 11).

These two passages are two of the most misunderstood passages in the Bible. They have been used by Augustinians and Calvinists to teach what is absolutely false. Some in trying to defend against those errors have gone too far the other way and denied what is clearly taught. In some places, it has gotten to the point that we are afraid of these words and we shy away from these passages. In doing so we have missed out on some very powerful and encouraging teaching from God through His Holy Spirit.

1 Cottrell, 388. 2 ISBE, “Election”, 927.

77 Definitions

Eklegomai, the common word meaning “to choose,” and sometimes refers to God’s predestining activity (Mk 13:20, Lk 9:35, Eph. 1:4). Related words are the noun ekloge, meaning “election, the elect, the chosen” (Rom. 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28) and the adjective eklektos, meaning “elect, chosen” (Matt. 24:22, 24, 31; Rom. 8:33; 1 Pet. 1:1).3

“Elected/Chosen” For Roles of Service

The concept of God electing or predestining is not limited just to salvation. God predestined some roles of service, in which some people were used as instruments to carry out His will. Seeing some examples of this will help us to see that the concept of election as it pertains to salvation is conditional.

• Jesus – Isa. 42:1 - “My chosen one/elect one.” See 1 Peter 2:4, 6! The election of Jesus was God’s divine plan. He was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. God foreknew both Jesus’ obedience and His enemies’ disobedience. Jesus was foreordained to die for the sins of the world (Acts 4:28).

At times, other individuals were chosen for special roles in order to carry out God’s purposes. • To create the nation of Israel, God chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Nehemiah 9:7 - “You are the Lord who chose Abram”). • God chose Moses (Ps. 106:23; Moses is described as “His chosen one”). • God chose David (Ps. 78:70 - “He also chose David His servant”). • God even chose Gentile rulers to help carry out His purpose for Israel, e.g., Pharaoh (Rom. 9:17) and Cyrus (Isa. 45:1). • The Apostles were chosen instruments for the establishment of the church. 1. From among His disciples, He “chose twelve of them, whom He also named apostles” (Lk. 6:13). 2. Later, Jesus would also say, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you, that you would go and bear fruit” (John 15:16). 3. Even Paul was chosen for special service (Gal. 1:15-16). 4. An important sub-point: We know that God’s “choosing” did not guarantee salvation. Why? The fact that Judas was among the twelve (John 6:70-71)! God did not “cause” Judas to fulfill this role, but rather God foreknew what he would do as an apostle (see Acts 2:23). 5. Here’s the point: Judas did not betray Jesus because he was chosen to do so. Judas was chosen because God foreknew that he would betray Jesus. Can you see a huge difference between those two statements? • One of the most important groups as it relates to this point is the nation of Israel (Deut. 7:6).

3 Cottrell, 388.

78 1. This election of Israel was the election of the nation in general, not the election of individuals. They were chosen specifically to prepare the way for the coming Messiah. 2. Their corporate election had no necessary connection to the salvation of any particular Israelite. As a nation they could serve their purpose of preparing the way for the Messiah, even if a majority of them were lost. 3. This is exactly the point being made in Romans 9. Cottrell comments:

Some wrongly teach this chapter deals with the predestination of individuals to salvation. Such an interpretation misses the point of the entire chapter, which is to defend God’s sovereign right to unconditionally choose either individuals or groups for roles of service without being bound to guarantee their salvation. By making that point, Paul defends God’s faithfulness in His dealings with Israel. That is, he shows how God could elect them for service and reject them for salvation at the same time.4

Romans 9-11

The context of Romans 9-11 is a powerful aid in helping us understand what election is and is not.

In chapter 8:29-30, Paul says that the elect were called, justified and glorified. After making that statement, Paul asks the question: “what can separate us from the love of God?” The answer is nothing. But is there more to it than that?

Isn’t it interesting that chapter 9 follows? Some of Israel was lost, separated from God. The question is, “Why?”

Israel Rejected Christ (Rom. 9:1-5)

I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen* according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen

Paul said he would give his very life to see his countrymen saved. Look at what they had at their disposal (vs. 4 - adoption, glory, covenants, the giving of the law, service of God, the promises) YET, even after having all of that – some were lost! (To me, that cancels out the idea that election means “always saved,” i.e. perseverance of the saints). Paul is grieving because they are accursed from Christ. They have rejected Christ. But Paul

4 Cottrell, 390.

79 believes their condition can be CHANGED (see Rom. 11:13-14). Because of “unbelief” they were broken off (Rom. 11:23). God could graft them in again. If they were “unconditionally elected,” then Paul’s tears mean nothing. There is no hope for lost Israel!

Not all Israel is Israel: The Example of Isaac and Ishmael (Rom. 9:6-9)

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

Let’s start with Isaac and Ishmael. The choice was with regard to which one the Seed (Christ) would come through. Both were of the seed of Abraham. Both became great nations. The choice/election was not between one being totally depraved or one being lost while the other was saved. The choice was only between which one the Seed would come through. God chose Isaac for the seed line of Christ, and He did not choose Ishmael. But that had nothing to do with election to personal salvation.

However, this example illustrates a very important principle: Not all Israel is of Israel. I believe behind the allegory is what would happen in the Messianic Age; the older son of Abraham would be rejected for persecuting the younger son. The unbelieving Jews were older, but they were rejected in favor of the younger (the Church). There was a fleshly son and a promised son. God promised to bless believing Jews, not just the physical descendants of Abraham. One had to believe to be a true descendant of Abraham (Rom. 2:28-29; John 8:39-47; Col. 2:11-14; we all have the choice of whether we will do this or not.).

Any Jews could be “of Israel” if they would “incline their ear” to God (see Prov. 2:1-5; 4:20-22; Isa. 55:3; Jer. 7:24-26).

The Older Shall Serve The Younger (Rom. 9:10-13)

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Why is this second illustration being used? It’s to illustrate that God purposed to choose the younger over the older in the Messianic age, because the older would represent the Jews, His first people, and the younger would represent the church. The terms “love” and “hate” are not in reference to personal salvation! They are being used as a figure of speech for effect. The effect is that which we expect when God was looking at the future

80 Messianic age in which He foreknew the older (the Jews) would be replaced by the younger (Jesus’ people). Esau was hated, not personally, but in his future representation of an older brother that would play a similar role (do we not see a similar picture of the older brother in Luke 15?)! Older Jews, that were first, would not receive the blessing the new Jews (the church) would receive. This is the point of this illustration. The older would miss the blessing, the younger would receive it.

Does That Mean God Is Unrighteous? May it never be! (Rom. 9:14-18)

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

Was such a choosing by God unrighteous? Was God unrighteous to choose one above another? No, God can do what He wants to (vs. 15). God shows mercy on whom He wills and He hardens whom He wills (vs. 18). Such is God’s sovereign prerogative! (Remember the context! The Jewish nation was chosen/elected, yet some were rejected/separated!).

Paul then uses a third illustration. Pharaoh was raised up for a purpose. It was to show the power of God and so that His name would be declared and glorified in all the earth. God selected a man who had developed his heart and disposition already. (Who hardened Pharaoh’s heart – God or Pharaoh? My answer is both. See Ex. 7:3, 13, 22-23; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:12, 34-35).

The point of this illustration is that God chose a rebellious people (the Israelites) to fulfill the role of bringing in the Messiah. God knew their attitude and the disposition of their heart. He knew not all would believe and obey Him even when they had plenty of good reasons to do so. Moses said of them, “You have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you” (Deuteronomy 9:24). Of them God said: “I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good, according to their own thoughts” (Isaiah 65:2).

Notice that they had their “own thoughts,” not preprogrammed thoughts that God designed into them. Pharaoh was the perfect illustration of how a hardened person can still serve God’s purposes unconsciously.

Why Did God Find Fault With Them Then? (Rom. 9:19-21)

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not

81 the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?”

Why would God blame them for resisting His will (vs. 19)? Paul anticipates a misunderstanding of what he is saying: “Nobody is resisting God’s will, they are fulfilling it. God is the potter who made them that way and they could not help it.” In anticipation of that argument, Paul counters with a reminder that God is indeed the potter, and the clay in His hands can be from the same lump but used for two different purposes. Does the clay have anything to do with this? Yes! But the potter-clay illustration is here used to affirm God’s sovereignty over the clay for different uses. This DOES NOT mean the potter arbitrarily decides which is which and the clay has nothing to do with it. The potter-clay illustration is used precisely to remind them of an earlier use of this illustration. See Jeremiah 18:1-12 below:

The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. 5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. 11 Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.’” 12 And they said, “That is hopeless! So we will walk according to our own plans, and we will every one obey the dictates of his evil heart.”

Can you see from this text that the Jews decided their own fate, but God used their decision as a part in His great plan? Israel chose which role they would play. They chose what type of lump they would be. They had a choice to either be made into vessels of honor or they could continue to rebel and be vessels of dishonor.

Note what Paul said in 2 Tim. 2:20-21:

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.

82 The Longsuffering of God (Rom. 9:22-24)

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

God had a plan to make His power and the riches of His glory known, and He endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath who, by their own decisions and unfaithfulness, decided what role they would play. God did not design them against their will. They chose this role and God used it for His glory.

Likewise, if we want to fill the role God has in mind for the vessels of mercy, we have to make that choice (2 Tim. 2:20-21). The “us” of verse 24 is both Jews and Gentiles. God called us, not Jews only, but Gentiles too.

They Will Be Called “My People” (Rom. 9:25-29)

As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.” 27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved. 28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.” 29 And as Isaiah said before: “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”

“I will call them MY people, who were not My people.” God can do that. God can graft in the Gentiles, even though they were not part of the elected nation, Israel. Such was God’s plan from the foundation of the world, i.e., that the Gentiles would be included. The Jew could not argue that this was not part of God’s written plan -- to include other nations. Their own prophets had told them this ahead of time.

They couldn’t even use the argument that more had rejected than accepted, because God said that only a remnant would be saved. The Israelites in Jeremiah’s day chose to disobey and be a vessel of wrath, and so did the Israelites in Jesus’ day. They determined by their own choices which role, which vessel they would be.

The Present Condition of Israel (Rom. 9:30-33)

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because

83 they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Why did Israel miss it? Because they stumbled over the stumbling stone of Christ. They sought righteousness not by faith, but by WORKS OF THE LAW (9:30-33). The Gentiles attained righteousness by faith. They were not seeking to be righteous before God until the gospel convicted them of their sin and their need for Jesus and the forgiveness He provides. They attained the righteousness of faith.

On the other hand, the majority of Israel was pursuing righteousness based on the Law of Moses, and did not attain righteousness. Why? Because God selected who would or wouldn’t? Because they were totally depraved and couldn’t obey the gospel of Jesus? No, because they did not seek righteousness by faith as they had been divinely instructed. They sought the wrong thing! They were looking in the wrong direction! They stumbled over the rock of Christ!

See Isaiah 28:16-17 below:

So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed. 17 I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line; hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie, and water will overflow your hiding place.”

Do you see they had a choice? God was telling them that trusting (faith) would be the key to having a sure foundation. Yet the bulk of Israel trusted the lie that possessing the Law was proof enough of their righteous relationship with God. They made a refuge out of the Law instead of God being their refuge.

The point of this chapter is that God had a right to choose faithful Jews over unfaithful Jews (not all Israel is Israel), just as He had a right to choose a purpose of honor for Isaac over Ishmael. God had purpose in mind when He chose that the older would serve the younger (Jacob and Esau). God had a right and a purpose in raising up Pharaoh to serve in a “hardened-against-God” role that would ultimately serve to show God’s power and mercy and grace. The potter can make of the clay what he wants and have mercy on whom he wants. None of this is unjust. It all worked to serve God’s purpose. However, any Jew could choose to reverse the role he was playing. He could choose to become a lump of honor.

Thus we come to Romans 10.

My heart’s desire is for Israel to be saved! They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. They are trying to establish their own righteousness and are not including Christ (vs. 1-3).

84

Verse 4 – All who believe in Christ can be made right with God. Jews were lost because they chose not to believe and sought to make their own way.

Read vs. 5-13.

Vs. 6-8 – Anyone who believes can be saved. You don’t have to go down to the depths, or up to heaven. The way to salvation and righteousness is right here. It’s Jesus Christ and He’s right here! Vs. 9 - Confess and believe. Salvation is conditional! Vs. 11 – WHOEVER BELIEVES will not be put to shame – Jew or Gentile. Vs. 13 – WHOEVER calls on the Lord shall be saved.

Does this sound like God picking to you or does it sound like there are conditions? Even more, does it not sound like God will allow anyone who believes, confesses and calls on His name to be saved? How will they call if they do not hear? How will they hear without a preacher? Not all have obeyed (vs. 16). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (vs. 17). (What does God use to call us to Him?).

Chapter 11 shows that the Jews who rejected can return.

The picture is not one of God casting them aside with no hope. It’s not a picture of God making a sovereign choice to grant some salvation while denying it to others. THEY HAVE A CHOICE! They can return. In fact, Paul says that God was trying to “provoke them to jealousy” so they would return (11:11).

The condition for staying grafted in was belief! They were broken off because of their unbelief (11:20). It’s conditional: you stay grafted in if you continue to believe (11:22).

Here’s the point: since Israel was chosen for the specific purpose of preparing the way for the Messiah; once Jesus appeared, Israel’s purpose was done and their destiny fulfilled (Acts 13:32-33; Rom. 9:3-5). Once this purpose was fulfilled, they were no longer God’s elect people (because they rejected God’s conditions of faithfulness to Him!). In the New Covenant age, God has a new elect body, a new Israel: the church. The church as a body is God’s chosen people (1 Pet. 2:9).

A quick application to this point: brethren, we were chosen for a purpose, “to proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Israel was elected for preparation. The Lord’s people today are elected for proclamation. Are you fulfilling your purpose?

Election: What The Bible Says and Over-reactions To False Teaching

When most people hear the words “election” or “predestination,” they are not thinking of service, but of salvation. The question is, are certain individuals elected or predestined to

85 be saved while others are elected and predestined to be lost? If this is the case, then on what basis? What criteria are used? This has been a controversy for quite some time among Bible scholars and believers. Some would suggest that no biblical doctrine has been more misrepresented than the doctrine of predestination and election.

The most unfortunate thing to me is that we have over-reacted to false teachings on this subject, especially among the Lord’s people today. (Another example of this was seen in our realized eschatology study.)

Many people do not consider the idea of election or predestination biblical. That is because they have equated it in their minds with a particular interpretation, namely, the determinist view developed by Augustine and popularized by John Calvin. Recognizing Calvinist predestination as alien to the Bible, they dismiss the doctrine or explain it away altogether.5

Cottrell goes on to say,

This is extremely unfortunate since the doctrine is definitely scriptural; and when rightly understood it is one of the most significant and rewarding teachings of the Bible…The whole counsel of God is not proclaimed when this doctrine is ignored.6

It is very important to understand exactly what followers of Augustine and Calvin mean when they use the terms election and predestination.

According to the Calvinist, before the world was ever created, God not only predestined certain specific individuals to be in heaven for eternity; he also predestined that these certain specific individuals, and these alone, would at a specific appointed time in their lives become believers in God’s saving promises through Jesus Christ. In other words, they are predestined not just to salvation, but to faith itself; not just to heaven as the end or goal of salvation, but also to faith and repentance as the means of salvation (In his notes Cottrell goes on to say, “Some also believe that the rest are predestined to remain unbelieving sinners all their lives and thus condemned to eternal hell. This is the doctrine of reprobation.” - dc). The point is, God predestines some sinners to become believers and to remain believers forever. “The chosen sinners themselves have no say in their own election.”7

The Ole “God Elects The Plan Not The Man” Adage

Some non-Calvinists respond to this view by denying that election/predestination to salvation applies to individuals; they say instead that it applies to a certain class or group without reference to any particular individuals in that group. Whether one is actually a

5 Cottrell, 390. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid, 391.

86 part of this group is his own choice. Thus election to salvation is corporate, and the body elected is the church.

I believe the Bible shows that election and predestination are terms relating to individuals. Allan Turner covers this topic in his book, beginning on page 131. Read Ephesians 1:3-5.

As Turner points out, no matter how you interpret this passage, it’s clear that the “us” and “we” of these verses are “the elect of God.” God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.” In order to “counter what some believe to be the force of the Calvinist’s argument” on this passage (the predestination of individuals to salvation uncon- ditionally), “many have countered with the idea that the only predestination under consideration here is the predestination of a plan, not the specific individuals in that plan.”8 (In Turner’s book, see page 132, paragraph 2 through page 134, paragraph 1. I especially like the phrase “semantical gymnastics.”).

The Bible speaks of persons who are elected or predestined, not a group or an impersonal plan. In Romans 8:29-30, Paul speaks of persons who are not only predestined, but also called, justified and glorified. In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says, “God has chosen you,” the Christians at Thessalonica, “for salvation.” In Romans 16:13, Rufus is identified as an elect person. In 1 Peter 1:1-2, Peter greets the elect Christians in several specific geographical areas. Revelation 17:8 implies that specific names have been written in the book of life “from the foundation of the world.” What can that be except individual election/predestination?

How could God know even before the foundation of the world which individuals would be saved, and could even write their names in the book of life? The answer: God’s foreknowledge, which, according to Scripture, is the very basis for predestination (Rom. 8:29, 1 Pet. 1:1-2, Acts 2:23).

Foreknowledge means that God sees the future; He sees “before-hand.” He’s not near- sighted like man. He’s not limited to vague and blurry images. God has perfect vision and can see clearly every detail. God is outside the limitations of time. Cottrell says, “One cannot believe in predestination according to foreknowledge and at the same time DENY individual predestination.”9 The biblical view is that God elected individuals to salvation before foundation of the world.

How is this different from Calvinistic election?

The Calvinistic view is not just predestination to salvation, but predestination to faith and belief. God determines which unbelievers will become believers. The biblical teaching is that certain individuals are predestined to salvation. Which ones? The ones God foreknows will become believers of their own free will.

8 Turner, 132. 9 Cottrell, 392.

87

The difference is, rather than God-selected unbelievers being predestined to become believers, all foreknown believers are predestined to enjoy the benefits of salvation. GOD KNEW THE ONES WHO WOULD CHOOSE HIM. They are “elected/predestined” to enjoy all the benefits of God.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 – God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.

Allan Turner makes the point in his book – “How could Jesus be the firstborn of MANY brethren? How did God know there would be ANY brethren?”10 (See Rom. 8:29).

God predestined that believers go to heaven and unbelievers go to hell. But God does not predestine anyone to become a believer or remain a believer, or to remain an unbeliever. That is a choice made by each individual. But it is a choice that is FOREKNOWN by GOD!

The Basis of Election – Conditional or Unconditional?

On what basis does God elect certain ones to eternal life? How you answer this is the real difference between being a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist. Calvinists say the election is completely UN-conditional, while non-Calvinists would say God’s election is conditional.

The “U” in Tulip (unconditional election) follows logically after “T” (total depravity). Calvinism teaches that man is born totally depraved and is in the bondage of sin. It is a universal bondage of the will, which means that every person is totally incapable of responding to the gospel without God’s sovereign help. The only way that anyone will ever be saved is only if God supernaturally enables one to believe or respond to the gospel. This is the “I” representing “irresistible grace.”

According to Calvinists, the whole process began prior to creation when God, in one all- encompassing act, decreed in detail everything that would ever take place. God, in His foreknowledge, looked upon the whole of humanity before any one of them was created and selected/elected/chose which individuals He wanted to become believers. The elect were chosen “unconditionally.” God would save them “irresistibly.” The rest (the reprobates) would be left in their sin and excluded from heaven.

And on what basis did God make that decision? What criteria did He use for selecting one above another? They have no idea! The reason for His choices (if there are any) are only known to God.

John Calvin put it this way, “God was moved by no external cause, by no cause outside Himself, in the choice of us but that He Himself, in Himself, was the cause and the author of choosing His people.”11

10 Turner, 135.

88

Here is how the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it:

Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.12

Describing this view, Allan Turner wrote: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His own glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.”13

The Bible teaches Conditional Election

Salvation is conditional. Look at Ephesians 1. Note vs. 4. We are to be holy and blameless. Verse 12 describes those who were “the first to hope.” Verse 13 says that “after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation” the Ephesian brethren “believed!” It sounds like they did something. It sounds like they had to listen to and believe in the gospel of their salvation! It sounds conditional!

“Election never appears as a violation of human will.”14

What would be the implication of “making our call and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10)?

God has promised to grant salvation to whoever meets certain specific gracious conditions by their own freewill choice. The doctrine of election is simply an extension of this point; election is also conditional. The reason God predestines some to go to heaven is that from the vantage point of eternity (being outside of time and space) God knew in advance who would meet the conditions and who would not. Election is based on God’s foreknowledge of who would and would not meet the conditions. All who meet those conditions are part of the Lord’s church (universal). But God’s election was of individuals who would do so, and those, before the foundation of the world (Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:1-2; Rev. 17:8).

The Awesome Truth of Romans 8:28-29

Romans 8:28 identifies what God foreknew. Don’t miss the connection between these two verses - Romans 8:28-29. For and whom are connected to what came before (vs. 29).

11 Cole, 46. 12 Schaff, Vol. III, 609. 13 Turner, 123. 14 ISBE, “Election”, 927.

89 Who is the “whom” – those that “love the Lord” (vs. 28). God foreknew those who would love Him. He foreknew that at one point in their lives they would come to love Him, obey Him and continue to love Him unto the end. This is also seen in 1 Corinthians 8:3, “But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.”

Please do not miss the power of what this passage teaches. God causes all things to work together for good for those who love Him, who are called into His eternal family. How do we “know” this? Because, having foreknown from eternity those who would love Him, God has already predestined them to this state of eternal glory. Our eternal life is a done-deal from God’s view. He knows. He deals with us in time and space where we are, but God already knows.

So how does that relate to the trials that come our way? God uses the temporary trials of life to prepare us to enjoy eternity even more. He uses trials for our good (James 1:2-4), and He makes all things work together for our good. “The firm foundation of God stands having this seal, the Lord knows those who are His…” (2 Tim. 2:19).

90 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calvin, John. “A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God.” Cited in Calvin’s Calvinism and translated by Henry Cole. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.

Cottrell, Jack. The Faith Once For All: Bible Doctrine For Today. Joplin, MO: College Press, 2006.

Orr, James. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.

Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. 4th Edition, 3 Volumes. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1919.

Turner, Allan. The Christian and Calvinism: A Critical Examination of Determinism. Roswell, GA: Allanita Press, 2007.

Wood, D. R. W. New Bible Dictionary: Third Edition. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

91

92 “Blessed Assurance”: What Does the Bible Really Teach about the Perseverance of the Saints?

By Paul Ayres

When studying what the Bible teaches on the perseverance of the saints, I’m reminded of my earliest days as a Christian (1973), when I found myself in a raging battle with some “Hard Shell Baptists” aboard the USS Saratoga (an aircraft carrier). We debated in the chow line, the chow hall, the chapel, the flight deck, the hangar bay, in berthing areas (sleeping quarters), and the last place that I remember debating these folks was in the ship’s library. Actually, the ship’s library held many debates, since I was the ship’s librarian, and I had continual access to it even during the afterhours when it was supposed to be closed.

I remember one of the tracks that these hyper-Calvinists used against the saints who lived on the Sara, and who were making a defense of the gospel. It was entitled Campbellites and the subtitle was Water Dogs. Of course, we would have to defend that we were neither; put simply, we were Christians. The debate hinged on the conditional nature of salvation—we affirmed and they denied. Naturally, TULIP was their sugar stick, and when you contend for TU you must affirm logically LI and P (the perseverance of the saints). We successfully defeated their incorrect biblical view of the perseverance of the saints with scripture after scripture, such as 1 Cor. 10:12, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall” (as well as Matt. 7:21; Rom. 11:22; Gal. 5:4; Heb. 3:12; 6:6; 10:26-27, plus other scriptures).1

During this time, one of their running arguments against our position was: if salvation is conditional, then you can never be confident of your salvation. They said, “The fact that you can lose it would produce uncertainty and a lack of assurance.” In essence, they were affirming that we could not experience comfort (a state of blessed assurance).

Isn’t it ironic, and I must admit—it’s sad, that the three-point Calvinist (denying L and I), four-point (denying L), and five-point Calvinists, who shout loudly about the perseverance of the saints, find themselves in a state of unblessed assurance. But it’s equally sad when true saints find themselves falling into the trap, embracing the devil’s doctrine that blessed assurance, the perseverance of the saints, is nothing but an unrealistic pipe dream.

God’s Attitude toward the Lost

As we embrace this topic, let’s start by noticing God’s attitude toward the lost. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son…” (John 3:16). He “…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). God delays His !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 All quotations of Scripture are taken from the New American Standard Version of the Bible, 1995 edition. 93 ! ! Son’s final return for judgment “…not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). As Ezekiel refers to Israel of old, he makes it abundantly clear that God has no pleasure in the death of wicked (Ezek. 18:23, 32). If this is God’s attitude toward the lost, then what would His attitude be toward the saved? He would act within His omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence to bring about the salvation of His saints (without violating their free moral agency). In His all-sufficiency, He is able to keep the saved, saved (though not unconditionally). Truly, this is the perseverance of the saint, God preserving His people, as they look toward eternity.

Grace and Faith

“For by grace you have been saved through faith…” (Eph. 2:8). I do not need to convince my readers of the importance of grace and our need for it. Hallelujah, God gave unmerited favor (grace) through His sovereignty and foreknowledge by bringing forth His Son into a dying world destined for His wrath. When the Logos came, grace and truth were fully realized (John 1:17). There can be no salvation without God’s grace (Titus 2:11), and we have a continual need for it throughout our Christian lives (1 John 1:7-2:2). This indispensable grace (God’s part) cannot be accessed except by or through faith. There is no perseverance of the saints without true saving faith.

We mentioned earlier several passages that had to do with God’s attitude toward the lost. Each of those passages had mankind doing something (faith) to receive grace “…that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). The saved are those who come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). The wicked avoid perishing when they repent (2 Pet. 3:9); the wicked must turn from their way of life in order to live (Ezek. 18:23, 32). True saving faith is expressed when we humble ourselves before our Creator in total and complete submission to His Will. The Calvinist wrests the word faith, and molds it into a pale imitation of the true biblical concept of saving faith. In John 3:36 Jesus says, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life,” and then He explains what believing in the Son means: “but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” “Does not obey” comes from the Greek word apeithéō, which means, “unwillingness or refusal to comply with the demands of some authority—‘to disobey, disobedience…‘whoever disobeys the Son will never have life’ (literally ‘… will never see life’).2 There are litanies of passages that express the same concept (Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46; Romans 1:5; 16:26; Heb. 5:8-9; 11:6; 1 John 5, etc.). Such passages have nothing to do with merit, but rather faith is corresponding to God’s will and is working through love (Gal. 5:6).

God has tied grace and faith together, and He has made each one dependent upon the other. Man needs grace (God’s part), and God expects man to respond to His grace by faith (man’s part). This brings us to a very important passage of scripture that is parallel to Ephesians 2:8, which is 1 Peter 1:5. It speaks to the issue of the security of believers “who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” Those begotten of God have a living hope through the death and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 Louw-Nida, 467. 94 ! ! resurrection of Christ (vs. 3). By faith we know this untarnished, blessed inheritance is reserved in heaven for the saints (vs. 4). This inheritance is being safeguarded because it is being “protected” by the power of God. We have the Almighty standing watch over us and our heavenly reward. Can you think of a better protector? Now tie Hebrew 13:5 to our security: “…for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.” Though man’s faith can fail (Heb. 3:12), God’s power will never fail, and He will continue with certainty to protect His people who live by faith.

What It Means To Be Washed, Sanctified, and Justified

The apostle Paul reminds the Corinthians of their salvation experience when he said, “…you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). It was when we appealed to God by faith for a clean conscience and were baptized (1 Pet. 3:21), that our sins were washed away (Acts 22:16). We became born of God by water and the Spirit (Jn. 3:5). This birth or cleansing in “pure water” was to have been an action in “full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22). The byproduct of the cleansing, i.e. “…by the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26) brings about the blessed state of sanctification and justification. These words were used by the Holy Spirit to express a state of moral and judicial verdicts. Vine defines sanctification (hagiazo; ἁγιάζω, 37) as “to make holy” (from hagios, “holy”), signifies to set apart for God, to sanctify, to make a person or thing the opposite of koinos, “common….”3 Burton Coffman comments on the word justification in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:11: “Justification has reference to the status of the believer ‘in Christ’ who by virtue of his identity with the Savior does not deserve any punishment whatever; it is a total and complete justification bestowed upon the believer when he is baptized ‘into Christ.’”4

God refers to those who were “not My people” as “My people” when they are in this sanctified and justified state. Listen to the apostle Paul as he reaches back to the prophet Hosea (2:23) in Romans 9:25-26 where he speaks of the promised relationship of the Gentile believers, “I will call those who were not my people, ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’ ” 26 “and it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not my people,’ there they shall be called sons of the living God.” Peter quotes Hosea 2:23 in 1 Peter 2:10. In verse nine he says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Do we not see, by using such language that God wraps those who have been washed, sanctified, and justified in a “security blanket” of blessed assurance? Why would God describe us in such wondrous terms unless He was trying to give us hope and trust in a home where complete security was provided until our ultimate goal was realized?

If we are walking by faith, God desires us to have the same triumphant spirit as the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:31-39. Paul raises a series of questions, giving answers which !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 Vine, 287. 4 Coffman, n.p. 95 ! ! should thrill our souls. “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?” (vs. 31). “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect?” (vs. 33). “Who will separate us from the love of Christ?” (vs. 35). Here’s the conclusion of the matter for the people of God: “But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:37–39).

We can bask in the rays of the Son of God with great joy as we listen to passage after passage that deals with the subject of the perseverance of the saints (John 10:28-30; Jude 24; Phil. 3:20-21; Eph. 3:20). These passages have little application if we do not “hear” the voice of the Shepherd (Jn. 10:27). We must “keep” ourselves in the love of God (Jude 21). Paul pleads with them to “observe those who walk according to the pattern” (Phil. 3:17). Christ will not give these blessings unless our faith is rooted and grounded in love (Eph. 3:17).

God’s Provisions For This Security

God knew that the “evil one” would try to rob the Christian of this security that is in Christ. The Holy One forewarns us about the devouring nature of the deceiver in 1 Peter 5:8. In Ephesians 6:11, He tells us to “put on the full armor of God so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.” He reveals that the enemy is “not flesh and blood” but the invisible forces of wickedness (vs. 12). And sometimes these enemies of humanity will appear as wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15), and his “servants” will be perceived as angels of righteousness (2 Cor. 11:15). God reveals the weapons of Satan’s warfare. His modus operandi is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—to embrace these things is to love the world instead of the Father; these evil lusts will pass away and what will remain are those who do God’s will (2 John 2:15-17). The Holy Spirit assures us, “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13). Two of the ways that Jesus escaped the temptation of the devil was by knowing the scriptures (Matt. 4:11), and by prayer (Luke 22:39-46; Heb. 5:7-10). Thus if we treasure His word by hiding it in our hearts, it will help us not to sin against our God (Psa. 119:11). We know that the apostles were guided into all truth (John 16:13), and that we have the “perfect (whole) law” of “liberty,” whereby when we hear and abide in it, we’re blessed (Jas. 1:25). If it lacked any of its parts (not complete), or it was not “God-breathed,” then it would be an insufficient guide instead of “…equipping man for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16).

We have a Prophet whose word is the final authority in all things (Heb. 1:1-2; Acts 3:22- 23), and when we stand before the Christ in the last day, our deeds and actions will be measured by the words of this Prophet’s book (2 Cor. 5:10; John 12:48). Jesus wants us

96 ! ! to understand the security of the believer is dependent upon love and respect for God’s “final spokesman” and allegiance to His word (John 14:15; 1 John 5:2-3).

The spirit of prayer must be pervasive in our lives as it was with Jesus and the men of God of old, or we will faint (Luke 18:1-8; Jas. 5:16-18). All of this information is to help keep us “…hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3). Philippians 4:6-7 says, “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” We know these passages well. We’re told that prayer is the cure for anxiety, and I believe that anxiety erodes confidence in God and blessed assurance. Prayer connected with thanksgiving brings the peace of God that is beyond human comprehension. It guards our hearts and mind in Christ Jesus. The word “guard” is the same word that was translated “protect” in 1 Pet. 1:5. Literally, it means to build a fort around (fortified). That’s security, folks, and that is blessed assurance. We also have the comfort of knowing that we have the intercessions of the Holy Spirit that will express perfectly our minds to the heavenly Father in times of deep concern or stress (Rom. 8:26). The persons who are in Christ and are devoted to prayer will have strength to fight temptation, grateful and peaceful confidence in God who guards their hearts, and thus blessed assurance.

We have a King and Lord that is above all kings and lords who will deal with all enemies that stand against Him and His people (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; Psa. 2:7-9). He sits exalted at His Father’s right hand ruling until the last enemy is defeated—death (Acts 2:33; 1 Cor. 15:25-26). At the end of time, our King will give back the kingdom to His Father, and the hope of heaven will be transformed into the visible manifestation of glory (1 Cor. 15:24; Col. 3:4). As King, He is quite capable of protecting His faithful subjects!

We have a High Priest whose priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6). The Aaronic priesthood was insufficient, because it was susceptible to the same fate of the human dilemma, sin and death. The High Priest that I am speaking about is unique— He’s described in Hebrews 1:3 as the One who “…is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power…” He is declared by His Father to be His Son—a name that no creature was ever given, not even angels (Heb. 2:4-6). The only begotten Son is to be worshipped by angels, and they live to do His bidding (vs. 7). His Father speaks concerning His Son “your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” (vs. 8). This Son is the second person in the family of God who took on flesh (Jn. 1:1-3, 17; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:6-8). He was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit and He is identified as Immanuel, translated God with us (Matt. 1:23), and the angel told Joseph to call him Jesus, because He was to be the Savior to His people (Matt. 1:21). It was necessary for the incarnate Son to experience humanity for a number of reasons. “For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings”(Hebrews 2:10). This suffering (His death) made propitiation for the sins of the people (vs. 17). W. E. Vines interprets the word propitiation as follows: “…It is God who is propitiated by the vindication of His holy and righteous character, whereby, through the provision He has made in the vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of Christ, He

97 ! ! has so dealt with sin that He can show mercy to the believing sinner in the removal of his guilt and the remission of his sins.”5 Jesus appeases God’s wrath by “…bearing our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). Satan is defeated by the death and resurrection of Christ, and thus death no longer has a hold on the redeemed of God (Heb. 2:14-15). All that Jesus did for God and for us in becoming a man made Him a merciful and faithful High Priest (vs. 17). His human experience (sufferings) and His temptations allow Him to understand and come to our aid when we’re tempted (vs. 18). This speaks directly to the issue of the perseverance of the saints. We have a High Priest that helps us when we are tempted! Heb. 4:15-16 adds this about Jesus’ priesthood: “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

Does it not bring tears to your eyes that we have someone like Jesus who understands the human predicament, yet without sin? And that we are never locked out of the throne of grace, and that we can speak freely to the God of heaven (Master of the universe)? In times past, we may have sheepishly gone to our own earthly fathers seeking relief for some disobedience only to receive criticism and the back of their hand. Our God says, “I’m not too busy, come to Me and you will find mercy and grace in a time of need.” For those that draw near to God, Jesus “…always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). You see, we can have assurance of salvation because we have the ability to be continual cleansers, since He freely shed his blood so that we might have access to it the rest of our lives. The battle over sin is continual (1 John 1:8-10), so prayer, confession, and repentance must be constant. Our goal must always be “not to sin” (1 John 2:1); and if we ever lose that attitude, we walk in darkness destined to perish. Those who love the Lord have the advocacy of Jesus as He stands before the Father for us (vs. 2).

Disciples can persevere in this life because of what God does for them. Paul says in Philippians 1:6, “For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” How does God accomplish this work in them? It could be through His word, or through the service of the brethren individually as well as collectively. It could be God working behind the scenes with His mighty invisible Hand. We sometimes refer to this as His providence. His invisible handy work may involve the use of angels (Heb. 1:14). It may be God “tweaking” us here and there. Paul hypothesized about the invisible Hand of God being responsible for coming in contact with Onesimus (Phile. 15). Paul wasn’t sure, but he didn’t exclude it as a possibility. It would have been possible and very easy for God to bring about changes in the life of Onesimus to bring him to Rome. I do not see in scripture God working against free will, but I do see God working.

I began this lesson by talking about some debates that we had with some Hard Shell Baptists onboard a Navy ship. I just wanted you to know that some of those Baptists learned that Calvinism and their version of the perseverance of the saints didn’t offer the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 Vine, W. and Bruce, F., 223.

98 ! ! hope of heaven. Ultimately, approximately ten of those folks surrendered to the gospel of Jesus Christ. One became a gospel preacher, and one has gone on to be with the Lord. (You may have known him -- John Kempen.) Some remain faithful from those days, and some have surrendered to the evil one.

Disciples can persevere in this life and have blessed assurance by living by faith, accessing grace, knowing we are safeguarded and protected by the power of God, being strengthened by His word, knowing that we have a Prophet, King, and High Priest interceding for us, having peace through prayer, and always depending on His providence.

I’m of the persuasion that the Bible teaches there is security for the believer. How about you?

99 ! ! Bibliography

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. Vol. 1: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (electronic copy of the 2nd edition.). New York: United!Bible Societies, 1996. Vine, W., & Bruce, F. Vol. 2: Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1981.

Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. Vol. 2: Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996.

Internet articles

Coffman, Burton. 1 Corinthians. His commentary series is online at: http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/

100 ! ! What Does The Bible Mean When It Says That God Is “For Us”?

By Allan Turner

As the above title suggests, the Bible teaches that God is, indeed, “for us.” What does this really mean? In order to explore the answer to this question, we’ll see that it involves the one and only true God being (1) our Friend, (2) our Helper, and (3) our Victory.

...Our Friend

As our Friend, God is on our side, willing and able to help us remain faithful to Him. As such, He has anticipated, and graciously supplied, our every spiritual need: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.”1 This is precisely what the apostle Peter was writing about when he said:

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.2

As our Friend, God has graciously given us the Holy Spirit as a “deposit” of our salvation:

For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us. 21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit.3

In 2 Corinthians 5:1-6a, this deposit is called a “guarantee,” and is clearly connected to the resurrected bodies we’ll possess in our glorified state in the heavenly abode:

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 1 Ephesians 1:3 2 2 Peter 1:2-4 3 2 Corinthians 1:20-22

! 101 for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 Therefore we are always confident....

Receiving this guarantee or deposit is referred to, in Ephesians 1:13-14, as being “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”

Clearly, then, God is the Friend who provides us with everything we need to become saved and, praise God, to stay saved. Therefore, with God on our side, as our Friend, we do not fear that, apart from our own wills, we can somehow lose our salvation.

This is verified again in John 10:28-29, which says:

And I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.

And again in Colossians 1:3-6, where Paul says:

We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, 4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of your love for all the saints; 5 because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.

In other words, because God is our Friend, there is laid up for us a heavenly home, and it is in this hope that we are sustained, knowing that God is able to do for us exactly what He has promised He would do. Paul was referring to this very thing when, in 2 Timothy 4:8, he said, “Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.”

Finally, the apostle Peter emphasized this same point when he wrote:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.4

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 1 Peter 1:3-5

! 102 ...Our Helper

Not only is God our Friend, but He is our Helper as well. In this regard, it is helpful to view Jesus as our Elder Brother who is not ashamed to identify us as His brethren. This relationship is addressed in Hebrews 2:11-12, which says: “For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying: ‘I will declare Your name to My brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will sing praise to You.’”5 At the same time, Jesus, our Elder Brother, functions as our Mediator: “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all.”6

But this is not all, for the Scriptures inform us that He also serves as our Advocate. Addressing this, John wrote:

My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.7

In the very next verse, John links Jesus’ advocacy on our behalf with the idea of propitiation, which is a concept that carries with it the idea of turning away God’s wrath which, as sinners, we were unable to do for ourselves. In other words, not only did He give Himself for us, propitiating God’s wrath, but having been resurrected from the dead, He now lives to make intercession for us on a regular basis.8 As such, He is our merciful High Priest:

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.9

Consequently, it is not just that God, through Christ’s blood, has saved us from our past sins, but He continues to do so through that same blood:

But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.10

As our Helper, the Lord delivers us from temptation. This is made clear in 1 Corinthians 10:13, which says:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 This latter quote is taken from Psalm 22:22. 6 1 Timothy 2:5-6a 7 1 John 2:1 8 See Hebrews 7:25 9 Hebrews 2:17-18 10 1 John 1:7-9

! 103 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

And as if this is not enough, as our Helper, the Holy Spirit, we are told in Romans 8:26, makes intercession for us:

Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Even angels, according to Hebrews 1:14, come to our assistance:

Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

Again, in Hebrews 12:22, it is said:

But you have come to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels.

Furthermore, we are assured in Ephesians 3:16 that God, as our faithful and dependable Helper, strengthens us in the “inner man.” This is further amplified in Philippians 4:13, which says, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Such wonderful and exhilarating help caused David, in Psalm 28:6-7, to exult:

Blessed be the Lord, because He has heard the voice of my supplications! 7 The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusted in Him, and I am helped; therefore my heart greatly rejoices, and with my song I will praise Him.

Finally, as our caring Helper, God sometimes even chastens us for our own good, as Hebrews 12:5-7 points out:

And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; 6 for whom the LORD loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives.” 7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten?

Then, there are those blessings our Helper has designed specifically for us in order to aid in the security of believers. The first of these is the Congregation Relationship and is mentioned in Hebrews 10:24-25:

And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

! 104 The Lord knew that we needed each other, and all of us who have had the privilege of associating with other Christians know full well the encouraging advantage of our fellow saints.

Next, we’ll look at the Special Servants our glorious Helper has blessed us with. This is seen from a reading of Ephesians 4:11-16, which says:

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Then there is the actual Lord’s Day and the assembling associated with it:

Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.11

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.12

In connection with this, of course, is...

The Lord’s Supper:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.13

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 Acts 20:7 12 Colossians 3:16 13 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

! 105 The Scriptures:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.14

And Prayer:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; 7 and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.15

...Our Victory

As our Victory, God defeats Satan for us. As a result, we can be sure that the Lord fights our battles for us:

And Asa cried out to the Lord his God, and said, “Lord it is nothing for You to help, whether with many or with those who have no power; help us, O Lord, You are our God...”16

“Be strong and courageous, do not be afraid nor dismayed before the king of Assyria, nor before all the multitude that is with him; for there are more with us than with him. 8 With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God, to help us and to fight our battles.” And the people were strengthened by the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.17

And when the servant of the man of God arose early and went out, there was an army, surrounding the city with horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” 16 So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” 17 And Elisha prayed, and said, “Lord, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” Then the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.18

Consequently, the Christian’s faith is in God’s power, not our own abilities, and this is exactly what Paul taught when he wrote that our faith “should not be in the wisdom of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14 2 Timothy 3:16-17 15 Philippians 4:6-7 16 2 Chronicles 14:11 17 2 Chronicles 32:7-8 18 2 Kings 6:15-17

! 106 men but in the power of God.”19 Elsewhere he explained that it was his desire that all Christians be able to fathom just “what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power.”20

This means that with God as our Victory, overcoming evil is something we can be quite confident of because, “You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than He who is in the world.”21 This is, indeed, reminiscent of what Elisha told his servant in 2 Kings 6:16.

Therefore, whatever confidence and boldness the Christian has are possible because of God’s magnificent triumphs, particularly in His grand Scheme of Redemption: “[A]ccording to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.”22 This is explained further in the following passages:

For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our hearts, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.23

Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.24

Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.25

And finally, in Philippians 4:6-7:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be known to God; 7 and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

In summary, there can be no doubt in the believer’s mind that God is for us! As our Friend, He is on our side, willing and able to help us remain faithful. As our Helper, He protects us and provides for our spiritual welfare. As our Victory, He defeats Satan for us. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19 1 Corinthians 2:5 20 Ephesians 1:19 21 1 John 4:4 22 Ephesians 3:11-12 23 1 John 3:20-22 24 1 John 4:17-18 25 1 John 4:14-16

! 107 Consequently, along with Paul, we glorify our great Friend, wonderful Helper, and our absolute Victory by exclaiming:

Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.26

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 26 Ephesians 3:20-21

! 108 The Impact of Calvinism on the Lord’s Church

By Chris Reeves

Without question, the theology of John Calvin has had one of the greatest impacts on Christianity in general and Protestantism in particular in our modern era.1 Calvin’s influence over the Protestant world can hardly be over-estimated or over-stated. John Calvin influenced the religious world of his day just as Augustine of Hippo had influenced the religious world of his day and even later Calvin himself. Calvin’s influence continues to this day. Marshall E. Patton wrote:

It is next to impossible to measure the influence of the Calvinistic concept upon the religious world. Outside of Catholicism, practically the whole denominational world has embraced it to a greater or lesser degree.2

Philipp Schaff wrote of Calvin’s influence this way:

Calvin’s moral power tended over all the Reformed Churches and over several nationalities – Swiss, French, German, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian, Dutch, English, Scotch and American. His religious influence upon the Anglo-Saxon race in both continents is greater than that of any native Englishman and continues to this day.3

Over the past 200 years, John Calvin’s teachings have also impacted the Lord’s church. From the early 1800’s to the present, there have been members of the Lord’s church who have left Calvinism, members who have confronted Calvinism, and members who have accepted Calvinism. The impact of Calvinism on the Lord’s church has now come full circle in our own generation. The Calvinism that was once rejected by brethren is now whole-heartedly accepted by some in the Lord’s church. Like the Israelites of old who wanted a king “like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:5, 20), some brethren today want a theology “like all the denominations.” The prevalent theology of today’s denominations just happens to be Calvinism.

Our study of Calvinism this week is not merely an academic exercise in philosophizing about God’s sovereignty, nor is it about engaging in a week’s worth of interesting hypothetical opinions about how man is saved. Calvinism and its negative impact on the Lord’s church are real! There are numerous errors of Calvinism that run contrary to the truth of God’s word and brethren who follow these errors will be eternally lost. We must

1 John Calvin published his theology in 1536 in a work titled, The Institutes of Christian Religion. Calvin’s Institutes is considered by those in Protestantism to be one of the greatest works on systematic theology ever written. For those interested in studying Calvin’s impact on the world in general, see: John Calvin’s Impact on Church and Society: 1509 – 2009. Martin Ernst Hirzel and Martin Sallmann, Editors. Eerdmans, 2009. 2 “Faith and Works,” 153-154. 3 Quoted by Cherrill Schmid in “The Impact of Calvinism on the Restorers”, 22. 109 learn from our recent past and understand the negative impact of Calvinism on the Lord’s church so that we can help brethren remain faithful to God’s word. We cannot live in the past. However, we can look to the past and learn from it if we hope to live right in the future and not die wrong in the present.

My assignment in this paper is to document the impact of Calvinism on the Lord’s church. I will do so using three divisions of recent history under three headings: Leaving Calvinism (1800 to 1850), Confronting Calvinism (1850 to 1950), and Accepting Calvinism (1950 to 2012). I will give a basic overview of the historical movement in the main text of the paper. Any critique I offer against Calvinism along the way can be found in the footnotes.

Leaving Calvinism: 1800 to 1850

During the late 18th Century and early 19th Century, there was a “Second Great Awakening” on the American frontier. Many men and women with a renewed zeal to serve the Lord wanted to “restore” or come back to New Testament Christianity at this time. In addition to leaving denominational organizations (synods, etc.) and denominational practices (infant baptism, etc.), pioneer restorers at this time also left behind the denominational theology of Calvinism. Many in the Restoration Movement who came out of Congregational, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist churches did so because they came to realize the errors of their former Calvinistic theology. These restorers could no longer square Calvin’s teachings with the Bible and so they abandoned Calvin for Christ. The general commitment to Bible study and a strong sense of rugged individualism (human responsibility) that existed in society at this time led many to believe that Calvin’s theology had to undergo serious modification. For example, they left Calvin’s doctrine of unconditional election and predestination for the Bible’s teaching on free will and conditional salvation.4 They maintained a proper understanding of faith and works and rejected Calvin’s concept of salvation by grace alone.5 They abandoned Calvin’s doctrine of the eternal security of the saints (“once saved always saved”) for the Bible’s teaching on the possibility of apostasy.6 Among the restorers at this time who were willing to think for themselves and study their Bibles, the long- standing traditional theology of Calvin had to go. Here are a few examples:

Barton W. Stone. As a young man, Barton W. Stone had been in the Baptist Church and Methodist Church. Later, he was ordained a minister in the Presbyterian Church, but he had difficulty completely accepting the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643). According to Stone, he was willing to accept this Confession only as far as it was consistent with the word of God. In particular, Stone struggled with Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity, the narrow doctrine of unconditional election, and Jesus’ limited atonement. Stone could not see how the gospel invitation could and should be extended to all people if they were so totally depraved that they were unable to believe it anyway.

4 William E. Wallace, “Election and Free Will.” 5 Marshall E. Patton, “Faith and Works.” 6 John Clark, “Security of Believers.” 110 And how could he preach to all if Jesus died only for a limited number of elect? Stone would comment on his struggle this way:

I at that time believed and taught that mankind was so totally depraved that they could do nothing acceptable to God till his Spirit, by physical, almighty and mysterious power, had quickened, enlightened and regenerated the heart, and thus prepared the sinner to believe in Jesus for salvation. . . . Often when I was addressing the listening multitudes on the doctrine of total depravity, on their inability to believe and on the physical power of God to produce faith, and then persuading the helpless to repent and believe the gospel, my zeal in a moment would be chilled by the contradiction. How can they believe? How can they repent? How can they do the impossibilities? How can they be guilty in not doing them? Such thoughts would almost stifle utterance, and were as mountains pressing me down to the shades of death. I tried to rest in the common salvo of that day - i.e., the distinction between natural and moral ability and inability. The pulpits were continually ringing with this doctrine; but to my mind it ceased to be a relief….7

During the years of 1803 and 1804, Stone and others like David Purviance8 broke away from the Washington Presbytery and began to attack specific points of Calvinism contained in the Presbyterian Confession. Between 1801 and 1804 other men such as Elias Smith and Abner Jones left the Baptist churches and broke with Calvinism as Stone had done.

Thomas Campbell. When he came to America in 1807, Thomas Campbell left his homeland of Scotland and soon left his religion of Presbyterianism (the Seceder branch of the Church of Scotland). It was Thomas Campbell who coined the phrase, “Where the scriptures speak, we speak, and where the scriptures are silent, we are silent.” When he applied this principle to his own religion, Campbell found himself renouncing Presbyterian practices (infant baptism) and Calvinistic theology.

Alexander Campbell. Like his father before him, Alexander Campbell came to the same conclusion that his Presbyterian upbringing was not according to scripture (his mother was a member of a Calvinistic Huguenot Church). He too left behind the infant baptism that he once preached and other Calvinistic doctrines and practices. In 1812, Alexander, his wife and a few others were scripturally immersed in baptism. From 1813 to 1830, Campbell spent his time among Baptist associations (Redstone and Mahoning). These Baptists followed the Philadelphia Confession of Faith which is strongly Calvinistic in its theology. But, Campbell soon became a “heretic” to these Baptists because of his continual opposition to their denominational ways and to Calvin’s doctrine of unconditional election. During his lifetime, Campbell participated in several debates, three of which dealt with Calvinism (The Campbell – Rice Debate, 1842). He preached sermons (The Law), wrote books (The Christian System) and wrote numerous articles (The Christian Baptist and The Millennial Harbinger) refuting the teachings of

7 Quoted by Cherrill Schmid in “The Impact of Calvinism on the Restorers”, 22. 8 Ron Halbrook, “David Purviance: Journey Out of Calvinism,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 29 (May 1, 1977), 204-209. 111 Calvinism. Campbell’s opposition to Calvinism would set the stage for the next period of history. Following Campbell’s lead, brethren in the mid to late 1800’s began to openly confront Calvinism.

“Raccoon” John Smith. Reared in a Baptist home under the teaching of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, John Smith looked for the divine “sign” to be saved and later the divine “sign” to go and preach. He believed he had found both. He was voted into the Baptist Church and later became a successful and influential Baptist preacher. Later in life, however, Smith struggled with the same thing that bothered Barton W. Stone. Smith had trouble squaring Calvin’s teaching on unconditional election and total depravity with the biblical picture of the gospel invitation to all. By 1825, with the help of Alexander Campbell and his paper, the Christian Baptist, Smith learned the truth and soon stood against Calvinism. Smith wrote this about Calvinism’s influence:

Let me here speak when I shall be lying under the clods of the grave. Calvinism is among the heaviest clogs on Christianity in the world. It is a dark mountain between heaven and earth, and is amongst the most discouraging hindrances to sinners from seeking the kingdom of God, and engenders bondage and gloominess in the saints. Its influence is felt throughout the Christian world, even where it is least suspected. Its first link is total depravity.9

Walter Scott. Another Baptist minister, who was influenced by Alexander Campbell to leave Calvinism, was Walter Scott. In 1829, he wrote in Campbell’s Christian Baptist how that the Apostles never preached election to un-converted people the way that Calvinists do. Scott proclaimed that New Testament disciples were elect because they believed, not that they believed because they were elect. In 1832, Scott wrote in The Evangelist about the importance of man’s obedience in accepting God’s gracious gift of salvation. Scott preached that man must hear, believe, repent, confess and be baptized.

Confronting Calvinism: 1850 to 1950

In the mid to late 1800’s, men and women continued to leave Protestant denominationalism for simple, New Testament Christianity. The Restoration Movement had gained momentum by this time across the American frontier and more individuals had come to know what it meant to practice undenominational Christianity. Not only did men and women abandon the tenants of Calvinism, but they also spoke out against Calvinism. Hershel Patton wrote: “For years Calvinism had no impact upon New Testament Christianity at all, except as a heresy to be met by strenuous opposition.”10 There was “strenuous opposition,” indeed. During these years, numerous sermons were preached,11 articles written, books published and debates conducted to answer each tenet

9 Quoted by Cherrill Schmid in “The Impact of Calvinism on the Restorers”, 24. 10 “The Impact of Calvinism on the Church in This Century,” 25. 11 See F.L. Rowe, Pioneer Sermons and Addresses. Cincinnati: F.L. Rowe, 1880; and B.C. Goodpasture and W.T. Moore, Biographies and Sermons of Pioneer Preachers. Nashville: B.C. Goodpasture, 1954. 112 of Calvinism.12 An obvious militant attitude toward Calvinism existed among brethren at this time. A second generation of restoration preachers picked up the torch of truth from Campbell and others and continued their fight against Calvinism. Chief among these men were J.W. McGarvey, Moses E. Lard, and I.B. Grubbs. Unlike today, there was unanimity among the Lord’s people regarding their opposition to Calvinism. Many Calvinists of the day were like the Devil who isolated passages and took them out of context (Mt. 4:6; Psa. 91:11-12), while many brethren of the day were like the Lord who put all the Bible truths together in context (Mt. 4:7; Deut. 6:16).

Articles. In addition to what Campbell had already written against Calvinism, many articles were written at this time to confront Calvinism. J.W. McGarvey wrote a masterful piece entitled “Justification by Faith” in Lard’s Quarterly (Vol. 3, pp. 113-129). In this article, McGarvey answered Calvin’s faith-only brand of salvation by pointing out what Paul (in Romans) and James actually meant when they wrote about “justification”, “faith,” and “works”. McGarvey taught that “justification by faith” includes obedience to the gospel. I.B. Grubbs wrote similarly in Lard’s Quarterly.

Books. One major work written to answer Calvinism at this time was published by Aylett Rains in 1833, titled A Repudiation of Hereditary Total Depravity. Another book authored by T.W. Brents in 1874 was titled The Gospel Plan of Salvation.13 Brents wrote in order to set forth the pattern for the New Testament church, to outline the gospel plan of salvation, and to confront Calvinism. The first five chapters of Brent’s book dealt with matters answering Calvinism (predestination, election and reprobation, proof-texts examined, the foreknowledge of God, and hereditary depravity). William E. Wallace

12 Calvin’s theology, built upon his understanding of God’s sovereignty, was systematized into five cardinal points: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. The acrostic for these five points is TULIP. Many brethren, from the time of the Restoration Movement to the present, have answered Calvin’s brand of sovereignty and each of his five points with scripture numerous times and in numerous ways. Brethren pointed out that God indeed is sovereign, but his sovereignty does not remove man’s free-will (Deut. 30:19-20; Rev. 22:17). Total Depravity was answered by pointing out that all mankind are in fact born innocent (Eccl. 7:29). Man can have an “honest and good heart” in accepting God’s word (Lk. 8:15). Mankind has a free-will ability to choose right or wrong (Ezek. 18:20). Sin is an act of transgression, not something that comes from an inborn depraved nature (1 Jn. 3:4). The Calvinist proof-texts for Total Depravity were answered by brethren (Psa. 51:5; Rom. 5:12; 7:24; and Eph. 2:3). Unconditional Election was answered by pointing out that God wants all men to be saved (Jn. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; Tit. 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:9) and that God’s salvation is conditioned upon man’s obedience to God’s word (Jer. 18:7-10; Mt. 7:21-22; Acts 10:34-35; 1 Cor. 1:21; Heb. 5:9). The Calvinist proof-texts for Unconditional Election were answered by brethren (Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29-30; 9:11-23; Eph. 1:4-11). Limited Atonement was answered by pointing out that Jesus died for all mankind, not just the supposed elect (2 Cor. 5:15; Heb. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:6; 4:10; 1 Jn. 2:2). The Calvinist proof-texts for Limited Atonement were answered by brethren (Jn. 6:35-40; 10:11,14-18,24-29, 17:1-11,20,24-26; Eph. 1:3-12). Irresistible Grace was answered by pointing out that mankind can and often does resist the Holy Spirit’s teaching (Acts 7:51; 13:46; Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 5:19). The Calvinist proof-texts for Irresistible Grace were answered by brethren (Jn. 3:3-5; Acts 16:14). Perseverance of the Saints was answered by pointing out the warnings and examples of apostasy found all throughout the New Testament (Lk. 8:13; Ac. 8: 20-22; Rom. 11:22; 1 Cor. 10:12; Gal. 5:4; 1 Tim. 1:19-20; 4:1; Heb. 3:12; 6:4-6; 1 Tim. 1:19; 4:1; 5:12). The security and assurance of the believer is indeed taught in God’s word, but it is conditioned (“if”) upon faithful living (1 Cor. 15:2; 1 Pet. 1:5; 2 Pet. 1:10; 1 Jn. 5:2,13). The Calvinist proof-texts for Perseverance of the Saints were answered by brethren (Jn. 5:24; 10:27-28; Rom. 8:35). 13 The Gospel Plan of Salvation. Reprint. Bowling Green: Guarding of Truth Foundation, 1987. 113 writes about Brents: “He brilliantly tried, tested, and weighed Calvinistic theology in light of scriptures.”14 Moses E. Lard also opposed Calvin’s teaching of salvation by faith alone in his Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (1875).

Debates. Brethren vigorously debated denominational preachers over topics related to Calvinism. Benjamin Franklin, for example, prepared a “New Catechism for Calvinists” for his debate in 1852 with a Calvinist preacher named Matthews. It was later published in the American Christian Review (January, 1856). Franklin’s “catechism” contained 25 points with scripture that answered various Calvinist teachings. In 1895, Ashley Johnson debated Hemstead on the subject of the security of the believer. In 1897, T.R. Burnett debated T.S. Dalton (Baptist) on the subject of conditional salvation.15

More Articles. Throughout a greater part of the 20th Century, faithful brethren did the same to confront and combat Calvinism. Brethren continued to write in the papers in opposition to the errors of Calvinism. In 1947, R.L. Whiteside wrote an article in The Bible Banner addressing the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election.16 In the 1950’s, James E. Cooper published a series of articles in The Gospel Guardian refuting Calvin’s total depravity.17 Cooper also critiqued each of the Five Points of Calvinism in the same paper.18 In 1974, Robert F. Turner wrote an article titled “Pelagian or Calvinist?” in his paper, Plain Talk19. In 1977, Curt Byers and James L. Sloan wrote a series of in-depth articles in Gospel Anchor reviewing Calvin’s major doctrines.20 Later, in the 1980’s, Hoyt H. Houchen published a series of articles in The Gospel Guardian titled “Calvinist Conceptions Considered.”21 Many articles, too numerous to mention here, were written by faithful brethren opposing Calvinism and can be found in the sound papers of this time (Truth Magazine, Searching the Scriptures, Gospel Anchor, Faith and Facts, The Preceptor, etc.).

More Books. Brethren continued to write books opposing Calvinism. Some good material on apostasy can be found in A.G. Freed’s book Sermons, Chapel Talks and Debates (1930). In 1951, C.R. Nichol made a thorough study of the security of the believer in The Possibility of Apostasy.22 In1968, C.A. Fenstra wrote Calvinism in the Light of God’s

14 “Election and Free Will,” 145. 15 See also the Thomas – Burgess Debate (1868), the Querry – Williams Debate (1892), and the Cayce – Srygley Debate (1912). Many more debates that brethren had with Calvinists can be found on the Encyclopedia of Religious Debates website maintained by Tommy Thrasher (http://www.bibledebates.info/). 16 R.L. Whiteside, “Some Old Doctrines Restated and Examined,” The Bible Banner, Vol. 9, No. 6 (Aug. 1947), 8-9, 16. 17 James E. Cooper, “Arguments for Total Depravity Considered,” The Gospel Guardian, Vol. 9, No. 32 (Dec. 12, 1957), 6-7. 18 James E. Copper, “Predestination is Foolish Preaching,” The Gospel Guardian, Vol. 9, No. 7 (June 13, 1957), 8-9. 19 Robert F. Turner, “Pelagian or Calvinist?” Plain Talk, Vol. 11, No. 4 (June 1974), 6; see also Turner’s articles in Plain Talk titled “Present Truth Confusion” (14:7) and “Sic ‘Em Calvin!” (15:1). 20 “Studies in Calvinism,” Gospel Anchor, Vol. 3, No. 5-10. 21 Hoyt H. Houchen, “Calvinistic Conceptions Considered,” The Gospel Guardian, Vol. 14, No. 23 (Oct. 11, 1982), 7, 10. 22 The Possibility of Apostasy. Clifton: The Nichol Publishing Co., 1951. 114 Word.23 Fenstra had been raised in the Reformed Church and had been heavily indoctrinated in Calvinism. He became a member of the Lord’s church and later wrote against the teachings of Calvin. His book is still in print to this day and is a good resource to have.

More Debates. Brethren continued to debate various denominationalists over matters of Calvinism. In 1946, Roy E. Cogdill debated D. N. Jackson (Baptist) on the subject of the possibility of apostasy. In 1934, Foy E. Wallace debated J. Frank Norris. In 1979, Mike Willis debated Eddie K. Garrett (Baptist) on the subject of unconditional election and limited atonement.

Accepting Calvinism: 1950 to 2012

When we come to the mid-point of the 20th Century, we find a change, unfortunate as it is, in the attitude of some brethren toward Calvinism. During these years, certain brethren began to advocate some of the tenants of Calvinism. They did so, not because of the validity of Calvinism, because they wanted a means by which they could have greater fellowship with those who were in denominations. Some brethren had grown tired of the “us vs. them” mentality (to use their phrase) which said that the Lord’s church was the only true church and all denominations were wrong. For years, brethren combated and denounced Calvinism and denominationalism. Now, some who were tired of doing that began to advocate elements of Calvinism and denominationalism so that they could have fellowship with these denominationalists. A desire for peace, love and unity with the denominations above all else was the attitude of some brethren at this time. And they were willing to abandon the biblical teaching of unity to get what they wanted.24

K.C. Moser. The writings of a Texas preacher named K.C. Moser in the 1930’s and 40’s set the stage for Calvinistic thinking among some brethren in the 20th Century. Moser wrote The Way of Salvation in which he set forth his concept of salvation by grace through faith.25 He tended to emphasize salvation by grace alone without works of faith. Moser’s concept of grace, of course, was more in line with Calvinism than with the Apostle Paul. Some brethren influenced by Moser began preaching salvation by grace alone. The basic concepts of grace that Moser taught in The Way of Salvation (i.e., grace emphasized and a “plan” of salvation de-emphasized) were later incorporated in his tract, Christ Verses A “Plan”,26 and his book, The Gist of Romans27. Foy Wallace and R.L. Whiteside28 opposed Moser’s ideas of grace in the 1930’s, but G.C. Brewer later

23 Calvinism in the Light of God’s Word. Privately published, 1983 (revised). 24 The Murch-Witty unity meetings of the 1940’s were an earlier attempt to effect unity in diversity. 25 The Way of Salvation. Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1932. An online version of this book can be found at the following location: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/moser/index.html 26 Christ Verses A “Plan”. Privately Published, 1952. An online version of this tract can be found at the following location: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/moser/CVAP.HTM 27 The Gist of Romans. Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1957. 28 R.L. Whiteside opposed Moser’s idea of grace in his Commentary on Romans (Denton: Whiteside, 1945). 115 championed Moser’s work.29 For 40 years, Moser influenced many in the Lord’s church, both institutional and non-institutional, with his Calvinistic concepts of grace. Today, Moser’s work and influence is kept alive through the writings of John Mark Hicks, professor of Theology at Lipscomb University.30

New Unity Movement. In the late 1950’s and 1960’s, brethren such as W. Carl Ketcherside31 from St. Louis, MO., and Leroy Garrett, had been influenced by Moser’s writing. These progressive brethren sought to broaden the base of fellowship to include “Christians” in denominations. This was known as the “New Unity Movement”.32 Ketcherside, for example, congratulated and commended “our religious neighbors in ecumenical circles” for their recognition of religious division and their desire to do something about it through unity.33 He patterned his type of unity after the denominations – a unity in diversity. This unity was not a unity based upon following the New Testament pattern of teaching, but a unity based upon belief in Christ only.34 Ketcherside wrote in his paper, Mission Messenger, that there “may be children of God scattered among the sects”35 and that he wanted to be unified with them. Leroy Garrett wrote in his paper, Restoration Review, how that “saints of God are scattered throughout the Christian world, belonging to all sorts of sects and denominations”.36

Men like Ketcherside and Garrett admitted to being influenced by the voices of denominational authors and Calvinistic thinkers. In turn, some brethren were greatly influenced by the voices of Ketcherside and Garrett. Different apostate doctrines (positions or practices) arose at this time among brethren which will be outlined below. The doctrine of a new unity came first and would later be propped up by the gospel-

29 For a good answer to Moser’s view of grace, faith, and works, see Ron Halbrook, “Antidote to K.C. Moser’s Views on Romans 4,” The Preceptor, Vol. 31, No. 5 (Mar. 1982), 8-14. 30 See Hicks personal website: http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/k-c-moser-and-churches- of-christ 31 L.A. Stauffer, “W. Carl Ketcherside (1908-1989),” Guardian of Truth, Vol. 33 (Aug. 3, 1989), 453, 455. 32 For a good critique of the New Unity Movement, see Set For the Defense, 49-54; The Grace-Unity Heresy, 13-20; Leslie Diestelkamp, “The Ketcherside Unity Plea,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 6, No. 9 and 10 (June – July 1962), 2-4; Elvis Bozarth, “The Ketcherside ‘Unity’ Movement,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Nov. 1964), 15-18; Ray Ferris, “The Ketcherside Discussion in Tampa Was It Wise?”, Truth Magazine, Vol. 16, No. 22 (April 6, 1972), 6-7; Ray Ferris, “Carl Ketcherside’s Strange Views of Fellowship,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 16, No. 23 (April 13, 1972), 10-12; Cecil Willis, “The Unity Cult At Work,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 40 (Aug. 16, 1973), 3-5; Ron Halbrook, “Just How Bad Does Garrett Want Speakers?”, Truth Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Nov. 21, 1974), 36-37; David A. Webb, “Ketcherside’s Body of Christ,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 27 (July 8, 1976); 423; Ron Halbrook, “Loose Teaching on Sin and Grace Related to the New Unity Movement,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 20, No, 44 (Nov. 4, 1976), 698- 700; Larry Ray Hafley, “A New Unity Movement – What Next?” Truth Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 50 (Dec. 16, 1976), 795; Ron Halbrook, “Hereditary Total Depravity and the New Unity Movement,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan. 1, 1987), 3-5, 11; Ron Halbrook, “James W. Adams vs. A New Unity Movement,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 31, No. 23 (Dec. 3, 1987), 718-719; and the twenty-six article series of James W. Adams beginning with “A Stone of Witness,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 19 (March 15, 1973), 7-8. 33 Mission Messenger, July, 1967, 98. 34 Ed Fudge was affected by Ketcherside’s brand of unity; see his article, “Christian Unity – Second Thoughts,” Gospel Guardian (June 20, 1978). 35 Mission Messenger, Feb., 1958, p. 12. See also Mission Messenger, Aug. 1973, 116. 36 Restoration Review, Sept., 1964. 116 doctrine distinction, the grace-fellowship movement, Christ’s imputed righteousness, and continuous cleansing. The last three doctrines of grace, imputation, and continual cleansing would have a direct connection with Calvinism.

Following the lead of Ketcherside and Garrett, some brethren wanted to broaden the base of fellowship to include “Christians” in denominations. These brethren were so dismayed, disheartened and discouraged by the divisions that existed between themselves and with those in denominations that they looked for some means to justify fellowship with everyone regardless of their differences. They found it in their brand of new unity.37 Hershell E. Patton documented this phenomenon and wrote:

Ketcherside said, “there may be children of God scattered among various sects today” (Mission Messenger, Feb., 1958, p. 12). “It does not at all disturb me to think that many pious individuals who love God and their fellow man within a denominational tradition will walk the golden streets” (Ibid., Aug.’73, p. 111). Leroy Garrett said, “Saints of God are scattered throughout the Christian world, belonging to all sorts of sects and denominations” (Restoration Review, Sept., 1964).38

Gospel-Doctrine Distinction. In order to defend their new unity movement, brethren such as Ketcherside,39 Garrett, and later Edward Fudge40 and Arnold Hardin,41 began first to make a distinction between “gospel” and “doctrine”. They argued that “gospel” involves only things about Christ (divinity, death, resurrection, etc.)42 and “doctrine” involves everything else in the New Testament (such as the Apostolic letters).43 They borrowed this idea from such writers as C.H. Dodd, a moderate Calvinist in the Church of England.44 According to Ketcherside, Garrett and others, it was necessary for brethren to

37 Ketcherside, Garrett, and others did not follow the New Testament plan for unity which is unity based upon obeying all of God’s word (John 17:8, 14, 17-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:4-6; 2 John 9; etc.). The biblical basis of unity requires that we hear the words of the Apostles (1 Jn. 1:1-4; 4:6), abide in these words (1 Jn. 2:24; 2 Jn. 9-11; see also Acts 2:42), and walk in these words (1 Jn. 1:5-7; 2:3-6). Ketcherside and Garrett’s band of unity – unity in diversity - did not unify at all, but only divided the Lord’s church. 38 “The Impact of Calvinism on the Church in This Century”, 25. 39 Ketcherside taught his gospel-doctrine distinction on the pages of his paper, the Mission Messenger (see Dec. 1972, 180-181; Feb. 1973, 19-20). You can read one of his articles, “Gospel and Doctrine,” at the following website: http://www.leroygarrett.org/restorationreview/article.htm?rr01_04/rr01_04e.htm&01&4&1959 40 Edward Fudge, “Truth, Error and the Grace of God,” Gospel Guardian, Mar. 12, 1970. 41 Set For the Defense, 7-8. 42 The items listed in the “gospel” were called “core facts” or “core gospel” by these brethren. 43 The so-called “gospel-doctrine” distinction found in the minds of some brethren is not found in the New Testament. It is a false distinction. All of the New Testament, from Matthew to Revelation, is “gospel” and is “doctrine”. The terms “gospel” and “doctrine” are often used interchangeably throughout the New Testament. For example, Paul preached both “gospel” and “doctrine” at Rome (Romans 1:15; 6:17-18; 10:15-16) and he used “gospel” and “doctrine” interchangeably in 1 Timothy 1:10-11. We believe both the gospel (Mk. 1:15; 16:15-16) and doctrine (Acts 13:12). We obey both the gospel (1 Pet. 4:7) and doctrine (Rom. 6:17). We are saved by the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and by the doctrine (1 Tim. 4:16). Note that “gospel” in the following passages is not limited to matters pertaining to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ: Lk. 4:18; Ac. 20:20-27; 2 Cor. 9:13; 1 Thess. 3:6. 44 Ron Halbrook, “At Last . . . Now . . . an Open Confession: Dodd and Ketcherside: Kerygma and Didache”, Truth Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 38 (Sept. 23, 1976), 598-602. 117 agree and unite on “gospel” (as they defined it), but not on “doctrine”.45 They believed that unity and salvation were based upon Christ alone, not on Bible doctrine. They argued that “doctrine” was not definable, identifiable, understandable, or teachable; therefore, “doctrine” should not be used as a test of fellowship.46 1 Corinthians 1:10, Galatians 1:8- 9, 2 John 9-11,47 and Jude 3 were all perverted by these brethren to teach the opposite of what these scriptures actually teach. 2 John 9 especially was perverted to avoid having to unify on the teaching of Christ.48

Once brethren accepted the false premise that there is a difference between “gospel” and “doctrine”, then they began to promote other errors. Articles began to appear in the 1960’s and 70’s in Ketcherside’s Mission Messenger and Garrett’s Restoration Review teaching that the Bible is not completely understandable, that the New Testament is not a pattern for Christians today, and there are Christians in all denominations. Unscriptural practices like instrumental music were no longer a test of fellowship and baptism was no longer a condition of salvation for some of these brethren. According to some brethren at this time, even fundamental and foundational Bible truths like the virgin birth were not to be made a test of fellowship.49

Grace-Fellowship. The “New Unity Movement” started by Ketcherside and Garrett and defended with a so-called “gospel-doctrine” distinction would be known later as the “Grace-Fellowship Movement”.50 Some brethren began to teach a Calvinistic view of grace that excluded all kinds of obedience,51 works or law.52 It was also believed by some

45 These brethren were never in agreement on exactly what should be included in their list of “gospel”. Should the list include four, five, six, or seven “core” doctrines about Christ? For a critique of the so-called “gospel-doctrine” distinction, see Robert C. Welch, “The Gospel is the Doctrine,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 2, No. 3 (July 1974), 47-56; Cecil Willis, “The Gospel / Doctrine Differentiation,” Guardian of Truth, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan. 2, 1992), 13-15; Tom Roberts, “The Gospel / Doctrine Distinction,” Guardian of Truth, Vol. 38, No. 13 (July 7, 1994), 16-18; Edward O. Bragwell, “The Gospel / Doctrine Distinction As a Basis of a Broadened Fellowship,” Truth Magazine, Vol.44, No. 19 (Oct. 5, 2000), 6, and Set For the Defense, 15-25. 46 The fact is that “doctrine” can be defined, identified, understood and taught. We have all truth given by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13), we can know all truth (Jn. 7:16-17; 8:32; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:16-18; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:7; 1 Jn. 2:20, 27), and we are to teach nothing but the truth (1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2; Heb. 13:9). 47 See Ketcherside’s perversion of this passage in Mission Messenger, June, 1965, 86-87 and Ed Fudge’s perversion of the same in the Christian Standard, Nov. 30, 1968, 6. 48 The “doctrine of Christ” in 2 John 9 (like the doctrine of the Pharisees, Mt. 15:9; or the doctrine of Balaam, Rev. 2:14-15) was the teaching that was done by Christ, not what was taught about Christ. The context of this passage going back to “truth” in verses one through four, favors the teaching done by!Christ. A thorough examination of 2 John 9 in light of the current controversy was done by Ron Halbrook in The Doctrine of Christ and the Unity of the Saints (Marion: Cogdill Foundation Publications, 1977). Another good examination of 2 John 9 can be found in Set For the Defense, 26-30. 49 Set For the Defense, 8-14. 50 Wayne Partain did an excellent job of reviewing and critiquing the major points of this movement in his tract titled, “Grace Fellowship Theory.” Lafayette: Mid-South Bible and Books, n.d. See also Wayne’s article, “Examining Unity in Diversity,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 34, No. 19 (Oct. 4, 1990), 591-593. 51 Faithful brethren pointed out that God’s grace teaches us what to obey (Acts 14:3; Titus 2:11-12) and that it is possible to fall from God’s grace through disobedience (Gal. 5:4; Heb. 12:14). 52 For Ed Fudge’s view of grace, see his booklet The Grace of God (Athens: Ed Fudge Publishing, 1971). In answer to Calvin’s concept of unconditional grace and its use among the Neo-Calvinists, see Jimmy 118 brethren that God’s grace provided a Savior to keep the law perfectly for us and his perfect obedience would be imputed to us. It was alleged that this grace would also cover the differences in doctrine and practice that existed and that fellowship could be maintained regardless of these differences.53 Certain brethren spoke of being under the “umbrella of God’s grace” which allowed fellowship in spite of doctrinal differences.54 According to these brethren, God’s grace covered “sins of weakness and ignorance” (especially doctrinal ignorance), even though such sins are persisted in. Ed Fudge and Lindy McDaniel were two brethren who taught this.55 These “sins of weakness and ignorance” we were told came from the “corrupt and sinful nature” that is in man.56 Romans 5:12-21 and Ephesians 2:1-4 were perverted to teach their doctrine of a depraved nature.57 Brethren were borrowing directly from Calvinism!58

Originally, the “Grace-Fellowship Movement” was designed to offer fellowship to all branches of the Restoration Movement (Churches of Christ, Christian Church, and Disciples of Christ), but it would later lead some brethren to extend open fellowship to denominations. Brethren who were swept away by this movement began to say and teach things that would promote a broader base of fellowship. They were teaching Calvinistic concepts in order to promote their brand of unity.59 They would say that all brethren “are weak and sinful and ignorant.” They perverted the teaching of Romans 14 dealing with personal scruples and made it appear to teach that we can differ on matters of doctrine and still be in fellowship (doctrines such as instrumental music, institutionalism, missionary societies, sponsoring churches, orphan homes, colleges, premillennialism, the social gospel, etc.). According to these brethren, brethren should not be disfellowshipped over such doctrinal differences.

Thomas, “Do Works Annul Grace?” Truth Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 47 (Oct. 3, 1974), 10; Robert F. Turner’s book Sermons on Grace (Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1989); Melvin Curry’s three lectures on “Salvation by Grace Through Faith” in Great Bible Doctrines (Florida College Annual Lectures, 1975); The Grace Unity Heresy, 1-12; Set For the Defense, 31-44; L.A. Stauffer, “Grace and Law,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 3, No. 3 (July 1975), 52-59; Ron Halbrook, “Salvation by Grace, ‘Not of Works’,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan. 1977), 66-75; and Robert H. Farish, “By Grace Through Faith,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 1982), 55-57. 53 For Ketcherside’s view of fellowship and a thorough critique, see James W. Adams, “Ketcherside Meets Himself Coming Back,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 41 (Aug. 23, 1973), 4-7. 54 Gary L. Fiscus critiqued this false concept in “The Umbrella of Grace,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 13., No. 1 (January 1985), 22-25. 55 John McCort, “Calvinism in the New Unity Movement”. Unpublished notes, Dec. 6, 1976. 56 The allusion to a corrupt and sinful nature in man can be seen in the writings of Ed Fudge (The Grace of God, 14, 17; Four Gospel Slogans, 3; One Life, Death, and Judgment, 3, 12) and R.L. Kilpratrick (Ensign Fair, Vol. 5, No. 11). 57 Reading Romans 5:12-21 and Ephesians 2:1-3 carefully will help to answer the Calvinist’s perversion of these texts. Paul writes in the Romans passage that Adam indeed introduced sin, but we do not inherit our sin from Adam. We have sin because “all sinned” (v. 12). Paul writes in the Ephesians passage that these sinners “were dead” and “were by nature”, not that they “are” that way now. The word “nature” is defined in the immediate context by that which is practiced (vv. 2-3), not by that which is inherited. 58 Herschel E. Patton, “Most Man ?” Truth Magazine, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan. 1, 1987), 24-25. 59 Jimmy Tuten, Jr. does a good job of “connecting the dots” between Calvinism and the “Grace-Unity Movement” in his article, “Yes Sir, It’s Calvinism,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 23, No. 11 (March 15, 1979), 186-187. 119 Romans 6:14 (“ye are not under law…”) was perverted to teach that we are under no law whatsoever. Grace was set in opposition to law by some as if grace excluded all law- keeping or works.60 When these brethren read “law” they saw “all law”, including the “law of Christ”.61 Some brethren, like Arnold Hardin, emphasized faith, but not works.62 Some brethren made a distinction between justification and sanctification, saying that we must keep God’s law for sanctification (living as a Christian), but not for justification (becoming a Christian). Faithful brethren who taught obedience to all of God’s word (before and after becoming a Christian) were charged with being “law-keepers,” “perfectionists,” “law-swappers,” and “legalists”.63 The brethren promoting a broader base of unity preached “faith only” without saying the word “only” and they de- emphasized “works” just like Calvinists do.64 Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:9, and Titus 3:5 were all perverted to exclude any works necessary for salvation.65 These brethren would also criticize “the five steps of conversion”. Isaiah 64:6 (“our righteousness are as a polluted garment”) was perverted by brethren to say that we can do nothing to be saved.66

Common statements from Calvinists began to be used by brethren. They would say in effect, “preach the man and not the plan”.67 Some brethren began to say things like, “We are not saved by good works, but unto good works”; and, “We work because we are saved, not to be saved.” These phrases used by some brethren were borrowed from Calvinistic authors, not from the Bible. Brethren influenced by the teachings of Calvinism would say that “we should depend on Christ and not on ourselves”.68

60 The Neo-Calvinists made little or no distinction when speaking of “law” or “works”. They would say something like, “We are saved by grace, not works … period!” “No works!” “No law!” Of course, we are not saved by the works of the Old Law or the works of human merit, but we are saved by obeying the “works of righteousness” (Acts 10:34) necessary to our salvation. As for “law,” we are not saved by the works of the Law of Moses (Gal. 3:10), but we are saved by keeping the “law of faith” (Rom. 3:27), the “law of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1-2), the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:1-2), and the “perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25). God will judge us according to our “works” (Rom. 2:9; 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 14:13). Neo- Calvinists did not like the idea of “doing” and yet we find the concept of doing throughout scripture: Mt. 7:21; Lk. 6:46; Ac. 2:37; etc. 61 When you read “not under law” (Rom. 3:21, 28; 6:14; 7:4; Gal. 3:21), add “of Christ” and see how well it fits. 62 Arnold Hardin, The Persuader (7/23/78). 63 See Arnold Hardin, The Persuader, June 11, 1978 and Edward Fudge, The Grace of God, 14. 64 Some brethren at this time began to revive the old Protestant slogan: “sola gratia, sola Christo, sola fide.” One example of this is Robert Brinsmead’s Present Truth magazine (June, 1975) and Edward Fudge’s Four Gospel Slogans. Brinsmead was a Seventh-Day Adventist turned evangelical with whom Fudge found common ground. Milton L. Anderson documented how some brethren in the early 1970’s were perverting the proper understanding of New Testament faith and works; see his series beginning with “Brethren With Arms Elbow Deep in Calvinism (I)”, Truth Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 20 (Mar. 20, 1974), 311-314. 65 Mike Willis, “Misunderstanding Justification,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 27, No. 5 (Mar. 3, 1983), 130-132, 147-148. 66 Tom Roberts answered this perversion in “Filthy Rag Righteousness,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 29, No. 6 (March 21, 1985), 178, 182. 67 Faithful brethren at this time pointed out that we cannot have fellowship with the MAN without hearing and obeying the PLAN. We cannot know the MAN apart from his words in the PLAN (Lk. 6:46; Jn. 14:15; 18:37). 68 Neo-Calvinist brethren confused the basis of salvation with the condition of salvation. Yes, we depend on Christ as the basis of our salvation, of course (God’s grace, the cross, the blood, etc.). But, in order to 120 Some brethren caught up in the “Grace Fellowship Movement” began to criticize “structured worship” or the “five acts of worship”. They wanted an unplanned, spontaneous worship. What they wanted was an unorganized worship much like what Paul condemned in 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 and 14:26-40. Faithful brethren who emphasized baptism, eating the Lord’s Supper, giving, attendance, etc., were accused of trying to earn or merit their salvation. Other brethren, like Leroy Garrett, said that the New Testament was not meant to be a pattern for the church.69 Those who practiced instrumental music began to be fellowshipped by brethren caught up in the “New Unity Movement”.70

Matters of Bible authority also began to be rejected by some in the “Grace Fellowship Movement”. They rejected the binding force of apostolic examples and necessary inferences and said that precepts alone have binding authority. They said that inferences came from human authority or doctrine. They charged brethren with binding “human reasoning”. Arnold Hardin, for example, said, “I am afraid of these inferers”. Ketcherside also wrote against the idea of the authority of silence in 1970 and again in 1985.71 Why did brethren reject apostolic examples and inferences as ways of establishing authority? It allowed them to broaden their base of fellowship with liberal brethren and denominationalists. But, in their effort to abandoned inferences they willfully forgot that they used inferences themselves to understand the precepts of God’s word.72

Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness. As is the case with most false teaching, one error often gives rise to another error. Brethren up to this time affected by Calvinism began to promote one error after another in order to defend their practice of a new unity. The doctrine of man having a corrupt nature led to the idea that Christ’s personal righteousness had to be imputed to man in order for man to be saved.73 This is pure

accept the basis of our salvation, we must meet the conditions of our salvation. We must obey the gospel (hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized, live faithfully). 69 Restoration Review, May, 1964. 70 Mission Messenger, Nov., 1969. 71 W. Carl Ketcherside, “Authority of Silence”, http://www.leroygarrett.org/restorationreview/article.htm?rr12_07/rr12_07e.htm&12&7&1970, and “The Myth of the Authority of Silence”, http://www.leroygarrett.org/restorationreview/article.htm?rr27_09/rr27_09d.htm&27&9&1985, and “Silence of the Scriptures: A Shopworn Myth,” http://www.leroygarrett.org/restorationreview/article.htm?rr27_05/rr27_05d.htm&27&5&1985 72 For a good critique of the issue over examples and inferences, see The Grace-Unity Heresy, 21-26; and Bible Unity vs. A “New Unity” Movement, 9-11. 73 Calvinism teaches a three-fold imputation: 1) Adam’s sins are imputed to mankind; 2) mankind’s sins are imputed to Christ; and 3) Christ’s personal obedience or righteousness is imputed to the believer. An example of imputation as it is taught by Calvinists can be seen in the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chap. 11, Sect. 1, 1647): “by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them…” Neo- Calvinists of the day flip-flopped on the first two points of imputation, but land solidly on the third point. The Apostle Paul indeed taught the concept of imputation in Romans 4, but not as the Calvinist does. Paul used the Gr. word logidzomai translated “impute” (“reckon”, ASV), and it means to “put to one’s account” (see Rom. 4:3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24). Faith is reckoned (imputed), or put to one’s account. It is not “transferred” as the Calvinist teaches. One’s faith is reckoned as righteousness upon obedience (Rom. 4:3; etc.), but Paul never taught that Christ’s personal righteousness is put to one’s account. The 121 Calvinism and it was eventually introduced into the Lord’s church. For example, K.C. Moser taught the idea of the imputed righteousness of Christ on page 118 of his book, The Way of Salvation.74 Arnold Hardin,75 Ed Fudge,76 R.L. Kilpatrick77 and Vance Drum78 were four other brethren who taught that the perfect life of Christ was imputed to the sinner.79 Brethren influenced by the writings of Moser and Calvinism would say things like “Christ kept the law for us”, “Christ is our representative law-keeper,” and “we are saved by his doing and his dying”.80 They would say that mankind is never really righteous, only “declared” righteous by the perfect life of Christ. First Corinthians 1:30, Romans 3:22 and 4:7-8 were perverted to teach this doctrine.81 This is Calvinism! This is false doctrine!

Continuous Cleansing. After a few years of teaching that “sins of weakness and ignorance” are covered by God’s grace, and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer, some brethren came up with a modified version of Calvin’s doctrine of perseverance (once saved always saved). Appealing to 1 John 1:7, they said that that “sins of weakness and ignorance” are automatically and continuously cleansed by Jesus’ blood as soon as they are committed.82 Some brethren used the illustration of a

“righteousness of Christ” is not a biblical expression. The “righteousness of God”, however, is a biblical expression and it refers to God’s plan to make mankind right (Rom. 1:17; 10:3). 74 See Robert Turner’s review of Moser’s statements in “The Imputation of Righteousness,” Vanguard, Vol. 2, No. 10 (Nov. 25, 1976), 1, 14-15. 75 See Arnold Hardin’s article titled “Imputed Righteousness,” The Persuader, Vol. 10, No. 8 (Nov. 16, 1975); see also articles in The Persuader dated 2/6/77, 2/20/77, 3/13/77, 5/3/77, 6/12/77, etc. 76 Ed Fudge, “God’s Way of Making Men Right,” Vanguard, n.d.; John McCort, “Calvinism in the New Unity Movement”. Unpublished notes, Dec. 6, 1976. See also Ron Halbrook, “Brother Somebody Teaches the Same Thing,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 24, No. 31 (Aug. 7, 1980), 502-503. 77 See Kilpatrick’s article, “The Imputation of Righteousness,” Ensign Fair (Vol. 4, No. 4). See also Marshell E. Patton, “Imputed Righteousness,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 24, No. 47, (Nov. 27, 1980), 753, 763. 78 Brother Drum wrote: “Trust is another’s obedience, and you will live” (The Pleasant Run Encourager, Vol. 4, No. 1, June, 1982). 79 Christ indeed lived a perfect life to be a perfect High Priest and to provide a perfect sacrifice (Heb. 4:15- 16; 5:8-9; 7:25-28; 1 Pet. 1:18-19), but not to clothe us with his perfect righteousness. 80 Ed Fudge, A Certain Salvation, 38-40. 81 For a good critique of Calvin’s imputed righteousness, see Set For the Defense, 45-48l; Cecil Willis, “Imputation of Christ’s Personal Righteousness,” Truth Magazine. Vol. 18, No. 28 (May 16, 1974), 3-6; Marshall E. Patton, “Imputed Righteousness,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 24, No. 47 (Nov. 27, 1980), 753, 763; Robert H.Farish, “Imputed Righteousness,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 9, No. 1 (January 1981), 80-89; John McCort, “Warfield on Imputation,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 13 (Feb. 6, 1975), 194); James W. Adams, “Inconsistencies of Neo-Calvinists Among Brethren,” The Gospel Guardian, n.d.; Jesse G. Jenkins, “Imputed Righteousness,” Gospel Anchor, Vol. 7, No. 9 (May 1981), 5-6, 9; Robert L. McDonald, “Imputation of Righteousness,” The Expository Review, Vol. 2, No. 11 (Nov. 1983), 206, 208. Mike Willis wrote a number of good articles at this time on this subject in Truth Magazine; see:“Imputed Righteousness: It’s Relationship to Calvinism”, Vol. 22, No. 3; “Imputed Righteousness: Examining the Arguments,” Vol. 22, No. 4; “Imputed Righteousness: The Grounds of Our Righteousness,” Vol. 22, No. 7; and “Imputed Righteousness Again,” Vol. 22, No. 36. 82 See Lindy McDaniel, “Answering Cecil’s Charges,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 45 (Sept. 19, 1974), 3. For a good critique of the continual cleansing issue see Bill Cavender, “God’s Grace and One Sin,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 16 (Feb. 27, 1975), 253; Ron Halbrook, “Loose Teaching on Sin and Grace Related to the New Unity Movement (II),” Truth Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 45 (Nov. 11, 1976), 710-711; seven articles dedicated to this topic in Faith and Facts, Vol. 9, No. 1 (January 1981); William C. Sexton, “Ignorance and Innocence,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 9, No. 2 (April 1981), 103-108; Robert C. Welch, “A 122 windshield wiper that automatically and immediately wiped the sin clean.83 The teaching of 1 John 1:7 (“walk in the light”) was made to mean a Christian’s good “attitude” and as long as a Christian displays this “attitude” he will be automatically forgiven as he sins.84 They claimed that a Christian with a good “attitude” was always in a “state-of-grace” forgiveness. According to some brethren, a “faithful Christian” who sinned did not have to ask God for forgiveness.85 Second Corinthians 5:19 and Romans 4:8 were perverted to teach that a Christian’s “sins of weakness and ignorance” were not charged to his account.86 Faithful brethren who taught that all sin condemns and must be confessed and repented of, were described as teaching “in and out of grace” or a “yo-yo type of Christianity.”87 They were charged with teaching “sinless perfection” when they taught that all sin must be confessed.

Similar to the Catholic concept of “mortal” and “venial” sins, some brethren spoke of “minor sins”, “inadvertent sins,” and “incidental sins,”88 that would be continuously cleansed by Jesus’ blood without confession. According these brethren, the sins that “really condemn” are the willful sins.89 Psalm 19:12, James 1:5, and 1 John 5:16-17 were perverted to teach that there are different kinds of sin, some of which would be automatically forgiven. Some brethren spoke of a “continuous flow of grace” that automatically forgives90 and that some sin does not remove us from God’s grace.91 For example, Michael Hall, in The Ensign Fair, wrote how Rahab’s lie in Joshua 2 was

Year of ‘Unconditional Cleansing’”, Faith and Facts, Vol. 10, No. 1 (January 1982), 10-19; Robert C. Welch, “Assurance of Grace and Salvation,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 10, No. 3 (July 1982), 5-13; Robert C. Welch, “The Cleansing Blood,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 10, No. 4 (October 1982), 9-18; Marshall E. Patton, “A Reply On Continual Cleansing,” Guardian of Truth, Vol. 29, No. 13 (July 4, 1985), 401-402; Larry Ray Hafley, “Unconditional, Continual Cleansing?”, Guardian of Truth, Vol. 30, No. 16 (Aug. 21, 1986), 498; Mike Willis, “Psalm 51 and Continual Cleansing,” Guardian of Truth, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jan. 15, 1987), 42, 47-48; Mike Willis, “Editorial Notes on Continual Cleansing,” Guardian of Truth, Vol. 31, No. 6 (Mar. 19, 1987), 162-163; Mike Willis, “Continuous Cleansing: The Doctrinal Defense of Unity-In-Diversity,” Guardian of Truth, Vol. 36, No. 23 (Dec. 3, 1992), 724-726. 83 See Eugene Britnell, The Sower (January, 1982), 3. 84 See Floyd Chappalear, Sentry Magazine (Aug. 31, 1981). 85 Larry Arnold, “Does a Faithful Christian Have to Ask God for Forgiveness in Order to Be Forgiven?”, Firm Foundation (Oct. 14, 1980), 5, 11. 86 Keith Sharp answered the brethren who were promoting “sins of ignorance and weakness”, see: “The Sins of a Christian,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 13 (Feb. 6, 1975), 202-203. 87 See Eugene Britnell’s quote by John Welch, “Sowing Dragon’s Teeth,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 9, No. 1 (January, 1981), 10-11; see Stanely Paher’s quote by Robert C Welch, “Letters and Such,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 10, No. 1 (January, 1982), 58; Dan Demshar, Vanguard, n.d; Charles Holt, The Messenger, n.d.; and William Wallace, Gospel Guardian, July 18, 1974. 88 Leslie Diestelkamp, “Constant Cleansing,” Think On These Things, Vol. 7, No. 3, (May-June-July, 1983). 89 See Stanley Paher’s quote by Robert C. Welch, “Letters and Such,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 10, No. 1 (January, 1982), 58-59. 90 These brethren defined “walking in the light” as “having a good attitude of heart”. As long as an erring Christian had a “good attitude,” his sins would be automatically forgiven. The brethren teaching this doctrine generally would not emphasize confessing sin (1 Jn. 1:7), repenting of sin (Acts 8:22; Rev. 2:5; etc.), and not sinning (1 Jn. 2:1), as they should have done. Yes, ignorance exists among brethren, but the solution to this problem is to seek truth (Matthew 7:7-8; John 8:32; 17:17), teach God’s word (Ephesians 5:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 4:2), and encourage erring brethren to come out of their ignorance through repentance (Acts 3:17-19). 91 See R.L. Kilpatrick, Ensign Fair (December, 1978), 16-17. 123 justified and claimed that “God is flexible! He does make exceptions.”92 The doctrine of continuous cleansing built up Calvinistic concepts once again (a limited type of the impossibility of apostasy) and allowed for a broader base of fellowship. Some brethren on both sides of the issue at this time were simply trying to properly exegete 1 John 1:7 without using it to broaden their base of fellowship.93 Others were clearly using 1 John 1:7 to fellowship those in sin and error.

Neo-Calvinism. The term “Neo-Calvinism” as it applies to Protestantism refers to individuals in the early 1900’s who sought to redefine Calvinism. The term “Neo- Calvinism” as it applies to the Lord’s church refers to certain brethren in the 1960’s and 70’s who advocated teachings parallel to Calvinistic theology. By the mid to late 1970’s, brethren who had been reading the works of Moser, Ketcherside, and Garret, were now advocating and accepting various points of Calvinism. This movement would continue to gain momentum in the 1980’s. The Calvinism of these brethren was “Neo (New) - Calvinism” in that they accepted only parts of the old classic Calvinism without accepting all the “five points of Calvinism”. For example, some brethren began to advocate a form of Calvin’s total depravity (sinful nature) while others advocated a form of Calvin’s imputation. Denominational writers like Robert L. Brinsmead in his paper, Present Truth, revived the teachings of Calvin and Luther and taught such doctrines as total depravity, unconditional election, perseverance of the saints, the imputed righteousness of Christ, and salvation without water baptism.94 Brethren like Ed Fudge were increasingly influenced by such denominational writings.

The brethren at this time caught up in Neo-Calvinism could be identified with a number of characteristics. First, they were found to be reading heavily from and quoting from Calvinistic authors.95 Second, they were inconsistent. They would accept some of the “five points of Calvinism,” but not all of them. Third, the bottom line for these brethren was a broader base of fellowship. Fourth, the fundamental doctrines of their movement were the sovereignty of God,96 the sinful nature of man, salvation by grace without any works, the imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness to the believer, and an artificial distinction between gospel and doctrine. Finally, these brethren were known to redefine Bible words like grace, gospel, doctrine, unity, fellowship, righteousness, and works. When it was pointed out that they were redefining Bible words, they would cry that someone had “misunderstood” or “misrepresented” them.

92 Michael Hall, The Ensign Fair, Vol. 5, No. 9 (Jan. 1978), 11-14. 93 See the Patton – Diestelkamp exchange on continuous cleansing that appeared in Guardian of Truth (June – July, 1985) and the Spears – Asher exchange that appeared in Gospel Anchor (September, 1986). 94 Mike Willis, “Present Truth: The Restoration of the Reformation,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 38 (Sept. 29, 1977), 595-597. 95 For example, Ketcherside admittedly borrowed from and extolled the writings of C.H. Dodd. See Ron Halbrook, At Last . . . Now . . . an Open Confession: Dodd and Ketcherside: Kerygma and Didache, Truth Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 38 (Sept. 23, 1976), 598-602. 96 Neo-Calvinists stay very close to Calvin’s doctrine of God’s sovereignty by emphasizing what God does in salvation and minimizing what man does. They constantly confuse the basis or grounds of our salvation (God’s grace) with the conditions of salvation (obedience) required of man. Yes, God is sovereign, and as a sovereign he has every right to give orders and lay down conditions for mankind to be saved. The Calvinist’s solution to man saying “No” to God creates another, far more serious problem: making God a respecter of persons. The Calvinist images (creates) a problem, then offers a very unscriptural solution. 124

Brethren who had come from a spiritual heritage that left Calvinism were now returning to Calvinism. They failed to profit from the heritage handed down to them. James W. Adams wrote in 1973:

Neo-Calvinism: it is paradoxical that modern-day heirs of the accomplishments of these stalwarts of days gone by - members of professed churches of Christ - should now give birth to a modified form of Calvinism under the delusion that they are God-called deliverers of His people from spiritual enslavement to historical “legalism.” Upon a neo-Calvinistic view of “salvation by grace” and a Lutheran concept of “salvation by faith only” (“sola fide”), they project a plea for the “unity of immersed believers”....97

Neo-Calvinism within the Lord’s church was combated heavily in the 1970’s and 1980’s by faithful gospel preachers around the country. Ron Halbrook, for example, wrote The Doctrine of Christ and Unity of the Saints in 1977. Halbrook gave a thorough and careful exegesis of 2 John 9 in his book. He also covered issues related to the subjects of gospel, doctrine, fellowship, and unity. Halbrook wrote his book specifically to defend against the typical attack of “legalism” leveled by the Neo-Calvinist of the day. He defended the Bible principle of unity and fellowship based upon obeying and remaining within the teaching of Christ found in the New Testament.

Another example of opposition to Neo-Calvinism came from the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. A number of faithful preachers in this area conducted Bible studies with certain ones like Arnold Hardin and Clyde Goff who were advocating Neo-Calvinism. These studies eventually led to a lectureship at the Haltom City church of Christ building and a book titled Neo-Calvinism in the Church of Christ.98 This book contains a wealth of good information about Neo-Calvinism and the New Unity Movement. Numerous names and quotes are provided which give insight into the actual errors that were being propagated at the time and the men who taught them. Different preachers were assigned topics dealing with all the major issues of the day. Tom Roberts wrote on the subjects of justification and sanctification, gospel and doctrine, and the authority of examples and inference. Wayne Partain wrote on faith and works. Patrick Farish wrote on grace and law. Bill Reeves and Wayne Partain wrote on imputed righteousness. Robert Gabhart wrote on fellowship in and out of the local church.99

About a decade later in 1993, another book was published by Faith and Facts titled, The Christian and Sin.100 Different topics related to Neo-Calvinism were once again addressed by various authors in this book. Matters pertaining to Calvinism were

97 James W. Adams, “The Birth of a Movement,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 12, No. 20 (March 22, 1973), 5-6. 98 Roberts, Tom. Neo-Calvinism in the Church of Christ. Fairmount: Cogdill Foundation, 1980. 99 In addition to the book edited by Roberts, the Bryant – Goff Discussion also contains material covering the Neo-Calvinism issues of the day (Bryant, Choice L. and Clyde O. Goff. The Bryant – Goff Oral Discussion of Justification, Imputed Righteousness, Assurance, Unity and Diversity. Fort Worth: Star Bible Publications, 1998). 100 Keith Sharp, John A. Welch, and Wayne Greeson, Editors. The Christian and Sin. Indianapolis: Faith and Facts Press, 1993. 125 addressed (imputed righteousness, etc.) as well as questions about the nature of sin that had come up during the recent controversy (sins of ignorance, continual cleansing, etc.).

What was left in the wake of the Neo-Calvinism controversy? Some brethren actually left the Lord’s church and joined denominations with Calvinistic doctrines. Others remained in “Churches of Christ”, but had open fellowship with denominations and members of institutional Churches of Christ. Ed Bragwell documented the impact of Neo-Calvinism on the lives of four members of the Lord’s church in an article titled “Where Are They Now?”101 Written in 1988, Bragwell’s article followed the lives of Mark Nitz,102 Bruce Edwards,103 Ed Fudge,104 and Vance Drum, showing how each of these men had made the journey into fellowship with denominations. Lindy McDaniel105 and Randall Trainer106 were others who were affected by Neo-Calvinism. As it turned out, the “neo” of Neo-Calvinism was simply the softening process which caused some brethren to plunge headlong into full-blown denominationalism and Calvinism.

I have even had members of mine own physical family impacted by Calvinism. One of my brothers is in a Baptist Church and advocates “once saved always saved.” Another brother of mine is in a Christian Church, reads heavily from Calvinistic authors, and defends a “sinful nature.” I have a sister that claimed a “conversion” experience recently after reading some material by a Calvinist. She now attends a Presbyterian Church. Yes, the impact of Calvinism on the Lord’s church is very real and I have experienced it personally.

Members of the liberal, institutional Churches of Christ have also been negatively impacted by Neo-Calvinism. Men such as Randy Mayeux,107 Rubel Shelly, and Max Lucado have all advocated forms of Calvinism since the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Dub McClish documented this impact in his 2004 lecture, “Calvinism and Neo- Calvinism”.108 McClish documented in his lecture how Neo-Calvinism has impacted

101 Edward O. Bragwell, Sr., “Where Are They Now?” Guardian of Truth, Vol. 32, No. 1 (January 7, 1988), 16-18. 102 Mark Nitz’s Neo-Calvinistic views of grace and fellowship can be found in his article, “What I Believe Concerning Grace, Fellowship and the Christian’s Life,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 27, No. 10 (May 19, 1983), 294-296, 305. Russell Dunaway reviewed Nitz’s views of unity and fellowship in Faith and Facts (Vol. 11, No. 2, 3, and 4). 103 Bruce Edward Jr.’s Neo-Calvinistic views of grace and fellowship can be found in his article, “The Bound Gospel: Reflections on Grace and Fellowship in Churches of Christ,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 23, No. 26 (June 28, 1979), 422-424. 104 Ed Fudge’s Neo-Calvinistic views of grace can be found in his book he co-authored with Bruce Edwards Jr., A Journey Toward Jesus: 16 Letters on Salvation by Grace through Faith, and its Implications for the People of God (Athens: Edward Fudge Publishing, 1977). You can find an online copy of this book at: http://www.edwardfudge.com/written/journeytext.html 105 See Cecil Willis’ series beginning with, “Doctrinal Differences and Lindy McDaniel (I),” Truth Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 22 (April 10, 1975), 339-343. 106 See James W. Adam’s article, “How Successful Is Ketchersidean Subversion? (III),” Truth Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 46 (Sept. 27, 1973), 3-8. 107 Harry R. Osbourne, “The Continuing Apostasy of Liberalism,” Truth Magazine, Vol. 36, No. 2, (Jan. 16, 1992), 48-49. 108 Dub McClish, “Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism” in Sin and Salvation, Vol. 1, 2004 Memphis School of Preaching Lectureship (Pulaski: Sain Publications: 2004), 531-591. 126 institutional brethren in two main areas: errors on grace and errors on the Holy Spirit. Men such as Rubel Shelly, Denny Boultinghouse, Randy Mayeux, Jim Hackney, and Bill Love have been preaching “salvation by grace plus nothing” for several years now. As a result of this grace-only approach to salvation, men such as Max Lucado and Carrol Osburn are now saying that baptism is not necessary for salvation. Members of the Lord’s church today who read from Max Lucado will be influenced by Calvinism. For example, Lucado’s book In the Grip of Grace contains his Calvinistic laced teaching on salvation by grace alone. Here, Lucado teaches the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, once-saved-always-saved, and other Calvinistic ideas.109

Regarding the Holy Spirit, some among the institutional brethren have been preaching that the Holy Spirit operates directly on the heart of the individual to guide him and teach him. John Allen Chalk, Lynn Anderson, Terry Rush, Rubel Shelley, and Mac Deaver have all preached a Calvinistic concept of the Holy Spirit’s direct operation on the sinner and the Christian.

Calvinism and the Lord’s Church Today

We have come full circle. Those who sought to restore New Testament Christianity in the early 1800’s left Calvinism. These same brethren and many others who followed in the 20th Century opposed and confronted Calvinism. But, in the past 50 years, some brethren have returned to and accepted Calvinism. I can think of no greater example of Peter’s words (the dog returning to his vomit, the sow walling in the mire, 2 Peter 2:22) in our modern-day than brethren returning to the vomit and mire of Calvinism. Is it time for another “Restoration Movement”? Is it time for a “Fifth Great Awakening” in America?110 Will the history books written in the future speak of individuals who left Calvinism in the 21st Century to come to Christ? We must continue to preach and teach against Calvinism and confront the negative impact of Calvinism that exists among some in the Lord’s church today.

The TULIP of Calvinism is not a formidable fortress, but in fact a fragile flower. And what do we need most today in the Lord’s church with regard to the noxious flower of Calvinism? We need more studies such as this. We need more sermons and Bible classes answering and refuting the tenets of Calvinism (the Five Points of Calvinism). We need to teach the younger generation of Christians about the dangers and errors of Calvinism. We need preachers, elders, and concerned members to do their homework and learn about Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism. One recent critique of Calvinism that I recommended to brethren is written by Allan Turner and titled The Christian and Calvinism.111

109 Max Lucado, In the Grip of Grace. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996, 75, 148. 110 The Third Great Awakening was a period of religious activism in America in the late 1850’s to the early 1900’s. The Fourth Great Awakening (or Jesus Movement) was a Christian religious awakening that took place in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. 111 Two other recent critiques of Calvinism worth reading are: Larry Ray Hafley’s The Christ, the Cross, and the Church (Bowling Green: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 2001) and F. LaGard Smith’s Troubling Questions for Calvinists (Lynchburg: Cotwold Publishing, 2007). 127 We need brethren today who will have the same fortitude to fight Calvinism as the restorers of the 19th Century once did. John Clark wrote of these men and their battle with Calvinism:

The “reformers” or “restorers” of the Nineteenth Century did not “tiptoe through the tulips” but with bold steps of conquerors they crushed its pedals and the fragrance that rose was a perfume that drew men from the chains of Calvinism – a system of human theology – to the freedom of the “Bible only” – the truth that ‘Christ died for all’ and that the Gospel is for all. The five-finger exercise, originally attributed to Walter Scott, that could be taught to children – hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized – became a fist raised in defiance to the five points that were seen as a fistful of false doctrine depriving men of the hope of the gospel.112

While combating Calvinism, however, we also need to be careful that we do not run from basic, Bible teachings concerning the atonement of Christ. We need to be balanced. Refute Calvinism, yes, but do not abandon plain Bible teachings on God’s plan of salvation in Christ on the cross. One example of the imbalance that can occur in refuting Calvinism is documented in Turner’s book mentioned above. According to Turner, some brethren today, in their desire to refute Calvinism, have abandoned the Bible teaching of the vicarious atonement of Christ. Turner writes:

It grieves me that some, in their efforts to refute Calvinism, are willing to deny that Jesus actually died vicariously, or in our stead, as the word indicates. In running away from Calvinism, it is not necessary, as these think, to reject the substitutional death that the Bible, in Isaiah 53 and other places, so clearly says Jesus suffered on our behalf. But, sadly, this is exactly what some Christians are doing.113

It is assumed by some brethren today that if you speak of, or even sing about, Jesus dying “in our place” (or, “in our stead”) that you are promoting Calvinism.114 These brethren, no doubt, mean well. After all, Calvinism must be combated. But, to speak of substitution as Isaiah does (“wounded for our transgressions”, Isaiah 53:5), and as Paul does (“having become a curse for us”, Galatians 3:13), does not necessarily mean that we are promoting Calvinism. The basic idea of Jesus’ vicarious death or substitution can be taught in a biblical way without promoting Calvinism.

Refuting Calvinism is only part of the work. We must also teach on Bible doctrines that are often misunderstood or misrepresented by Calvinists. We must teach on the proper relationship between grace and law, faith and works, and justification and sanctification. We must teach the truth on what the Bible says about the gospel, doctrine, fellowship, unity, righteousness, imputation (reckoning), and sin.

112 “Security of Believers,” 174-175. 113 The Christian & Calvinism, 145. 114 Maurice Barnett is one who equates substitution and vicarious suffering with Calvinism. See his work The Scheme of Redemption: Reconciliation. Volume 2. Beaumont: The Preceptor Co., 1998. 128 The influence of Calvinism on the religious world as a whole constantly waxes and wanes. Currently, Calvinism is experiencing a revival. The year 2009 was the 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birth and a number of articles were written that year by Protestants documenting Calvin’s contemporary revival. In a 2009 Time Magazine article titled “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now,” the New Calvinism was listed as number 3 on the list.115 In the same year, Timothy George, founding dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and a senior editor of Christianity Today, wrote about the recent rebirth of Calvinism:

These things are not new, but they are getting a new hearing among Christians today. According to a recent survey, some 30 percent of recent graduates from seminaries affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest Protestant denomination, identify themselves as Calvinists.

In 2009, there are more writings in print by 19th-century Calvinist pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon than by any other English-speaking author living or dead. Among those reading Spurgeon, as well as the writings of J. I. Packer, John Piper, and R. C. Sproul, are thousands of young Christians who flock to the Passion and Together for the Gospel conferences, hundreds of pastors who have planted churches affiliated with the growing interdenominational Acts 29 movement, and charismatic Calvinists who resonate with C. J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris, and the Sovereign Grace churches.

And they are also reading younger Calvinist writers such as Collin Hansen, whose Young, Restless, and Reformed chronicled this resurgence (first in a Christianity Today article and then at book length), and Christian George, whose Godology is a theological primer for 20-somethings. To this must be added the culture-shaping influence of Tim Keller, a Presbyterian Church in America pastor in New York City, and a cadre of Reformed-rooted academics including Alvin Plantinga and George Marsden whose writings have been a major force in the disciplines of philosophy and history.116

All this renewed interest in Calvinism has also been met with some resistance in the denominational world. There are new books being printed for and against Calvinism.117 There are also members of the Southern Baptists, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, who are speaking out against some of the basic tenets of Calvinism. This was witnessed earlier this year at the SBC in New Orleans where some non-Calvinist Baptists signed a statement of God’s plan of salvation. One particular portion of that statement’s second article drew a lot of attention at the convention. It read: “We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will.”118 The members of the SBC (including six former SBC presidents and two SBC seminary presidents) who signed this statement are being accused of heresy and are being classified as semi- Pelegian by others members of the SBC. Members of the Lord’s church should be ready

115 David Van Biema, “The New Calvinism,” Time Magazine, March 15, 2009. 116 “John Calvin: Comeback Kid,” Christianity Today, Vol. 53, No. 9 (Sept. 2009). 117 See Roger E. Olson’s Against Calvinism (Zondervan, 2011). 118 http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/juneweb-only/baptists-calvinism-heresy.html 129 to talk with any and all denominational members like these who want to break with classic Calvinism.

Because of Calvinism’s continual influence in and out of the Lord’s church, we must have a continued confrontation with it. I close with the advice offered by Marshall E. Patton back in 1976 which is still good advice for us today:

I make a fervent plea to all, especially to young preachers, familiarize yourself thoroughly with the battles fought and the victories won by our forefathers in the faith. Then with this knowledge as a vantage point, over and above all else written by men – the men of the Restoration, the men of the denominational world, all men – learn the Bible! Thus fortified, you can solve all problems for all time and eternity.119

119 “Faith and Works,” 163. 130 Bibliography

Clark, John. “Security of Believers.” The Restoration Heritage in America: A Biblical Appeal for Today. Florida College Annual Lectures. Marion: Cogdill Foundation Publications, 1976.

Dickey, Bob. The Current Unity Controversy. Unpublished notes, 1976.

Hinds, Robert. Is There A Gospel-Doctrine Distinction? Unpublished notes, 1976.

McClish, Dub. “Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism.” Sin and Salvation. Volume 1: 2004 Memphis School of Preaching Lectureship. Pulaski: Sain Publications, 2004.

O’Neal, Thomas G. Set for the Defense. Fairmount: Cogdill Foundation, 1980.

O’Neal, Tom and Ron Halbrook. Bible Unity vs. A “New Unity” Movement. Privately published, n.d.

Partain, Wayne. Grace Fellowship Theory. Tract. Lafayette: Mid-South Bible and Books, n.d.

Patton, Herschel E. “The Impact of Calvinism on the Church in This Century.” Guardian of Truth. Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan. 2, 1986), pp. 25-26.

Patton, Marshall E. “Faith and Works.” The Restoration Heritage in America: A Biblical Appeal for Today. Florida College Annual Lectures. Marion: Cogdill Foundation Publications, 1976.

Reeves, Bill. The Present-Day Issue Concerning Fellowship. Unpublished notes, n.d.

Schmid, Cherrill. “The Impact of Calvinism on the Restorers.” Guardian of Truth. Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan. 2, 1986), pp. 22-24.

Stringer, Johnny. The Grace-Unity Heresy. Privately published, n.d.

Turner, Allan. The Christian & Calvinism: A Critical Examination of Determinism. Roswell: Allanita Press Publishing, 2007.

Wallace, William E. “Election and Free Will.” The Restoration Heritage in America: A Biblical Appeal for Today. Florida College Annual Lectures. Marion: Cogdill Foundation Publications, 1976.

131

132 A New Development In Realized Eschatology: Examining The Theology Of Kurt M. Simmons

By Allan Turner

By their own admissions, 1 Corinthians 15 is often the last of N.T. Scripture to fall to the Realized Eschatology (afterward referred to as RE) doctrine. But how anyone can read 1 Corinthians 15 and believe what is said there has nothing to do with death and the resurrection of our bodies demonstrates how twisted some have become in their promotion of a doctrine that flies in the face of clear biblical truth. If, as the REs claim, the resurrection under discussion (and this no matter what particular brand of RE one espouses) has nothing to do with the resurrection of our dead bodies from the grave, then why does Paul juxtapose Jesus’ resurrection with the resurrection he’s talking about? In other words, if Paul was not talking about the resurrection of our bodies, then his use of our Lord’s resurrection, which did include His body, would make no sense whatsoever. I like the way Jim McGuiggan put it in his debate with Max King, the well-known proponent of RE among churches of Christ:

What error was Paul dealing with in 1 Corinthians? Here it is: “How say some of you the dead rise not.” They denied the resurrection of the dead! What they denied—Paul affirmed! The resurrection they denied logically resulted in a denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. What kind of resurrection were they denying? Whichever one it was, Paul affirmed it!1

He went on to say:

People, I’m saying what you already know to be true. The resurrection being denied in 1 Corinthians 15 was a denial of the coming to life again of dead bodies, otherwise it could not have affected the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus was being undermined by [the] consequence of the Corinthian denial (vs. 13, 16). The Corinthians were saying, “Dead bodies cannot rise.” Paul said, “If that is true, Jesus couldn’t have risen.”2

“If I Had A Hammer...”

Some of you may be old enough to remember the lyrics to that Peter, Paul, and Mary song that said:

If I had a hammer, I’d hammer in the morning, I’d hammer in the evening, All over this land, I’d hammer out danger, I’d hammer out warning, I’d hammer out love between my brothers and sisters, All over the land. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 The McGuiggan-King Debate, 235. 2 Ibid.

! 133

As you will see shortly, this song has some bearing on the question: “Why, then, do REs interpret 1 Corinthians 15 in a way entirely foreign to the context?” and the answer, which says, “Because, they have a prior commitment to a doctrine totally foreign to the Scriptures.” Allen Dvorak addressed this in an article he wrote on 1 Corinthians 15 designed specifically to refute RE contentions:

Someone has said that if the only tool one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If we approach Scripture with a theory already entrenched in our minds, every passage will be interpreted to fit the theory. The more one studies the writings of realized eschatologists, the more the impression is given that a theory has been adopted and every passage is being interpreted to fit that theory. Words (such as “resurrection”) are defined in ways that ignore the context in which they are used and then redefined to suit whatever passage is currently under consideration. Passages which do not seem to fit the paradigm of the spiritual resurrection of A.D. 70 are basically ignored (e.g., Acts 24:15—resurrection of both the just and the unjust) or given such “tortured” meanings that one wonders if anyone would arrive at the same meaning unaided by presuppositions.3

Consequently, when one is using a RE hammer, everything, from the Lord’s Second Coming to the Resurrection and Final Judgment, looks like an A.D. 70 nail. But all too often this is a technique employed by a diversity of false teachers. For example, and this was another point made by Allen Dvorak:

When the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to your door, they would prefer to talk about subjects other than the nature of Jesus Christ, but, if pressed, they will agree that Jesus is the Son of God. However, if you assume, as a result, that they believe that Jesus is deity as the Father is, you will be deceived about their true belief. They parse the words “son” and “god” when applied to Jesus in ways which accommodate their belief about Jesus while avoiding contradicting the differing beliefs of most religious groups.

Realized Eschatologists use much the same maneuver in discussions about several fundamental doctrines of the New Testament. Do they believe in the end of the world? Absolutely! But you must determine what they mean by the words “end” and “world.” Do they believe in the judgment? Certainly! But you must determine what they mean by the word “judgment.” Do they believe in the resurrection of the dead? Yes! But you must determine what they mean by the words “resurrection” and “dead.” Unfortunately, the practice of adopting a certain viewpoint and then interpreting every passage and defining all words in line with that viewpoint is a common method of Bible study. It is comparable, however, to shooting an arrow and then drawing the target circle around the final resting place of the arrow!4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 “The Coming Resurrection Of The Dead: The Death Knell Of Realized Eschatology (Part Two),” A Critical Examination Of Realized Eschatology, Allan Turner (ed.), 2010, 85. 4 “The Coming Resurrection Of The Dead: The Death Knell Of Realized Eschatology (Part One),” A Critical Examination Of Realized Eschatology, Allan Turner (ed.), 2010, 59.

! 134 Warmed-Over Gnosticism

Rejecting, as they do, the resurrection of our bodies, REs seem to embrace ancient pagan ideas associated with Gnosticism. And although it is true that there is no one, single, uniform Gnostic system, there are enough similarities to justify a few general characteristics which permeate the various “flavors” or “brands” of such thinking. At the same time, one must realize that not every flavor of Gnostic thought would include all the elements of its other brands. Nevertheless, one overriding similarity seems to be some form of “over-realized eschatology,” and this was certainly true of the Gnostic thinking exhibited by some of the early Christians. Roger Olsen addressed this very point when he wrote, “The Gnostics of early Christianity embraced a realized eschatology insofar as they believed that all the promises of God could be experienced in their fullness outside of world history and apart from the physical world.”5 In fact, REs have so “spiritualized” or “Gnosticized” Christianity that there is nothing left that is “good” about the physical/material world. Consequently, they tell us our bodies, which are not only physical and thus “evil,” are actually the very source of moral evil. But according to the Scriptures, this is simply not true.

On the contrary, the Bible teaches us that God created all things in the natural world and pronounced them “very good” (Gen. 1:21). This settles, then, the innate evilness of matter argument that some REs make. Based on the Scriptures, we can be sure that matter is not inherently evil nor, in any way, opposed to God. It is, instead, very much a part of God’s purpose. In other words, “...[E]very creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim. 4:4).

REs Say Angels “Cannot Sin,” But The Scriptures Say They Can And Did

Concerning our bodies and sin, and so no one will be able to say we’re creating “straw- man” arguments,6 it is thus appropriate to examine the thinking of Kurt M. Simmons, a RE who believes our physical bodies are the source of sin. As a result, he teaches that heavenly angels, who do not have material/physical bodies, “cannot sin.”7 That’s right, he teaches angels can’t sin, and this despite what the Bible clearly says.

2 Peter 2:4 says, “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment.” Jude 6 says, “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” But notice, if you will, how Simmons, who is using the RE hammer we talked about earlier, explains this all away:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 The Mosaic Of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries Of Unity And Diversity, 2002, 347. 6 A straw man is a weak or imaginary opposition set up, only to be easily refuted. 7 “Three Views Of The Resurrection,” http://preteristcentral.com/Three%20Views%20on%20the%20Resurrection.html.

! 135 The English word “angel” is misleading here. When we hear the word “angel,” we think of supernatural beings. However, the Greek word “angelos” simply signifies a “messenger” and is used many times in scripture for men (Matt. 11:10, John the Baptist; Lk. 7:24, messengers of John; Lk. 9:52, messengers of Christ; Jam. 2:25, spies received by Rahab). Angels cannot sin: the seed of all sin is the flesh (Rom. 7:18; Gal. 5:19-21; Jam. 1:14-15). Since angels are spirit and not flesh, they cannot be tempted with sin. [Here Simmons places a footnote, which we’ll get to in just a moment.] Hence, the “angels” in this passage are best understood, not as supernatural beings, but men. Specifically, they are the “sons of God” (descendants of Seth), who married and made affinity with the daughters of unbelieving men (descendants of Cain) before the flood (Gen. 6:1-4). This is clear from Josephus, who first refers to the descendants of Seth, saying they obeyed God for seven generations, but then calls them “angels” and says they apostatized from God in marrying (unbelieving) women.8

Nonsense! The reason he believes the angels in these passages are best understood as men, and not supernatural creatures, is because when you are hammering with a RE hammer, everything begins to look like a RE nail, even when it clearly isn’t. You’ll notice Simmons doesn’t cite the commentators who take his view of these “angels,” and this is because, as far as I can tell, there aren’t any credible ones who do.

But it is in the footnote mentioned in Simmons’ quote that things really become telling:

The impossibility of heavenly angels sinning bears directly upon the nature and quality of the resurrection body. Jesus said that, in the resurrection, we shall be as angels (Matt. 22:30). If angels are subject to sin and temptation, we too will be subject to sin and temptation, and liable to fall from heaven. But if the source of all sin and temptation is the flesh, then angels are not subject to temptation or sin. And inasmuch as we will be like angels, we will be beyond temptation and risk of sin, and our salvation will be eternally secure once we reach the other side. Since the Bible teaches that once we reach the other we will in fact be eternally secure, it follows that our resurrection bodies will not be composed of flesh.9

Notice that Simmons assumes as true that which still needs to be proved (viz., “the impossibility of heavenly angels sinning”). Yet, he argues here as if his erroneous interpretation of 2 Peter 2:4 and, by extension, Jude 6, is true, citing as proof none other than Josephus, another uninspired man. Likewise, his whole argument in this footnote is based on what I call “humanistic reasoning,” which gives lip-service to Scripture, but then proceeds, from a false premise, to substantiate his RE presuppositions by pure “reason alone”—namely, reason unaided by Scripture, which is a pretty sneaky strategy, if you can get away with it. But it gets worse, as we’ll now see.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid.

! 136 An Imaginary Satan

At this point, you may be wondering what Simmons, who thinks spirit beings can’t sin, believes about Satan. Simply this: Satan is not a real entity. Instead, he is but a metaphor for “sin and death.” This was revealed in Simmons’ attempted exegesis of Genesis 3:15, in which he said, in part, “The serpent stands for the power of sin and death.” He further explained, “Sin and death personified in the serpent would ‘bruise’ (bite) Christ’s heel in his crucifixion.”10 According to Simmons, then, the Serpent is not a real spirit being at all, but is, instead, a power—namely, the power of “sin and death.” How anyone who claims to believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, as Simmons does,11 can read Genesis 3 and believe that “sin and death,” which are effects, not causes, tempted Eve and was, in turn, cursed by God, is beyond me. Of course, I’m not, like Simmons, hammering with a RE hammer. According to Simmons, when the Scriptures speak of the “prince of this world,” the “serpent,” the “devil,” the “dragon” et cetera, these expressions are only “metaphors” (that’s his word) for “sin and death” or, in the book of Revelation, expressions (again, nothing real here at all) identifying the Roman emperor(s) and other governmental authorities (cf. Rev. 12:9 and 20:2).

So, even though such a view is contrary to the necessary inferences derived from Scripture concerning the origin of Satan as a fallen angel, along with those specific passages referring to him, in his various manifestations, as a real, albeit spirit, being,12 it is nevertheless consistent with Simmons’ RE and, therefore, something he unashamedly teaches.

This brings us, then, by natural progression, to an examination of Simmons’ Dualism, a subject near and dear to the heart of every Gnostic, and one we’ll explore now. After doing so, we’ll return to an examination of Simmons’ false view of Satan.

Gnostic/Pagan Dualism Vs. Biblical Dualism

The Gnostic/pagan belief in the dualism of flesh and spirit, with the flesh being inherently evil and something to be discarded, while the spirit is both good and eternal, and how this relates to RE, is something we’ll now be looking at a bit more closely. Gnostic/pagan dualism, whether it be Greek or otherwise, views the physical and spiritual as basically incompatible, with the spirit striving to accomplish complete and permanent separation and freedom from the body. This was best expressed by Plato in the Greek phrase soma sema, which meant, “the body is a tomb.”13 According to this way of thinking, the spirit of man, minus the body, is the only thing that really counts.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10 Ibid. 11 Kurt M. Simmons, “A Preterist Statement of Faith,” http://www.preteristcentral.com/Preterist%20Creed.html. 12 We’ll have more to say about this in just a bit. 13 W. David Stacey, The Pauline View of Man, 1956, 62-63.

! 137 According to this way of thinking, the purpose of human existence is to return to the pure spiritual realm from whence everything originated. Thus, physical death is seen as the liberation (i.e., “salvation”) of the eternal spirit from the impediment of physical existence. Conversely, the Bible makes it clear that our ultimate salvation does not entail the shedding, or sloughing off, of our bodies. Instead, it teaches that salvation is not fully realized apart from the “redemption” of our bodies (Rom.8:23). As Charles Puskas, Jr. put it:

Paul’s hope for the transformation of our humble bodies into ones glorified like Christ’s (Phil. 3:21) seems anti-gnostic. The human body and the material world had no place in the redemptive scheme of Gnosticism.14

Gnostic/pagan dualism has little, if any, resemblance to the biblical dualism of body and spirit.15 Even so, Christians, if they are not careful, sometimes import into their world- view various Gnostic/pagan ideas about the body and spirit dichotomy, wrongly thinking such to actually be what the Bible teaches. So, if you’re still having a problem distinguishing the differences between what the Bible teaches and Gnostics think, please read the article mentioned in footnote 15 above, as it is there I set forth what I believe the Bible says about the dual body and soul nature of man.

Sarx: An Itty-Bitty Word With A Rather Large Repertoire

Several New Testament writers, especially Paul and John, regularly used the Greek word sarx (“flesh”) in at least two16 very different ways—(1) the skin or flesh on a person’s body, and by extension, and more generally, a human body, and (2) a person or condition inclined toward and manifesting sinful behavior. As is so often the case, it is the context that usually makes clear which of these two uses is being utilized. 1 Corinthians 6:16, 7:28, and Galatians 4:13 are all examples of the first meaning, while Romans 8:5-8 is but one of many passages that illustrate the latter. It says:

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

By the time we get to this passage, Paul has already referred to the flesh as “sinful flesh” (8:3) and to the body as a “body of sin” (6:6). In such instances, “flesh” (sarx) and “body” (soma) represent the willingness we humans have, when thinking carnally, to be servants of sin. This doesn’t happen, of course, apart from the involvement of our

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14 Charles B. Puskas, Jr., The Letters of Paul: An Introduction, 1993, 88. 15 See Allan Turner, “A Review Of A Biblical World View Largely Rejected By Realized Eschatology,” A Critique Of Realized Eschatology, http://alpharetta-bible-study.com/What%20Is%20Man.pdf 16 Jim McGuiggan mentions seven different or nuanced uses of sarx in the N.T. See Jim McGuiggan, The Book of Romans, 2nd ed., 1982, 33-35.

! 138 “mind,” “spirit,” or “inner man.” Flesh, then, and I’m speaking of human nature as a whole, and the body in particular, as the instrument through which we conduct ourselves in this life, has not brought forth honor and obedience to God. Instead, its fruit has habitually been evil. When “flesh” is used in this sense, then, it stands for that evil which is characteristic of all of us, for when we look at the whole of mankind, the flesh (i.e., our old sinful self or nature) has clearly dominated: “For there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:22b-23).

In Romans 13:14, Paul says, “make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.” This sounds, does it not, like Paul is speaking of man’s “sinful side”? It sure does to me, but the critical question here is, “What do we mean by sinful side?” REs, like Kurt Simmons, contend man’s physical body is the “source” or “seed” of all sin and is, therefore, inherently evil. As a result, it must be discarded if man is to ever be spiritually glorified in heaven. So, is Paul, like our RE brethren, teaching that man’s flesh (i.e., his physical body) is inherently evil? Absolutely not! Paul was certainly no Gnostic. Nor was he anything close to being an RE. Instead, he taught that man’s physical body was, for lack of a better word, “neutral.”

“Neutral,” Not Inherently Sinful

For example, Paul taught that food was to be eaten with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:1ff), and that sexual satisfaction or “due benevolence” was to be given to one’s husband or wife as part of God’s will (1 Cor. 7:1ff). In other words, our emotional and physiological drives were never intended to be our master. Instead, He gave us a spirit, an intellect, a will (namely, the “inner man”), which He created in us to control the legitimate desires of our fleshly bodies (i.e., “outward man”). When our wills become perverted and the desires and bodily drives become the “boss,” we are what can only be described as “out of control.”

It is this out-of-control-ness that Paul identifies as a “body of death” (Rom. 7:24). This is because such carnal/fleshly thinking (namely, “works of the flesh”) has a finished product: the death of man. This death encompasses the spiritual death, physical death, and eternal death in a Devil’s hell that, without an application of the blood of Christ, awaits every person, both body and spirit.17 The flesh is described as “sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) because it is the physical body that is plainly seen when one engages in sinful practices. With only one notable exception, all of us who’ve lived in the flesh, and here I mean in a physical body, become sinners. However, and this cannot be stressed enough, no Bible writer ever taught there was something inherently evil about our physical composition. The Greeks taught it. The Gnostics taught it. Modern REs teach it. But no Bible writer ever taught it, not one! Even so, such thinking is widely believed and, because it is, has some serious unintended consequences.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17 In Matthew 10:28, Jesus said: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

! 139 Unintended Consequences

For instance, young folks are given the impression that if they feel the sexual urge, they have somehow sinned. They are further left with the impression they must not wish to have this sexual desire satisfied. They are taught—I know I was—that all such wishing is sinfully wrong. This, brothers and sisters, is, when everything is said and done, moral gobbledygook, and it is definitely not something taught in the Bible. Yes, it is true they must be taught about the only lawful way to satisfy this sexual urge. But in doing so, we must not cause them to think that every such urge, along with the wish, desire, or longing to have it satisfied, is automatically an “inordinate affection” or “evil concupiscence.”

Such can only do these folks a great disservice, for we do not serve a God who creates us with a perfectly natural and good desire and then turns around and punishes us when we experience that perfectly natural and good desire. This would not only be (1) contrary to everything we know to be true about the Creator and man, His crowning creature, but (2) terribly frustrating to those of us with such urges, even after marriage, and (3) something akin to the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine about sex (even for the married) as being somehow base and, thus, less than righteous (or sinful).

Again, and I think the delicate nature of this subject requires it, I feel compelled to make the following disclaimer: I am speaking here only of the sexual desire, urge, or drive, and not some form of illicit sexual simulation/stimulation, nor the consummation of sexual intercourse outside the confines of marriage. Clearly, sexual intercourse is only to be engaged in within God-ordained marriage. At the same time, it doesn’t take a mental heavy-weight to realize that if the sexual desire, urge, or drive is not, in and of itself, a good thing, then there is no way that the marriage “bed,” which is just another way of saying “sexual intercourse,” could be described as “pure” and “undefiled” (Heb. 13:4a). Consequently, as the latter half of this verse makes clear (13:4b), it is the “fornicators and adulterers [that] God will judge,” not those who naturally and inevitably experience the God-ordained sexual desire, urge, or drive.

Nevertheless, and this because the sexual and hunger drives, as well as others, are all too frequently abused and perverted (e.g., fornication and gluttony, et cetera), sin is seen to hold predominancy in our physical bodies. And since sin is viewed as establishing its power through and in our physical body and its desires, which are called “sinful passions” when they are perverted (Rom. 7:5, ASV), “flesh” readily becomes a synonym for our old sinful self or nature.18

It Was Never Just About The “Outward Man”

But with Paul it was never that the “outward man” (i.e., our physical body [2 Cor. 4:16]) was inherently evil and, thus, the “source” of our sinning. Instead, with Paul it was !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 18 The “nature” used here does not refer to the alleged inherited sinful nature the Calvinists speak of. On the contrary, I use the term here in reference to man’s acquired sin-sick nature which is a result of one’s own personal sin.

! 140 always how the “inner man” (i.e., the spiritual man [Eph 3:16]) used and controlled the “outward man.” This, of course, jibes with what the Lord made perfectly clear during His earthly ministry: namely, that sin comes from within a man (Matt. 15:19), and this, by necessity, involves the “mind,” “heart,” or “spirit.” This is precisely what Paul taught in places like 2 Corinthians 7:1 and Ephesians 2:3. Hence, when REs, like Kurt Simmons, teach that our physical bodies are inherently evil and, as such, are “the source” of sin and death, they have demonstrated themselves to be more like Gnostic/pagan dualists than the primitive Christians they claim to be—unless, of course, they are to be associated with the likes of Hymenaeus and Philetus, along with those Paul dealt with in 1 Corinthians 15, who believed there was no physical resurrection of the dead, and which made the Christian faith null and void (1 Cor. 15:17).

It should be no surprise, then, that those who held the views identified above were described, in the clearest of terms, as flagrant heretics, whose works were to be resisted and exposed (cf. 2 Tim. 2:14-18), and they themselves were to be rejected after attempts to admonish them failed (Titus 3:10). This, of course, is not what REs want to hear. For when such distinctions are made, they will no longer be permitted to surreptitiously foment their doctrine amongst unsuspecting and uninformed brethren.

Paul Said, “Mark Them”

In Romans 16:17, the apostle Paul said, “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.” In Romans 14, Paul called for tolerance. Here he’s asking for a noting or marking and withdrawing or avoiding of certain individuals. Why? Because, like a surgeon, Paul recognizes the cancer needs to be removed for the benefit of the whole body. Today, and from reading the Bible I recognize it’s always been this way, we hear people vocalizing their severe criticism for those who find it necessary to identify and criticize false teachers. Just listen. They think it so unseemly, even un-Christian, to expose false teachers. At the same time, and quite hypocritically, they don’t seem to have a bit of trouble thinking it’s okay to criticize the criticizer. Nevertheless, the Bible teaches us there are lines which need to be drawn, and we must, in God’s name, draw them. Yes, we must be very careful, but when the evidence is in, and we’ve, in turn, done the things required of us, we must be willing to draw the line. If not, then we, too, need to be marked and avoided. As one has rightly said, “Lovingly tolerate all that you can, and then lovingly [mark and] withdraw when you must.”19 With this in mind, I share with you the following episode.

It is not uncharacteristic for REs to teach their doctrine in less formal gatherings where young Christians have come together with their friends to study the Bible. In such a setting it is not uncommon for some to be present who are not Christians. On one such occasion, the regular teachers were not available and a substitute, an older experienced teacher, who was an RE, taught the class and introduced his RE oriented interpretation to the dismay of some of the more knowledgeable who were present. When questioned as to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19 McGuiggan, op. cit., 431.

! 141 the wisdom of introducing such ideas in that kind of setting, the teacher’s wife was reported to have said it was best to introduce young people to the RE position before they became indoctrinated with the “traditional church of Christ hermeneutic.” (Note: if these are not exactly the words she used, it nevertheless accurately represents what she is reported to have said.)

When this teacher, who up to that time had not taught his doctrine publicly, was asked why he did so, he said he was just teaching his understanding of a portion of Scripture that “just happened to be” the subject of study that evening. When it was then pointed out to him that he had crossed the line from a privately held belief to a publicly espoused doctrine, and that he needed to be willing to defend his doctrine in open debate, he said he’d think about it. However, he was clearly upset by the challenge, and said so, lamenting the unwanted exposure it would bring. In the course of time, he refused to publicly defend his position. Later on, when we had our first Alpharetta Bible Study which had been convened specifically to critique RE doctrine, the RE teacher referred to above was offered two uninterrupted hours to present his position. After his presentation, he would have been given more time in the Q&A session that followed. After thinking about it for a day or two, he declined. When asked why, he said he knew he would be “outnumbered” and did not think such would be the “kind of environment” in which he would be “comfortable.”

So, here’s what we have: Introducing the RE doctrine to young people in an environment where he is, as the teacher, in control is perfectly acceptable; but presenting these same ideas before seasoned students/expositors of God’s Word is not acceptable. Such is terribly disappointing to me for several reasons. First, the RE teacher is a friend of mine who I have studied quite extensively with on this particular subject. Second, the unwillingness to publicly defend his doctrine is cowardly at best; ungodly at its worst.

Furthermore, when such teaching is taking place within the environs of a local congregation, every effort must be made to convert the one sowing such a doctrine to the truth taught in God’s Word. If this fails, then after adequate warning, the false teacher must be noted and withdrawn from. Any eldership that does not so act has failed the Lord and the congregation over which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers. This is so clearly seen in the words of Luke, who said that when Paul was at Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church and, among various other things, told them to:

...take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.... 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.20

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20 Acts 20:28-29, 31-32.

! 142 Having said this, we’ll now turn our attention back to Kurt Simmons’ contention that Satan is nothing but a metaphor for “Sin and Death.” In the process, we’ll also take a look at the already-not yet tension of various Bible subjects and how this applies to the subject at hand. This is necessary because REs either fail to appreciate this aspect of Scripture, or purposefully ignore it. Either way, they wind up making wrong interpretations of God’s Word.

I have run across Christians who believe Satan has been bound and imprisoned and, as such, can have no effect upon mankind today. They claim biblical justification for such a view, for in Matthew 12:29, Mark 3:27, and Luke 11:21-22, in apparent references to Satan and his works, Jesus made it clear that the “strong man’s house” could not be spoiled until he was first “bound.” This, I believe, is exactly what Jesus was doing during His earthly ministry—the final knot being the Lord’s death on the cross and His subsequent resurrection from the dead three days later.

A Bound Satan Is Not A Satan Who Is Totally Out Of Business

However, to think that because Satan is bound he no longer has any influence today is to either misunderstand or ignore a passage like 1 Peter 5:8, which says, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” In the very next verse, Peter wrote, “Resist him, steadfast in the faith.” A Devil who is totally out of business cannot be described as going about as a roaring lion, nor would he need to be resisted. Furthermore, James taught the very same thing: “Resist the devil and he will flee from you” (Jas. 4:7). These two passages cannot be teaching that Satan, who was surely bound in some sense, can no longer do us any harm. Nevertheless, when I asked a brother who believed that Satan was not just bound, but locked away in prison as well, what he thought “goes about as a roaring lion” meant, he said it was “just a metaphor.” When I said, “Yes, it’s a metaphor all right, but what’s it a metaphor for?”, he tellingly had no reply.

Although the good brother mentioned above is not an RE, he remains convinced that Satan is no longer in business today. For all practical purposes, then, the Devil, according to this way of thinking, is already dead. If not actually, then in influence, for such a view holds Satan to be impotent. Likewise, when one does espouse the RE doctrine, he must necessarily believe, or so it seems to me, that since A.D. 70, Satan has been judged and is, as a result, totally out of business—i.e., dead. This is verified by David A. Green, an RE, who wrote:

The term preterism [which is just another name for RE] in this article [namely, “Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds”] refers to the belief that all (or virtually all) Bible prophecy is fulfilled. It does not refer to the belief of partial preterism, which says that the Great Tribulation is fully past but that a great many other things are not

! 143 fulfilled, most importantly: the Second Coming, the death of the Devil, the general Resurrection of the dead, and the Great White Throne Judgment.21

Belief among REs in “the death of the Devil” is further evidenced by Don K. Preston, who said: “Jesus has indeed cast Satan into hell and broken his power,” consequently, “Satan has been finally defeated, [and] cast into hell.”22 He concluded by saying:

One thing is certain: the Bible says Jesus came to destroy Satan, and he would return quickly to consummate his victory. The Christian must ask: did Jesus fail? If so, we are hopelessly lost. Personally, this writer believes Jesus returned as he promised, and consummated his grand Scheme of Redemption. Victory is assured! Mankind need never again say, “The devil made me do it.”

It is interesting to observe that Preston, who, as a result of his RE doctrine, negates the “hope” we have in Christ Jesus, a hope resting on the resurrection of our Lord’s body from the grave and its subsequent glorification (see Rom. 8:8-25; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Jn. 3:2-3), has made his RE belief that everything was fulfilled in A. D. 70 the primary source of our present hope, for if everything the REs claim took place in A.D. 70 did not really happen, then we are, according to Preston, “hopelessly lost.” Not hopelessly lost, mind you, as Paul said we were if the dead do not rise (see 1 Cor. 15:12- 19), but hopelessly lost if what the REs claim happened in A.D. 70 did not actually happen. This is what I was referring to earlier when I said that REs, in order to be consistent (and “consistent preterism” is one of the terms they happily apply to themselves), wind-up turning topsy-turvy most everything we have believed to be true religiously, particularly the Lord’s second coming and those events associated with it.

As bad as the things mentioned above are, such remain a far cry from the think-sos of Kurt Simmons, an RE who denies there ever was a real personal Devil in the first place. But before dealing with Simmons’ bizarre contention, especially for one, like himself, who pays lip-service to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures,23 I want to first deal with the claims of those who do not deny the existence of Satan, just that he has already been bound, defeated, destroyed, and as a result, no longer has any real cause and effect influence on the world.

The “Already” And The “Not Yet”

Anyone who has studied the Bible for very long understands there are two sets of scriptures dealing with Jesus’ defeat and destruction of Satan and death. One set speaks of Satan and death as already being destroyed; another speaks of the very same thing as

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 21 David A. Green, “Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds,” in footnote 1, http://www.preteristcosmos.com/pretcreed.html. 22 Don K. Preston, “The Binding of Satan,” http://fullpreterism.com/donkpreston/the-binding-of-satan/. 23 Kurt M. Simmons, “This We Believe: A Preterist Statement of Faith,” http://www.preteristcentral.com/Preterist%20Creed.html, pay particular attention to the first four paragraphs.

! 144 not yet having occurred.24 In the “already” category, there is Hebrews 2:14, which, speaking of Jesus, says, “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the Devil.” Although this passage does not say so, in so many words, the New Testament makes it clear that it was through the Lord’s resurrection from the dead that He won His great victory over Death: “[K]nowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him” (Rom. 6:9). Has the Devil already been destroyed? Yes. Has Death been destroyed? Yes, it has (see 2 Tim. 1:10). Even so, in 1 Corinthians 15:22-26, Paul wrote:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ are all made alive. But each one in his own order; Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

Thus, if the Bible is what it claims to be, and not just some man-made theological mumbo-jumbo, there is a sense in which Satan and Death were destroyed by Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. But at the same time, there is a sense in which Satan is yet to be finally dealt with and Death destroyed in the general resurrection of the Last Day. This, then, is an example of the already-not yet tension we find exhibited several places in the Scriptures. Thus, there is a sense in which Satan and his works have already been destroyed. At the same time, there is a sense in which Satan was, and still is, very much alive and active on planet earth (see Eph. 4:27; 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:26; Jas. 4:7; 1 Pet 5:8; 1 Jn. 3:8; and Rev. 2:10). Satan’s final destruction, then, is something yet to occur, and when it does, he’ll be spending an eternity in a place “prepared for [him] and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). In the meantime, he is still active, although bound, and praise the Lord for such binding, for Satan’s hold over us has been seriously diminished. But this does not mean he is no longer dangerous. He is, and we must be very careful not to be taken in by his “wiles” (Eph. 6:11).

I intend to return to a further discussion of this already-not yet tension a little later, especially as it impacts REs’ interpretation of those things mentioned in Scripture they view as having to do specifically with the A.D. 70 event. But for the time being, suffice it to say that Kurt Simmons avoids the significance of this already-not yet tension by declaring the Bible’s use of the term “Satan” (along with his other scriptural designations) is nothing more than a metaphor for “Sin and Death,” and that demons are nothing more than figments of men’s ignorant and superstitious imaginations— imaginations, Simmons says, the Bible simply accommodates. So, we’ll now return to our examination of Simmons’ view of Satan. We’ll follow this with a look at his beliefs concerning the Bible’s alleged accommodation of demons.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 24 This already-not yet tension is something that must not only be comprehended in order to understand numerous Bible subjects, but it is extremely critical when attempting to critique RE.

! 145 Satan: A Real Personal Being, Or Simply A Metaphor?

Reeking of Gnosticism, Kurt Simmons engages in intoxicated blabbering about the “source” or “seed” of evil residing inherently in man’s flesh (i.e., his physical/material body). Under Gnosticism’s influence, he further argues that angels, because they do not have physical/material bodies, “cannot sin.” By cannot, he means they are simply incapable of doing so. But when pressed as to why this is true, he resorts to a circular reasoning that says: (1) “angels, by definition, are immortal, intangible, and immaterial”25 (i.e., they do not have physical bodies). However, (2) all evil derives from physical bodies. Consequently, (3) because angels have no physical bodies, they “cannot sin.” ‘Round and ‘round such reasoning goes, and it does not stop until it lands on those concepts that bolster RE think-sos. Such inspires confidence in neither Simmons’ reasoning, nor his doctrine.

With this in mind, let’s just stop and think about Simons’ situation. If he had considered the already-not yet sense of Bible passages which impact his doctrine, he would never have needed to resort to his RE interpretation of such passages in the first place. If he would have not rejected or ignored the different uses of sarx in the NT, he would have never come to the conclusion that man’s physical body is inherently evil/sinful. This is doubly true if he would have just believed what God had said about His “good”/”very good” creation from the beginning. And if so, he would have never, ever thought that “Angels are not subject to fleshly lusts and therefore are not tempted with sin.”26 In other words, if Simmons had not been so intent on using an RE hammer when it came to interpreting the Scriptures, then every relevant passage would have not looked like an RE nail, and therefore it would more than likely never have occurred to him that the Bible’s use of the term Satan (and the other attendant terms associated with him) was intended to make one think the Devil was not a real spiritual entity at all, but was, instead, simply a metaphor for sin and death. After all, think of all those Bible passages that clearly represent the Devil as being not some impersonal force, but a very real, very personal, spirit being. Of course, the same thing holds true of demons, as well.

It is, therefore, absolutely shocking that Simmons holds the position he does on Satan and demons. I say “shocking” because it seems apparent the only reason he takes the position he does is because of his RE beliefs—beliefs he then allows to trump clear Bible teaching. This, of course, is the sad, but inevitable, saga of all false teaching, for everything must bow before the false system, even the clear teaching of God’s word.

Furthermore, it is most interesting that while Simmons’ position on the Devil and demons not being real entities is easily inferred from his belief that physical bodies are the source/seed of all evil, there is little said or written about this on his website or in his articles. I found it a bit difficult, then, to find quotes to substantiate his position on this. Notwithstanding, a few have been obtained and are quite illuminating. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 25 Kurt M. Simmons, “Three Views On The Resurrection,” http://www.preteristcentral.com/Three%20Views%20on%20the%20Resurrection.html. 26 Kurt M. Simmons, “The Angels Of The Bottomless Pit,” http://www.preteristcentral.com/Angels%20of%20the%20Bottomless%20Pit.html.

! 146 Proof Is In The Reading

On a website run by Gary DeMar, called American Vision, Simmons chided DeMar, who believes Satan and demons are real, with the following: “Come on, Gary. You are too smart to continue on in the error of this medieval myth. ‘Satan’ as a fallen angel, indeed, the whole idea of ‘demons’ and ‘unclean spirits’ are the stuff of ignorance. They are terminology used to explain what men did not know through ignorance of sin and medical science.”27 Then, in a recent edition of The Sword & The Plow, the newsletter of the Bimillennial Preterist Association, Simmons, in an answer to a question about Satan and demons, replied:

Thanks for writing. I have never been persuaded that there are supernatural being[s] or demons, but feel this is better explained as the superstitious jargon of the day. What we call epilepsy today, they thought was demonic possession back then. What we call insanity today, they called demonic possession, etc. The father who met Jesus after the mount of Transfiguration, said his son was “lunatic” in Matthew, but Luke describes him as being seized by a “spirit” which cast him down foaming and crying (Matt. 17:15; Lk. 9:37-42). The Greek definition given by Berry in his Interlinear Greek New Testament says the term “lunatic” means epilepsy, confirming what I said. The man called legion may have suffered from insanity and some sort of multiple personality disorder. In all these cases, it is just as easy to understand these in reference to physical and mental illness as it is demonic possession. Since all these sorts of things are with us today, but we do not ascribe them to demons, why should we interpret the same maladies differently in the Bible merely because of the names employed?28

He continued:

The source of evil is the lust of man’s flesh, which is still very much alive and well and we wrestle against it every day. The physical and emotional diseases associated with sin and the fall are all around us and ever will be. The word “Satan” means “adversary” and is many times translated that way in the Bible and applied to men. Do a word study in the OT on “adversary” and see how the word is also translated Satan, and see how many times it is used of men and governments. I don’t believe in supernatural devils, but it is not a topic I go out of my way to talk about, since most people cannot receive it.29

I find the last sentence most interesting, and want to point out that the “most people” who “cannot receive it” would include many, if not most, of his fellow REs, for only those who have drunk as deeply from the Gnostic well, as has Simmons, would be so bold as to deny the existence of Satan and his minions. Nevertheless, this is exactly what Simmons has done, and his own words prove it. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 27 http://americanvision.org/3671/concerning-halloween/. 28 Kurt M. Simmons, “Questions From Our Readers,” 11-12, http://www.preteristcentral.com/pdf/The%20Sword%2011-11.pdf. 29 Ibid.

! 147 In answering a question about Matthew 4 and Jesus’ temptation by Satan, Simmons tops it all off by saying:

Jesus’ temptation was from his flesh, just like yours and mine. He hungered, he was tempted with world power, and he was tempted to doubt his identity and test God. These are all the sort of internal dialogues we have with ourselves all the time. The gospels express the internal battle in terms of an external foe apparently for purposes of communicating difficult lessons in terms everyone can understand.

Once again, I feel the need to say how anyone who believes in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible could so interpret Matthew 4:1-11 is practically beyond belief. In fact, if someone had tried to convince me, without the above documentation, that this was Simmons’ viewpoint, I would never have believed it. Yes, the appeal in this series of temptations can certainly be classified in the categories of what the Bible calls “the lust of the flesh,” “the lust of the eyes,” and “the pride of life” (cf. 1 Jn. 2:16), which have all been the modi operandi of Satan from the very beginning (cf. Gen. 3:6). Furthermore, such is perfectly consistent with James 1:12-15, which says:

Blessed is the man who endures temptation, for when he has been proved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Unfortunately, Simmons, along with too many of my brothers and sisters in Christ, believe this is all there is to temptation. In other words, they believe we’re just shadow- boxing, that we have no external opponent, because he has either been conclusively dealt with and cannot touch us today, as too many brethren think, or he never was a real entity in the first place, as Simmons clearly teaches. Both of these views, however, are seriously flawed.

There Is, In Fact, A Tempter

The Bible teaches there is a tempter and that he is still active, even today. To demonstrate this, we only need to turn to Matthew 4:3, which says, “Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, ‘If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.’“ Along these same lines, when writing to the Thessalonians, Paul said, “For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain” (1 Thess. 3:5).

! 148 And He Is Crafty

In Ephesians 6:11, Paul commanded the Ephesians, and by extension Christians today, to “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” This isn’t just shadow boxing, it is the other half of the sin equation. Again, in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, Paul said:

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

So, Beware!

So remember, the Devil doesn’t play fair! Not only do we have a responsibility to control our bodies and hold them in check, as James 1 tells us, but we must also be willing to put on the whole armor of God in order to stand against Satan’s wiles, tricks, and devices (Eph. 6:11). He and his deceitful workers, whether men or demons, will use every kind of deception. If we are not careful, then, we can be cheated (Col. 2:8).

Thus, Be Sober! Submit to God! Resist The Devil!

The Scriptures say, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). It further says: “Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you” (Jas. 4:7). So again, keep in mind that we cannot win this battle by ourselves. For in order to be victorious, we must have the Lord’s help. He has, in Christ, graciously provided us with everything we need to overcome the Devil and his angels, telling us that “No temptation has overtaken [us] except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow [us] to be tempted beyond what [we] are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that [we] may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

! 149