Unashamed of Grace

Putting the Focus on 3D Theology: Part 3

2011-08-08T10:42:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

John 17:3
Since there has been so much talk about John 17:3, I have taken it upon myself to pray over this verse and meditate upon it. Furthermore, I have attempted to wrestle with it in the larger context of the 4th gospel and the other writings of the Apostle John bearing significant testimony concerning its subject matter.

Idiomatic expression (as in the peculiarly Johannine construction here) can continue to have particular nuances, depending upon the context and subject matter of the expression itself. See the different ways that Christ uses the expression "The first will be last...", for example. Each instance of a specific usage needs to be viewed fresh and in light of its own peculiarities. This is how language works. Language is not wooden and inflexible, but able to be employed in various fluid and flexible ways. Certainly precision is able to be maintained, but it never has to be at the expense of rich and colorful usage. How Jesus Christ (or the Apostle John) uses a colloquial expression in one context does not determine how he uses it in another. Certainly we would need to examine the way it was used, but this is only one consideration in the process of coming to an interpretation.

Furthermore, John 17:3 does not come to us as in a vacuum. One must consider the import of other passages dealing with its subject matter, first by the same inspired author, and then by others, in order that one may come to valid interpretive conclusions concerning it. We would be remiss unless we did so. A careful study of the the Apostle John’s writings will inform our interpretation of John 17:3. It is more than unwise to take this verse as an island and form an entire theology out of it. To do so is reading into the text.

The gospel writer is abundantly clear that those who have eternal life can nevertheless be in a state of not knowing the Father:

1 John 2:3, "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him"

1 John 4:8, "He who does not love does not know God"

And in a state of not knowing the Son:

John 14:9, “...Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip?”

John 17:3 is like a predicate nominative construction. The main clause says, "Eternal life is this". If we were to substitute the subordinate substantival and appositional clause for the near demonstrative pronoun, this, we could have the construction: "Eternal life is that they may know [the Father]... and Jesus Christ..." In allowing the author to inform us concerning the subject of knowing the Father and the Son, we must, attending to the law of the excluded middle, conclude that John 17:3 cannot be asserting that the possession of eternal life guarantees or even initiates a superlative and intimate knowledge of God. “Sea World is that they may enjoy aquatic life.” (I keep using Sea World, because my family has year passes, and in fact, I am taking my son there today). What this expression about Sea World denotes is its core design, not a 1 to 1 correspondence. Design implies purpose. If I said that Sea World was designed to create an atmosphere and environment conducive for the enjoyment of aquatic life, it is to be noticed that such a design was created for that purpose. Thus, at the core of its design and purpose, eternal life has the capacity and potential of knowing God. But unless non-negotiable conditions are met in the life of the one possessing eternal life, the regenerate one will not achieve the purposes for which he was given that life.

One on one correspondence and wholesale equation of two words and/or concepts is not a common occurrence in everyday life or in the Bible. In actuality, it is a very uncommon one. Usually, where wholesale equation is made an articular predicate and articular predicate nominative are used, as in the Apostle John’s affirmation of the identity between “sin” and “lawlessness” in 1 John 3:4. Imagine I said, “Honey, go get the heater in the bathroom so that I might dry off the dog.” My daughter returns and says, “Dad, there is no heater in the bathroom, only this blow dryer.” To which I respond, “The blow dryer is the heater I was referring to.” In this construction, I have wholesale affirmed the identity of two concepts. It can’t be stressed enough that such a construction is absent in John 17:3. Furthermore, in 1 John 5:20, which we are about to look at more closely, we find that Jesus Christ, Himself, is in some sense equated with eternal life (although still not in the articular way described above). We are obviously dealing with figurative language in these texts, dealing with a certain measure of metaphor. Care must be applied to the interpretation of figurative language. Furthermore, we must recognize the need for some harmonization of the facts that both Jesus Christ, Himself, and that one may know Jesus Christ and the Father are in some sense parallel to the multi-facet concept that is eternal life. If one were to claim wholesale equality between Jesus Christ and that one may know Him with eternal life, it would diminish the values of all the concepts involved. An essential component of a dynamic concept is not the same as the concept itself.

1 John 5:20
The Apostle John does not leave us without clues in the interpretation of John 17:3. It is easily demonstrated that in the Gospel of John the crowning experience of life (Jn 12:24-26) and intimate knowledge of the Father and the Son (Jn 14:21, 23) does not come by grace through faith; they are not dependent upon believing in Jesus alone, but upon the added element of earnest devotion to God. This pertinent consideration necessarily places parameters on the interpretation of John 17:3 and is a real stumbling block to the assertions of 3d theology proponents. Within the Gospel of John the reader is met with conditions for experiencing the purposes inherent in the design of eternal life. Only a resolute blindness could miss and/or disregard the implications of such discovery:

Regeneration, the possession of new life, along with its inherent guarantees comes by faith alone in Christ alone.

The superlative and crowning experience of this life and intimate fellowship with God comes by faith + works.

To confuse and admix these two attested spiritual realities is to beget danger, as we will explore later (probably in another post). But suffice it to say for now, the very fabric of salvation by grace alone through faith alone is at stake.

As if a consideration of the subject matter in the Gospel of John wasn’t enough, in my prayertime, the Lord directed me to 1 John 5:20. In it we have all the concepts resident in John 17:3.

1 John 5:20, "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

This last verse is very important. Here we are met with the concept that those who are regenerate have been given the capacity (Gk: dianoian, the understanding or intelligence) for the purpose of knowing God. Certainly the ina+subjunctive here is for purpose, and of course, there is no guarantee that the purpose will be fulfilled. As a matter of fact, it is equally able to be demonstrated, that for the Apostle John, knowing the "True One" may only be realized by those who are in fellowship with God, as verified by their obedience to His commands. This is everywhere evident throughout this epistle.

Having eternal life, being in Jesus Christ, enables us to know God in an intimate way. It gives us the capacity, described as an intelligence and understanding, for deep fellowship with God. This capacity, lying at the core of eternal life, is given for the purpose of knowing God. But as the whole epistle of 1 John shows, such intimate knowledge of God is reserved for those who, through their faith in Christ, keep God’s commandments. That this experiential knowledge of God comes upon the condition of works should be evident to all, and not by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

1 John 5:20 is very important in our discussion of John 17:3. It hearkens us back to John 17:3 where the concepts of “eternal life”, “true God”, Jesus Christ, and knowing God are present. 1 John 5:20 actually goes far in explaining what is meant by John 17:3 and should only be ignored at our peril. John 17:3, taken alone, and apart from information furnished to us by its author in other texts, could be used to provide the basis for a deep and mystical theological formulation. Such an understanding is often presented in beautiful language. The proponents of 3d theology show us a figure of a three-dimensional cube, but only at its face. They show its width and height, corners, and surface. But in reality, there is no depth. For when you look at its side, you discover that it is only 2d. 3d theology fails to rightly divide the word of truth, and much like Lordship Salvation, puts the cart before the horse. We will examine these tendencies in later posts.

Putting the Focus on 3D Theology: Part 2

2011-07-29T14:47:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

I. Eternal Life
Life, eternal life, God’s kind of life – we shouldn’t be surprised that such a life is multi-faceted, complex, and dynamic. This assumption is clearly demonstrated by the Scriptures. Natural life is much the same, and as a matter of fact, there are fascinating correlations to eternal life. As ought to be apparent, everyone on the face of the planet does in fact possess, in a sense, a quality that can be described as “life”. Human beings have the God given gift of pro-creation. Conception and birth bring forth a new “life” which is given unconditionally apart from the will of the one “life” has been bestowed upon. Resident in this new life are innate qualities that everyone, irrespective of who they are or what they do, is blessed with. Once initiated into “life”, the quality to which that “life” can attain is substantially dependent upon the individual himself. The degree to which one invests his life wisely will actuate a commensurate level of and capacity for “life”. There is, of course, senses in which people who are alive, nonetheless, cannot be described as having “life” wherein one is merely experiencing “dead” existence; though alive, one can be “dead” in experience in relation to the world and others.

A. Statement:
Eternal life is a dynamic life principle with several facets. This life is bestowed unconditionally upon the one who receives it as a gift, through purposeful faith in Jesus Christ (faith in Him for its possession), in what is called regeneration, or being “born again” – this birth not being according to the will of the flesh or man, but by the will of God, Himself (Jn 1:12-13). Furthermore, eternal life is no static entity – it also conditionally relates to one’s experience of life, being a result of one’s earnest devotion to Jesus Christ (Jn 12:24-26). This life comes only as the return of one’s life investment.

1. Pertaining Guarantee
As it is “eternal life” and God’s life that is created by the seed of God’s Word germinating in the heart of the individual (Jas 1:18), this life is necessarily endless and unending (Jn 11:26, “shall never ever die into eternity” –Gk). Furthermore, God created man to live in a body – it wasn’t until a spirit was introduced to the body by the breath of God did man become a “living being” (Gen 2:7). Though regenerate man, under the curse of sin, is subject to physical death, he nevertheless, by virtue and necessity of the possession of “eternal life”, is guaranteed physical resurrection (Jn 11:25b). Finally, the one born of God, by necessary indication of this birth, is excluded from the final judgement – where those who are “dead” in relation to God are confirmed in this state of “death” forever (Rev 20:14b) having already been under condemnation (Jn 3:18).

2. Pertaining Potentials
Knowing God, which results in a crowning experience of life, is contingent upon several factors, that if left unfulfilled, will prevent a regenerate person from such fellowship. Love actuated in the believer is one condition of knowing Him. The same author who gave us John 17:3 also wrote, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 Jn 4:7-8). In verse 7 and 11 of 1 John 4 the readers are instructed to love. There is no guarantee that the believer will love, and if he does not love he can neither have a dynamic experience of eternal life nor “know” God in this intimate sense. Love is not some ethereal, abstract notion. Love is laying down one’s life for his brethren (1 Jn 3:16b), helping his brother with material necessities (1 Jn 3:17); in reality it is having Christ’s commandments and keeping them (Jn 14:21)! Intimacy with God is only experienced by those who earnestly devote themselves to Jesus Christ.

The abundant experience of eternal life (both in time and eternity) does not come by way of a gift, as the primary and inherent guarantees do – unending life, physical resurrection, and exclusion from final judgement. No! This experience is the return on one’s investment of his life. This concept is famously illustrated in Mark 8:34-37:

...He said to them, "Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his life? Or what can a man give in exchange for his life?”

Certainly it should not be assumed at this point that God has not placed responsibility upon Himself in all of this. Firstly, it was He who initiated the familial relationship to begin with! Next, we are told by the Apostle Peter that God’s “divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life” along with “exceedingly great and precious promises” by which we “may be partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pe 1:3-4).

We will discuss these things more, and the implications of them in the next installment.

To be continued...

Antonio da Rosa

Putting the Focus on 3D Theology: Part 1

2011-07-29T14:39:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

Assessment of Tim’s Comments
The kind of discussion, this mode of thought, this stream of consciousness that comes from Tim in his statements here, and in his recent slew of posts, has about it a certain superficial plausibility. Indeed, it contains some real truth. But upon close scrutiny, it is impossibly vague and solves absolutely nothing. It is full of logical and hermeneutical errors. It is actually such a distortion of the truth using high-minded and spiritual language that it is seemingly cult-like, and Tim is the de facto charismatic guru and leader. It was very instructive going back and reading the progress that Tim has made in the formulation of this manner of doctrine, as you can see a progressive history of it in his blog posts and comments. Tim had some very good questions and concerns about the Promise-Only view of saving faith , but unfortunately no one took the time to answer these objections, and it seems Tim didn’t look very far in seeking to get them properly and sufficiently answered. In response to this, it seems, Tim got a “revelation” and started using it as a working thesis to solve the problems that he saw in the current “food fight” as he puts it. The problem is that he has superimposed this thesis onto the scriptures, and uses it as his interpretive grid. Now, so thoroughly submerged into this formulation, Tim “sees” his doctrine everywhere, while nevertheless remaining obstinately blind to its innate contradictions and scriptural imprecision. This process that I have sensed is precisely how many cults have been instituted in the past. The more questions that get raised concerning the many difficulties and errors in his formulations, the more entrenched and passionate (and somewhat vitriolic) he becomes in both defending and propagating it.

Furthermore, this doctrine has the testimony and appearance of a superlative spiritual phenomenon and yet smacks of the pride that is often associated with those who have had a “second blessing”.

Next, it is mighty presumptuous to make a sweeping judgement concerning the effects of a teaching without a shred of support arguing why such an effect is both logical and inevitable. The shock and outrage of placing obstacles between man and a living relationship with God! What kind of excess it this? Does Tim really believe that Zane’s theology (or mine for that matter) is guilty of such a crime? I submit that if he can say so in the sincerity of his heart (and I can’t imagine that he can, God only knows) that he is nevertheless sincerely ignorant of what we actually believe and teach! Furthermore, Tim’s pronouncement is necessarily divorced from a consideration of the wide field of available material and teaching that has the present experience of life as its focal in Free Grace Theology (which by the way is an essential teaching of it, both promoted and emphasized!), for if he had considered it, the result would have been the taking of the bite out of his bark, and the wind from his sails. Furthermore, there has been alot of work into the propositional nature of the saving message (I, for one, having developed solid arguments in print for it as others). Tim’s original post has all the earmarks of mischaracterization and a straw man effigy.

Finally, we are left with the task of finding the truth. How this will be accomplished is through a reasoned and precise appeal to Scripture using the timeless principles of hermeneutics expressed through God given articulation and logic. At the outset, we must admit that this is a humbling experience, as this is the very Word of God we are attempting to decipher. Pride must must make way for humility, and the Bible must be made to speak for itself. In allowing the Bible to speak, we will necessarily find that it is at odds with Tim and Jim’s doctrine in this case. The lack of applying sound hermeneutical principles by Tim to the study of the Bible has produced great error, tragic and even dangerous error, as we will later note.

An Impression
On this note, I get the impression that to Tim and Jim, Michele is like an experiment, and Michele is all too willing of a participant in it. To me, it is like the training of an animal to them. Much time has been invested to illicit the desired responses, and reward is given when these responses occur, even in the spite of less than perfect results (which is never a description of this formulation anyway). But little by little, they are making her into a creature of their bend. If my impression is even somewhat correct, this is shameless. Furthermore, there is evident the “mother bear” syndrome common in cultic-type situations with Tim’s protection of his “sister”. This is a most unfortunate situation, as Michele has admitted her issues with involvement in cults (plural) in the past, and seems to be following into such a mode again.

I furthermore have read the history of Michele in this matter from her blog. She used to use words like “seem” and “possibly” with much other subjunctive expression, but now confidently assumes herself as an authority in these matters of soteriology with the same lack of care and precision that her teachers use. Getting any straight answers from her has been impossible because of the manifest and ubiquitous failures of this system. There are no shortcuts to the proper mining of God’s truth and the one who is going to do so will need the proper skill and tools. It is if Michele was sticking to the wading pool but now entertains her prowess in swimming in the rapids. The illustration that Tim uses in this article, with a little twist, ironically describes his formulations. This system keeps one wading in the shallow crib, supposing himself to be swimming in the deep lake. Unfortunately, it is not good advice in this case to knock the bottom out of the swimming crib, because its occupants are liable to drown!

Concluding Thought in this First Installment
The reticence to provide a reasoned exposition and appeal to scripture in support of this formulation, and the necessity to use much allegory, metaphor, and simple prose to describe it speaks volumes. This formulation has been brewing for over a year (and most likely for years) but has yet to produce a definitive and scholarly defense of it with which people can properly access and consider it.

To be continued...

What about the Unevangelized? Part 5

2011-07-15T04:21:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

It is such a long time since I posted here. I thought it might be an idea to finish off the series I began back in 2009.

To summarise where we got to, in the first part we concluded that it is logical to expect that God has made some provision for those who have not heard the offer of eternal life by human means. We followed this by considering different views offered by evangelicals regarding the likelihood of the salvation of some of the unevangelized. The view Universal Premortem Opportunism was explained and identified as the view this blogger would defend.

Universal Premortem Opportunism holds that God has offered the opportunity to all persons to accept or reject the offer of eternal life. In the event of a person never encountering a human evangelist, she would receive sufficient revelation before her death to enable her to believe. In part 3 we looked at a number of possible Scriptural arguments for this position.

In part 4 we addressed the verse Romans 10:14, which is often used to assert that nobody can be saved without encountering an human preacher or evangelist. It was argued to the contrary, that Paul was making a rhetorical point to establish that Israel's condemnation was just.

This post will address the big objection that a lot of evangelicals will have to the theory of Universal Opportunism. This is that it takes away the motivation for evangelism? Surely the need to save sinners from a lost eternity is the chief motive for evangelism. If there is a possibility that God will save sinners independently of our gospel missions, are not our efforts redundant?

We have all heard a missionary speaker come to our churches and give a stark motivational talk. He speaks of the spiritual darkness of the land in which he ministers, he speaks of the ignorance of the natives of that land. He warns of how men and women are dying in that country and others daily and are going to an eternity of darkness and torment.

Such talks have motivated many blessed brothers and sisters to answer the call of Christ to go out into the world and labour for Him. I do not want to in any way diminish the value of having an healthy concern for those who are in spiritual darkness and having a consciousness of the reality of condemnation for those who do not believe. Nevertheless, I do not see anything exactly resembling this kind of motivational talk in the New Testament. We have Ezekiel 3:18-19, but this was a warning about God's temporal judgment on Israel and they were a people who already had the law. Nowhere does Paul, Peter, or John warn their readers about the millions who are perishing daily and motivate them on that basis. Romans 10:14 has been used that way, but as I argued in part 4, this is a misreading of Paul's argument.

I do worry that this style of motivational talk can be unhealthy. It can come across as emotional blackmail and lead to a negative view of missionaries. It could also lead to unhelpful guilt in those who are not on the mission field but who give generously and contribute to the work of Christ in many valuable ways. It may also prevent rational and wise contemplation over what kind of work Christians take up.

I think many will agree with me that too many Christians have an unbalanced view of conversion and evangelism. In a lot of American churches, they talk a lot about 'soul-winning' (without much awareness of the diversity of the way the word 'soul' is used in Scripture), but not very much about making disciples. There is a tendency to think of salvation as simply being saved from eternal condemnation, and not entrance into a whole new sphere of life. God's purpose is not simply to save people from the Lake of Fire, but to gather together a people who will live in a way that is conformed to the pattern of divinized humanity in Christ. Salvation is not just about plucking sinners from the fire, but about shaping and transforming lives and building communities devoted to Christ. I believe God can give eternal life to the unevangelised before it's too late, but He cannot make them into faithful and devoted disciples without our getting involved.

If it is true that only those who have encountered a human missionary have any hope of eternal life, then it might be seen that making disciples is a waste. Why should a missionary spend time discipling his converts and planting churches? Would it not be more sensible to travel to the next village and save them from a lost eternity? The emphasis of missionary work on simply rescuing 'souls' might actually lead to an unbalanced approach to missiology.

Away With Thy Tools!

2011-07-14T15:56:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

Today, a new friend shared this devotion with me based upon Exodus 20:25 and written by Charles Spurgeon. The depth and passion of this man is clear and his words are penetrating. I will dispense with this message's implications against Lordship Salvation, for they will ring loud and true as you read his statement.

"If thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it." {Ex 20:25}

God’s altar was to be built of unhewn stones, that no trace of human skill or labour might be seen upon it. Human wisdom delights to trim and arrange the doctrines of the cross into a system more artificial and more congenial with the depraved tastes of fallen nature; instead, however, of improving the gospel carnal wisdom pollutes it, until it becomes another gospel, and not the truth of God at all. All alterations and amendments of the Lord’s own Word are defilements and pollutions.

The proud heart of man is very anxious to have a hand in the justification of the soul before God; preparations for Christ are dreamed of, humblings and repentings are trusted in, good works are cried up, natural ability is much vaunted, and by all means the attempt is made to lift up human tools upon the divine altar. It were well if sinners would remember that so far from perfecting the Saviour’s work, their carnal confidences only pollute and dishonour it. The Lord alone must be exalted in the work of atonement, and not a single mark of man’s chisel or hammer will be endured.

There is an inherent blasphemy in seeking to add to what Christ Jesus in his dying moments declared to be finished, or to improve that in which the Lord Jehovah finds perfect satisfaction. Trembling sinner, away with thy tools, and fall upon thy knees in humble supplication; and accept the Lord Jesus to be the altar of thine atonement, and rest in him alone.

Charles H. Spurgeon

One of My Favorite Quotes from Zane Hodges

2011-07-10T13:39:00.001-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

I have defended Free Grace Theology for a number of years now, and have read a variety of books on the subject. Out of the great abundance of available soundbites, the following quote from Zane Hodges rises to a position of prominence in my mind. In it is distilled for us, in a memorable way, the utter and obvious senselessness of the Lordship Salvation view. Commenting on Mark 8:34-35 and its parallels in Matthew 16:24-25; Luke 9:23-24; and allusion in John 12:25, Zane C. Hodges writes:

It would be a mistake to think here of heaven or hell. [This invitation]... is a call to self-denial and bearing one's cross. It is a call to follow Jesus, that is, a call to discipleship.

Of course, there are many who equate such a call with conversion, but by so doing they either explicitly or implicitly deny the freeness of the gospel. By no stretch of the imagination is the demand for self-denial and self-sacrifice an invitation to receive a free gift. The attempt to harmonize these polarities always ends either in hopeless absurdity or in theological sophistry.

In this respect the man on the street is often more perceptive than the theologian. If someone were to offer him a gift in return for self-denying obedience, he would readily recognize that offer as grotesquely misrepresented! [Zane C. Hodges, Grace in Eclipse, 2nd Edition, p 29]

Has not this assessment been proven correct time and again in the writings of Lordship Salvation advocates? How often has our reason been assaulted as we have been subjected to the "hopeless absurdity" and "theological sophistry" of Lordship Salvation articulation? How else are we to evaluate statements such as, "Salvation is a gift that will cost you everything"?

Charles C. Ryrie and Zane Hodges

2010-11-08T18:08:00.000-08:00

by Antonio da Rosa

Don Reiher, speaking in regards to the content of saving faith, has done a good job of showing that the Grace Evangelical Society, in general, and Zane Hodges, in particular, has "not changed[d] [their] theology to the degree [that their] accusers indicate"[1] in the current issue of the Grace Evangelical Society's Journal. In presenting the arguments in favor of his position, Don states this about a book by Zane Hodges, "The Hungry Inherit", which was first published in 1972:

[It is] clear in this book that the object of saving faith is Jesus' promise of everlasting life, not of Jesus' deity, death, and resurrection... Hodges was clearly saying in 1972 that the object of saving faith is the living water, the promise of life, not His person and work.[2]

It can be easily substantiated from a cursory read of the whole book that Hodges considered the encounter of Jesus with the woman of Sychar in John 4 to be normative evangelistic expression from the pen of the Apostle John for the Church age. Don Reiher quotes the following from the 1972 version of "The Hungry Inherit" after this introduction, "Note these words, intended to lead unbelievers today to faith in Christ"[3]:

Ignorant she had come, enlightened she had left. Empty she had arrived, full she had departed. The gift of God? She knew it now - eternal life inexhaustibly welling up within the heart! "Who is it that saith to thee, 'Give me to drink'? She knew Him now - the Christ, the Savior of the World![4]

In 1997, Zane Hodges put out a third edition of this same book, printed this time by his own publishing company, Redencion Viva. Owning all three versions of the book, (the two others by Moody,1972, and Multinomah Press, 1980) and comparing them has led me to believe that there is no disparity of thought in regards to the core conviction of Zane Hodges - eternal life is the irrevocable present possession of the one who simply believes in Jesus through His promise to guarantee this life to the believer. As a matter of fact, this foundational belief is strengthened further with each new version.

In the 1997, Redencion Viva edition, again commenting on the woman at the well of Sychar, Zane states:

The writer of the story we are looking at was the Apostle John. The book in which he placed the story had this simple purpose: "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (Jn.20:31). Now the woman knew the two things Jesus had said she needed to know. First, she finally knew "the gift of God."... it was nothing less than eternal life, God's marvelous gift to thirsty souls. But she also now knew "who it was who said to her, 'Give Me a drink.'" As He had just declared, He was the Messiah - the Christ... she believed what He said [John 4:28, 29]... [a]nd the moment she did she received the gift of eternal life. The truth of His person carried that water with it, and everyone who believed that truth possessed "life in His name." As John the Apostle was later to write: "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 Jn 5:1). The woman believed that now. So she now had God's living water!... Jesus had meant that once this woman knew what God wanted to give her and knew who He himself was, she would already have the gift of living water.[5]

It can't be stated forcefully enough that Zane did not subscribe to the Free Grace Alliance's pre-qualification and theological legalism, which comes in the form of checklist evangelism, in these versions of his book.

I have read a few of Charles Ryrie's books: Basic Theology, So Great Salvation, and Balancing the Christian Life, as well as essays he has written in other works. They have been tremendously helpful in providing a solid framework by which I could organize my own systematic theology, dispensationalism, and Free Grace Theology. Charles has laid groundwork in these areas that are still of great benefit today. In the latest version of Zane Hodges' book "The Hungry Inherit," Charles Ryrie gives the foreword. Here are some points of interest:

The burden of this work is to distinguish clearly salvation and discipleship. No distinction is more vital to theology, more basic to a correct understanding of the New Testament, or more relevant to every believer's life and witness. The distinction is introduced through two of our Lord's earliest conversations [the woman at the well and the interview with Nicodemus]... When one finishes this book, there can be no mistaking the fact that the free gift of the water of life and the call to discipleship are clearly distinguished in the New Testament...

Mr. Hodges is completely qualified in the technical aspects of this work...

As one who is known to share the convictions expressed in this work, I am very grateful to God for its publication. May it be widely read and used of the Lord to clarify and exalt His matchless grace.[6]

The Hungry Inherit clearly does not give any impression that anything other or greater than the simple faith expressed by the woman at the well is necessary in this post-cross era for the appropriation of eternal life. Was Dr. Ryrie beguiled or disengaged from critical observation at the time he gave his glowing and unqualified endorsement? I don't know. Nor have I been privy to any conversations concerning the matter at hand with him either in public or private.

Nevertheless, it is my opinion, which is based upon a educated hunch, that he would be very cautious in the way that he approached this subject, and would reserve judgement until he heard first-hand accounts and arguments from both sides and then compare them to scripture.

Who knows. In light of his high regard for Zane's qualifications and work, he may end up sharing the sentiments of Dr. Earl Radmacher, who stated in one of his books:

...I am indebted to the exegetical expertise and hermeneutical care of Zane Hodges, whose humility before the Word of God and untiring diligence continues to be a model for me of "a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). There have been times when I questioned his conclusions, but further investigation usually demonstrated his superior wisdom.[7]

I believe that the position of Zane Hodges and the GES has the full support of and fidelity to the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, I am persuaded that Charles would agree to Earl's description of Zane Hodges, and if perchance he would do the "investigation" that it would demonstrate to him Zane's "exegetical expertise," "hermeneutical care," "humility," "untiring diligence," and "wisdom".

Or who knows, maybe he already subscribes to Zane's position. He did endorse it by way of his foreword...

Blessings and peace to you all

[1] Reiher, Donald, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Spring, 2010, pg 48
[2] Ibid., pgs 38-39
[3] Ibid., pg 39
[4] Hodges, Zane, The Hungry Inherit, First Edition, Moody Press, 1972, pg 18 (Don states it is from pg 20; I have the hardcover, I don't know if there was a softcover, and this might account for the discrepancy)
[5] Hodges, Zane, The Hungry Inherit, Third Edition, Redencion Viva, 1998, pg 20
[6] Ryrie, Charles, Forward to The Hungry Inherit, 1972, pgs 7-8
[7] Radmacher, Earl, Salvation, Word Publishing, 2000, pgs IX-X

How can a person positively identify another?

2010-11-05T14:24:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

For the purpose of referencing someone in a conversation or communication, what exactly must one do in order to positively identify someone?

Usually a first name will do among friends who through the context of their conversation mutually recognize the name and thus the person so named. Here positive ID occurs.

Often, though, persons communicating know more than one individual who shares a first name that has been referenced in conversation. Therefore it is encumbant upon the communicator referencing the third party individual to use a last name. At this point concencus can be achieved in a group and positive identification of an individual occurs.

To go further, at times a last name is not known, and thus attributes and/or characteristics of the intended referenced individual must be shared so that a delineation can occur, allowing positive identification to be made through shared awareness of how these traits delimit reference to a certain individual.

But what about expressed misconceptions in the context of communication, even great ones? Will egregious misconceptions necessarily preclude the ability to positively identify and reference an individual?

What if I were trying to convey a reference and positive identification of an individual in a conversation with a friend or group of people and I said something like this:

In order for you to get legislation enacted for your particular purpose, you must form a team of lobbyists to entreat the tax-fighting, card-carrying NRA member, pro-life California Governor-elect, Jerry Brown

Have I for the purpose of the communication identified the individual with whom I am encouraging lobbyist activity for the benefit of my hearers?

If you would say, "No," my question to you would be, "Why not?"

As a conclusion to this brief discussion, I will provide the two ways that positive identification for the purpose of reference in commmunication can occur:

1. A single unique reference is made about the individual
2. A conglomerant of references, attributes, and characterstics, that form a unique delimiting picture is given about the individual

When speaking to another about Jesus Christ, any one of a multitude of individual unique delimiting informations about Him can be given that will positively identify Him, and thus precise reference can be made, or a host of information, that when taken as a whole will create a unique picture, and accordingly, positively ID Him.

If a person is introduced to Jesus Christ through passages of the New Testament and are confronted with His unique claim to guarantee everlasting life to anyone who entrusts their eternal destiny to Him, and then so does, what are the arguments against this person having eternal life, even in the presence of egregious misconceptions about the Person and Work of Christ?

And He said Unto THEM....

2009-06-02T10:12:00.000-07:00

by Rose

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! (Luke 22:14-22)

He sat down with his TWELVE disciples and He said unto THEM:

This is my body which is given for you... and this is my blood shed for you.

Most all people who are familiar with the gospel accounts -even vaguely- would assume that Judas went to Hell. If I were a Calvinist, I would say that Judas was not among the elect, those chosen to be saved.

I wonder: if I were a Calvinist, how could I read this... where we are told that Jesus HIMSELF said to the TWELVE that He was about to shed His blood for them...

how could I read that... and then still hold that Christ did not die for saved and unsaved alike - all mankind?

A conundrum.

What about the Unevangelized Part 4

2009-04-25T07:02:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

One objection which may sometimes be raised against universal premortem opportunism is Romans 10:14:

14 ¶ 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?

This verse is often cited as proof that no body can be saved unless they encounter an human preacher. This verse is a favourite in missionary talks, where it is used to pressure people into either giving towards mission or to get young people to become missionaries.

Many years ago I read “What about those who have not heard?” a ‘three views’ book edited by Gabriel Fackre. Sadly, none of the three contributors defended the view expressed in these posts, instead arguing for Restrictivism, Inclusivism and Postmortem Evangelisation. One significant absence in the debate was this Romans 10:14. Even Ronald Nash, who argued for Restrictivism omitted to mention this verse. I suspect this was because the authors all understood that this verse in no way proves Restrictivism.

Even if Paul was making this statement with the same intent as missionary speakers, it would not necessarily refute universal opportunism. Paul is not actually stating that preaching is the only way to receive the offer of eternal life. Were we to take it that way, nobody could be saved through reading a tract. Yet this is not the purpose of this statement.
All too often the famous verses are quoted while ignoring their context. A common example is James 2:19. So often one hears Christians saying things like:
“Its no good just believing and not walking the walk; even the demons believe.”

Yet as Zane Hodges has powerfully argued, James is quoting an hypothetical objector. A rhetorical device is in use here.

The context of Romans 9-11 is not the plight of the unevangelized. It is the rejection of the gospel by the nation of Israel. Paul is not giving a missionary talk, he is addressing Israel’s need for faith in Christ. In verse 14, Paul raises an hypothetical objection. What if they have not heard? How are they going to be saved if they have not heard a preacher? Yet he answers this in the following verses:

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? Is. 53.1

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18 ¶ But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily,
Their sound went into all the earth,
and their words unto the ends of the world. Ps. 19.4

19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith,
I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people,
and by a foolish nation I will anger you. Deut. 32.21

20 But Isaiah is very bold, and saith,
I was found of them that sought me not;
I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. Is. 65.1

21 But to Israel he saith,
All day long I have stretched forth my hands
unto a disobedient and gainsaying people

The gospel has been preached! The majority of Jews have rejected the message by which they must be saved. Yet despite this, God’s purposes still stand. Therefore, it is quite illegitimate to take this verse as some kind of proof that people can only be saved through contact with an human missionary. The possibility remains that God, in His compassion and mercy will provide light to those in darkness through dreams and visions.

What about the Unevangelized? Part 3

2009-04-05T07:05:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

In the first post we established by argument that God’s love means that the likelihood is that He has made some way for the unevangelized to escape everlasting punishment. In the second post, we looked at the different views on the subject amongst Christians. This blogger takes the view that the best solution is Universal Premortem Opportunism; that is that God probably supplies special revelation to those who have not met any human witness. This may depend upon how they have responded to the light of natural revelation.

In this post we will consider some arguments for Universal Premortem Opportunism from the Scriptures. I will confess that they are inconclusive. The Bible nowhere explicitly teaches Universal Premortem Opportunism. We can only infer it. However, this reveals a crucial difference in methodology between Restrictivists and Opportunitists:

Restrictivists settle the question by what the Bible does not say (i.e. no hope offered to unevangelized).
Opportunitists settle the question by what the Bible does say (i.e. God’s mercy, lovingkindness and the universal extent of the atonement).

For Opportunists, the character of God is a more decisive factor than the absence of any specific statements in the Scripture.

Genesis 6:13-21

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind; two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

In this passage God reveals Himself by special revelation to Noah and warns Him of the wrath to come.

God communicated to the patriarchs directly. They had no preachers or Scriptures so far as we know. This does not prove that God reveals Himself by special revelation to the unevangelised, but it does show that God does not always work through the preaching of Scripture.

Genesis 20

3 But God came to Abim'elech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.

4 But Abim'elech had not come near her: and he said, LORD, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?

5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.

6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

God cares enough about Abimelech to warn him in a dream that he is in danger of death. Does God care enough about the heathen to grant them a dream that they might avoid the second death?

Daniel 2

47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

The Lord reveals Himself by dream to the king of Babylon.

Jonah 4

10 Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not labored, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:

11 and should not I spare Nin'eveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

A beautifully simple statement of the Lord's compassion towards the heathen. Had Jonah continued to resist the call to Ninevah, would not God's compassion towards its inhabitants have remained?

Luke 12

20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

God speaks to a man before His death. Granted this was not an offer of mercy and this man may have already been regenerated (though clearly a carnal and worldly man), but it does establish a precedent for God speaking to people before they die.

Acts 10

1 There was a certain man in Caesare'a called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always.

3 He saw in a vision evidently, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

6 he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;

8 and when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.

9 ¶ On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 and he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17 ¶ Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

18 and called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by a holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

23 Then called he them in, and lodged them.
¶ And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesare'a. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?

30 ¶ And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,

31 and said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.

32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.

33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.

34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: Deut. 10.17

35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

This passage reveals God's acceptance of those who have responded to the light of natural revelation. Cornelius was such a person and he was lead to Peter to find salvation. If Cornelius had been located at a much further distance from Peter and the other apostles, he would still have been such a man that God would accept.

No doubt there are many among Islam and other false faiths who know there is a God and know that He must be feared, yet are ignorant of Him. Will God not grant to them the light of eternal life in Christ?

The Time-Share Industry and 'Free' Grace

2009-02-25T13:30:00.000-08:00

by Antonio da Rosa

The following is a small sample of my new article at Free Grace Theology Blog. It comes from the article, How to Lead People to Christ, Installment #2: The 'Deserted Island' Scenario.

If you would like to comment on this, please direct them to Free Grace Theology Blog under that thread heading.

As a proponent of Free Grace Theology, I believe that eternal life is the Gift of God. It is not a barter between man and God, nor is it a two way transaction, nor are there required preconditions attached. A gift, legitimately spoken of, does not require anything of the recipient but its reception.

The Time-Share Industry and ‘Free’ Gifts
My sister used to work in Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, Mexico, selling time-share. She still has friends in this industry. When she was up a few months ago, she gave me a brochure that offered me a 'free' gift: an all included 4-night stay in a hotel in Cabo San Lucas. But there were catches. I had to be of a certain annual income, and I had to submit to a multi-hour meeting pitching the sales of time-share in Cabo San Lucas.

Was the vacation offered a genuine free gift? I do not believe so. There is a type of barter and two-way transaction going on here, as well as a required pre-condition. In exchange for a person’s time and attention at a multi-hour sales pitch meeting, he is given a 4-night vacation. Furthermore, in order to even be eligible for this exchange, one has to meet the condition of being at a certain level of affluence; his annual income must be at the predetermined amount.

It is my contention that well meaning traditional Free Grace theology people would be inconsistent if they did not consider this vacation a genuine free gift. Why? This scenario illustrates their doctrine of soteriology, in which they claim to be adherents of a free grace. But is their doctrine truly free grace?

One is not able to simply receive the free gift of eternal life in traditional Free Grace theology. There are preconditions to be met, which sets up a two-way transaction and barter for eternal life. In the following table we see the barter between God and man

Man’s Exchange

God’s Exchange

1. Strict Adherence to a Number of Orthodox Doctrines
a) The Deity of Christ (along with subpoints)
b) The Substitutionary Death of Christ for Sins (along with subpoints)
c) The Bodily Resurrection of Christ (along with subpoints)
d) The Humanity of Christ (along with subpoints)
e) [Apparent Contradiction] Salvation is by Grace Alone in Jesus Christ Alone

2. Must Not Hold to Any Fatal Unorthodox Doctrines
a) A Subjective Range
b) Will result in one believing in a “different Jesus”

3. Must Not Deny the Essential Orthodox Doctrines
a) A Subjective Range
b) Will result in one believing in a “different Jesus”

If man’s conditions and items necessary for exchange are submitted and in order God will perform His end of the transaction:
Give Eternal Life

Just like the time-share companies, traditional Free Grace people require more to appropriating eternal life than simply receiving a free gift. This is not Free Grace Theology! Like the precondition of the time-share industry (being at a certain income level) which qualifies one for a vacation, the traditional Free Grace people have their preconditions, requiring one to be a type of orthodox fundamentalist before they are qualified for eternal life. Unless one be at some subjective level of orthodoxy (to be determined by the traditional evangelist, as you ask 10 of them what are the specific requirements and you get 11 different answers), he is no candidate for salvation.

It is as if the Scriptures do not say anymore, "And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev 22:17), but, "And let him who is orthodox come. Whoever meets these preconditions of orthodoxy, let him trade this allegiance for the water of life."

Let us make this point clearly:

The legitimate offer of a free gift comes with no other requirement but to simply receive it. This is essentially what free grace is! The conditions placed upon the lost by well-meaning, but erroneous, traditional Free Grace people are unnecessary caveats, provisos, and codicils in the saving transaction. The requirement of these things may indeed frustrate God's grace, and preclude people from eternal salvation (not to mention assurance!).

The Right Thing -- The Right Person

2009-02-17T22:18:00.000-08:00

by Antonio da Rosa

Identity
There are many ways that organizations, such as law enforcement or businesses who deal with sensitive information, can positively identify a person: DNA, dental records, fingerprints, or retinal scan, to name a few. Determining these factors can net positive identification, or exclude one from consideration. A person can change his physical features (hair style and color, plastic surgery, makeup, etc) in a number of fashions in order that he might elude detection and identification, but these few techniques would make it hard, even impossible, to pass oneself off as someone else. Positive identification is indeed possible.

Reference
In the realm of everyday communication we are accustomed to those we are in contact with referring to other people in the course of their dialogues. We, too, speak with reference to others as we go about the business of interacting with those we relate to in the outworking of our daily lives and activities. Often, the accurate communication of the identity of a reference is made by use of a name alone. A person talking to another may invoke a name which identifies a person who is familiar to both parties. The context of the dialogue that surrounds the usage of the name may net positive results in two or more parties who share an acquaintance with the one being referred to. In some circumstances, the parties may know multiple people with that same name so other indicators of identity will have to be given, such as the reference's last name, spouse's name, place of employment, or any other distinguishing characteristic. In this way, precise reference to the individual under consideration may be realized for the purposes of the communication.

Misconceptions are not necessary killers to identity or reference
We must note that whether it be the FBI or your best friend, positive identification and reference to individuals is possible, even in the presence of misconceptions about an individual. In the case of a federal investigation, descriptions of a suspect may be faulty due to an individual purposely changing various aspects of his appearance in order to circumvent exposure. Any number of drastic courses of action may be taken by the criminal to hide his identity, but the verification of any unique distinguishing characteristic, such as a DNA test, will provide positive identification, even in the face of wild misconceptions. So, too, in the course of everyday communication, positive reference to an individual can be realized through the testimony of a single, unique, distinguishing characteristic despite abounding misconceptions.

One may be under the impression that Barak Hussein Obama is a native of Indonesia, a Muslim, and Reaganesque in his policies, while another believes him to be the American Messiah, a humanist, and a communist. But when these two come together for communication and invoke the present President of the United States, the 44th President, in their communication they have made positive reference to Barak Hussein Obama, despite their misconceptions.

Positive identification and precise reference of individuals can be accomplished through one unique distinguishing characteristic.

The Red Herring of a Desperate Separationist
If you are familiar at all with the blogosphere debate over the last 2-3 years, you no doubt have seen a statement of mine quoted out of context literally dozens and dozens of times. The quote is:

"The Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one and the same"

The Mormons not only refer to Jesus with one unique reference, but with many unique historical references. See my post here: Offenders for a Word

What I argue is that since Mormons refer to the Jesus of Nazareth from the New Testament of the King James Version of the Bible that they are referring to the same historical Jesus as the Evangelicals do. By virtue of established unique distinguishing references and characteristics of this Jesus, the Personage whom they refer to is adequately delimited to the bona-fide historical Jesus of Nazareth. Of course they have a multitude of various misconceptions about Him, many being outright blasphemous. But when it comes to making reference to the historical Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament, the case has been made that the Mormons actually do so.

In light of the above line of undeniable argumentation, an opponent of consistent Free Grace Theology has conceded these things:

Yes, in a historical sense the Mormons are referring to the same Jesus that orthodox Christians are.

We know they [the Mormons] are referring to the same historical person we [orthodox Christians] are

The interesting thing about this is that the one who has plastered my above statement all over the Internet has stated that he agrees with the writer of the preceding two statements!

Let us put them both together for comparison:

My statement: The Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one and the same [historical person].

Opponent of consistent Free Grace Theology's statement: We know they [the Mormons] are referring to the same historical person we [orthodox Christians] are.

It is manifestly unethical for someone to bring my character into disrepute for a statement that they, for all intents and purposes, said they agree with (albeit in a slightly different form).

The Right Person
Jesus of Nazareth can be positively identified and referenced with only one unique distinguishing characteristic. [Parenthesis: Yet in all reality, no one who is met with the claim of Jesus of Nazareth that guarantees the present possession of irrevocable eternal life to whoever believes in Him will only be aware of a single characteristic of Him. Wherever He is preached, He is presented in the context of the New Testament narrative.] Such an argument becomes stronger when more than one unique historical characteristic is appealed to.

Delimitation of identity and reference to the bona-fide Jesus of Nazareth can be accomplished in a limitless number of ways.

Example #1
The Jesus that I am referring to:
A) Born in Bethlehem
B) Lived in Egypt for several years
C) Grew up in Nazareth
D) Mother's name is Mary, Legal father's name is Joseph
E) Baptized in the Jordan by John the Baptist, His Cousin
F) Capernaum became His later home
G) Brothers names were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas

Example #2
The Jesus that I am referring to:
A) Preached repentance to Israel
B) A teacher who had many disciples
C) Walked on water, raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, even a man born blind
D) Healed the sick, gave wholeness to the lame, and cleansed lepers
E) Cast out demons
F) Fed 4,000 men and 5,000 men by multiplying a small amount of bread and fish.
G) Preached the ethical standards of the Kingdom of God

Example #3
The Jesus that I am referring to:
A) God in the Flesh
B) Sinless
C) Perfect humanity
D) Executed on a cross by Roman soldiers
E) Buried in a new tomb, hewn out of solid rock
F) Rose bodily from the dead
G) Ascended into heaven and was seated at the right hand of God

In each of the three examples above the Jesus of Nazareth from the New Testament was certainly referenced. Any number of combinations of characteristics could be used to identify and reference Jesus. By so doing, we have invoked the Right Person, Jesus the Christ, who is the Guarantor of eternal life to the believer in Him.

As a statement of fact, identity and reference can be made certain by:
1) Any unique characteristic or
2) A combination of characteristics that creates a unique distinguishing picture

The Right Thing
In the Bible, and in some sectors of Evangelical Christianity, the sole condition for appropriating the present possession of irrevocable eternal life is faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. In the last section, we have discussed ways how one may acknowledge and identify the Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament, the One who is the Christ, guaranteeing everlasting life to the believer in Him for it.

The Right Thing in the Right Person
However one may come to identify Jesus of Nazareth and become persuaded that this Jesus guarantees his eternal destiny by faith alone, it is manifestly shown that he has exercised the Right Thing (faith) in the Right Person (Jesus of Nazareth).

Jesus stated, "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). What are Jesus' words? "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47). Who did these words have the authority of?

John 12:49-50
"For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."

On the authority of God the Father, whoever believes in Jesus has everlasting life!

When someone has identified Jesus, by whatever means, and placed his/her faith in Him for everlasting life, however he was persuaded, that person has

the right thing

in

the right Person

What about those who have not heard? Part 2

2009-01-30T04:14:00.000-08:00

by Matthew

There are essentially three positions on those who have not heard, though these can be subdivided. They are Restrictivist, Agnostic and Opportunist. With regard to the deductive argument I outlined in the last post.

Restrictivists- Do not accept the conclusion.

Agnostics- Consider that the conclusion opens up the possibility of a means of salvation for the unevangelised.

Opportunists- Accept the conclusion and are confident in expecting a means of salvation for the unevangelised.

Let us get a little more specific and look at the specific positions.

Restrictivists

Restrictivists hold that the only means to obtain eternal life is through the witness of believers.

The majority of Calivinists take this view. Some Arminians also share it, though they may be accused of inconistency in doing so.

Calvinists who adopt the Restrictivist view do so because they see only those who hear the Gospel message as falling within the scope of God's salvific decree. Arminian Restrictivists do so for two main reasons; firstly because they do not see evidence in Scripture to the contrary and secondly because they believe the responsibility to share the Gospel has been given to believers.

Pessimistic Agnostics

Pessmistic agnostics believe that God's merciful character raises the hope of some means of the unevangelised being saved, but the apparent silence of the Scriptures disinclines them to the idea.

J.I. Packer, a Calvinist, takes this view.

Simple Agnostics

Simple agnostics acknowledge both the lack of Scriptural data and God's merciful character, but refuse to take a position either way. They are often concerned that discussion of this issue will hinder missionary endeavour.

Optimistic Agnostics

Optimistic agnostics acknowledge the lack of Scriptural data, but are hopeful that God may have provided a means of saving the unevangelized.

John Stott takes this view.

Inclusivists

Inclusivists hold that God's revelation in nature is sufficent to enable a person to find salvation. They are argue that all or most religions provide some knowledge of God's character and therefore a person can come to know Christ implicitly through faith in these religions.

This view is prominent amongst Roman Catholics and is highly favoured by those who are more liberally inclined in theology. Nevertheless, it was held by such a conservative one as John Wesley.

Postmortem Evangelisation

Some who are not convinced by Inclusivism suggest that perhaps God may give a second chance after death to the heathen.

While this view accounts for God's merciful character it is seriously lacking in Scriptural support.

Universal Premortem Opportunism

This view holds that God most likely provides special revelation to the unevangelised before their death. The granting of such revelation may be conditional upon a positive response to natural revelation.

This view was advocated by Thomas Aquinas, Jacob Arminius and the Calvinist J. Oliver Buswell. There is an Eastern Orthodox tradition that John the Baptist appears to the heathen before they die to preach Christ.

This is the view that I will defend in this series.

What about those who have not heard? Part 1

2009-01-29T02:16:00.000-08:00

by Matthew

I want to tackel the thorny subject of those who have not heard the Gospel message during their lifetimes. There are a number of views held amongst Evangelicals as to their fate. Some Christians have hold to a strict Restrictivist position that holds that such people have no opportunity to receive eternal life. To show this is problematic, I will use a deductive argument.

(1) God loves all individuals.
(2) If God loves an individual He desires for her the greatest possible good.
(3) Eternal punishment is contrary to the greatest possible good.
(4) Therefore God wants all individuals to avoid eternal punishment.
(5) If God wants all individuals to avoid eternal punishment, He will desire to use some means to enable them to avoid eternal punishment.
(6) Therefore we can expect that God has provided some means for all individuals to avoid eternal punishment.

All Christians except some Calvinists agree with (1). I find it difficult to see how one could argue that (2) does not result from (1). Of course, God may have some other desire that means He is unable to make possible the greatest possible good for an individual, but He must at least desire the greatest possible good for all.

I think this argument is pretty sound. In the next post on this subject, I intend to consider the different approaches to the question of the unevangelized.

Bob Wilkin Exposes the Exegetical Flaws of J.B. Hixson's Book

2009-01-03T15:20:00.000-08:00

by Antonio da Rosa

Free Grace Theology Blog:
Bob Wilkin Exposes the Exegetical Flaws of J.B. Hixson's Book

The Deplorable Folly of Lou Martuneac

2008-12-29T14:22:00.000-08:00

Lou Martuneac has been a busybody. He has been circuiting blogs that have memorialized and honored Zane Hodges and has been spreading his hatred and lies. He is the bulldog of the Duluthian Antagonists, who joyfully sanction his sinful and debased operations. May the Lord repay him for his willful folly.

On one such blog post speaking praise about Zane in memoriam, Lou Martuneac proceeded to inject his venomous language and vitriol. WJC responded to him thus:

LM is a prime example of someone who seems to enjoy tossing around pejorative terms and assaulting Godly men like Zane Hodges - who's handling of God's word dwarfs their feeble attempts to establish a distorted view of God's free and simple grace. His speech of utter disrespect says much about his own character and what animates his obsessive attacks - certainly not the Spirit of our Lord Jesus! Such attacks are characteristic of self aggrandizing men that are afflicted with EDD - Exegetical Deficit Disorder. Their pathetic attacks will ultimately be relegated to the dustbin of errant doctrinal history. In the mean time they do serve a purpose - to show the stark contrast between Zane's thoughtful, consistent and solidly biblical views and the utter chaos that characterizes the ramblings of his detractors (such as LM). Thanks in part to God's provision of gifted men like Zane, ultimately God's light will burn through the perpetual fog thrown up by the likes of LM and those who like to parade and perpetuate his erroneous views.

Any and every impartial and/or godly observer of Lou Martuneac on the World Wide Web will immediately be struck with his uncouth and fleshly behavior. The man brings shame and dishonor to the Lord Jesus Christ, Whom he says he serves. He brings disrepute upon his ministry and the theological positions to which he espouses. He is an irresponsible man who finds himself accountable to noone, and in whom resides a spirit of malice and deception.

I have found men like Kevl, ExPreacherman, David Wyatt, and Jonathan Perrault to be gracious and honorable. My advice for them is to flee associations with Lou Martuneac, for it will be of no benefit whatsoever to be identified with that man.

Christ is not just necessary -- He is enough!

2008-12-15T09:09:00.000-08:00

by H.A. Ironside

In a hospital ward a lady missionary found an undersized and undeveloped little Irish boy, whose white, wizened face and emaciated form excited her deepest sympathy. Perhaps of about fifteen years of age, he scarcely looked to be twelve. Winning the lad's confidence by gifts of flowers and fruit, she soon found him very willing, even eager, to listen to the story of the sinner's Savior.
At first his interest seemed of an impersonal character, but gradually he began to be immediately concerned. His own soul's need was put before him, and he was awakened to some sense of his lost condition, insomuch that he commenced seriously to consider how he might he saved. Brought up a Romanist, he thought and spoke of penance and confessional, of sacraments and church, yet never wholly leaving out Christ Jesus and His atoning work.

One morning when the lady called again upon him, she found his face aglow with a new-found joy. Inquiring the reason, he replied with assurance born of faith in the revealed Word of God, "I always knew that Jesus was necessary, but I never knew till yesterday that He was enough!"

It was a blessed discovery, and I would that every reader of these pages had made it. Mark it well; Jesus is enough! "He, of God, is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption." "Ye are complete in Him." "God hath made us accepted in the beloved." These are only a few of the precious declarations of Scripture which show clearly that Jesus is indeed not only necessary, but enough.

You see, it is not Christ and good works, nor Christ and the church, that save. It is not through Christ and baptism, or Christ and the confessional, that we may obtain the forgiveness of our sins. It is not Christ and doing our best, or Christ and the Lord's Supper, that will give us new life. It is Christ alone.

Christ and . . . is a perverted gospel which is not the Gospel. Christ without the "and" is the sinner's hope and the saint's confidence. Trusting Him, eternal life and forgiveness are yours... for salvation itself, Jesus is not only necessary, but He is enough.

Question and Answer with Lordship Salvation Proponent Jonathan Moorhead

2008-12-08T16:49:00.001-08:00

by Antonio da Rosa

I haven't updated my 'Main Menu' option over at Free Grace Theology Blog in about a year and a half. Needless to say the Menu is lacking in a substantial amount of articles that I have written. Until I get such a time to update the Main Menu, please peruse the archives.

You will find in the archives a piece that I did entitled The Free Grace Rendering and Interpretation of James 1:21 is the Most Probable which discusses the logion "save [your] soul" [Greek = 'sozo' with 'psyche' as its object] in James 1:21, which is an important consideration in our interpretation of James 2:14ff. In the comments section of this particular post (the comments sections of my posts are often rich resources) I had a brief question and answer time with Jonathan Moorhead of TheoCentriBlog, who is an avid proponent of MacArthur's brand of Lordship Salvation.

You may find the dialogue instructive.

Jonathan Moorhead said...

Antonio, if your position is the most probably, why do you personally think it has been rejected for the majority of church history? Just looking for your opinion - no setup.

Antonio said...

Jonathan,

I have spent some time thinking about Lordship salvation (as you can probably tell).

One of the bottom lines is this:

People just cannot get themselves to agree with the premise that full pardon from God, entrance into heaven, and eternal life have absolutely nothing to do with their behavior whatsoever; that nothing they have done or can or will do in the future has any bearing on whether or not they end up in the kingdom of God (barring of course simple faith into Christ).

They cannot get themselves to understand that even a sinful, debased individual, nevertheless justified and covered by the blood of Jesus, can be in God's kingdom.

Deep down inside they believe, in a very real way, that behavior is intrinsically correllated with one's hope of heaven.

How did this happen?

Grace is a naughty word.

If it is true that your eternity can be absolutely secure no matter what your behavior is (past, present, or future), then you can get fire-insurance and live like the devil.

I happen to agree with the last statement. The RCC and Lordship Salvation, and Arminianism would all be on the same page and dissent against grace.

The person who lives like the devil, in RCC, Lordship Calvinism, and Lordship Arminianism, does not go to heaven. Works all have an integral part, one way or another, in one's final entrance into heaven.

The person who lives like the devil (who never the less has eternal life) in FG theology will lose his soul, both in time and for eternity, yet he will be in the kingdom.

Thanks for dropping by!

Antonio

Jonathan Moorhead said...

Thanks Antonio. Could you please clarify your statement:

"The person who lives like the devil (who never the less has eternal life) in FG theology will lose his soul, both in time and for eternity, yet he will be in the kingdom."

Can you really "lose" your soul in heaven? Is this the weeping and gnashing of teeth part of "heaven"?

Antonio said...

Jonathan,

I appreciate the questions. Let me tell you why:

As long as you are asking questions, you are trying to get clarified for you the Free Grace position, not disseminating mischaracterizations.

There is no "weeping and gnashing of teeth" part of heaven, as if it is an actual geographical place.

'weeping and gnashing of teeth' is a figurative expression denoting remorse, sorrow, and anguish over one's wasted life that has now resulted in serious loss in the kingdom of God.

The non-overcoming Christian will be judged by God's word. This word will figuratively cut him in two. Have you ever been confronted with a sin by someone you have hurt and it felt like you were cut in two? It is the same thing.

Your sin nature will be gone, and there will be nothing (no rationalization, no justifications) to hinder the full weight of your shortcomings as a servant/steward. Shame, sorrow, remorse are all appropriate.

But like with any tragedy, one, in the course of time, gets over, and deals with sorrow. And of course, at the ushering in of the eternal state, God wipes away every tear.

Jonathan, one way I have seen the LS distort FG theology is by presenting FG interpretations of parabolic passages as literal, when indeed, the FG interpret them figuratively, corresponding the elements of the parable to truth.

There is no 'outer darkness' geographical area in heaven. Sub-comers are not literally cut in two, or bound hand and foot.

the term 'outer darkness' is better translated 'the darkness outside', IOW, outside the parabolic banquet hall where the overcomers are celebrating.

I do believe that I have even seen you make this mistake in misrepresenting FG. We understand the parabolic passages parabolically and do wooden-literally equate them. The figures in the parable correspond to spiritual truth.

Now to answer your question.

From the time forward at regeneration, the Christian constructs a life. If he constructs it by taking heed to the words of Jesus, he will be saving his life (soul). When we create our life in time, we can construct it in such a way where its meaning and significance transects INTO eternity.

Receving with meekness the implanted word, and being a doer of that word, will result in the abundant life, the saving of the life (soul) in time. It saves one from the temporal effects of spiritual impoverishment and consequences of sin.

To lose one's soul (life) in eternity, is to forfeit the abundant life (vis-a-vis: the intimacy of being one of Christ's metachoi, co-ruling/reigning with Christ, attendant priviliges and honors).

The salvation of the soul, in its eternal ramifications, refers to the abundant life which shall be the eternal experience of the believer whose faith stands the fiery tests.

In other words, if believers are faithful in their earthly trials, not only will they experience the temporal satisfactions: joy, peace, significance, and meaning, they will obtain the abundant life forever!

I appreciate this opportunity, Jonathan, to clarify my statements.

Our behavior certainly has significant eternal repercussions. Just not in the realm of whether one enters the kingdom or not.

Antonio

I hope that this short discussion has been helpful to you. If you have any questions, I would be happy to field them.

in grace and truth,

Antonio da Rosa

You need to add virtue to your faith

2008-12-05T03:08:00.000-08:00

by Matthew

2 Peter 1:3
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

James 2:14-20
14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 ¶ Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

A common interpretation of James 2:14-20 holds that James is distingushing between true and false faith. The argument goes that if one has true faith, then one will do works. It is impossible, on this view, to have faith without that faith resulting in works.

If that were so, we might ask why the apostle Peter needed to write the words:

add to your faith virtue

According to Strong's concordance, virtue is:

a virtuous course of thought, feeling and action
virtue, moral goodness
any particular moral excellence, as modesty, purity

Does that sound at all like something that might include works? I think so.

Yet faith does not come with virtue automatically; one must add virtue to one's faith. Otherwise, one's faith is dead. Without works, faith is useless in the Christian life.

Let's not have faith alone, but let us add virtue to our faith.

Why you need to keep on reading this blog

2008-12-04T03:26:00.000-08:00

by Matthew

Many of you will have been saddened to learn of the death of Zane Hodges, professor of NT Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary. It is my belief that Zane Hodges was an annointed teacher, used by God to restore right soteriology to the church.

God has always raised up annointed men to restore what is lost. God raised up martin Luther to restore the doctrine of justification, John Calvin to restore the doctrine of assurance and the supremacy of Scripture in theology, the Puritans to restore the doctrine of repentance (though sadly they confused it mixed up with faith), Jacob Arminius to restore the universal saving will of God, George Whitefield to restore the need for personal conversion and John Nelson Darby and others in the 19th century to restore a right understanding of prophecy.

In the 20th century God gave us the blessed teaching of Zane Hodges.

This blog is founded on the wonderful insights of this man and seeks to develop and apply them to the Christian life.

As we approach the end times, it is vital that the church pays heed not only to the message of grace, but also the Bible's accountability teaching. Judgment begins in the house of God. We must lives in the light of the judgment seat of Christ.

This blog, founded on the insights of Zane Hodges is a channel of divine blessing for you in which you will find Scriptural teaching that is much needed for these last days. It will contribute to your spiritual life, leading you to deeper fellowship with God and contribute to your deification, that you might realise to a greater degree that you are a partaker of the divine nature.

Webcast of Zane's Funeral

2008-11-30T13:56:00.000-08:00

by Antonio da Rosa

For those of you who cannot be at Zane's funeral but wish to be there, Don Reiher has some good news:

Bob and close friends of Zane have agreed to allow live webcasting of Zane's memorial service at 12/2 11AM Dallas time.

The link:
http://connect.palcs.org/fgconnect

I will open the room 15 minutes before the beginning of the service. Please log in as guest with your real name. No password will be required. Your name will be added to the guest list.

I will record the connect session. After the service is over, I will post the link to the recorded session on the fgconnect welcome page.

- Don Reiher

God Has Always Revealed the Saving Message

2008-11-20T14:56:00.000-08:00

by Bob Wilkin

There seems to be a general impression today that prior to death and resurrection of Jesus OT saints were saved not by faith in Christ, but by a general faith in God. Indeed, it is common in seminaries and Bible colleges today for professors to say that there was no concept of bodily resurrection from the dead in the OT, and even that OT saints were “saved” but not born again! Many say that regeneration did not occur in the OT.

Jude tells us that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophecied about the Second Coming of Christ (Jude 14-15). Yet the OT nowhere tells us that.

Genesis 3:15 tells us that God (the preincarnate Christ) shared the gospel with Adam and Eve in Garden after the fall. This is call the proto-evangelium, or the first gospel. They heard that at least 2500 years before Moses wrote Genesis around 1440 BC. It is wrong to think that they kept that prophecy to themselves. Surely they passed it to their children, who in turn passed it on.

The preincarnate Christ appeared to many people in the OT besides Adam and Eve, including Abraham, Moses, and the three men in the fiery furnace. He spoke with them and revealed things to them, surely including the saving message.

There were many OT prophets and yet only a small number of them wrote their messages down. Many OT prophets preached the saving message. Surely there was never a generation that lacked a prophet to preach the saving message at least until the 400 silent years when the OT canon was complete and the need for prophets would have been greatly diminished. And even during those silent years God surely raised up men and women who shared the saving message which they had believed.

What was the saving message in the OT? It was the same message as we have today. That is Paul says in Romans 4:1-8 and in Gal 3:6-14. Abraham believed what we believe, justification by faith alone in Christ alone. But some will say, “Abraham didn’t know about Christ.” No? A careful reading of Genesis 15:1-6 shows that what Abraham believed was God’s promise of the deliverer who would bring worldwide blessings (Gen 12:1-3) to all who simply believe in Him. Compare John 8:56 where Jesus says, “Abraham rejoiced to see My day.” Compare Hebrews 11 where we learn that Abraham knew about the New Jerusalem and where we learn that Moses knew about eternal rewards and he knew about Christ and willingly accepted “the reproaches of Christ” (Heb 11:26).

Genesis 17 and 18 make it clear that Abraham met the pre-incarnate Christ and spoke with Him.

Simeon and Anna were OT saints when the baby Jesus was brought into the temple by Mary and Joseph. These saints knew this was the Messiah King Savior (Luke 2:25-38) and they believed in Him for eternal life.

John the Baptist was the last OT prophet (other than the Lord Jesus Himself). He knew that Jesus is the Messiah. He believed in Him for eternal life.

Old Testament saints knew a lot more than we give them credit. They certainly knew the saving message. They might not have known that the Christ’s name is Jesus, though even that some OT saints, like Simeon and Anna, knew and maybe even some like Abraham and Moses knew His name. (After all, quite a few met Him face to face, which is something we haven’t done yet.) But they knew that they had eternal life because they believed in Him for it.

We should not think that there was one way to be born again prior to the cross and resurrection and another way to be born again later. The saving message has never changed. With more revelation God gave more details in His written Word. But since we can’t be sure what the oral revelation was prior to the birth of Christ, we can’t even be sure how many details the OT saints knew.

It would not surprise me if Moses and David and Abraham had a greater grasp of the doctrine of eternal rewards than most born again people in the church age have. (I get that impression from Hebrews 11.) It would not surprise me to find out that when they were alive they had a better understanding of substitutionary atonement than most church age people have. These were men who had very close walks with the Lord Jesus and it would be presumptuous to assume that we know Him better than they knew Him when they were alive.

One day we will be able to talk and visit with these OT heroes of the faith. Until then, I suggest we view them as giants of the faith who knew the Lord and doctrine quite well.

John 8:30-32 -- Lordship Calvinism and its House of Cards

2008-10-29T13:29:00.001-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

In the principles of scientific justification an interpretation must submit to a "falsification criterion". If contrary data invalidate it, it must be given up.

In about 1300 A.D. William of Ockham introduced the scientific principle that whatever explanation involves the fewest assumptions is to be preferred. Called Ockham's Razor, it posits that any theory which, when confronted with contrary evidence, must supply secondary explanations in order to justify its existence is a bad theory. The continued introductions of secondary assumptions in order to explain the theory in light of seemingly contradictory evidence results in a crumbling house of cards.

In theology, when a particular theological position must be maintained by secondary assumptions, it is worthless. This is preeminently the case with the Lordship Salvation Calvinists' doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. When confronted with apparently contradictory evidence that a true saint in the Bible has persisted in disobedience, they will often offer the secondary assumption, based upon their system, that he could not really be a true saint at all.

Or when warnings are addressed to “little children,” “brethren,” “saints,” and those “sanctified forever,” a secondary assumption, not supported by the text, is brought in to say that these terms refer to “wheat and tares” and the specific descriptions are only the language of courtesy, not of fact. This continual addition of ad hoc explanations which are either not alluded to in the texts in question or are specifically refuted by them, render the theory useless. It becomes incapable of falsification because any data contrary to it is simply negated by additional assumptions. Text after text is often ignored in this way until the whole edifice verges on collapse like the proverbial house of cards.

Another theological position that must be maintained by secondary assumptions is the Lordship Calvinists' doctrine that the call to discipleship and the call to eternal life/eternal salvation are one and the same. When confronted with apparently contradictory evidence that the call to eternal life is a call to receive a free gift and the call to discipleship is an invitation to suffering, costly obedience, and hard works, they will often offer the secondary assumption, based upon their system, that salvation is a paradox, that it is both free and costly at the same time, and that the obedience required for salvation is not only the determination of the will to do so, but a perseverance in such until the end of life.

Still another theological position that must be maintained by secondary assumptions is the Lordship Calvinists' doctrine of a “spurious faith”. When confronted with the apparently contradictory evidence that simple faith alone in Jesus alone apart from works appropriates eternal life, that merely taking Jesus at His word in His gospel promise saves, and that those who are explicitly said to have faith may be in the state of not adding works to that faith, they will often offer the secondary assumption, based upon their system, that there is a difference between “believing” and “really believing”, and that “obey,” “surrender,” “commit,” and “give” are implicit semantic values hidden in the concept of the term of genuine “faith”. [Parts of this article taken and adapted from Joseph C. Dillow in The Reign of the Servant Kings pgs 25-41, see esp. 38-39]

Continual secondary assumptions plague the interpretations of the Calvinist/Lordship Salvation proponents.

John 8:30-32 states this:

As He spoke these words, many believed in Him. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
NKJV

As clearly as John can express it, a group of “many” “believed in” Jesus. This phrase, “believed in him” is a special Greek expression “pisteuw eis” which is almost unique to the Gospel of John. This phrase involves the use of a Greek preposition (eis) after the verb for “believe” and, so far at least, it has not been found in secular Greek. Among the instances of its use in John’s gospel may be mentioned the following- 1:12; 2:11; 3:15, 16, 18, 36; 6:29, 35, 40, 47; 7:38, 39; 9:35, 36; 10:42; 11:25, 26, 45; and 12:44, 46.

Even a rapid examination of these texts shows that this specialized expression is John’s standard way of describing the act of saving faith by which eternal life is obtained. To deny this in 8:30 would be to go directly counter to the well-established usage of the author.

For instance, John 3:16 states, “…whosoever believes in Him [pisteuw eis] should not perish but have everlasting life”. Could not “those Jews who believed Him” be considered a “whosoever”? Does not John make a blanket statement that the one believing into Jesus has eternal life?

Notice that there is nothing in the text itself to indicate that the faith exercised by “those Jews” is anything but the faith that brings eternal life. There are no modifiers such as “spurious” or “false” or “substandard”. On the contrary, the expression is the same in John 3:16 and 6:47 (Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life). It uses the “pisteuw eis” expression with Jesus as the object. This is the very same expression that is saving faith in our most beloved texts, such as John 3:16 and John 11:25, 26!

It has been claimed, however, that the believing Jews of verses 30, 31 are the speakers in verses 33, 39, and 41. It is then pointed out that in verse 44 Jesus tells them, “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.” Along with the whole tenor of verses 33-47 (and especially the statements of verses 39, 40, and 42) this is seen as a clear indication that the faith described in 8:30 was not regenerating faith.

But this argument involves a missassessment of the whole context in which verses 8:30-32 are placed.

John 8:13-59 is clearly a controversy section which has its setting in the Jewish Temple (8:20). Jesus’ opponents throughout the section are His general audience in the Temple treasury. They are described as Pharisees (8:13), as Jews (8:22, 48, 52, and 57) and more simply as “they” (8:19, 25, 27, 33, 39, 41, 59). John does not expect us to understand the “they” of verse 33 any differently than we do the same word in verses 19, 25, and 27. He means the larger audience.

Verses 30, 31a (about those who believe in Him) are a kind of “aside” to the reader to explain the background and purpose of Jesus’ statement in verses 31b, 32 (about continuing in His Word). In this way the reader is allowed to learn the reason why Jesus’ words are misunderstood and how they serve to intensify the controversy that is already raging.

This technique is thoroughly Johannine. Throughout the Fourth Gospel, the words of Jesus are frequently misunderstood (c.f. 3:4; 4:11, 12; 6:34; 7:35; 8:22; etc.). Where necessary, John offers the readers the crucial clue to their actual meaning (cf. 2:19-22; 11:11-13). This is what he is doing in verses 30-31a. The reader is tipped off about the real purpose behind the words in 3:31b-32.

[Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Seige see pgs 41-44]

Imagine for instance that John’s “editorial” note was not included in the text, how it would read:

John 8:28-33

Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

They answered Him,” We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, 'You will be made free'?"

Notice the bold “they”. Without the editorial by John, the “they” would then be the obvious continuation of those hostile, disputing, and unbelieving Jews that have been referenced time and again throughout the discourse in John 8.

John’s point in his editorial is that when Jesus said the words in 8:31b-32, it was for the benefit of those “many [who] believed in Him” (8:30). Jesus did not address those who believed in Him, but it was for their benefit. It was spoken in the same manner as had the rest of the discourse Jesus had been giving from 8:13-29, in the sphere and in the hearing of all in the Temple. The unbelieving Jews misunderstood Jesus’ statement and began questioning His statements in verse 33.

The interpretation of the Traditionalist of John 8:30ff puts variance between verses 8:30,31 with verses 8:45-47, wherein 8:30,31 the Apostle John states that there was a group of Jews who both “believed into Him” and “believed Him”, but Jesus in verse 8:45 says that those whom He is talking to (who the Traditionalist says is the same group as 8:30,31, IOW the believing Jews) “do[es] not believe Me”.

Instead of seeing the true contradiction of their understanding of this passage, the Traditionalists accommodate their interpretation with a secondary assumption that the “faith” in 8:30, 31 is a “spurious” one, even in the face of the overwhelming testimony of John in his gospel that states that “whosoever believes into” Jesus IS saved, and even though not a single qualifier or modifier exists in the text to color our comprehension of these Jew’s faith. They then use this passage as a “proof-text” to their doctrine of perseverance and their position that all true believers are disciples as well.

We must not give secondary assumptions and/or modify one experimental fact in order to accommodate it with another apparently contradictory one. Instead, we must search for a higher synthesis, larger than each fact, which will explain both.

And in this case, if this were done, the Traditionalist would realize that John’s commentary and editorial in 8:30,31b was an “aside” for the reader’s own understanding, denoting that 8:31b-32 was an expression made for the benefit of those “many Jews [who] believed in [to] Him”, and that the discussion in 8:33ff is just a continuation of the dispute with the Jews and Pharisees who had been hostile to Him throughout the whole of the discourse.

A Question for Consideration

2008-10-23T14:57:00.000-07:00

by Rose

We often times hear the argument between Lordship Salvation adherents and Free Gracers about whether or not a person can become a true, born-again believer in Christ and then go their whole life without becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ.

For those who may not be familair with the positions on the question:
Lordship Salvation adherents would say no it isn't possible.
Most Free Gracers would argue yes, it is possible.

Well. I was wondering... what different people think about the reverse:

Can someone become even a passionate disciple of Jesus Christ, yet go their whole life without becoming a true, born-again believer in Christ ?

Radmacher Addresses Hodges, COSF*

2008-10-18T16:37:00.000-07:00

Radmacher Addresses Hodges, COSF*

Michele posts the foreward to a new book by Michael Cocoris, a former pastor of the Church of the Open Door, which was also once pastored by J. Vernon McGee. I think Radmacher's thoughts sound very sober and reasonable. I think he must be a man that loves the brethren.

Perseverance and Solomon

2008-10-17T19:30:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

Recently, I have been spending alot of time in the Old Testament. I have thoroughly consumed 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, and 1&2 Chronicles. Boy I would, if I had the time, go into many insights the Lord has given me and the blessings I have received as a result of my time spent in these books.

The preponderence of data in the New Testament uncompromisingly testifies to the fact that a true, heaven-bound Christian can ultimately fail in his Christian life. God does not drag anyone down the path of obedience. Romans 8:10 says, "And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin". The body is incapable of living anything spiritual whatsoever. What must a man do to live the Christian life through his flesh?

Paul has some commandments for us given in the imperative:

Rom 6:11-13
...reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and [present] your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

There are here 5 imperatival commands of Paul for the Christian. If the disposition of Christians were to do these things by virtue of regeneration alone, the commandments given here by Paul would be both superfluous and confusing. Does one need to command the sun to rise or the waves to roll or the stars to shine? It is manifest absurdity to enjoin someone or something to perform some action that it, by virtue of its inherent makeup, is inevitably disposed to do.

It follows that if the Christian does not purposefully

1) Reckon oneself dead unto sin
2) Deny sin's reigning
3) Stop presenting the members of his body as instruments of unrighteousness
4) Present himself to God as alive from the dead and
5) Present his bodily members of instruments of righteousness

he will not be sanctified and will be subject to abject, utter, and ultimate failure in his Christian life.

Not many people who read this blog would be willing to deny that Solomon, author of 3 books of the Bible and a couple of Psalms, is now in hell. But let us take a look at the end of his life as testified to by the bible.

1 Kings 11:1-12
But King Solomon loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites -- from the nations of whom the LORD had said to the children of Israel,"You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods." Solomon clung to these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not fully follow the LORD, as did his father David. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the hill that is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the people of Ammon. And he did likewise for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.

So the LORD became angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned from the LORD God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not keep what the LORD had commanded. Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, "Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant.

What is very telling is what comes after this testimony concerning Solomon in the Scriptures. The only thing that occurs in the text between this statement and the
statement of his death is the demonstration of the Lord's wrath upon Solomon because of his rebellion. This took the form of various adversaries raised up by the Lord against Solomon, and the rebellion of Solomon's infamous servant, Jereboam of Nebat. There is no statements directing our attention to his repentance before death.

When we read the chronicles of the kings in the aforementioned books we find that the authors are very eager to tell us when a king starts out evil and becomes good, or the vice-versa. These things are instructional for their readers! The last words concerning Solomon in the text are that his heart was turned from the Lord unto idolatry, that God's wrath was meted out against him in the form of adversaries and rebellion, and that the Lord was going to tear the kingdom away from him.

We know that repentance can avert or end God's temporal wrath for sins. Solomon went to the grave being troubled by his adversaries (1 Kings 11:25) and the kingdom torn from him. And indeed his servant rebelled from him and became the king of the Northern tribes.

Oh how many times do we read of the kings being tender-hearted to God, ripping their clothes, weeping and humbling themselves before God and the result being that God relents of his wrath and/or pronouncements against them? There is no such text of Solomon repenting! Furthermore, God's hands remained heavy upon him until his death.

Finally we are met with this little bit of evidence from the life of godly king Josiah:

2 Kings 23:13-14
Then the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, which were on the south of the Mount of Corruption, which Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the people of Ammon. 14 And he broke in pieces the sacred pillars and cut down the wooden images, and filled their places with the bones of men.

Literally hundreds of years later after Solomon's death, the shrines, groves, high places, pillars, and images which Solomon made for his idol worship were still standing!

Let me tell you how repentance is supposed to work. I remember a time when I placed the value and worship of a certain activity above God, my wife and family, and everything else. Upon reading these texts in the Old Testament, I was convicted of my sin of idolatry. In the name of Christ my Lord, I went home and destroyed all of the objects related to my sin, not sparing a single one; but completely pulvarized these objects into tiny bits and put them into the San Diego equivalent of the Brook Kidron.

Solomon died with God's hand heavy upon him and the kingdom torn from him

and the testaments to his idolatry still in place hundreds of years after his death.

Solomon died an idolator and under the wrath of God.

Arminian v Calvinist part 2

2008-10-12T08:00:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

Okay, so that was something of a caricature of a debate between and Arminian and a Calvinist. But often debates on the soteriology do form along those lines. Both sides quote verses as if the other side is going to say:

Oh wow, man. I never read that verse before. I guess you guys who believe in perseverance/ possibility of loss of salvation must be right.

Even where more sophisticated exegesis is presented, the results of such debate is predictable. The Calvinist produces all the verses that demonstrate the eteranal security of the believer, while the Arminian produces all the verses that imply loss of salvation.

Both sides have a problem. The Arminian has to deal with a lot of passages that strongly affirm the eteranal security of the believer. If she wants to stand in the Reformation tradition, she also has to reconcile her rejection of eternal security with the doctrine of justification.

The Calvinist may have strong support for eternal security. Hwoever, she has to deal with a mass of warnings about judgment. She has to convince her opponent that these warnings are directed at false professors and not true believers. Even if she succeeds in this she risks the danger of removing the assurance that one is a true believer.

The Calvinist has a further problem in that the weight of history rejects her position.

The early church fathers rejected perseverance. Augustine, the most popular of them amongst Calvinists believed in a sort of perseverance, but he held that true born-again Christians could still be lost (if they were not among the elect). The Roman Catholic church has always rejected perseverance, as has the Eastern Orthodox church. The Anabaptist tradition for the most part rejects it. The Arminians, the Wesleyans and most Pentecostals reject it. All of the pseudo-Christian cults that claim to follow the Bible reject it.

Now it may be that the mass of these people may have been unregenerate. No doubt the majority of them were. However, with the exception of the cultists, they were able to pick up their Bibles and see in them the doctrine of the Trinity. If the Bible so clearly teaches eternal security, why have so many missed it, while still holding to much that is true? Why is it only Reformed, Baptists and some Anglicans (occupying only a fraction of church history) have held to eternal security and perserverance?

For those of us who hold to Free Grace/ Overcomer teaching, this is not so much of a problem. The Bible contains many warnings to regenerate persons. Not warnings of eternal punishment, but warnings of judgment, chastening, premature death, loss of rewards, loss of kingdom inheritance and perhaps exclusion from the millennium (more debateable than the others). It is easy for the careless exegete or the false teacher to twist those warnings into warnings of everlasting punishment.

The goal of consistent Free Grace theology is too synthesize the precious truth of eternal security with the stark reality of judgment upon believers who do not yield their lives in submission and faithful discipleship to Christ.

Arminian v Calvinist

2008-10-11T09:38:00.001-07:00

by Matthew

Calvinist: You see what it says here? Look at Romans

Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Arminian: Yes, that is true. But it also says here:

But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

and shall begin to smite his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;

the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Calvinist: But we can't apply that to regenerate persons. It says here:

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Arminian: No? What about Hebrews 10:26-27:

¶ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Posting of a Hymn

2008-10-09T06:11:00.000-07:00

by Rose

When He Shall Come 1934
Almeda J. Pearce

When He shall come resplendent in His glory
To take His own from out the vale of night
O may I know the joy at His appearing
Only at morn, to walk with Him in white!

When I shall stand within the court of heaven
Where white-robed pilgrims pass before my sight
Earth’s martyred saints and blood-washed overcomers
These then are they who walk with Him in white!

When He shall call, from earth’s remotest corners
All who have stood triumphant in His might
O to be worthy then to stand beside them
And in that morn, to walk with Him in white!

I have never heard this hymn until this past Sunday morning at my church. Growing up Catholic, I was not exposed to some of the hymns that others who grew up in protestant churches did. I could tell that others there this past Sunday knew the song. They sang it out so powerfully!

The song reminded me of a post on Antonio's blog from months ago called "So you're saved, but will you walk with Jesus in White?" I questioned the ideas in that post. I found his thoughts compelling, but I view it more the way that Mark and Ten Cent were presenting in their comments there. That's OK, though. We are allowed to have differences in view amongst the members of this blog. :~) None of us are "unsuspecting" sheep that we can't be like Bereans and come to our own conclusions.

This hymn got me to thinking again about the subject of "overcomers." I wondered if the writer of the hymn held the same view that Antonio was explaining. I wondered if those in my church who were familiar with the hymn and who were singing it out so enthusiastically were agreeing with its implications.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; Colossians 3:4; Revelation 3:4; Revelation 7:9

Repentance is NOT a condition of eternal salvation: An argument

2008-10-02T17:48:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

Many people believe that repentance is a condition for eternal life. Ron Shea posted something to this effect on Lou Martuneac's blog. The following is an argument that was made by your humble co-host of Unashamed of Grace some 2 years ago and still has not been answered by the critics of consistent Free Grace Theology. It is here again provided as another opportunity for those who believe that repentance is a God-ordained condition to give us a scripture that conjoins a command to repent with a resultant of eternal life, eternal salvation, or justification, or a cause of repentance with a resultant effect of eternal salvation.

Example: John 6:47 - Most assuredly I say to you (promise), he who believes in Me (cause) has everlasting life (effect).

[Taken from the 7 part article on Repentance and Free Grace Theology. You can find links to all 7 articles here: Free Grace Theology Blog]

As a preliminary consideration, the reader must be aware of a cogent biblical fact that necessarily places a huge burden of proof upon the Traditionalists:

Nowhere in the Bible is the reception of eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification conditioned on an act of repentance.

The Traditionalist must string together texts and arguments in order to support his unbiblical assertion that repentance is a theologically binding requirement for the possession of eternal salvation. In his arguments, the fallacy of special pleading is a common trait, for there is no clear text that makes his point.

He cannot point to even one text that explicitely commands repentance for the express purpose of the appropriation of eternal life. There is no such verse or passage.

If this is such an important element in the discussion of the critical components of the gospel message it is odd – no, it is incredible – that not a single verse clearly conjoins a command to repent with a resultant appropriation of: eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification.

Isn’t the reception of eternal life/justification of utmost importance to a lost sinner on his way to hell? I mean, listen – the information on how a person is initiated into a relationship with God is of dire necessity! Wouldn’t you think that an issue of such great import would be properly clarified by the God who “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4)? Isn’t it unbelievable that in the whole canon of scripture, that if eternal well-being is contingent partly on an act of repentance, that no text whatsoever conditions a result of eternal salvation on such an act?

The apostle John, who is not unfamiliar with the doctrine of repentance, as he presents it more than any other New Testament writer other than Luke (10 mentions in Revelation), whose gospel was written for an express purpose of evangelism (John 20:30-31), nevertheless is conspicuously silent on repentance as a condition for the appropriation of eternal life.

Would it not be a major error of inestimable proportions that if repentance is indeed a necessary requirement for eternal life that John the apostle would not include a single reference to it as a condition for salvation, yeah, even further, fail to mention it even once in the whole of his gospel written so that men could have eternal life?

This would be like writing a book on “Major Treatments for Heart Disease” and yet fail to mention open heart surgery (an illustration borrowed from Zane Hodges).

The evidence in regard to this chilling and absolute silence of the fourth gospel in mentioning repentance in conjunction with the indisputable instrument of eternal life’s appropriation, faith into Jesus for it, can have only 1 of 3 possible ramifications:

1) John, the disciple who leaned “on Jesus' bosom”, the apostle “whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23), was not aware that the free reception of eternal life was in someway conditioned upon an act of repentance by the unsaved and thus presented an inadequate and therefore faulty testimony in this matter.

2) John, the apostle “who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24), purposely omitted a crucial component of the promise of eternal life for reasons that could only be speculated upon (the first one that would come to mind is some form of mal-intent).

3) John, who knew that “which was from the beginning”, who declared what he “heard” and saw with his “eyes”, who revealed that which he “looked upon” and his hands “handled, concerning the Word of life”, who bore “witness” and declared to us “that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to” him (1 John 1:1-2) did not consider, did not believe, and was not under the conviction that repentance was a necessary requirement for the appropriation of eternal well-being.

If we agree to the following:

1) John told the truth
2) John wrote his gospel with a purpose of evangelism

and admit to the following (which cannot be denied):

3) John did not require repentance in his Gospel as a condition for the appropriation of eternal life, as he did not even mention it once in the whole of his discourse; repentance being shockingly absent from its whole.

We must necessarily come to this conclusion:

4) Repentance is not a theological necessary condition for the reception of eternal life.

Furthermore, we must consider our dear brother, the apostle Paul. The idea of repentance is a category strikingly absent from him. In his whole discussion of justification by faith in Romans 3-5, there is not even one mention of repentance as a condition for eternal salvation. It is also noteworthy to share that Paul only mentions repentance 5 times in his epistles (half as many as John), although he wrote 13 (possibly 14) out of the 27 New Testament books. And none of these passages in which he speaks of this doctrine does he regard repentance as a condition for the reception of eternal salvation.

In addition, what is even more damaging to the Traditionalist position is the utter absence of repentance in the book of Galatians. This epistle is Paul’s defense of his gospel wherein he heralds clear and loud the essential tenet that righteousness is imparted through faith alone in Jesus. It is indeed significant that repentance is absent in a book where Paul is presenting and defending the gospel message he received directly from the Lord. For Paul, faith alone into Christ is the sole theological requirement for justification and eternal salvation.

What we are faced with is dozens upon dozens of clear and unambiguous statements of scripture that condition eternal life/justification through faith alone in Christ alone.

For thoroughness, I feel I ought to at least refer us to some of these clear and unambiguous statements that conjoin the requirement of faith/belief with the result – eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life

John 6:40
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47
Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life

John 11:25-26
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.

Rom 3:21-22
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.

Rom 3:26
that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Rom 4:5
But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Rom 5:1
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

Gal 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Gal 3:2
This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Gal 3:21-22
But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

1 Tim 1:16-17
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

We are equally confronted by the striking absence of a single verse in the whole of the Bible that conjoins a command to repent with a stated purpose of the appropriation of eternal salvation.

Can the Traditionalists produce even ONE clear and unambiguous verse that conditions eternal life, justification, or eternal salvation with a requirement of repentance?

Broken Records

2008-09-30T22:42:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

Often my children will repeat themselves -- some song or phrase -- incessantly until I have to tell them to please stop. There is an informal rule in the family that you cannot repeat the same phrase more than 3 times in a row. Somethings like that are simply irritating.

Repetition can have the tendency to make people tune out. Songs you once loved you now cringe to hear. Catch-phrases from people at work they use all the time can make you call upon the Lord for patience.

When I read the first installment of Tom Stegall's poorly written series on the current controversy, he used several phrases dozens of times. Not only did it poison the well, it turns people off!

Recently, two words have been sounding from the rooftops. The man who uses them ought to go and purchase a thesaurus so as to not drive his compatriots (and critics) crazy. Those words are:

egregious
reductionist

As I sit here and even write this post, I am left with a chuckle. I just don't know if I can take people seriously in intellectual affairs when they employ such ridiculous terms as the ones above.

As a post script:

I believe that the Biblical Jesus saves any and all who simply believe in Him for the gift of eternal life only He offers.

Shame on me.

Good nite

PSS:

Oh, does anyone else have words of phrases that have lately been spun to many times on the turntable? Please do share with us.

PSSS: I originally spelled egregious wrong, lol.

The Unconditional Gift of God

2008-09-27T14:03:00.001-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

I have responded to a comment by Bobby Grow here:

Free Grace Theology Blog
The Unconditional Gift of God

Watchman Nee on Rewards

2008-09-26T04:04:00.001-07:00

by Watchman Nee

Let not any reader think that it is enough to be saved and not seek the reward as well. To every truly born-again person, the Lord is calling that one to pursue after spiritual excellence—to win the reward. And it should be a natural thing for him to pursue and win. Yet not for his personal benefit, but to gain the Lord’s heart and pleasure. For whoever is rewarded by the Lord has delighted His heart. Just as a sinner should be saved, so a believer should be rewarded also. Reward to a believer is as important as salvation to a sinner. If a saint fails to achieve the reward, it does not mean that he has sacrificed his profit, it only indicates that his life is not holy and his labor is not faithful and that he has not manifested the Lord Jesus Christ during his pilgrim days.

Recent teachings have swung towards two extremes. Some reckon salvation to be so difficult that it demands people to do a great deal. Thus they nullify the substitutionary death and the work of redemption of our Lord Jesus. Such teaching puts the entire responsibility on man and overlooks what the Bible says about our being saved by grace through faith. Some others think that since all is of grace, then all who believe in the Lord Jesus will not only be saved but also be rewarded with glory and rule in the future with the Lord Jesus. And hence, they lay the entire responsibility on God and neglect what is observed in the Scriptures that some believers—though they be saved—will suffer loss, yet as through fire (1 Cor. 3.15).

Yet there is a most balanced teaching here. Before a sinner believes, the Lord bears His responsibility; after the sinner believes, he must bear the responsibility himself. The work of salvation is totally done by the Lord for him, so it is enough just to believe. But this matter of reward depends wholly on the believer’s works, and therefore to believe alone is not adequate. As a sinner cannot be saved by good works, so a saint cannot be rewarded by only believing. Salvation is based on faith; reward is judged by works. Without faith, there is no salvation; without works, there is no reward. If we carefully study the New Testament, we shall perceive how clearly God separates salvation and reward. Salvation is for sinners, but reward is for saints. Both are divinely ordered: sinners should be saved and saints should be rewarded. Overlooking either of them will incur great loss. Let us therefore not mix salvation and reward together.

What is salvation? It is to not perish but to have eternal life. This is what we all know. Yet this does not decide our positions in glory since those are in fact determined by rewards. What is reward? From the Scriptures we can see that reward is to reign with Christ during the millennial kingdom. Every believer has eternal life; but not every believer will be rewarded by being given the right to reign with Christ. The kingdom of the heavens in the Gospel according to Matthew points to the heavenly part of the millennial kingdom—that is to say, it points to our reigning with Christ. Every careful reader of the Gospel can see the difference between eternal life and the kingdom of the heavens. To have eternal life requires only faith, but to gain the kingdom of the heavens demands violence to oneself (see Matt. 11.12). So that to be saved is to have eternal life, while to be rewarded is to enter into the kingdom of the heavens.

A Reasonable and Gracious Comment by a True Gentleman, Nevertheless Deleted by Lou Martuneac

2008-09-25T17:47:00.000-07:00

by GOE, or Gary
[This is a comment that was posted on Lou Martuneac's blog, yet was deleted for its penetrating content. I reproduce it here with very little change except for some formatting to make it easier to read]

Thanks for not deleting my question Lou, and thanks to those who took the time to respond. Lou, there's no need for concern about my intentions. It would be rude of me to come in your house looking for a fight. I'm not here for that, I assure you.

We are all brothers in Christ here, and you know what our Lord says about that. I have been curious to learn what is going on in this current dispute. I only recently learned about it, because other than a conference I attended in 1996, I never have any personal contact with anyone from GES. When I learned of the rift that had occurred, I searched for some blogs to find out more. I have to say, I am truly grieved by what has happened. I know our Lord must be as well.

I find myself in an interesting position on this matter. On the one hand, as you mentioned above, my deliverance from the bondage of Lordship Salvation is one of the most wonderful and liberating things that has ever happened to me, and the Lord did that for me thru the ministry of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin. I will forever be grateful to them. On the other hand, I belong to a church where only a handful of people have even heard of GES. My pastor is a dear and lifelong friend, and while he reads some of their material occasionally, he does not fully agree with all they teach. He would not, however, consider their teaching to be a "false" or "crossless" gospel because he knows that is not a fair characterization of what they are doing.. He attended Dallas Theological Seminary and his theology has pretty much been shaped by men such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie, D L Moody, etc. I admire and respect those men as well. So you see, there is no need for me to seek out a FGA church as you suggested above.

Aside from the fact that they do not charge GES with teaching a false gospel, I think you would like my pastor and my church. But you are correct, I have been heavily influenced by the teaching of GES. But that does not affect my love, respect and fellowship with those in my church who disagree, nor their fellowship with me. There has never been a man who had a perfect and complete understanding of God's Word, and anyone who has ever tried to write about profound theological matters knows what painstaking precision of expression it requires. No matter how skilled one is, it is inevitable that unguarded statements will be made which can easily be used to make a person appear to be a "heretic" as you say . "For we ALL stumble in MANY ways. If any man does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man..."

With all due respect Lou, I have read some of your material and there are quite a few things you write that could easily be used to destroy your credibility as well. I am honestly astonished by some of it. Does that make you a false teacher or bad person? No. It only makes you human Lou. These can be highly emotional issues because they are so important to all of us. Sometimes, like Peter, we can take up the sword and cut someones ear off in a misguided attempt to defend our Lord and the "truth".

When I read some of your statements about Zane and Bob, I am aghast at the caricature you create of them. Zane and Bob believe in the deity and substitutionary atonement just as you do. They believe we should proclaim those truths to unbelievers. There is not one single truth in the Bible that they don't believe should be proclaimed to unbelievers if it brings them to faith in Christ for eternal life. I think the sermons in Acts clearly demonstrate that principle. The last two verses in Acts say that for 2 years Paul "received all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence... Do you include the kingdom of God in your list of essentials that a believer must understand? Do you include other other things they preached that concern Christ other than His deity, death and resurrection? Do you include a survey of the Old Testament like Stephen preached in your Gospel?

Jonathan says that I "obviously have a misunderstanding of Paul's glorious gospel". In what way Jonathan? The point of my question was not to deny that Paul preached the good news of Christ's finished work, but to point out the obvious: that for Paul and all the Apostles, the "gospel" they preached was not limited to His death and resurrection, but included any and every truth about Jesus Christ, even going back into the Old Testament itself. According to Gal.3:8, Paul says his gospel was even preached to Abraham. If Paul's concept of the gospel was the same as you seem to think, he and the rest of the Apostles would have just traveled around reading and handing out gospel tracts containing the checklist of steps or things that must be believed for salvation. I think that makes the absurdity of that concept of the "Gospel" compared to their concept rather obvious.

In Gal. 3:15-29 Paul refers to the "promise" 8 times. In Rom. 4:13-22 he refers to the "promise" 5 times directly and 1 other time indirectly. His point in each passage is that Abraham was justified by believing a PROMISE and that we are justified the same way as him---by believing a PROMISE. The death and resurrection of Christ, though of infinite importance as the basis for our salvation, does not contain a promise [editor's note: true that! emphasis mine]. It is just the fact of what Christ has done for us. He died for the sins of the whole world. Believing that does not not tell me that I have eternal life [emphasis mine] and so His death is meaningless for me. The sins of the whole world have been taken away. The justiice of God as been satisfied so that "He can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus". His finished work is an objective fact and is good news even if no one ever believes it. But when I do believe, the purpose of His Death is fulfilled and it's meaning realized in my life.

All "Christian" cults believe Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. Many believe in His deity as well as many other things about Him--yet they are not saved and do not have eternal life. So what is the life giving truth that must be believed? It is the Promise, just as the Gospel of John tells us and Paul confirms in his epistles. There is no conflict between John and Paul. They both preached the same good news. WE should do as the apostles did and preach anything and everything, especially the death and resurrection of Christ. But if we leave out the life giving promise, we have left out the most important part [emphasis mine]. We must tell them what Paul told the jailor. We must tell them about the promises of Jesus. We then leave the results to the conviction, drawing and teaching of the Holy Spirit. Jn. 6:43-45. How much does a person absolutely have to understand in order to be saved? How much was Paul consciously understanding and believing when he was dazed, blinded and knocked to the ground on the road to Damascus? Did Jesus say: "Wait a minute Paul, you can't be saved until you are consciously aware of, understand and believe my finished work!" One thing I'm sure he believed was that Jesus is the Christ! 1 Jn 5:1 says that "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Jn 20:31 Jn 11:25-27 explains that believing that Jesus is the Christ entails believing in Him for eternal life.

Zane and Bob might not agree with everything I've said here, I don't know, but I say all that to say this---they have tried to clarify what has long been much neglected and distorted in the preaching of the Gospel--simple faith in the Jesus' promise of eternal life. They have also emphasized it because it lies at the heart of Lordship Salvation heresy. In their desire emphasis and clarify on this they are sometimes misunderstood. In my opinion the scriptures support their belief that the promise of God is and always has been the specific object of saving faith. When we believe the promise, we are believing (or trusting) the One making the promise.

Since Jonathan said in response to a simple question about Acts that I " obviously did not not understand the glorious gospel of Paul" I feel he should at least be given the opportunity to actually hear what my view is, and that I should be able to tell him.

I plan on reading some of your articles and hear your side of things as well.

Lou, I appeal to you in the name of Christ--be reconciled to your brothers in the Lord. The Lord Jesus loves you and He loves them. One day we will all be together forever. Until then, He wants to use us all according to His purpose.

Your brother in Christ,
Gary
Heb. 13:20-22

Escalation and Rhetoric

2008-09-23T06:22:00.000-07:00

Some thoughts on "The Hydra's Other Head" by Rose (updated)

On Antonio’s Free Grace Theology blog, Danny said:
I now believe a person must believe the Promise in light of the Death and Resurrection to be saved. Yet at the same time, I do NOT consider you or Zane to be heretics. I still see you guys as friends. We're all Free Grace advocates, and this issue over a hypothetical is not enough to separate me from you guys. If you guys actually rejected the Finished Work, then of course I would withdraw from you. But you don't. Plus you guys don't believe the hypothetical is that likely. We disagree on whether Jesus' Death and Resurrection is an object of faith, but you guys still preach it, so we're good.

To me, that is a voice of reason out of the discussion regarding the content of saving faith. It seems Danny sees this disagreement the same way I do, as a difference of opinion that is acceptable.

Unfortunately, I don't believe Zane Hodges does. Yesterday, I read his current article, The Hydra's Other Head, in the GES newsletter. I was quite disappointed.
Q. Why was I disappointed?
A. Because of what He said.
He is now calling those who view the cross and resurrection to be a part of the content of saving faith "theological legalists." I wish he wouldn't have coined or employed this phrase.

"Theological legalists."

Theology is just another word for our beliefs and teachings about God and Christ. So to employ the word ‘legalism’ which has to do with what you do or how you look and dress and where you go and then attach it to what is taught about the content of faith is like saying that the color green smells bad. It doesn't jibe for me. I grew up with what Zane refers to in the first part of his article (which part I thought was very good, BTW) as "ecclesiastical legalism." The church: its rules and sacraments were the way to heaven. The language of "legalism" doesn't belong in the debate that Zane is currently has swirling around him IMO. But here he describes Theological Legalism:

It is not enough to simply believe that Jesus Christ gives us eternal life when we believe in Him for that. We must also believe certain orthodox doctrines that go along with such belief. But these doctrines are not in themselves identical with believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life. Instead these beliefs form a kind of checklist that measures the validity of one’s faith. I call this form of legalism theological legalism. Basically it is salvation for the orthodox!

Faith is something that follows facts. One must have information to engage in faith. Not all who have the correct doctrine are saved, but certainly, the church is in the business of teaching about Christ, sharing the facts, as we evangelize... to make faith possible. So this statement seems unnecessary. Zane says :

"Instead these beliefs form a kind of checklist that measures the validity of one’s faith."

I must ask: when does this ever happen? Bob Wilkin said in a very fine article in the very same newsletter : "I've never met a single person who was born again who didn't also believe that they were a sinner, that Jesus is God, and that Jesus died on the cross for his sins and rose bodily from the dead." What Bob Wilkin says essentially expels the probability of such a "mesurement" or "validity of faith test" even being an issue.

So salvation is for the orthodox… in all practical terms.

Hodges continues:

Theological legalism seeks to co-opt Free Grace theology. Indeed, it masquerades as this kind of theology. But this claim is false. Grace is not given freely to the sinner who believes in Jesus for eternal life... Instead, grace is denied to that sinner unless he subscribes to the relevant theological propositions.

I wish he wouldn't have said that. For me personally, I do not see this issue of the content of saving faith the way Hodges does... and yet I consider myself a Free-Gracer. I finally took the label of Free-Gracer and declared, “I am a Free-Gracer” about a year ago ...and now Zane Hodges wants to take it away from me. :~) This tact is not good for Hodges to take - he is alienating more people... people with whom he has much in common. He is escalating the controversy.

On a more positive note, I do think he makes a good point about 1 Cor 15:1-8:

Paul is obviously not giving a list of “core essentials” that must be believed in order to be eternally saved. Many of us, however, have been conditioned to think that the term “gospel” defines what a person must believe to have eternal life. But 1 Cor 15:1-8 shows this is false. Clearly, for Paul, the term “gospel” is broader than the essential content of saving faith. In 1 Cor 15:1-8 Paul is giving the informational content of his gospel. On the basis of this vitally important content, he would have expected the Corinthians to believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life. But since they had already done this, he does not mention it here specifically.

Paul doesn't mention eternal life, or justification, in that passage, so I do get his point. If that passage were the be-all-end-all to what "must be believed by the lost" then you would expect to find something about eternal life and trusting Jesus for this all-important provision of everlasting life. Actually, if that list in 1 Cor 15 is the be-all-end all, then I have Catholic relatives who are saved, even though they don't believe they possess eternal life without keeping the sacraments. Then again, I suppose it could be argued that the true meaning of “died for our sins” cancels out the Catholic “understanding.”

Hodges says that his opponents' view is "at war with the Gospel of John." I think this is wrong to say. To view the gospel of John as a whole explanation of who Christ is and why He can be trusted for eternal life... is not being at war with it. The Gospel of John contains the facts of the gospel that Paul mentions.

Hodges says of the things mentioned in In 1 Cor 15:1-8:

"Beyond question, all of these truths are of infinite importance."

Amen and Amen! He goes on:

"Believing all these truths is not the same as believing in Jesus for eternal life."

Also agreed. But these are part of who Jesus has revealed Himself to be. We needn’t disengage these things about Christ with His Promise; we shant. Thankfully, brothers, no FGers are suggesting that we do. (This is important to remember in this debate)

Believing in Him for eternal life has an emphasis on HIM. Who is this Person? Certainly we shouldn't even need to have this discussion.

The marvelous truth of free grace is this: A guilty sinner with far from adequate knowledge about the Person and work of our Lord can come to Him and believe that Jesus will give him eternal life.

When I read that paragraph I asked "far from adequate" for what?

He continues...

And the moment he does believe, he will have that life. This is true, in fact, even if a few moments later he encounters some theological legalists who inform him he doesn’t know enough to be saved!

When would this ever happen? This is an unnecessary scenario which seems to be only for the purpose of "piling it on" to his detractors. I can't imagine any evangelistically-minded person coming to a new convert and telling them, "You don't know enough to be saved." It reminds me of some of the scenarios that Hodges' opponents in this debate have brought up – e.g. someone denying the deity of Christ or denying the cross and resurrection and yet becoming saved they say: 'according to Zane Hodges.' I think he would have served his cause better by avoiding that kind of rhetoric. This is the most unfortunate portion of the article, IMHO.

This article The Hydra's Other Head starts on an informative note, but ends in what seems to me to be more of a reaction to his detractors. I don't think it was well-balanced at all and I didn't appreciate it. I have plenty thoughts on the psychology behind this, but will have to save them for another time.

Everyone in Free-Grace needs to tone down the rhetoric, please.

You can find The Hydra's Other Head here. (You could yesterday)

Reasons why unfaithful believers might spend time in hell during the Millennium

2008-09-18T05:49:00.000-07:00

Sensational Bible Prophecies: Reasons why unfaithful believers might spend time in hell during the Millennium

Free Grace Believer: Lordship salvation

2008-09-15T09:46:00.000-07:00

Free Grace Believer: Lordship salvation

A very intereseting article by someone who has lived through the effects of Lordship Salvation.

RIGHTLY DIVIDING FORGIVENESS OF SIN, by Joey Faust

2008-09-09T04:22:00.000-07:00

by Joe D Faust

RIGHTLY DIVIDING FORGIVENESS OF SIN

Every Christian has the ETERNAL debt of sin paid in full. This is the forgiveness of a LOST SINNER which makes the sinner a SON. But when a SON sins, this sin may no longer merit an eternal penalty. But mystical antinomians and modern, Gnostic psychobabblers refuse to admit that God recognizes SIN in the saint! They refuse to see that the saint is responsible for his or her actions and that there are temporal consequences for evil conduct both here (1 Cor.11) and at the judgment seat (2 Cor.5:9-11).

Some teach that a Christian cannot sin "greatly," and that the "little sins" still in the saint are simply a result of GOD withholding His grace. Therefore, there can be no consequences for sin since these little sins are God's fault. But this is a misuse and abuse of the doctrine of God's sovereignty. Others teach that these little sins are the old man's problem, and that the new man is certainly not responsible for them. But we simply answer that the Christian who failed to "put on" the new man is the one who is responsible (Ephesians 4:23-24)!

Notice the Scriptures that teach that New Testament believers must still seek forgiveness for the sins they commit as SONS:

James 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

Colossians 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
25 But HE THAT DOETH WRONG shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

1 John 1:9 If WE confess our sins, he is faithful and just to FORGIVE us our SINS, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Luke 11:4 And FORGIVE us our SINS; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us...

"To say that they [believers' sins] are to be recognized as sins, and yet that no acknowledgment is to be made, and no forgiveness sought for them, is a statement so monstrous as to carry its own refutation."
-B.W. Newton (1807-1899)

"It is not the sinner who is in view, but the failing believer. If we will not forgive, we cannot be forgiven (Mark 11:26). This is an unalterable principle in God's government of His family. When a believer has SINNED and seeks restoration, he is forgiven as he forgives. This is not the same thing as the justification of a sinner, which is by faith alone....what we have here is the Father's forgiveness when His own children fail, and if we forgive not our brethren then the Father will not grant us restorative forgiveness."
(H.A. Ironside, "Addresses on Luke")

"The term 'forgive' is used in two senses in the Scripture. There is forgiveness in the sense of God's daily approval and fellowship of people already saved...The term is also used of salvation, in the sense that all our sins were laid on the Lord Jesus...One who has trusted Christ for salvation has his sins already forgiven, AS FAR AS HIS ETERNAL DESTINY IS CONCERNED....Dr. Scofield here, in the older Scofield Bible notes on this passage [Luke 11], is mistaken..." (John Rice, Commentary on Luke)

So many of God's children have become very confused and rebellious in these last days. They don't even ask God for forgiveness as SONS! This is the day of God's long-suffering. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 11, God made some saints sick, and others He killed for not discerning the Lord's Body in the Supper! What then will God do to Christian sinners on the day of judgment when Paul says we can experience the terror of the Lord (2 Cor.5:9-11)? The Holy Spirit provides a remedy, if we will pay attention to it:

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For IF WE WOULD JUDGE OURSELVES, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

If we would examine our lives by the Word and confess our failings, and beseech God for mercy, He would not have to judge us. But some despise His chastenings. These unfaithful sons do not confess their sins and ask God for mercy. They boast that they are no longer responsible for sin, in any sense; they use the truths of justification in eternity as a buffer against any doctrine of accountability. Stripes will surely be waiting for them at the Judgment Seat.

Sensational Bible Prophecies: Millennial Exclusion

2008-09-05T13:46:00.000-07:00

Sensational Bible Prophecies: Millennial Exclusion

Once saved, always saved is at the very heart of Christianity

2008-09-05T04:14:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

The doctrine of eternal security is at the very heart of the Christian faith. Once you take away the doctrine of Once saved, always saved, you cease to believe in Christianity and you believe something else.

The doctrine of eternal security has its foundations in those doctrines that are central to the Christian faith:

The Incarnation

In Christ, humanity and deity are joined together in perfect union. Those who are in Christ are united to the Godhead. Humanity is joined to deity and men and women can live the divine life, eternal life, enjoying the eternal existence of God.

The Substitutionary death of our Lord

The death of Christ frees the believer from death. Eternal redemption has been secured through the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Resurrection of our Lord

The believer is justified in the risen Christ. She is dead and risen with Him. Just as Christ can never die again, the believer can never perish.

The Ascension of our Lord

The Lord Jesus has ascended into heaven where He is our representative. Through their union with Him, the believers' place and privilege is in heaven. That is where the believer eternally belongs.

The New Birth

The believer is beome a child of God. Just as a child can never cease to be the son or daughter of her parents, the believer can never cease to be a child of God.

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

The believer is indwellt with the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures say nothing about the Holy Spirit ceasing to indwell a Christian.

The Church

The believer is brough into the church which is the body of Christ. That body is an indivisible union, not a voluntary association.

The discipline and judgment of the believer

Though it be a fearful thing, the Father's discipline and chastening of believers reveals His fatherly care and ownership of the child of God.

The Resurrection and Glorification of the Elect

Those who are called and justified are to be raised from the dead and glorified. "We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed." "So shall we ever be with the Lord."

The New Heavens and the New Earth

The regeneration of the believer is a type and foretaste of the renewal of the cosmos. Just as the restoration of creation is a certain fact, so is the believer;s eternal security.

FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE?- Lewis Sperry Chafer

2008-09-03T07:30:00.000-07:00

by Lewis Sperry Chafer

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, VOLUME III, CHAPTER X

THIS CHAPTER UNDERTAKES the discussion of a question which for many centuries has divided and yet divides some of the most orthodox and scholarly theologians. On the one band, those who according to theological usage are known as limited redemptionists contend that Christ died only for that elect company who in all dispensations were predetermined of God to be saved; and, on the other hand, those who according to the same theological usage are known as unlimited redemptionists contend that Christ died for all men who live in the present age, which age is bounded by the two advents of Christ, and that His death has other and specific values in its relation to the ages past as well as the ages to come. The issue is well defined, and men of sincere loyalty to the Word of God and who possess true scholarship are found on both sides of the controversy. It is true that the doctrine of a limited redemption is one of the five points of Calvinism, but not all who are rightfully classified as Calvinists accept this one feature of that system. It is equally true that all Arminians are unlimited redemptionists, but to hold the doctrine of unlimited redemption does not necessarily constitute one an Arminian. There is nothing incongruous in the fact that many unlimited redemptionists believe, in harmony with all Calvinists, in the unalterable and eternal decree of God whereby all things were determined after His own will; and in the sovereign election of some to be saved, but not all; and the divine predestination of those who are saved to the heavenly glory prepared for them. Without the slightest inconsistency the unlimited redemptinists may believe in an election according to sovereign grace, that none but the elect will be saved, that all of the elect will be saved, and that the elect are by divine enablement alone called out of the estate of spiritual death from which they are too impotent to take even one step in the direction of their own salvation. The text, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44), is as much a part of the one system of doctrine as it is of the other.

It is not easy to disagree with good and great men. However, as they appear on each side of this question, it is impossible to entertain a conviction and not oppose those who are of a contrary mind. The disagreement now under discussion is not between orthodox and heterodox men; it is within the fellowship of those who have most in common and who need the support and encouragement of each other's confidence. Few themes have drawn out more sincere and scholarly investigation.

I. CLASSIFICATION OF VIEWS

When recognizing more specifically the divisions of theological thought concerning the extent of the value of the death of Christ, it will be found that the limited redemptionists are divided into two general groups, and that the unlimited redemptionists are likewise divided into two general groups, making in all four divisions or parties in relation to this question. The position held by these may be defined briefly as follows:

1. THE EXTREME LIMITED REDEMPTIONISTS. This group is sometimes styled the High, or Ultra, Calvinist. It includes the supralapsarians who, as has been seen, assert that the decree of divine election stands first in the order of elective decrees-before the decree to create men, before the decree to permit the fall, and before the decree to provide salvation. Such a view could make no place for an unlimited redemption, nor could it encourage the preaching of the gospel to those who, they contend, were reprobated from the beginning.

2. THE MODERATE CALVINISTS WHO ARE LIMITED REDEMPTIONISTS.

The appellation Moderate Calvinist, in this instance, is based on their belief that the decree to elect is preceded by the decree to create and the decree to permit the fall. Though they contend for a limited redemption, they make a place for world-wide preaching of the gospel and grant certain concessions not possible to the extreme Calvinists.

3. THE MODERATE CALVINISTS WHO ARE UNLIMITED REDEMPTIONISTS. The men who belong to this school of interpretation defend all of the five points of Calvinism excepting one, namely, "Limited Atonement," or what has been termed "the weakest point in the Calvinistic system of doctrine." This form of moderate Calvinism is more the belief of Bible expositors than of the theologians, which fact is doubtless due to the truth that the Bible, taken in its natural terminology and apart from those strained interpretations which are required to defend a theory, seems to teach an unlimited redemption. Men of this group believe that Christ died actually and fully for all men of this age alike, that God has ordained that the gospel shall be preached to all for whom Christ died, and that through the proclamation of the gospel He will exercise His sovereign power in saving His elect. This group believe in the absolute depravity of man and his total inability to believe apart from the enabling power of the Spirit, and that the death of Christ, being forensic, is a sufficient ground for any and every man to be saved, should the Spirit of God choose to draw him. They contend that the death of Christ of itself saves no man, either actually or potentially, but that it does render all men savable; that salvation is wrought of God alone, and at the time the individual believes.

4. THE ARMINIANS. An exhaustive study of the Arminian view is not called for here, this being a consideration of those variations which obtain among Calvinists. Enough will be presented if it be remarked that Arminians hold that Christ's death was for all men alike, and that it secures for everyone a measure of common grace whereby all are able to believe if they will. Men are, according to this view, subject to divine judgment only on the ground of their wilful rejection of Christ's salation. Besides, mention may be made of a theory advanced by F. W. Grant which maintains that Christ's death is a propitiation for the whole world and a substitution for the elect; but Grant has failed to disclose how God can be propitious toward the world apart from the substitutionary aspect of Christ's death. Grant is doubtless seeking to distinguish between that which is potential for all mankind and that which has been consummated in, and applied to, the elect who are saved.

POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO SCHOOLS OF MODERATE CALVINISTS

First, it is a common belief that all men are not to be saved. Both schools will unite in a rejection of any form of universalism or restitutionism. An innumerable company are to be saved and an innumerable company are to be lost. Second, it is a common belief that the death of Christ is suitable in the sense that it would answer the need of every man. Third, it is a common belief that men could be saved by no other means than the death and resurrection of Christ. Fourth, the gospel is to be preached to all, but the underlying freedom to preach is different within one group than it is within the other. Fifth, faith must be wrought in the unsaved by the Holy Spirit. Sixth, only the elect will be saved.

Seventh, whatever Christ did, whether for the elect or nonelect, is suspended awaiting compliance on the part of the unsaved with the divinely imposed conditions. No person is born forgiven or justified. Eighth, the belief of one group is that God provides salvation for the elect to the end that the elect might be saved. The belief of the other group is that God provided salvation for all men to the end that the elect might be saved. Both schools appeal to the Scriptures, though the one is forced, because of its restricted nature, to make strained interpretations of the so-called universal passages. Reference will be made to these strained interpretations as this chapter advances.

No concessions are required on the part of the unlimited redemptionists. Their system is not complicated or involved. The limited redemptionist concedes that what Christ did would be sufficient to save the nonelect were any such to believe; but the ultra Calvinist could not concede that the elect would be lost if such a one were not to believe, since under that system the death of Christ for a soul becomes the surety for that soul to such a degree that it could not be lost.

In this connection it is well to observe that salvation is vastly more than the forgiveness of sins. It is not difficult to demonstrate that sins are accounted for by the fact that Christ bore them on the cross, but to assert that the bearing of sin is equivalent to the salvation of the one for whom Christ suffered is quite another thing. Certain features of man's salvation through Christ are directly secured through the cross of Christ--forgiveness, eternal life, justification, all his positions in Christ, and some aspects of sanctification. However, other features of salvation--a place in the family and household of God, adoption, heavenly citizenship, access to God, freedom under grace from the merit system--are wrought by God as the expression of divine benevolence and are related to the death of Christ only as God is rendered free through Christ's death to act in behalf of those who believe. It is therefore both unscriptural and misleading to imply that there is no distinction to be drawn between that particular aspect of the saving work of God in providing a Savior, and the saving work of God in which the mighty transformations which constitute a Christian what he is, are accomplished. No responsibility of faith is laid on the sinner to provide the values of Christ's death, but salvation itself is only realized in answer to saving faith. There is nothing inconsistent, if God so wills, in a circumstance which leaves even the elect in a lost estate until they believe; nor is there any inconsistency if one, for whom Christ died, shall be left in a lost estate forever. The limited redemptionist considers the death of Christ as actual for the elect and of no saving benefit for the nonelect, while the unlimited redemptionist considers the death of Christ as actual for the elect and potential and provisional for the nonelect. The notion is without foundation which assumes that a thing is less real because its acceptance may be uncertain or conditional.

The human estimation of the immeasurable value of Christ's death in behalf of lost men is in no way lessened or discredited by the belief that its value is received at the time that saving faith is exercised, rather than at the time the Savior died. The unlimited redemptionist is in no way forced, because of his belief, to take a second place in magnifying the glorious saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The highway of divine election is quite apart from the highway of redemption. With respect to election it is declared that "whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Rom. 8:30), and in this great certainty every believer may rejoice. In respect to redemption it is written that Christ died for fallen men and that salvation, based on that death, is proffered to all who believe; and that condemnation rests on those who do not believe, and on the ground that they refuse that which has been provided for them. It would seem unnecessary to point out that men cannot reject what does not even exist, and if Christ did not die for the nonelect, they cannot be condemned for unbelief (cf. John 3:18). Both salvation and condemnation are conditioned on the individual's reaction to one and the same thing, namely, the saving grace of God made possible through the death of Christ.

In the former connection, the extent of the outreach of Christ's death has been considered. In all, fourteen measureless divine achievements have been enumerated. Only a restricted portion of these achievements is involved in this discussion. In the light of the great and complex work of Christ reaching out to past ages and to ages to come, to an entire elect nation, to the disannulling of the entire merit system, to angelic spheres, to heaven itself, to the judgment of the sin nature, to the propitiation for Christian's sins, and to the delay of righteous judgments against all sin, the question of whether He died for the elect or the whole world is reduced, comparatively, to a small issue. The limited redemptionist concedes, with his opponent, that divine judgments are delayed on the ground of a universal thing which Christ accomplished in His death; but, by so much, the principle of a universal value in His death is acknowledged and the step is indeed insignificant from that position to the position occupied by the universal redemptionist.

Within the range of human reason, a problem arises which has been the point of attack against Calvinists by Socinians and by Arminians --that if Christ bears the sin of any person, that person should benefit by this divine sacrifice and be free from the judgment which the Savior bore. To avoid this problem, the limited redemptionist contends that Christ died for the elect only. The unlimited redemptionist believes that, while Christ died provisionally for all men, the benefit is applied only when the condition of personal saving faith is met. The limited redemptionist of the moderate school believes with his opponent that none are forgiven until they believe, and by so much he fails to solve the problem which his system was originated to disentangle. To the unlimited redemptionist, the seeming inequity of a judgment falling upon a person after Christ has borne that judgment is but one more mystery which the finite mind cannot understand. The unlimited redemptionist recognizes two revelations which are equally clear-that Christ died for the cosmos world, and that His death is the ground of salvation for those who believe and the ground of condemnation for those who do not believe. That men are saved on the one condition of personal faith and that men are condemned for want of that faith are plain teachings of the New Testament. It is equally as great a mystery and one which is closely related to the present problem that, though faith is divinely wrought in the human heart, men are treated as though faith originated in them. They are blessed eternally who have that faith, and are condemned eternally who have it not. The devout soul must recognize his own limitations and here, as elsewhere, be satisfied to receive as true what God has spoken.

Much of the truth incorporated into these introductory remarks will be treated more fully in the following pages. This proposed discussion of this issue which divides the two schools of moderate Calvinists will pursue the following order: (a) dispensational aspects of the problem; (b) three doctrinal words; (c) the cross is not the only saving instrumentality; (d) universal gospel preaching; (e) is God defeated if men are lost for whom Christ died? (f) the nature of substitution; (g) the testimony of the Scriptures.

III. DISPENSATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM

Judging from their writings, the limited redemptionists frequently ignore dispensational distinctions, recognizing, as they usually do, but one elective purpose of God, in which they include all within the human family from Adam to the present generation who have experienced any divine favor. By this method of interpretation the pre-Israelite patriarchs, the Israelites, and the New Testament Church are assumed to be but one unbroken succession. Without hesitation they draw material for argument from the Old Testament relationships, and assume that whatever may have been true in previous dispensations is comparable and applicable in the present age, whereas the informed, unlimited redemptionist recognizes the dispensational features of God's dealings with men, and contends that the universal aspect of the value of Christ's death could apply only to the present age of the outcalling of that elect company which comprises the Church, which is the Body of Christ--an age differing, as it does, from all other ages in many respects, notably, that in it a universal gospel is to be preached, all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles are broken down (Rom. 3:9; 10:12; Eph. 3:6), and tremendous changes are wrought by the death and resurrection of Christ which place the people of this age in a position of responsibility toward God heretofore unknown.

It should be recognized that Israelis an elect nation into which each of her succeeding generations entered by physical birth, and that there is no basis in the fact of Israel's national election for comparison with the Church which is composed of elect individuals, both Jews and Gentiles, each one predestined, called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8:30), and commissioned to proclaim a world-wide gospel, which responsibility was wholly unknown in previous ages. It is true that a door was open for proselytes to enter Jewry; but whatever may have been the facts, nothing is said of their being foreordained to do so, or that they exercised saving faith, or that they were regenerated as men are now regenerated, or that a gospel was ever preached unto them. The striking inability to see divine distinctions and purposes concerning humanity is disclosed in the pamphlet, The Redeemed, Who Are They?, by Rev. James Mortimer Sanger, B.A. Contending for the opinion that in all ages there are but two classes of people in the world-the good and the bad-this author further claims that Genesis 3:15 anticipates two lines of seed, and that Christ died for the seed of the woman, but not for the seed of Satan. Unfortunately for this theory the seed of the woman is Christ Himself, and none can doubt from Ephesians 2:1-2 that salvation has since come to some, at least, who were originally vitally related to Satan as fully as any unregenerate ever could be.

National election, too often confused with individual election (note the Apostle's warning to the nation Israel on this point as recorded in Rom. 9:4-13), anticipates no more than the ultimate blessing of Israel as a nation and their national preservation unto that end. Ahab and Jezebel, along with Abraham and Sarah, were partakers alike in Israel's national election. However, a judgment day for Israelis predicted when multitudes will be rejected (Ezek. 2O:33-44; Dan. 12:1-3). There is, nonetheless, a recognition in the Bible of a spiritual remnant in all Israel's generations; but that spiritual group shared no additional covenants, their distinction being due to their willingness to be more faithful to those relations to Jehovah which were the privileges extended to all in Israel. The remnant out of Israel in this age is "a remnant according to the election of grace" (Rom. 11:5), and is composed of those who are saved by faith in Christ, and therefore partake of the heavenly calling which pertains to the Church. It is not until a Deliverer comes out of Zion that all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:27), and that salvation will not only be unto the realization of all their national, earthly covenants, but also unto the taking away of their sins (cf. Jer. 31:34). In the present time, as above stated, only a remnant out of Israel are being saved as individuals, which is according to the divine election in grace and unto the heavenly glory of the Church. Nor is there assurance that all Gentiles will be saved in this dispensation. God is rather visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name (Acts 15:14). Eventually world-wide blessings for Gentiles will be experienced (Acts 15:18), but not until the promised One returns and rebuilds the tabernacle of David which is fallen down (Acts 15:16-17). Therefore, the issues relative to limited or unlimited redemption must be confined to the present age with its divine purpose in the outcalling of the Church, or hopeless confusion must result-such, indeed, as does prevail to a large extent at the present time. Problems relative to God's ways with people of other ages are important in their place, but are not germane to this discussion.

IV. THREE DOCTRINAL WORDS

Though common to theological usage, the terms limited redemption and unlimited redemption are inadequate to express the whole of the problem which is under consideration. There are three major aspects of truth set forth in New Testament doctrine relative to the unmeasured benefits which are provided for the unsaved through the death of Christ, and redemption is but one of the three. Each of these aspects of truth is in turn expressed by one word, surrounded as each word is by a group of derivatives or synonyms of that word. These three words are:

apolutrosis, translated redemption, katallage, translated reconciliation, and ilasmos, translated propitiation. The riches of divine grace which these three words represent transcend all human thought or language; but these truths must be declared in human terms if declared at all. As it is necessary to have four Gospels, since it is impossible for one, two, or even three, to present the full truth concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, so the Scriptures approach the great benefit of Christ's death for the unsaved from three angles, to the end that what may be lacking in the one may be supplied in the others. There are at least four other great words-forgiveness, regeneration, justification, and sanctification--which represent spiritual blessings secured by the death of Christ; but these are to be distinguished from the three already mentioned in one important particular, namely, that these four words refer to aspects of truth which belong only to those who are saved. Over against these, the three words-redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation-though incorporating in the scope of their meaning vital truths belonging to the state of the saved, refer in particular to that which Christ wrought for the unsaved in His death on the cross. What is termed the finished work of Christ may be defined as the sum total of all that these three words connote when restricted to those aspects of their meaning which apply alone to the unsaved. Redemption is within the sphere of relationship which exists between the sinner and his sins, and this word, with those grouped with it, contemplates sin as a slavery, with the sinner as the slave, and freedom to be secured only through the redemption, or ransom, which is in Christ Jesus (John 8:32-36; Rom. 6:17-20; 8:21; 2 Pet. 2:19; Gal. 5:1). Reconciliation is within the sphere of relationship which exists between the sinner and God, and contemplates the sinner as at enmity with God, and Christ as the maker of peace between God and man (Rom. 5:10; 8:7; 2 Cor. 5:19; James 4:4). Propitiation is also within the sphere of relationship which exists between God and the sinner, but propitiation contemplates the larger necessity of God being just when He justifies the sinner, and Christ as an Offering, a Sacrifice, a Lamb slain, who, by meeting every demand of God's holiness against the offender, renders God righteously propitious toward that offender (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Thus it may be seen that redemption is the sinward aspect of the cross, reconciliation is the manward aspect of the cross, and propitiation is the Godward aspect of the cross, and that these three great doctrines combine to declare, as best any human terms are able, one divine undertaking. From the foregoing it will be seen that the question at issue between the limited redemptionists and the unlimited redemptionists is as much a question of limited or unlimited reconciliation, and limited or unlimited propitiation, as it is one of limited or unlimited redemption. Having made a careful study of these three words and the group of words which must be included with each, one would hardly deny but that there is a twofold application of the truth represented by each.

There is the aspect of redemption which is represented by the word agoradzo, translated redeem, which word means to purchase in the market; and, while it is used to express the general theme of redemption, its technical meaning implies only the purchase of the slave, but does not necessarily convey the thought of his release from slavery. The word exagoradzo, also translated redeem, implies much more, in that Ex, meaning out of, or out from, is combined with agoradzo and thus indicates that the slave is purchased out of the market (note here, also, the even stronger terms lutroo and apolutrosis with their meanings to loose and deliverance). There is, then, a redemption which pays the price, but does not of necessity release the slave, as well as redemption which is unto abiding freedom. It is probable that the reference to redemption in VIII, 6, and VIII, 8 of the Westminster Confession has the efficacious redemption in view which is completed in those who are saved.

According to 2 Corinthians 5:19 there is a reconciliation declared to be world-wide and wrought wholly of God; yet, in the verse which follows in the context, it is indicated that the individual sinner has the responsibility, in addition to the universal reconciliation wrought of God, to be reconciled himself to God. What God has accomplished has so changed the world in its relation to Himself that He, agreeable to the demands of infinite righteousness, is satisfied with Christ's death as a solution of the sin question for each one. The desideratum is not reached, however, until the individual, already included in the world's reconciliation, is himself satisfied with that same work of Christ which has satisfied God as the solution of his own sin question. Thus there is a reconciliation which of itself saves no one, but which is a basis for the reconciliation of any and all who will believe. When they believe, they are reconciled experimentally and eternally, and become the children of God through the riches of His grace.

In one brief verse, 1 John 2:2, God declares that there is a propitiation for our (Christians') sins, and not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world. While due recognition will be given later on to the interpretation of this and similar passages offered by the limited redemptionists, it is obvious that the same twofold aspect of truth--that applicable to the unsaved and that applicable to the saved--is indicated regarding propitiation as is indicated in the case of both redemption and reconciliation.

From this brief consideration of these three great doctrinal words it may be seen that the unlimited redemptionist believes as much in unlimited reconciliation and unlimited propitiation as he does in unlimited redemption. On the other hand, the limited redemptionist seldom includes the doctrines of reconciliation and propitiation specifically in his discussion of this issue.

V. THE CROSS IS NOT THE ONLY SAVING INSTRUMENTALITY

It is one of the points most depended upon by the limited redemptionists to claim that redemption, if wrought at all, necessitates the salvation of those thus favored. According to this view, if the redemption price is paid by Christ it must be exagoradzo or apolutrosis, rathre than agoradzo, in every instance. It is confidently held by all Calvinists that the elect will, in God's time and way, every one, be saved, and that the unregenerate believe only as they are enabled by the Spirit of God; but the question here is whether the sacrifice of Christ is the only divine instrumentality whereby God actually saves the elect, or whether that sacrifice is a divine work, finished, indeed, with regard to its scope and purpose, which renders all men savable, but one applied in sovereign grace by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit only when the individual believes. Certainly Christ's death of itself forgives no sinner, nor does it render unnecessary the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Any one of the elect whose salvation is predetermined, and for whom Christ died, may live the major portion of his life in open rebellion against God and, during that time, manifest every feature of depravity and spiritual death. This alone should prove that men are not severally saved by the act of Christ in dying, but rather that they are saved by the divine application of that value when they believe. The blood of the passover lamb became efficacious only when applied to the door post. The fact that an elect person does live some portion of his life in enmity toward God and in a state in which he is as much lost as any unregenerate person, indicates conclusively that Christ must not only die to provide a righteous basis for the salvation of that soul, but that that value must be applied to him at such a time in his life as God has decreed, which time, ~n the present generation, is almost two thousand years subsequent to the death of Christ. By so much it is proved that the priceless value in Christ's death does not save the elect, nor hinder them from rejecting the mercies of God in that period of their life which precedes their salvation.

The unlimited redemptionist claims that the value of Christ's death is extended to all men, but the elect alone come, by divine grace wrought by an effectual call, into its fruition, while the nonelect are not called, but are those passed by. They hold that God indicates who are the elect, not at the cross, but by the effectual call and at the time of regeneration. It is also believed by the unlimited redemptionists that it pleased God to place the whole world in a position of infinite obligation to Himself through the sacrifice of Christ, and though the mystery of personal condemnation for the sin of unbelief when one has not been moved to faith by the Spirit cannot be solved in this world, the unregenerate, both elect and nonelect, are definitely condemned for their unbelief so long as they abide in that estate (John 3:18).
There is nothing more clarifying in connection with this agelong discussion than the recognition of the fact that while they are in their unregenerate state, no vital distinction between the elect and the nonelect is recognized in the Scriptures (1 Cor. 1:24 and Heb. 1:14 might suggest this distinction along lines comparatively unimportant to this discussion). Certainly, that form of doctrine which would make redemption equivalent to salvation is not traceable when men are contemplated in their unregenerate state, and that salvation which is delayed for many years in the case of an elect person might be delayed forever in the case of a nonelect person whose heart God never moves. Was the objective in Christ's death one of making the salvation of all men possible, or was it the making of the salvation of the elect certain? Some light is gained on this question when it is thus remembered that the consummating divine acts in the salvation of an individual are wrought when he believes on Christ, and not before he believes.

VI. UNIVERSAL GOSPEL PREACHING

A very difficult situation arises for the limited redemptionist when he confronts the great commissions which enjoin the preaching of the gospel to every creature. How, it may be urged, can a universal gospel be preached if there is no universal provision? To say, at one time, that Christ did not die for the nonelect and, at another time, that His death is the ground on which salvation is offered to all men, is perilously near contradiction. It would be mentally and spiritually impossible for a limited redemptionist, if true to his convictions, to urge with sincerity those who are known to be nonelect to accept Christ. Fortunately, God has disclosed nothing whereby the elect can be distinguished from the nonelect while both classes are in the unregenerate state. However, the gospel preacher, if he entertains a doubt respecting the basis for his message in the case of even one to whom he is appealing, if sincere, does face a real problem in the discharge of his commission to preach the gospel to every creature. To believe that some are elect and some nonelect creates no problem for the soul-winner provided he is free in his convictions to declare that Christ died for everyone to whom he speaks. He knows that the nonelect will not accept the message. He knows, also, that even an elect person may resist it to near the day of his death. But if the preacher believes that any portion of his auditors are destitute of any basis of salvation, having no share in the values of Christ's death, it is no longer a question in his mind of whether they will accept or reject; it becomes rather a question of truthfulness in the declaration of the message. As Dr. W. Lindsay Alexander points out: "On this supposition [that of a limited atonement] the general invitations and promises of the gospel are without an adequate basis, and seem like a mere mockery, an offer, in short, of what has not been provided. It will not do to say, in reply to this, that as these invitations are actually given we are entitled on the authority of God's word to urge them and justified in accepting them; for this is mere evasion" (A System of Biblical Theology, 11,111). Representing the other side of the question, another Britisher, writing as late as 1919, declares: "Alas for the consummate folly of would-be theologians possessing Bibles, yet forever harping upon such mere pickings as 'whosoever believeth' and 'whosoever will!'" Almost every theologian has discussed in his writings the question of a limited or unlimited redemption, and clarifying quotations might be multiplied indefinitely could space be given to them. On the question of the beliefs of sincere gospel preachers, it would repay the reader to investigate how, universally, all great evangelists and missionaries have embraced the doctrine of unlimited redemption, and made it the very underlying structure of their convincing appeal.

VII. IS GOD DEFEATED IF MEN ARE LOST FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED?

Back of this phase of this subject is the conviction oft expressed by limited redemptionists, that for Christ to die for those who are never saved is to experience defeat on His part. Of course, it must be conceded that if the finished work is a guarantee of salvation to those for whom Christ died, there is a very noticeable defeat if one fails to be saved. But it is merely assumed that redemption is a guarantee of salvation. Christ becomes the surety of salvation when one believes. Christ's death is a finished transaction, the value of which God has not ever applied to any soul until that soul passes from death unto life. It is actual in its availability, but potential in its application. To state that the value of Christ's death is suspended until the hour of regeneration, is not to intimate that its value is any less than it would be were it applied at any other time. There are reasons which are based on the Scriptures why God might provide a redemption for all when He merely proposed to save some. He is justified in placing the whole world in a particular relation to Himself that the gospel might be preached with all sincerity to all men, and that, on the human side, men might be without excuse, being judged, as they are, for their rejection of that which is offered unto them. Men of this dispensation are condemned for their unbelief. This is expressly declared in John 3:18 and implied in John 16:7-11, in which latter context the Spirit is seen in His work of convincing the world of but one sin, namely, that "they believe not on me." But to reject Christ and His redemption, as every unbeliever does, is equivalent to the demand on his part that the great transaction of Calvary shall be reversed and that his sin, which was laid upon Christ, shall be retained by himself with all its condemning power. It is not asserted here that sin is thus ever retained by the sinner. It is stated, however, that since God does not apply the value of Christ's death to the sinner until that sinner is saved, God would be morally free to hold the sinner who rejects Christ, as being accountable for his sins, and to this unmeasured burden would be added all the condemnation which justly follows the sin of unbelief. In this connection, reference is made by the limited redemptionists to three passages which it is argued indicate that impenitent men die with their sins upon them and, therefore, it is asserted, Christ could not have borne their sins. These passages are:

John 8:24. "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." This is a clear statement that calls for little exposition. It is a case of believing on Christ or dying in the condemnation of sin. It is not alone the one sin of unbelief, but "your sins" to which Christ refers. There is occasion for some recognition of the fact that Christ spoke these words before His death and, also, that He here requires them to believe that He is the "I AM"-Jehovah. These facts are of importance in any specific consideration of this text; but enough may be said, if it be pointed out that the issue is as much a problem for one side of this discussion as for the other. If it be claimed by the limited redemptionists that these people to whom Christ spoke would die in their sins because they were nonelect and, therefore, their sins were not borne by Christ, it may be replied (1) that the condition indicated by Christ on which they may avoid dying in their sins is not based on His not dying for them, but rather their believing on Him, and (2) were it true that they die in their sins because of their position as nonelect for whom Christ did not die, it would be equally true that those among them who were of the elect (cf. verse 30) and whose sins were laid on Christ, would have no need to be saved from a lost estate. In other words, this important passage teaches that the value of Christ's death, as marvelous and complete as it is, is not applied to the unregenerate until they believe. It is the effectual calling of the Spirit which indicates God's elect and not some partial, unidentified, and supposed discrimination wrought out in the death of Christ.

Ephesians 5:6. "Because of these things cometh the wrath of God the upon the children of disobedience." The designation children of disobedience does not refer to the personal disobedience of any individual in this class, but rather to the fact that all unregenerate people are disobedient in the natural headship of Adam. This includes the elect and nonelect in their unsaved state; but it should be noted that those elect saved people to whom the Apostle is writing were, until saved, not only children of disobedience, but under the energizing power of Satan, being in a state of spiritual death (Eph. 2:1-2). Thus, again, it is proved that the value of Christ's death is applied to the elect, not at the cross, but when they believe.

Revelation 20:12. "And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." This scene is related to the great white throne judgment of all the unregenerate of all the ages, and it should be noted that, in other ages, men were placed more upon a covenant of works than they are now. The sum total of sin in the present age is unbelief (John 16:9), as the sum total of human responsibility toward God in securing a right relation to God is belief (John 6:29). It is very possible that those of this vast company who were of this dispensation may be judged for the one inclusive sin of unbelief, while those of other ages may be judged for many and specific sins; but from the foregoing proofs it is evident that it is in no way unscriptural to recognize that the impenitent of this age are judged according to their own specific sins, since the value of Christ's death is not applied to or accepted for them until they believe, and all these it is evident have never believed.

At this point, and in this connection, it is appropriate to consider the challenge which the limited redemptionists universally advance--that if Christ bore the sins of the nonelect, they could not be lost; for it is claimed even the condemning sin of unbelief would thus be borne and, therefore, have lost its condemning power. By this challenge the important question is raised of whether Christ bore all the individual's sins except unbelief. On this aspect of this theme, John Owen wrote nearly three centuries ago: "God imposed His wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so no man shall be saved. . . . If the second, that is what we affirm, viz. that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first [viz. that Christ died for all the sins of all men], then why are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, Because of their unbelief; they will not believe. But this unbelief, is it a sin or is it not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it or not. If He did, why must that hinder, more than their other sins for which He died, from partaking of the fruit of His death? If He did not, then He did not die for all their sins" (cited by W. L. Alexander, ibid., II, 109-10).

To this it may be replied that the sin of unbelief assumes a specific quality, in that it is man's answer to that which Christ wrought and finished for him when bearing his sins on the cross. There is, doubtless, divine freedom secured by Christ's death whereby God may pardon the sin of unbelief since he freely forgives all trespasses (Col. 2:13), and there is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). The sin of unbelief, being particular in character, is evidently treated as such in the Scriptures. Again, if Christ bore the sin of unbelief along with the other sins of the elect, then no elect sinner in his unregenerate estate is subject to any condemnation, nor does he require to be forgiven or justified in the sight of God.

If it be inquired at this point, as it frequently is, whether the general call of God (John 12 :32) could be sincere in every instance since He does not design the salvation of the nonelect, it may be asserted that, since the inability of the nonelect to receive the gospel is due to human sin, from His own standpoint, God is justified in extending the invitation to them. In this connection there is an important distinction to be observed between the sovereign purpose of God and His desires. For specific and worthy reasons, God, as any other being, may purpose to do more or less than He desires. His desire is evidently toward the whole world (John 3:16), but His purpose is as clearly revealed to be toward the elect. In the important passage, "who would have all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4, R.V.), this distinction is seen in that the passive rather than the active form of the verb save is used.

VIII. THE NATURE OF SUBSTITUTION

The limited redemptionists sincerely believe that Christ's substitution for a lost soul necessitates the salvation of that soul. The following is another argument from John Owen: "For whom Christ died, He died as their sponsor, in their room and stead, that He might free them from guilt and desert of death (Isa. 53:5, 6; Rom. 5:6-8; Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21). Evidently He changeth turns with us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. . . . Christ dying for men made satisfaction for their sins, that they should not die. Now, for what sins He made satisfaction, for them the justice of God is satisfied; which surely is not done for the sins of the reprobates, because He justly punisheth them to eternity upon themselves (Matt. 5:26)" (as summarized by Alexander, ibid., p. 108). This is a fair issue and there is some light available through the careful consideration of the precise nature of substitution itself.

Man did not first discover the necessity of a substitute to die in his room and stead; this necessity was in the heart of God from all eternity. Who can declare what sin actually is in the sight of infinite rectitude? Who will assume to measure the ransom price God must require for the sinner? Who can state what the just judgments of outraged holiness were, which were required by the Father and rendered by the Son? Or who can declare the cost to God of the disposition of sin itself from His presence forever?

Two Greek prepositions are involved in the doctrine of substitution:

(1) huper (translated for), which word is broad in its scope and may mean no more than that a thing accomplished becomes a benefit to others. In this respect it would be declared by this word that Christ's death became a benefit to a greater or less degree to those for whom He died. This word is, however, at times invested with the most absolute substitutionary meaning (cf. Heb. 2:9; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:21; 3:18; 4:1).

(2) anti (also translated for), which word conveys tbe thought of complete substitution of one thing or person in the place of another. Orthodox men, whether of one school or the other, will contend alike that Christ's death was for men in the most definite sense. However, substitution may be either absolute or conditional, and in the case of Christ's death for the sinner it was both absolute and conditional. Marshall Randles in his book on Substitution, page 10, states this twofold aspect of truth thus: "Substitution may be absolute in some respects, and conditional in others, e.g., a philanthropist may pay the ransom price of an enslaved family, so that the children shall be unconditionally freed, and the parents only on condition of their suitably acknowledging the kindness. Similarly the substitution of Christ was partly absolute, and partly conditional, in proportion to man's capacity of choice and responsibility. His death availed for the rescue of infants from the race-guilt; their justification, like their condemnation, being independent of their knowledge and will, and irrespective of any condition which might render the benefit contingent. But for the further benefit of saving men who have personally and voluntarily sinned, the death of Christ avails potentially, taking effect in their complete salvation if they accept Him with true faith."

It is not a question of the perfect character of Christ's substitution; His substitution is as complete whether applied at one time or another, or if it never be applied. It is not a question of the ability or the inability of the sinner to believe apart from divine enablement. It is rather a question of whether the full value of Christ's death might be potentially provided for the nonelect, even though they never benefit by it, but are only judged because of it. The limited redemptionists, it may be restated, believe that the elect are saved because it is necessary for them to be saved in view of the fact that Christ died for them. The unlimited redemptionists believe that the substitutionary death of Christ accomplished to infinite perfection all that divine holiness could ever require for every lost soul of this age; that the elect are saved on the ground of Christ's death for them through the effective call and divine enablement of the Spirit; that the value of Christ's death is rejected even by the elect until the hour that they believe; and that that value is rejected by the nonelect forever, and for this rejection they are judged.

It has been objected at this point that the belief of the unlimited redemptionist results in the end in man being his own savior; that is, he is saved or lost according to his works. The question of whether believing on Christ is a saving work has been considered earlier in this thesis. One passage of Scripture will suffice to clear this matter. In Romans 4:5 it is written: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Here the thought is not that the candidate for salvation performs no works except belief, but rather that by believing he turns from all works of his own, on which he might depend, and confides in Another to do that which no human works could ever do. By so much the determination rests with man, though it is recognized that no man possesses saving faith apart from a divine enablement to that end. Recognition must be given by all to the fact--to be expanded later on--that the peculiar manner in which God enlightens the mind and moves the heart of the unsaved to the end that they gladly accept Christ as Savior, is in no way a coercion of the will; rather the human volition is strengthened and its determination is the more emphatic. It is futile to attempt to dismiss the element of human responsibility from the great gospel texts of the New Testament.

It is both reasonable and Scriptural to conclude that a perfect substitution avails for those who are saved: that, in the case of the elect, it is delayed in its application until they believe and in the case of the nonelect, it is never applied at all.

IX. THE TESTIMONY OF THE SCRIPTURES

In the progress of the discussion between the limited redemptionists and the unlimited redemptionists, much Scripture is noted on each side and, naturally, some effort is made by each group to harmonize that which might seem to be conflicting between these lines of proof. Some of the passages cited by the limited redemptionists are:

John 10:15. "I lay down my life for the sheep." This statement is clear. Christ gave His life for His elect people; however, it is to be observed that both Israel's election and that of the Church are referred to in this text (vs. 16).

John 15:13. Christ laid down His life for His friends.

John 17:2, 6, 9, 20, 24. In this most important Scripture Christ declares that He gives eternal life to as many as are given to Him, that an elect company has been given to Him, that He prays now only for His elect company, and that He desires that this elect company may be Him in glory.

Romans 4:25. Christ is here said to have been delivered for our (the elect) sins and raised again for our (the elect) justification. This, too, is specific.

Ephesians 1:3-7. In this extended text the fact that Christ is the Redeemer of His elect people is declared with absolute certainty.

Ephesians 5:25-27. In which passage Christ is revealed as both loving the Church and giving Himself for it, that He might bring it with infinite purity and glory into His own possession and habitation.

In contemplating the Scriptures cited above, and many others of the same specific character, the unlimited redemptionists assert that it is the primary purpose of Christ to bring many sons into glory and that He never lost sight of this purpose; that it actuated Him in all His sufferings and death is beyond question, and that His heart is centered on those who are thus given to Him of the Father. However, not once do these passages exclude the truth, equally emphasized in the Scripture, that He died for the whole world. There is a difference to be noted between the fact of His death and the motive of His death. He may easily have died for all men with a view to securing His elect. In such a case, Christ would have been actuated by two great purposes: one, to pay the forensic ransom price for the world; the other, to secure His elect Body and Bride. The former of these purposes seems to be implied in such texts as Luke 19:10, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost," and John 3:17, "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved," while the latter seems to be implied in such passages as John 10:15, "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." The Scriptures do not always include all the truth involved in the theme presented, at a given place. Similarly, if the fact that any reference to the nonelect world is omitted from these passages (which refer only to the elect) is a sufficient ground for the contention that Christ died only for the elect, then it could be argued with inexorable logic that Christ died only for Israel (cf. John 11:51; Isa. 53:8); and that He died only for the Apostle Paul, for Paul declares "who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). As well might one contend that Christ restricted His prayers to Peter because of the fact that He said to Peter: "But I have prayed for thee" (Luke 22:32). To the unlimited redemptionist these Scriptures present not the slightest difficulty. He interprets these great passages precisely as does his opponent. He believes in the sovereign election of God and the one and only heavenly purpose to gather out a redeemed people for heaven's glory. However, the limited redemptionist is not able to deal with the unlimited redemption passages as easily. Important passages may be grouped together thus:

1. PASSAGES WHICH DECLARE CHRIST'S DEATH TO BE FOR THE WHOLE WORLD (John 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:19; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2). The limited redemptionist states that the use of the word world in these and similar passages is restricted to mean the world of the elect, basing the argument on the fact that the word world may at times be restricted in the extent of its scope and meaning. They claim that these universal passages, to be in harmony with the revelation that Christ died for an elect company, must be restricted to the elect. According to this interpretation, John 3:16 would read: "God so loved the elect, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever [of the elect] believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 2 Corinthians 5:19 would read: "God was in Christ, reconciling the elect unto Himself." Hebrews 2:9 would read: "He tasted death for every man of those who comprise the company of the elect."

1 John 2:2 would read: "He is the propitiation for our [the elect] sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of those who comprise the world of elect people." John 1:29 would read: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the elect."

A study of the word cosmos has been presented in Volume II. There it was seen that usually this word refers to a satanic system which is antigod in character, though in a few instances it refers to the unregenerate people who are in the cosmos. Three passages serve to emphasize the antipathy which obtains between the saved, who are "chosen out of the world," and the world itself: "If the world hate you, ye know that hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:18-19); they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (John 17:16); "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19). Yet, in support of a theory, it is claimed that the elect, which the world hates and from which it has been saved, is the "world." Dr. Shedd points to certain specific passages. To quote:

"Sometimes it is the world of believers, the church. Examples of this use are: John 6:33,51, 'The bread of God is he which giveth life to the wor1d' [of believers]. Rom. 4:13, Abraham is 'the heir of the world' [the redeemed]. Rom. 11:12, 'If the fall of them be the riches of the world.' Rom. 11:15, 'If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world.' In these texts, 'church' could be substituted for 'world'" (Dogmatic Theology, II, 479).

It is an assumption, quite foreign to Dr. Shedd, to declare that the word ecclesia--called-out ones--should be substituted for the word cosmos in these passages. Not one of them requires consideration in any other light than that usually accorded to the satanic system.

2. PASSAGES WHICH ARE ALL-INCLUSIVE IN THEIR SCOPE

(2 Cor.5:14; lTim.2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11;Rom.5:6). Again, the limited redemptionist points out that in various passages the word all is restricted to the elect. Indeed, such passages must be restricted if the cause of the limited redemptionist is to stand--but are these properly so restricted? By the limited redemptionist's interpretation, 2 Corinthians 5:14 would read: "If one died for the elect, then were the elect dead."

1 Timothy 2:6 would read: "who gave Himself a ransom for the elect, to be testified in due time." 1 Timothy 4:10 would read: "who is the Saviour of the elect, especially of those who believe." Titus 2:11 would read: "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto the elect." Romans 5:6 would read: "In due time Christ died for the elect, in their ungodly estate."

3. PASSAGES WHICH OFFER A UNIVERSAL GOSPEL TO MEN

(John 3:16; Acts 10:43; Rev. 22:17, etc.).

The word whosoever is used at least 110 times in the New Testament, and always with the unrestricted meaning.

4. A SPECIAL PASSAGE, 2 Peter 2:1, wherein the ungodly false teachers of the last days who bring swift destruction upon themselves are said to "deny the Lord that bought them." Men are thus said themselves to be ransomed who deny the very ground of salvation and who are destined to destruction.

Two statements may be in order in concluding this division of this discussion:

(a) The interpretation of John 3:16 which the limited redemptionist offers tends to restrict the love of God to those among the unregenerate who are the elect. In support of this, passages are quoted which declare God's peculiar love for His saved people. There is no question that there is a "much more" expression of the love of God for men after they are saved than before (Rom. 5:8-10), though His love for unsaved men is beyond measure; but to assert that God loves the elect in their unregenerate estate more than the nonelect, is an assumption without Scriptural proof. Some limited redemptionists have been bold enough to say that God does not love the nonelect at all.

(b) What if God did give His Son to die for all men of this dispensation in an equal sense, to the end that all might be legitimately invited to gospel privileges, could He, if actuated by such a purpose, use any more explicit language than He has used to express such an intent?

CONCLUSION

Again let it be said that to disagree with good and worthy teachers is undesirable, to say the least; but when these teachers appear on both sides of a question, as in the present discussion, there seems to be no alternative. By an inner bent of mind some men tend naturally to accentuate the measureless values of Christ's death, while others tend to accentuate the glorious results of the application of those values in the immediate salvation of the lost. The gospel must be understood by those to whom it is preached; and it is wholly impossible for the limited redemptionist, when presenting the gospel, to hide with any completeness his conviction that the death of Christ is only for the elect. And nothing could be more confusing to an unsaved person than to be drawn away from the consideration of the saving grace of God in Christ, to the contemplation of the question whether he is elect or not. Who can prove that he is of the election? If the preacher believes that some to whom he addresses his message could not be saved under any circumstances, those addressed have a right to know what the preacher believes and in time will know. Likewise, it is not wholly sincere to avoid the issue by saying the preacher does not know whether any nonelect are present. Are they absent from every service? Is it not reasonable to suppose that they are usually present when such a vast majority of humanity will probably never be saved at all? In this discussion of this and other problems respecting the value of Christ's death, no greater wrong could be imposed than that, by a philosophical contemplation of truths that are throbbing with glory, light, and blessing, the evangelistic fervor of even one who is called to preach salvation through Christ to lost men should be dampened. May the God who loved a lost world to the extent that He gave His own Son to die for that world, ever impart that passion of soul to those who undertake to convey the message of measureless love to men!

RETRIBUTION FOR BELIEVERS (By Joey Faust)

2008-08-30T07:21:00.000-07:00

(Note- not all Free Gracers agree with Joey Faust's Millennial Exclusion view, but it is a view that believers would do well to consider)

by Joey Faust

1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
6 That NO MAN go beyond and defraud HIS BROTHER in any matter: because that THE LORD IS THE AVENGER OF ALL SUCH, as we also have forewarned you and testified.
7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

The above Scriptures reveal that the Lord will meet some believers as an AVENGER. This clearly speaks of retribution. And we are warned that such terror may be experienced at the Judgment Seat of Christ when the Lord returns (2 Corinthians 5:9-11). Such plain truth is shunned or denied for certain philosophical or emotional reasons that will be evaluated in this article.

When believers come face to face with the Biblical warnings to believers in regard to the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Millennium it is natural for many to wonder WHY the Lord would punish at such times. The time for repentance for believers will be ended when the Lord returns and reigns in His Kingdom. Many therefore use this question as an objection:

"Why would God temporarily punish believers at the Judgment Seat? What good would it do? It will then be too late for repentance and reformation. All judgment upon believers is for repentance and reformation. Therefore, the view that God will punish unfaithful believers at the Judgment Seat of Christ and during the Millennium must be wrong, since there would be no reason left, at these times, for such punishment."

Of course, a faulty premise will result in a faulty conclusion. This objection assumes that reformation and prevention are the ONLY purposes of judgment in regard to believers. It entirely overlooks the fact that RETRIBUTION is a crucial purpose of judgment, even for the children of God - especially after previous warnings and chastenings have been despised and spurned. It is crucial that we do not allow modern, humanistic philosophy and psychology to influence our doctrinal views (Colossians 2:8). Humanism naturally recoils from all aspects of Divine retribution, in all its manifestations. Therefore, to rightly comprehend the Bible's teachings in regard to the Judgment Seat of Christ, all faulty, humanistic foundations must be rejected.

Before examining the Scriptures on the subject of retribution, it might be helpful to notice the changes that many have made (or desire to make) to the criminal justice system in America. These changes reflect a "new" way of thinking that has had profound effects upon the way the Scriptures are viewed and interpreted. We are living in an age that largely views retribution as archaic, rusty, and even savage. Criminals (especially women) are too often viewed as victims. (Even Judas is being "rehabilitated" as a victim!) They are seen as "sick," and therefore in need of "treatment" and rehabilitation. Increasingly, punishment is determined by judges based upon the perceived good it might or might not do to the criminal! This humanistic view is often called utilitarianism. It maintains that only the criminal's future matters. Both the real victim, and the very principle of justice itself, are often ignored in order to apologize to, excuse, and "treat" the criminal. There is a growing movement that believes that the duty of sentencing criminals should be totally removed from judges and placed into the hands of "doctors" and mental specialists (i.e. psychological quacks). Certainly, with such humanistic philosophies abounding, it is no wonder that we might have some trouble grasping the Biblical doctrine of retribution (especially when applied to the people of God).

Presbyterian minister James M. Orr (1838-1865) noticed the error of the modern view of punishment that was already gaining some ground in his day:

"The modern humanitarian spirit tends to exalt the reformatory and preventive ends of punishment, at the expense of the RETRIBUTIVE. That every effort should be put forth for the reformation of the criminal which the case admits of, we cordially allow. But the danger is, in these matters, that sentiment degenerate into sentimentalism. Crime DESERVES punishment, and on that ground alone, were there no other, ought to receive it. No theory can be satisfactory which loses sight of RETRIBUTION, and makes reformation and prevention the all in all." ("Pulpit Commentary," Deuteronomy 25)

Have not many modern Christians succumbed to this error in their views concerning the Judgment Seat of Christ? Certainly, the whole concept of punishment has been attacked in the state, in the home, and in the church; and this has greatly downgraded the views of many preachers in regard to the Judgment Seat of Christ for believers. First, the "modern humanitarian spirit" (which has its foundation in humanism) has made the very idea of punishment for unfaithful believers seem shocking, absurd and preposterous. My book, "The Rod: Will God Spare It," connects the modern rejection of the Judgment Seat of Christ (for God's children) with the humanistic rejection of Biblical discipline in the home. Many preachers who rightly resist the humanistic attacks upon the family, and upon Biblical discipline in the home, are nevertheless, unwittingly drunken with the same spirit when it comes to the Judgment Seat of Christ. With one side of their mouths they exhort fathers not to spare the rod; yet with the other side, they teach that GOD will automatically spare the rod at the Judgment Seat! Secondly, the "sentimentalism" of this modern humanism moves many to overlook RETRIBUTION as one of the chief purposes of judgment at the Judgment Seat of Christ. When this crucial purpose is lost sight of, or forgotten, the Biblical-judgment warnings to believers are constricted and made to conform to the dictates of humanistic philosophy. In the same manner that our law courts are infected with a lackadaisical mentality ("What's done is done; what good would it do the criminal to punish him/her now?"), so are our pulpits often diseased with the same vain reasonings in regard to the warnings concerning the Judgment Seat of Christ!

William Powell Clark (in the 1920's), writes:

"The real reason underlying the refusal of some dear children of God to accept belief in the punishment of unfruitful believers - not eternal, but during the Millennial reign of Christ - is an inadequate sense of THE JUSTICE OF GOD. Acceptance of the belief in the temporary punishment of such Christians during the Millennial reign safeguards the eternal merits of Christ's atonement on the cross, and at the same time, preserves the absolute Justice of God."

Notice, this Christian judge had a clear view of the necessity of JUSTICE at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Clark believed that the adoption of humanistic thinking concerning retribution and justice was the underlying cause for the disbelief of many in regard to the Lord's warnings to unfaithful believers. If this was the case in the 1920's, how much more is this modern generation of Christians confused concerning God's retributive justice? Let us pray that we might see these concepts in a Biblical manner.

At the heart of retributive justice are the concepts of merit and desert. Justice REPAYS the guilty for his or her wrongs committed. Therefore, in answering the question of whether retribution plays a crucial part in the judgments unfaithful believers will receive at the Judgment Seat of Christ, we simply need to examine the Scriptures to see if such concepts are used in relation to believers. Upon doing so, we immediately find that retribution plays an important role at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Notice how contrary the following Scriptures are to the ungrounded view that states that RETRIBUTION (i.e. God's moral justice) must play no part in the judgments upon unfaithful believers WHEN THEY STAND BEFORE GOD'S TRIBUNAL:

Colossians 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
25 But HE THAT DOETH WRONG shall RECEIVE FOR THE WRONG which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.
4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that YE ALSO HAVE A MASTER IN HEAVEN.

The idea of "receiving for the wrong" is certainly that old, archaic, traditional view of justice! The context refers to believers. And notice that the Judgment Seat of Christ is not merely PARENTAL in nature. There are other pictures or backdrops in place. There is also the servant/master relationship that occurs so often in Biblical warnings to believers! While some in modern times might have trouble understanding retribution in the parental setting, none should have any trouble understanding it in the servant/master relationship often presented in the Bible:

Matthew 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; 50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Many wrongly decry the application of these Gospel warnings to believers (also see Luke 12:45-48, 19:22-26, Matthew 25:30, etc.). Many get on a high horse and proclaim, "We are not mere servants. We are sons!" For the moment, we will put aside the fact that fathers had the power of life and death over their sons in ancient times. We also will ignore the fact that in the Old Testament legislation, incorrigible sons who would not repent after they had been properly chastised, were to be slain (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Certainly, these are important types for the New Testament teaching on the Judgment Seat of Christ. But what is more important is the fact that the Epistles do not present "sonship" as the only picture or relationship between believers and the Lord! The Judgment Seat of Christ is largely presented to New Testament believers in the context of the servant/master relationship (as seen in Colossians 4:1). And in the context of this relationship, "mere retribution" plays an important role:

Ephesians 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to HIS OWN MASTER he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Again, Romans 14, like the Gospel warnings, presents future judgment in the context of a servant/master relationship (John 13:13). However, it even goes beyond this picture, since the very subject of a "judgment seat" reveals the throne of a magistrate:

John 19:13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the JUDGMENT SEAT in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

Acts 18:12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the JUDGMENT SEAT,

Acts 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's JUDGMENT SEAT, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die...

The fable that the Judgment Seat of Christ is only an awards banquet of some kind (usually argued by replacing the word "judgment" with "bema," though the preacher is speaking English!) is plainly exposed by the above Scriptures which use the same word for "judgment." At Caesar's "judgment seat" there was RETRIBUTION, even to death! And the Lord Jesus Christ, as King of Kings, has a higher, more terrible throne than any Caesar!:

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST; that every one may RECEIVE THE THINGS DONE in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the TERROR OF THE LORD, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

It should be clear to all that the Lord's judgment throne is a throne of retribution for believers, and that we need to bring our doctrinal views in line with the Scriptures. Notice how the earthly ruler is called by God to render justice and retribution:

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a REVENGER to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

If he is a REVENGER, then he is called to administer justice and retribution! And we have already seen that the New Testament presents God as a Master or Judge who will REPAY believers according to the deeds done in the body. The concepts of repaying and avenging are central to the concept of moral retribution!

With these thoughts in mind, notice another important Scripture:

Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, VENGEANCE BELONGETH UNTO ME, I WILL RECOMPENSE, saith the Lord. And again, THE LORD SHALL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

This passage presents the judgment upon believers (who do despite unto the Spirit of grace and refuse to repent) as "vengeance," and a "recompense." These are the same elements of retribution that we have seen presented elsewhere in relation to the judgment of believers:

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

Hebrews 2:2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just RECOMPENCE of reward;
3 How shall WE escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

The upholding of moral justice is a crucial purpose of the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Millennial Kingdom. The Bible teaches that the coming age of justice (in contrast to this age of the Lord's longsuffering) will BEGIN with the judgment of the Lord's own household:

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that JUDGMENT MUST BEGIN AT THE HOUSE OF GOD: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

"...the coming millennial day of Justice, dominated by the Judgment Seat, has for its essential characteristic the recoil of works in JUDICIAL RETRIBUTION. 'For he that doeth wrong...'- the context is addressed solely to believers (Col. 3:25)."
(D.M. Panton, "The Judgment Seat of Christ")

What would it teach the nations of the Millennial age if there was no retribution at all for the unfaithful of the Lord's own household? What do people think of one who is strict with his neighbors but too soft with his own household? Did not Eli's softness concerning his own house provoke Israel to abhor the offering of the Lord? The Lord will uphold moral justice for the righteousness of the principle itself. But this just retribution (for those who did not seek mercy beforehand) will also demonstrate the righteousness of God to all nations, and even to the angels.

It is interesting that the majority of objectors to retribution at the Judgment Seat of Christ have no problem with positive rewards:

Hebrews 11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the RECOMPENCE of the reward.

Yet, the same moral justice that rewards good behavior must likewise punish bad behavior. The same error is seen in the many interpreters who take the promises of reward literally (i.e. Jesus will gird himself and serve the dining believer, Luke 12:37), yet refuse or spiritualize the warnings in the same context (12:39, 46-49).

The main objection offered against retribution at the Judgment Seat of Christ (for believers) is that since the Lord has already PAID for all sins (past, present and future), there is, therefore, no place or ground for ANY future retribution. However, this objection fails to leave any logical room for any chastisement at all, even in this life! Yet, the Bible teaches that believers may be judged for sins committed after regeneration (Acts 5:10, 1 Corinthians 11:29-32, 1 John 5:16, etc.). Therefore, the fact that Jesus has PAID for the sins of believers does not mean that there is no danger of any consequences for sins committed after salvation. In the type, David was forgiven of adultery and murder, but he still suffered some temporal consequences (2 Samuel 12:10-14). The smallest sin in the sight of the eternal God merits eternal torment; yet the Blood of Jesus has removed this penalty for every believer, for all sins (past, present and future). But the Lord's work on the Cross was never meant to bar the Father from administrating the affairs of His household! The merits of Christ place the sinner on new ground (as a son, servant, etc.). But this new ground is not without some severe accountability - even though there is no danger of eternal retribution.

The branch that obediently abides in the vine, is purged so it will bring forth more fruit (John 15:2). This is the only aspect of God's parental dealings that are admitted or taught by many preachers. However, this purging is for faithful, obedient believers! The Lord warns that the branch that does not abide in the Vine, will not be purged - it will be cut off (John 15:2,6). Some believers refuse the discipline that is meant for their growth in holiness. They faint under or despise the purging. Such discipline that is not endured in patience (giving God reverence by our subjection) can result in severe retribution, in this life, and at the Judgment Seat.

The very facts concerning the judgment of believers in this life reveal that the humanistic theory is in error. If retribution plays no part at all in the judgment of believers, and they can only be chastised for one purpose (i.e. provoking their repentance in this life), then how does one answer the fact that believers are sometimes killed by God for their sins (Acts 5:10, 1 Corinthians 11:29-32, 1 John 5:16, etc.)? Certainly, it is obvious that such a judgment leaves no room for repentance, reformation or rehabilitation in this life! It therefore follows that the theory that all judgment of believers is only for correction in this life is erroneous. Believers are often judged for the purpose of retribution; and any "correction" and instruction (at least in this life) is often for others who see the judgment:

Acts 5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon ALL THE CHURCH, and upon as many as heard these things.

Even the retribution that was often administered to Old Testament believers is used as a warning example to New Testament believers (1 Corinthians 10:11).

On the other hand, although moral retribution is an important purpose of the Judgment Seat of Christ, I do not maintain that it is the only purpose. God is able (and He has every right) to use such judgments to accomplish ALL the purposes He intends to accomplish. The intent of this article is to demonstrate the error of binding the Lord to only one purpose of judgment concerning believers. RETRIBUTION ALONE is presented in the Scriptures as a crucial purpose for judging some believers during the Millennial Age. Disobedient, unrepentant believers (who seek no mercy beforehand in godly fear) must be punished on the grounds of moral justice alone. The prevalent ignorance of this well-established principle of criminal justice moves many modern judges to let repeat offenders escape proper prison-time. They reason, "What good would such an extended stay in prison do for the rapist or murderer? We cannot undo the crime. Let us therefore concentrate on helping the criminal." We must not use such humanistic, darkened reasonings when interpreting the warnings to believers!

http://www.kingdombaptist.org

This is a Cult: Narnian Cosmology

2008-08-24T12:37:00.000-07:00

This is a Cult: Narnian Cosmology

Want to listen to my sermon?

2008-08-22T09:33:00.001-07:00

by Matthew

Hatherley Evangelical church were kind enough to post a recording of my sermon on the Mercy Seat in Exodus. You can download it from the site.

Hatherley Evangelical Church: Sermon Recordings

Do You Agree with this Quotation? XXVII

2008-08-21T09:36:00.000-07:00

by Rose

Whatever else is true of man, man is not what God intended him to be.
- G. K. Chesterton

Determinists comments are especially welcome and invited.

A Pre-Wrath response to Zane Hodges

2008-08-20T10:19:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

This is a response to the post below.

I am sure that Pre-Wrathers will welcome Zane Hodges' contribution to the debate. He raises some interesting issues:

The shortening of the tribulation

The Pre-Wrath interpretation of the cutting short is certainly not the only viable interpretation. However, it is still a possible and plausible one.

If the days of the tribulation are pre-determined it does seem odd that they should be shortened in advanced. How long should those days be?

Wrath in the Tribulation

Hodges cites Matthew 24:22 as evidence of divine wrath in the tribulation. I do not think this is a necessary conclusion, even if we reject Rosenthal's reading of that verse. I am sure I have read Pre-Tribbers understand that verse in terms of the war and famine that will be unleashed through the destructive energy of man. That energy is halted by the outpouring of divine wrath after the rapture.

Hodges faults Rosenthal's view that 'no flesh' refers to the Jewish nation. It may not convince all, but it does fit the Jewish context of the passage and reflect some of the Old Testament descriptions of devastation falling on the land of Israel. Pre-Tribbers make plenty of assumptions about Matthew 24 too.

The Day of the Lord

Zane Hodges suggests that reading the term 'Day of the Lord' as a static term always referring to a specific period is very questionable. I agree that viewing the term as a fixed and definite period is not demanded by the biblical texts, but the Pre-Wrath view does provide a framework that can allow for consistency between the uses of the term.

Pre-Wrathers and Post-tribbers have frequently faulted Pre-Tribbers for their failure to defend the idea that the entire period of the Daniel's Seventieth Week is the Day of the Lord.

Are the seals, trumpets and vials consecutive?

Hodges raises an important fault with Rosenthal's book. Rosenthal failed to defend the consecutive view. Thus, when I first read it I was quite unconvinced. My previous Post-Tribulational views of course depended upon the seals, trumpets and vials being parallel events. When I came to doubt the certainty of this conclusion, it became clear that the Pre-Wrath view was a better option.

It is interesting that Hodges makes this point, because in general, Pre-Tribulational writers seem to assume that the seals, trumpets and vials are consecutive.

Zane C. Hodges reviews Marvin Rosenthal's book

2008-08-14T20:23:00.000-07:00

by Zane Hodges

Zane C. Hodges reviews Marvin Rosenthal's book

The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. By Marvin Rosenthal.

Here is yet another book which claims to refute the pre-tribulation Rapture. But in this one there is a new twist. The author is neither mid nor post-tribulational. Instead, he holds to a new placement of the Rapture which locates it around the middle of the last three and a half years of Daniel’s seventieth week. He calls this view the "pre-wrath" Rapture.

Rosenthal is a graduate of Dallas Seminary and is presently the executive director of a faith mission called Zion’s Hope. Although he was formerly pre-tribulational in his convictions, Rosenthal tells us that he came painfully to the conclusion that these convictions were wrong. In his book, however, he expresses an almost dogmatic certitude about many of his present persuasions.

This reviewer appreciated the overall tone of the book. Rosenthal is careful to praise his former mentors (men like John F. Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, and Dwight D. Pentecost), and there are no harsh personal attacks. At the same time, however, one senses here and there a slight note of condescension toward those who have not noticed the obvious biblical facts to which Rosenthal directs us. For example, on p. 292, he suggests that nobody would have missed the connection between the seven churches (Revelation 2, 3) and Daniel’s seventieth week apart from their preconception that the Church is raptured before the seventieth week. This is both unfair and a bit snide. But by and large, Rosenthal handles his polemics rather well.

On balance, however, the book is a serious disappointment. The author’s confidence in his new position is not matched by an adequate finesse in exegesis or argumentation. In fact, a book refuting Rosenthal’s volume has just appeared, written by a very gifted Dallas graduate, Paul S. Karleen. (See The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church: Is It Biblical? published, 1991, by BF Press [P.O. Box L-601, Langhorne, PA 19047], 102 pp.) Karleen does an excellent job in exposing the weaknesses in Rosenthal’s conclusions.

See also "A review of the Pre-Wrath rapture of the Church"
By Gerald B. Stanton

Within the short scope of a review, we can only discuss a few of the numerous places where Rosenthal’s exegesis and argumentation seem seriously flawed. Below are given four cases where some of the major premises of this book rest on extremely questionable foundations:

1. Rosenthal claims that the Great Tribulation is shortened to less that three and a half years, while "it is beyond refutation that the seventieth week of Daniel is not shortened" (p. 109). This shortening is indicated in Matt 24:21, 22 and Mark 13:20.

This distinction is crucial to Rosenthal’s case since his whole scheme depends on distinguishing the Great Tribulation from the Day of the Lord (which he believes begins around the middle of the last three and a half years).

Rosenthal’s argument in no way proves his point. He does not even consider the option that the last three and a half years are, in fact, the time frame into which a potentially longer Tribulation will be compressed. After all, the prophecy of Daniel 9 doesn’t use the word "years" either, so that it is only by a process of deduction that we can determine the literal length of time. But there is no real reason why this deduction cannot also apply to the Tribulation. It is logically inadmissible to claim that the shortening of the Tribulation necessarily results in a shorter time span than three and a half years. To make that claim assumes what remains to be proved.

Rosenthal should also have noticed that Mark 13:20 speaks of this shortening as already an accomplished fact. God has shortened the days already so that their length is pre-determined. No text states that this shortening is to a time span briefer than Daniel’s seventieth week, which is equally pre-determined!

2. Rosenthal argues that the Tribulation contains no divine wrath but is "uniquely Jewish." He denies that the statement that "no flesh would be saved" (Matt 24:22) has a universal reference, but instead must mean "in context" "no Jewish [!] flesh" (pp. 174, 206, 304).

This is a forced and impossible exegesis. "No flesh" without qualification is not at all likely to be a reference only to the Jewish race. Such a reference is ruled out, in fact, by the immediately preceding verse, which states that the Great Tribulation is without parallel "since the beginning of the world"! This is quite different than the statement (to which Rosenthal appeals) found in Dan 12:1: "And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation." Clearly, while Daniel speaks of the experience of a "nation," our Lord speaks of the experience of mankind.

With the collapse of this point, Rosenthal’s whole system fails, since Rosenthal must show that the Great Tribulation is merely persecution of the Jews and not a time of God’s wrath. But if the extinction of the whole race is threatened by this period, clearly God’s wrath will be at work. Thus, on Rosenthal’s own premises, a pre-wrath Rapture would have to be at least a pre-Great Tribulation Rapture!

Besides, if the Great Tribulation is the time of Jewish persecution, then Revelation itself shows that this time is three and a half years in duration (see Rev 12:6, 13–14). The flawed exposition and reasoning which Rosenthal displays in Matt 24:21, 22 are distressing.

3. Rosenthal treats the "Day of the Lord" as a fixed and static term. According to him, the definite article used in this phrase by the OT prophets shows that "they knew of only one such event" (p. 129).

Rosenthal makes a false linguistic point. Even if the definite article were used with this phrase, it would not prove that there was only one event to which the term could apply. When I say, "The dog came into the house," I certainly do not imply that there is only one dog or one house. But unfortunately for Rosenthal’s case, the Hebrew text does not employ the definite article with "day" in this phrase, as Karleen has pointed out (p. 38)!

It is highly unsophisticated to make linguistic points based on faulty concepts about language. Instead, Rosenthal should have come to grips with the OT data which suggests that the prophets felt free to use the phrase "day of the Lord" to describe the divine judgments in their own time (e.g., Joel in reference to a locust plague: Joel 2:1–11).

Nor does Rosenthal show any awareness of a distinction in the NT use of this phrase which was suggested long ago by J. F. Strombeck in First the Rapture (3rd ed., Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen Press, 1951), 54. On such a view, there would be two NT usages of this term:

(1) The Day of the Lord-A signless eschatological period which overtakes the world suddenly while man’s normal life patterns are proceeding as usual (1 Thess 5:2, 3; 2 Pet 3:3, 4, 10; see also Matt 24:36–39).

(2) The Great (and Terrible, Notable) Day of the Lord-An intense period of divine judgment preceded by signs (notably cosmic disturbances) and including the appearance of Christ in glory (cf. Joel 2:30, 31 / Acts 2:20; Rev 6:15–17; and see also Matt 24:29–31; Luke 21:25–28). We may call this "the Day of the Lord par excellence."

To assume, as Rosenthal does, that the biblical concept of "the day of the Lord" has but a single and fixed significance, is an enormous begging of the question.

4. Rosenthal holds with many others that the three cycles of judgment in Revelation (the seals, trumpets, and bowls) are given according to the chronological order of their fulfillment. Again, this understanding is indispensable to Rosenthal’s position.

But he never demonstrates its correctness. The text of Revelation itself by no means connects the three cycles to one another in such a way as to suggest Rosenthal’s approach. There is no good reason to extend the content of the seventh seal beyond 8:1. John often begins new units in this book with "and" (cf. the Greek text of 10:1; 11:1; 11:15; etc.), so that the words of 8:2 ("And I saw the seven angels…") can be treated as the beginning of a separate unit. Still less is there any reason to connect the seventh trumpet (11:15–19) with the bowl judgments of chapters 15 and 16.

Rosenthal gives no serious attention to the alternative view that the three cycles are to some extent parallel in the periods which they cover, and that all three carry us right up to the end of Daniel’s seventieth week just prior to the glorious appearance of our Lord. On this issue, Rosenthal has not dug deeply enough nor coped adequately with alternative positions.

Although Rosenthal claims that "a logical, unforced, chronological unfolding of Revelation has evaded pretribulational … commentators" (p. 112), we may well ask whether this might not also be said of him. In the pursuit of an "unforced, chronological" understanding of Revelation, Rosenthal ends up stating that "Christ will literally return to assume His kingdom at the seventh trumpet" (p. 146). But this requires him to assign the bowl judgments of Revelation 16 to the thirty-day period mentioned in Daniel 12:11, which follows the last three and a half years of the seventieth week. But Revelation is totally silent about the thirty-day period mentioned in Daniel! Moreover, the glorious return of Christ in Revelation (ch. 19) is actually presented after the bowl judgments! And where is Armageddon in this scheme, since it too follows the bowl judgments in the text of Revelation? Neither the charts in Rosenthal’s book, nor the text, inform us!

Clearly, whatever this system of thought may be, it is not an "unforced, chronological" understanding of the book of Revelation!

Finally, though this reviewer admires what he believes to be an evident sincerity on the part of the author, the publication of this book must still be viewed with reserve. A radical shift of perspective which, the author tells us, began in 1986 should probably not have been rushed into print some four years later. In the complex field of biblical prophecy, there is no substitute for years of reflection and study on the pertinent passages. A change of view in this area ought really to be tested over a considerable period of time before it is submitted to the Christian public for consideration.

The Christian public already has more than enough controversies to engage its attention. All of us who write should keep that in mind.

What's Faith? (Part 6)

2008-08-12T07:47:00.000-07:00

Rose's Reasonings - A question about the nature of faith that I am looking for participation on. (Never end a sentence with a preposition. Oh well...)

Thou hast made him a little lower than the gods

2008-08-12T04:18:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

Many people may be surpised to know that the word elohim is used in Psalm 8 to refer to angels. A lot of Christians do not realise that there are such things as gods.

This is why Christians who try to argue that the Jehovah's Witnesses' rendering of John 1:1 is objectionable on theological grounds will hit a brick wall:

Christian: How can the Word be a God when there is only one God.

J.W: Ah, but the Bible refers in several places to plural gods.

It has been my contention in a number of posts that the Bible teaches a qualified polytheism. There is only one creator. There is only one all-powerful God who dwells from everlasting to everlasting. However, there are beings that are called gods in the Bible.

I believe that God has created powerful beings called angels or gods. They have been given authority and dominion over the cosmos. Some of them exercise godly rule, while others cause chaos and promote wickedness and engage in spiritual warfare against the Kingdom of Yahweh.

As we are told in Psalm 8, mankind was created a little lower than the gods. Mankind was given charge over the earth, but the gods exercise heavenly rule.

Yet Psalm 8 reveals that it is God's purpose to put all of His works under the control of humanity. This has begun in Christ.

The risen Christ has ascended in heaven and has been given all authority and power over heaven and earth. He is the head of a new heavenly humanity, a celestial aristocracy. Those who are in Him and brought into a new divine relation. Through Christ their humanity is joined to divinity and they share in the very life of God.

The service of the Christian in the present age is meant to determine His ultimate status in the coming kingdom. If we are faithful and ready to suffer with Christ, we shall have a part in ruling over heaven and earth with our Saviour.

Though human beings are lower than the gods, we are to be given the same authority that they have. We are to replace the fallen angelic hierarchy, the principalities and powers. Thus, it is not incorrect to say that the goal of the Christian is to become a god. The glorified Christian is an heavenly being and in her the true likeness of God is realised.

Could Obama possibly be the Antichrist?

2008-08-08T10:44:00.000-07:00

by Rose

I am reminded of a saying from a now deceased pastor of mine, Dr. Ernest Pickering: "If only people would read their Bibles..."

Check out this article.

"Two months ago, Vanderslice founded a Democratic PAC called the Matthew 25 Network and soon noticed that the negative e-mails she received from conservative Christians fell into two general topical categories: abortion, and the assertion that Obama is the Antichrist."

Do you agree with this Quotation? XXVI

2008-08-05T10:15:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

An Amillennialist (a Christian who denies a future thousand year reign of Christ) once said to me:

You can't possibly believe that there will be two witnesses who will be killed and rise from the dead. It's obvious that the witnesses are Christ and the Law.

A sermon on Genesis 6:1-8

2008-08-03T09:16:00.001-07:00

by Matthew

I preached this sermon this morning at a small, non-denominational church.

Genesis 6

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the LORD said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5 ¶ And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

The first part of the book of Genesis is a story of terminal decline. God created the world perfect. Yet its guardians, Adam and Eve disobeyed God and so the world fell under a curse. We read of the killing of Abel by Cain and the aggression of Lamech.

At this stage, things had reached boiling point. There was more evil in the world than could conceivably be tolerated. Notice that God has allowed things to go on in this state for a while. He had given man the power of self-determination.

Some people ask why God allows evil things to happen. That is a good question and the Bible does not give a direct answer. Yet it is clear that if we are to be able to make free choices, we must be able to that which is wrong as well as that which is right. God had allowed the men before the flood to continue in wickedness, but now they had gone on to far.

Yet God had not left man without a witness. God said “My spirit shall not always strive with man”. Though God allowed men to make their choices, His Spirit wrestled with them, urging them against evil. These people were acting against the movings of their consciences. But they were also resisting the Holy Spirit, just like the Pharisees did.

Convicting the world is one of the chief ministries of the Holy Spirit, the third member of the Trinity. Our Lord told us that the Spirit convicts the world of sin. He enlightens people as to their sin and urges them to turn to God.

It may be that the Holy Spirit is at work in convicting you, of causing you to see the reality of your sin and your need for the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving work on the cross. I would say to you to follow Him and turn to Christ.

Maybe the reason you are here today is that you are under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. Maybe you know deep down that there is something wrong with your life. You realise that there is more to life than working, shopping and holidays. While other people take no interest in God, you are desperate to come to know Him. I tell you, if you seek God, you will find Him. It says in the book of Hebrews that God is the rewarder of him that dilligently seeks after Him. Other people use the name of Jesus as a curse word, yet you see something so lovely in the name of Christ. Jesus can give you eternal life if you receive it from Him.

We are told that the ‘sons of God’ took wives of whom they chose. Scholars have disagreed on who the sons of God were. The earliest Christians believed that they were angels who committed the terrible act of interbreeding with humans, producing giant offspring. I agree with that view.

Many commentators were uneasy with this interpretation and suggested that the sons of God were believers who married unbelievers. The problem with that interpretation is that men are never called the sons of God in the Old Testament, while angels are. And it does not explain why giants were produced through this union.

Mankind had reached the heights of wickedness and it had come to the point where mankind was committing sexual immorality of the most horrible kind.

We must not forget that there is an unseen world of angels out there. Some are good and serve our creator while others are wicked and evil.

It was through a fallen angel, Satan, that evil entered the world and he still dominates it. The New Testament speaks about rulers and authorities in heavenly places. This is why the world is in such a mess.

Often when disasters happen, like the cyclone in Burma, there is a tendency to blame God. Unbelievers will ask why such things should happen. Christians on the other hand tend to either put it down to some mysterious divine plan or else to think of some reason why the disaster must be a judgment of God. Seldom do people acknowledge that there is an unseen dimension, inhabited by spiritual beings that wield great power in this world. I would suggest that we should explain disasters like the Burmaese cyclone in terms of the working of evil angels rather than God’s plans. Jesus never attributed sickness to God. He always treated it as the work of the devil.

These evil angels have tremendous power, far more than George Bush or any human ruler. Yet they will be defeated. The sons of God who sinned before the flood were defeated. It would seem they are the same angels that Peter and Jude saw were cast into hell and bound with everlasting chains. Through His death and resurrection, the Lord Jesus Christ humiliated every power and authority opposed to God.

When Jesus Christ returns He is going to end the misrule of Satan and his angels. We shall see a new kingdom of peace and righteousness.

Returning to our passage, we see a peculiar statement, that “the Lord repented that he had made man.”

Sometimes people have some very wrong ideas about God. Sometimes people have this idea that God is totally removed from His creation. That God is without any passion or emotion. This idea is foreign to the Bible.

God is an emotional being. He cares about His creation. He feels its pain. He is sorrowful when people hurt each other. God is sorrowful when men and women reject Him. God felt so sorrowful at the wickedness of men and women that He regretted creating man at all.

If you are rejecting God now, God is sorrowful. He desires you to seek Him and to find life. If you do not know God, I would urge you to seek Him.

However, if you continue to reject God there is judgment. The people of the world had the opportunity to find mercy and grace, but they rejected it. The Holy Spirit had striven with them to lead them to repentance, but they had rejected His convicting work. And thus they were liable for the consequences of their rebellion. They had their chance and had blown it. They wanted independence and they had it. But they had to face some consequences.

So God sent a flood to destroy them utterly.

God promised never to send another flood. Yet He will send fire upon the earth in the last days. As Paul tells us, when Christ returns He will take vengeance on those who have rejected God with flaming fire.

When I was a child I saw a man on the streets of Nottingham with a big bushy beard. He was wearing a sandwich board. You don't see people wearing sandwich boards these days, but this man did. His sandwich board said "Armageddon is near!" and he was shouting about the coming of Christ. My father asked me what I thought about this man. I replied that he looked very strange, but what he was saying was true. Yes, Armageddon is near. Christ is coming back and he will bring fire to cleanse this world. Maybe we need more Christians to wear sandwich boards and shouht about Armageddon. That is a message that people need to hear.

We rightly think of Jesus as the prince of peace. He is the one who will ultimately bring peace to the earth. Yet He compared His return to the flood of Noah’ s day. There will be a kingdom of peace on earth, but first there will be judgment on a sinful world. Just as the flood took the sinners in the days of Noah, so shall the coming of the Son of Man bring destruction on those who reject Christ now.

We do not know when Jesus Christ is coming back, but He is going to return. If you have not believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, I want to warn you that His coming is going to bring destruction to the world you know. If you continue to reject Christ, you are in danger of being among those who perish on that day. As it was in the days of Noah, sop shall it be when the Son of Man comes.

If you are a believer, then you can rejoice that the coming of Christ will bring you to glory. You are going to be with Him forever. And if you have served your Saviour faithfully, you will be among those who rule that new and perfect kingdom of peace and righteousness.

At the end of this rather depressing passage, we read that “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” This one man out of the all the people on earth had been found faithful.

In every age there are those who have found grace and acceptance with God, even in the most awful circumstances. God always has His remnant.

Today we are living in a world full of sin and wickedness. Just as the days of Noah, there is far too much murder and sexual immorality.

Yet God is still at work transforming lives. God is presently gathering a people for Himself who are called to be holy and separate from this world. A people who can live lives transformed according to the pattern in Christ. They have found peace with God through the reconciliation in Christ Jesus.

You can be among that people, if you would only turn to the Lord Jesus Christ and believe on Him. He came to this world to save sinners through suffering and rising again. He can give you eternal life if you only receive it from Him by faith.

Do You Agree With This Quotation XXV

2008-07-31T17:58:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa
I must make a correction to this post. I am adding the word "necessarily". Faith (and saving faith) can produce works. They just don't 'necessarily' produce them.

I have two quotes from the esteemed Professor Zane C. Hodges and one by Dr. Bob Wilkin. There have been many false charges brought up against Consistent Free Grace Theology, one being that we believe that a man can live for years and never bear any fruit. Theologically speaking, there is no biblical basis for the argument that saving faith necessarily produces good works. Yet pragmatically speaking, it is impossible that a believer never bear any signs of his new life.

Caution: Be careful not to read in these quotations what is not there. Never, in any circumstance, must one look to his works as a basis for assurance of the possession of eternal life! The authors of these quotes are adamantly opposed to introspection for assurance.

Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of the believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion -- even bizarre. We reject it categorically. [Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1990 - Vol. 3:2]

... there is no need to quarrel with the Reformers' view that where there is justifying faith, works will undoubtedly exist too. This is a reasonable assumption for any Christian unless he has been converted on his death bed. [Absolutely Free! p 215]

I would say that it is hypothetically possible for a believer never to produce even one good work. However, I don't think that ever has or will occur... [Are Good Works Inevitable? http://faithalone.org/news/y1990/90feb1.html]

J.D. Faust on Arminianism

2008-07-31T10:37:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

Joe D Faust is the pastor of Kingdom Baptist church. He holds to Millennial Exclusion, a minority position within Free Grace. Faust maintains the radical view, held by such men as GH Pember and Watchman Nee, that unfaithful Christians will be exluded from the Millennial Kingdom and will spend the thousand years in hell, before being restored in eternity.

Faust's views are controversial, yet he articulates his position well and with a degree of graciousness that is surpising in one who holds extrem KJV-Only views.

I would recommend reading Faust's critique of the Arminian views of Dan Corner:

THE ARMINIANISM OF DANIEL D. CORNER REFUTED - Part 1:

THE ARMINIANISM OF DANIEL D. CORNER REFUTED - Part 2

THE ARMINIANISM OF DANIEL D. CORNER REFUTED - Part 3

THE ARMINIANISM OF DANIEL D. CORNER REFUTED - Part 4

THE ARMINIANISM OF DANIEL D. CORNER REFUTED - Part 5

The miserable comfort of Arminian assurance

2008-07-28T05:56:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

Armianians such as Wesley have often, surprisingly, had much to say about assurance.

Sometimes, Arminians (who reject eternal security) will boast that they can offer more assurance than the consistent Calvinist. Though the Calvinist will be saved in the end if he is among the elect, he may turn out to be merely a false professor and fall away. It is possible that the Arminian is right and he can have more assurance that at the present time she is truly a child of God (not that she necessarilly is).

However, this is surely the most miserable comfort of all. What good is it to me now to know I am a child of God this moment if I may yet spend the vastness of eternity in the lake of fire?

Supposing a man were on trial for some crime. Imagine if I said to him:

You should rejoice! You are a free man! You are innocent in the eyes of the law until you are found guilty!

What a comfort to him to know that he was under no condemnation until the court should find him guilty and send him to prison for the rest of his life!

Do you agree with this Quotation XXIV

2008-07-26T06:37:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

Some years ago, I read about a black teenager who was tired of racist abuse and so wrote on his bedroom wall:

I'm me and I'm fine, cos God don't make junk.

Is this true? And if it is true that God don't make junk, are there any implications for the doctrine of election?

God at War, by Gregory Boyd (part 6)

2008-07-13T07:48:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

In the fifth chapter, Gregory Boyd presents the Old Testament portrait of Satan (the word is Hebrew for adversary). Boyd holds that amongst the cosmic opponents of Yahweh, presented variously as raging waters, sea monsters and rebellious gods, there is one particular adversary, Satan, who is the ultimate foe of the Lord.

Boyd fundamentally rejects the view held by many Old Testament critics, that Yahweh has an evil side and is the originator of both good and evil.

Boyd begins with the book of Job. He dismisses the view that Satan in Job is a member of God's heavenly council. This makes evil effectively an agency of God. Ironicaly, conservative Christians who talk about Satan being 'God's devil' are joining hands with these liberal critics. Boyd raises a number of arguments against the view of Satan as a divine agent. He points out the Old Testament presentation of Yahweh as holy and righteous and opposed to evil. Most importantly, he argues that the text of Job does not support the notion of Satan as being a member in good standing amongst the heavenly council. God seems to be surpised when Satan shows up amongst the sons of God in chapter 1 (verse 7). Further, Satan does not appear to be engaged in simply making accusations against Job, his accusation seems to be against the Lord Himself. He is casting doubt on God's order. Finally, the conclusion of Job through the Lord's discourse demomstrates the reality of Yahweh's ongoing struggle against evil. The Lord never admits to causing harm against Job. Boyd goes on to address a number of texts that are used to support the 'Demonic-in-Yahweh' theory. Interestingly, many of these are the same texts that are used by Calvinists to support the idea that God ordained evil events.

Boyd writes of Satan in Job:

The adversary in the prologue of Job, then, is not to be taken as just one of the many servants in Yahweh's council or as an (evil) extension of Yahweh himself. While at this stage of revelation he has not yet acquired the proper name "Satan," the uncontrolled dimension of his being (roaming about), his arrogance toward God and his zealous malice toward Job reveal him to be a being who is not on God's side. While the main forces God is explicitly against in Job (and elsewhere) are the common cosmic forces of the Near Eastern warfare myths (Leviathan, Behemoth), the later Jewish and Christian traditions were certainly justified in eventually relating these forces with Satan: Satan was himself Leviathan.
God at War, p.152

Boyd then deals with Zecharaiah 3:1-10, in which Satan accuses the high priest Joshua in the presence of the angel of the Lord. Boyd argues that while the notion of the accuser being a member of the heavenly court is a possible interpretation of this text, it is not demanded by it. That Joshua is vindicated and Satan is rebuked indicates that Satan is not on the Lord's side.

Boyd also considers the only place in the Old Testament where Satan is used as a proper name, 1 Chronicles 21:1. He argues that it is most likely that on this occasion, the plans of the Lord and the plans of Satan came into coincidental allignment; the Lord seeking to judge David and Satan seeking to incite David to sin. Boyd acknowledges that God can use demons and fallen angels to serve His pruposes, but he qualifies this:

This by no means entails that there is a divine will behind every activity of an evil spirit- for usually we find that God and evil spirits (whether called angels, gods or demons) are in real conflict with each other. It certainly does not entail, as the "demonic-in-Yahweh" theorists (and ironically, conservative Calvinists) hold, that the evil spirits are nothing more than extensions of Yahweh's own will. But it does entail that Yahweh is the sovereign Lord of all history and can therefore at times employ evil divine beings in his service- even Satan himself.
God at war, p.154

Boyd then looks at those texts that have traditionally been applied to Satan, but whose identification is disputed by critics. The first of these is the serpent in Genesis 3. Boyd asserts that as an Evangelical who believes in the inspiration of Scripture, it is enough that the New Testament identifies the serpent with Satan. However, he also argues that elements in mythology ought to suggest that the serpent is a creature of chaos and evil. Boyd points out that whole the serpent is compared by the narrator to animals, it does not appear to be a natural animal. He argues that even the curse of 'eating dust' and 'crawling on the belly' does not necessarilly indicate that a real serpent is in view. This was a common way of referring to defeat and humiliation in Near Eastern literature (for instance in Micah 7:17). Boyd argues that the author is simply comparing the cursed position of the demonic-serpent being to the detested position of real snakes.

Boyd moves on to the famous Lucifer text, Isaiah 14:1-23. Critics have largely dismissed this as a reference to Satan. Boyd agrees with them that the traditional Satanic interpreation is not demanded by the text; it is on the surface comparing the king of Babylon to the planet Venus, which rises at dawn and then is extinguished by the light of the sun. However, he finds a number of parellels to this text in mythology that support the notion that a deity is involved. These mythological variations potentially give the text a cosmic scope. Thus, the traditional interpretation appears to be hinted at in the text.

Another traditional Satanic text is Ezekiel chapter 28 (I preached on this one!). Boyd agrees with the traditional view that there is a very strong suggestion of a cosmic context to this passage. As with Isaiah 14, he believes that a Caananite or Mesopotamian myth has been borrowed. By way of comparison, Boyd points out that Ezekiel also portrays the Pharoah of Egypt as a sea monster (chapter 29), which in his view indicates a connection to the cosmic conflict between Yahweh and the forces of evil. Boyd concludes on this text:

It seems, then, that the throughout this section, Ezekiel portrays historical events as illustrating and intersecting with cosmic events. More specifically, he envisages Yahweh's overthrow of his present historical enemies as examples of his overthrowing his cosmic enemies. In this light, the Christian understanding, derived from later revelation that clearly depicts Satan as God's archenemy, can be considered justified in sensing that the fall of Satan himself is intimated in the fall of the king of Tyre (and we might add, the pharoah of Egypt) as portrayed in this book.
God at War, p.162

Boyd concludes the chapter by summarising the Old Testament evidence for the Warfare Theodicy. Boyd makes clear that the various opponents of Yahweh portrayed in the Old Testament are depicted as posessing a genuine power to resist God:

Indeed, so authentic is the ongoing spiritual battle that in a few instances Old Testament authors suggest that these forces successfully resisted God's will in opposing nations or individual persons. For three weeks the "prince of Persia" successfully blocks God's answer to Daniel's prayer (Dan 10); the demonlike Chemosh, feeding on a king's sacrificed son, successfully routs Israel (2 Kings 3:26-27); and Yamm at times successfully mocks God by engulfing Israel as he earlier (Gen 1:2?) engulfed the earth (Ps 74:10-13). Hence, as Levenson notes, the psalmist has to contnually remind himself- in the face of evidence to the contrary- of Yahweh's primordial victory.
God at War, p.163

Boyd also points out that considerable authority has been given to the cosmic powers or gods. They exercise authority over the nations and seem to be associated with natural phenomena (Deut 4:19-20, Judg 5:20, Is 14:13, Hab 3:11). They have the power to do good by carrying out Yahweh's will, but they can also oppose the Lord and cause immense harm. Boyd argues that while the Old Testament does not provide an explicit Free-Will Defence, it gives no indication that evil is a fundamental part of cosmos, nor that it originates in the will or nature of Yahweh. It can rather be traced back to Yahweh's enemies. Where the problem of evil is brought up, in the book of Job, both Job, who blames God for evil, and his friends, who blame sinners are shown to be wrong. Evil is viewed as arising from hostile cosmic forces. Boyd writes:

One of the primary reasons why the problem of evil is so intellectually intractable for us is precisely that we have not learned the lesson of Job, or of other primordial peoples. We have not moved beyond the fslse dichotomy of Job and his friends: evil in our culture is still generally seen as being the either our fault or God's will, or both. We are yet caught in an Augustinian, classical-philosophical model of God's providence and an Enlightenment model of our aloneness in the cosmos.
p.166

Thus, there is in Boyd's mind a need to re-capture the concept of the "world-in-between." This is something I am attempting to do myself with my endless posts about angels. They are real and they are important for many reasons. Boyd also stresses that we need to move away from the idea that God's will cannot be resisted. He sees this as utterly contrary to the view of God presented in the Old Testament.

In the next chapters, he examines the New Testament evidence for a Warfare worldview and Warfare theodicy. I hope to go on to post about these.

A Sermon on Exodus 25:17-22

2008-07-13T06:22:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

I preached this today.

Exodus 25:17-22

17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.

18 And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubim on the two ends thereof.

20 And the cherubim shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.

21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

When we think of Exodus, we tend to think of the story of Moses leading the people of Israel out of Egypt. This story is certainly one of the highlights of the Bible. However, unfortunately it means that we often forget some of the later chapters on Exodus. These give meticulous details about the tabernacle and how it should be furnished.

You might wonder what is so important about all these details. The reason is that the tabernacle was to be the most holy place on planet earth. The very presence of God was to be manifested in the tabernacle.

The things of the tabernacle were to be patterned after the things of heaven. I did some missionary work in Japan. While I was there, I visited an Anglican church. It looked exactly like an Anglican church in England, except that you had to take your shoes off when you went in. This church in Japan had been modelled on an English church. Likewise, the tabernacle on earth was to be modelled after the much greater temple that was in heaven. Did you know that God has a temple in heaven? At the edge of the universe there is that place where God's presence is manifested in a way unknown anywhere else in the cosmos.

Not only was the tabernacle modelled after the temple in heaven in its appearance, but if we look carefully at the details of its furnishings, we can find hidden references to some of the deeper spiritual truths of Scripture. I cannot go through all of these today, but I would like to talk about the Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant. By the way, if you want to explore some of the symbols and types of Exodus, I highly recommend reading AW Pink's commentary, Gleanings in Exodus. I do not agree with everything he says, but it is a very thorough commentary.

Most people know the Ark of the Covenant from the Indiana Jones film, Raiders of the Lost Ark. I saw it when I was a four years old and was terrified by the bit at the end where the baddies melt after the ark is openned. It made me cry. Defintely too scary for a four-year old.

What is the Mercy Seat? If you are from a Salvation Army background like my mother here, you will know all about mercy seats, they have one in all their citadels. They are based on the idea we find in Exodus 25. Nobody knows exactly what it looked like, but it was placed on top of the Ark of the Covenant. It was not a seat in which anybody was allowed to sit, not even the high priest. It was Yahweh’s own throne. Just as God had His throne in heaven, He also had His throne on earth in the Tabernacle.

God entered into human history. He had condescended to man and entered into a relationship with the people of Israel. A relationship of government, but also a relationship of grace.

The nation of Israel was made the special object of God’s protection and blessing. God had chosen them to be the centre of His workings on earth. And some of us believe that at in their restoration after Christ’s return they shall be restord to blessing and privilege. However, they were a nation under law. Inside the Ark of the Covenant was placed the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments. The Mercy Seat was placed over them. Thus, law was the principle of God’s rule over Israel. When they were faithful they knew of God’s protection, but when they neglected the law they had been given, they were disciplined and fell prey to their enemies. In Deutoronomy, the last book of Moses we have a list of blessings that Israel would enjoy if she kept the law and a list of curses that would fall on them if they neglected it. And neglect it they did, with the result that they were scattered amongst the nations.

The Mercy Seat was made of pure gold. This reflected the purity of God’s holiness. God is utterly pure and righteous. He can have nothing to do with that which is defiled. That ought to be a sobering thought to us. Yet Christ was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Christ. Thus in Him we are also made holy.

The Mercy Seat was decorated by images of Cherubim. What are Cherubim? They are heavenly beings. Ezekiel and the book of Revelation describe them as having the characteristics of a man, an ox, a lion and an eagle. Whether the Cherubim on the Mercy Seat looked like that, we do not know. A lot of the artistic depictions of the Ark show them as the more human-like conventional winged angels.

The Cherubim represent God’s judicial dealings towards mankind. They represent God’s government.

The visions of Ezekiel and the apostle John both included Cherubim. Both these men prophesied of God’s judgment.

When our ancestors, Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, God sent Cherubim to guard Eden. They were a sign that judgment had been exercised.

Just imagine in the Victorian era, a ragged child gazing into the windows of a toyshop, looking at all the wonderful toys inside. And imagine that child being pushed away by a burly doorman saying “These ent for the likes of you, son. These are for the nice children.” That must have been how Adam and Eve felt as they gazed at the home they had lost in Eden, forever barred by those Cherubim. Yet they had brought that loss upon themselves by disobeying God.

Thus, there were Cherubim on the Mercy Seat in the most Holy of Holies. They were there as a sign that Israel was subject to God’s government. Their sins had to be dealt with.

Therefore only one person could go into that place to intercede for them, the high priest. Once a year on the Day of Atonement. An animal had to be sacrificed before he could do so. Blood needed to be shed first. Without shedding of blood is no remission for sins. Thus, after having made sacrifice for the people, the high priest would come before the Mercy Seat as a representative of the people so that their sins could be pardoned.

The entrance of the high priest to the holy of holies was a type or a shadow of Christ.

The Lord Jesus Christ suffered death as a sacrifice for our sins. The blood of animals could never free anyone from sin. Yet Christ permanently dealt with the problem of sin by His death. He gave Himself for sinners.

After He rose from the dead, Christ ascended into heaven, into that heavenly tabernacle. He is present there as our great High Priest. He is there in heaven as our representative.

Just as there were Cherubim in the tabernacle on the Mercy Seat, there are real live Cherubim in heaven.

Adam and Eve were shut out of the Garden of Eden by Cherubim. Now there is a man, a human being, who dwells amongst the Cherubim. The apostle John saw Christ in heaven in the midst of the Cherubim and the angels.

In Christ, redeemed humanity is lifted up to the heights of heaven. In Christ, the believer is given access to God and given the right to enter into heaven. Through Christ redeemed humanity is united to God.

Maybe you are here today and you are not a Christian. Maybe you have no fellowship with God. To you God is a remote figure. You can be reconciled to God through Christ. Through Christ you can enter fellowship with God. You can receive the very life of God, eternal life through Jesus Christ. If you will believe on the Lord Jesus you shall be saved forever. I would urge you to turn to the Lord Jesus.

That Christ has entered into heaven means that we can have confidence in our prayers. As the high priest, Christ is our representative. By entering the heavenly sanctuary, He has obtained for us the right to bring our prayers to God. So we can ask anything of our heavenly Father in the name of His Son Jesus Christ. We can have confidence that our prayers will be heard in heaven.

In the old Tabernacle, the high priest of Israel never got to sit down in the mercy seat. It was the throne of Yahweh. However, Christ, our high priest is sat down in the throne of His Father. Christ has been given all authority in heaven and earth. He has not yet exercised that authority, for not all things are yet put under Him. However, when He comes in glory He shall rule over all creation.

But the Lord Jesus Christ shall not rule alone. He shall reign with His saints. The apostle Paul said “If we suffer with Him, we shall reign with Him.” Those who are in Christ have the opportunity to share in ruling over the universe with Christ. The Lord is establishing a new heavenly humanity in His Church who will be Lords over the universe. A kind of celestial aristocracy.

The Cherubim were a sign of God’s judgment over mankind. However, as Paul says, “Do ye not know that we shall judge angels.” In the coming kingdom, the saints are going to be in charge of the angels.

Knowing this is very important to us. How are we to conduct our affairs knowing that we shall judge angels? Now is the time to prove that we are ready for this responsibility. How can Christ put us in charge of His Father’s business when we are neglectful of our daily obedience? If we would reign with Christ, we must be attentive daily to our calling to serve the Lord.

Yet through the Holy Spirit, we have the power to overcome and to win that crown. Let us therefore look to our Saviour in His heavenly sanctuary and be diligent in His service.

A Great Comment on Heretic Hunting

2008-07-11T06:26:00.000-07:00

by Rose

Someone emailed me a long comment that a blogger named Michelle (who goes by the ID "sanctification") made. She said this on a blog that is really centered on labeling those who differ on doctrine as "heretics." (I won't go to that blog's link anymore). The blog leader continually quotes passages on how to deal with heretics, so she said this in response:

May I ask by what process you applied these scriptures to those groups? Where are any passages teaching anything specifically about how much the gospel must contain, and if not satisfied then apply the mark and avoid consequence? We're not so blessed, right? What you have are passages depicting the gospel. Then there are passages warning change of the gospel. And then you have passages that teach how to handle individuals who promote heresy or distraction. So... don't you have to make a conclusion first that these groups are heresy... before using passages on heresy? Heresy passages are not proof of heresy.

This is a Cult: Angels as elemental nature spirits

2008-07-10T04:01:00.001-07:00

This is a Cult: Angels as elemental nature spirits

The Schooley Files: Reasons to remain a Calvinist

2008-07-03T15:01:00.000-07:00

The Schooley Files: Reasons to remain a Calvinist

Thanks for directing me to this one, Dawn.

God at War, by Gregory Boyd (part 5)

2008-06-22T06:37:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

I mentioned in a previous post about an elderly gentleman at my church who objected to the song line 'Among the gods there is none like you' as heretical without realising that this was a quotation from the Psalms! A lot of Christians do not realise that the Bible does refer to 'gods' who seem to be real beings. These gods are the subject of chapter four of God at War. The thesis of this chapter is that the Old Testament presents Yahweh as engaged in a war against disobedient and rebellous heavenly beings. While this is a genuine struggle, it does not compromise Yahweh's sovereign supremacy over all.

Boyd begins by affirming that the Hebrews believed that, contrary to their neighbours, there was only one creator God. However, they did not deny the existence of lesser spiritual beings of great power, who have come to be known as angels. Controversially, Boyd argues that these beings were referred to on occasions as gods in biblical literature. Boyd argues that some texts present Yahweh as being surrounded by an heavenly council of gods (Jer 23:18, 22. Is 6:2-8). Furthermore, Boyd cites many references in the Psalms to plural gods. He writes:

In any case, the remainder of the Old Testament exhibits no reservation in acknowledging the existence of gods outside Yahweh and of the gods who form his heavenly council. But even here Yahweh's supremacy is at the forefront of their thoughts. Hence he first commandment reads, "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex 20:3). The existence of other gods is presupposed, but they are are subordinate to the one who alone is the Lord God Almighty.

Boyd points out that this notion can also be found in the writings of Paul. He wrote that there are "many God's and many Lord's" (1 Cor 8:4), though there is only one Lord Jesus Christ(verse 6).

Boyd refers to Judges 11 and Jephath's discourse with the Ammonite king. He argues that this discourse presupposes the existence of the god Chemosh. He also argues this is the case in 2 Kings 3:26-27. Boyd draws out the implications of this idea:

The power of gods to assist or resist Yahweh in war, to hinder his answers to prayers, to inluence "natural" disasters, to inlict diseases on people, to deceive people and the like is assumed throughout the Bible. Yahweh is unquestionably understood to reign supreme over the whole cosmic society of spiritual and earthly beings, but this sovereingnty is never- even in Isaiah and Jeremiah- taken to imply either that he is the only divine being or that the other divine beings are mere extensions of his will.
God at War, p.118

Radically, Boyd describes the cosmos as a democracy. Free beings both earthly and celestial have a large degree of autonomy and the potential to resist God's purposes for the universe.

Boyd goes on to provide some discussion about what is meant by 'monotheism.' He concludes that the Scriptures teach creational monotheism, the view that all things have been created by one all-powerful God, but that the existence of lesser created gods is not ruled out. He provides some useful discussion about anthropological theories about the origins of polytheism and animism.

As regards the heavenly council of Yahweh, Boyd writes:

The centrality of this concept of the Lord as being surrounded by a council of gods is seen n the fact that one of the most frequent ascriptions of Yahweh is "the Lord of hosts." He is described as being revered by the multitudes of "holy ones" who "are around him" in his heavenly council (Ps 89:7), for it is he who "has taken his place in the divine council" and in the midst of the gods... holds judgment" (82:1).
God at War, p.131

Boyd sees further support for this heavenly council concept in the discourse between God and Satan before the 'sons of God' in the first chapter of Job.

The reality of heavenly warfare is developed further in the biblical literature through references to the army of the Lord, for instance, the vision of Elisha's servant (2 Kings 2:11). The Lord is engaged in warfare which entails actual battles between heavenly beings on His side and the side of the Enemy.

Boyd argues that the 'gods of the nations', in the biblical worldview, are real beings. Angels were originally assigned to oversee and protect the nations (Deut 32:7-9), some or all of which have rebelled. This is supported by the reference in Daniel 10 to the powerful prince of Persia and the prince of Greece. A particularly important text in this regard is Psalm 82:

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty;
he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly,
and accept the persons of the wicked?
Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless:
do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy:
rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand;
they walk on in darkness:
all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods;
and all of you are children of the Most High.

7 But ye shall die like men,
and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth:
for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Boyd takes the view that these gods are angels who have been given the task of overseeing the welfare of people on earth, yet who have rebelled against Him. In his later work Satan and the Origin of Evil, Boyd argues this passage implies that some fallen angels at some point had the opportunity to repent and to be saved. In his view, Satan also had such an opportunity at some time in the distant past, an opportunity he has now rejected and is thus doomed.

Psalm 82 is a text I examined myself earlier on this blog. I argued that the angels are an hierarchy if gods or divine beings. Some of these have fallen and it is God's purpose to exalt redeemed human beings to their level. Thus, though this sounds like Mormonism, I believe it is the goal of the Christian to become a god. I would suggest that the error of Mormonism is not in teaching that man can become a god (which is actually true), but rather their error is in reducing God to the level of a glorified human. Accusations of heresy or crypto-Mormonism are welcome in the comments post.

In arguing for the importance of angelic activity in the biblical worldview, Boyd defends the view that the Sons of God in Genesis 6 are angels who intermarried with human beings. He raises some convincing arguments against alternative interpreations of this text. Greg Boyd has recently written some really interesting stuff on the Nephilim on his blog.

Boyd argues that accepting the 'second storey' or the world in-between is very difficult for westerners with their rationalist assumptions:

This notion, that there exists a council, or a society, of divine beings beteeen humans and God who, like us, have free wills and can therefore influence the flow of history for better or for worse is obviously jarring to a number of western worldview assumptions. Indeed, for many believers it is foreign to their Western Christian assumptions as well. For a variety of reasons, Westerners have trouble taking seriously the "world in between" us and God, what one missiologist appropriately called "the flaw of the excluded middle." Even when westerners do theoretically acknowledge the existence of "angels," we tend to view them as mindless volitionless, wholly innocuous winged marionettes completely controlled by the will of their Creator.
God at War, p.140

Indeed, the doctrine of angels has been tragically minimized in Christian theology. The liberals are happy to reject belief in angels while evangelicals will dedicate three pages out of a five hundred page systematic theology to the subject.

In some quarters of western society there does seem to be a revival of interest in the 'second storey' with the fascination for UFOs and extraterrestrials and the New Age movement's adoption of angelogy. My boss at work could be described as a New Ager and she is fascinated by angels and spirits. I really believe that Christians need to recover the importance of the doctrine of angels. Perhaps some dialogue between Christian theology and the New Age movement might be helpful. Maybe just as we need to risk being accused of being cult followers, we need to risk being accused of being New Agers or Hippies.

In concluding chapter four, Boyd emphasies his central thesis that evil and suffering on earth can be explained in terms of the activity of fallen angelic beings. He suggests that the horrors of Nazi Germany might have been the result of the work of a cosmic 'prince of Germany' just like the prince of Persia of old.

Empty Hands and Commitment

2008-06-20T08:34:00.000-07:00

by Rose

When sinners come to Christ it has to be with empty hands. If a person who is unsaved comes to Christ with something to offer – like “Jesus, if I will be really moral from now on and I hope that you will accept me.” That is not faith in Christ as the SAVIOR. Actually, if someone comes to Christ offering something they deem good in exchange for Christ’s acceptance, it seems they might be missing the point of Jesus Christ being the Savior. He has done it all to make a way to God – He has won our acceptance with the Father – all we need do is receive this from Him. In order to receive it, we would have to know that our hands were empty and void of anything that could gain us that acceptance with God ourselves.

Sinners have to come with commitment. Yes, I said commitment.
“Commit your life to Christ.” To some “Commit your life to Christ” means that the sinner has to be willing to do whatever God wants Him to do - give up this, go there, etc and God will receive Him. He has to lay down his own desires and be willing to do what God wants Him to do. They deem this as part of saving faith. Whether these thinkers have a corner on that phrase or not – I will tell you what I make of it.

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)

The word for “commit” there is the Greek word paratithēmi. It means to present for protection. Christ was saying that He trusted His heavenly father with the outcome of His death. In the same way, saving faith is presenting one’s eternal destiny to the Son of God for protection. It is saying “I commit my future to His protection.” It is trusting that He can and will preserve your life’s essence for the long haul…. for eternity… it is believing in Him for everlasting life.

Can a sinner believe in Christ regarding his soul’s protection from destruction... while at the same time having reservations about whether he really needs Christ's help, or about whether he could get right with the Father on his own? It seems like at the moment of faith his hands would have to be empty and he would have to be really committing his soul unto Christ's eternal protection. “Believing in Jesus” is believing in Him regarding our eternal standing with God, is it not? This is something specific. I know plenty of people who “hope” they will get to heaven who “believe in Jesus.” As a great scholar once asked, “What are they believing in Him for – a pastrami sandwich?”

I am still thinking these things through, but at this time I really think unsaved people must have empty hands to receive anything from Christ, and if they receive Christ in saving faith it would imply that they commit themselves to Him, utterly casting their eternal destiny on Him and into His care, without reservation.

Do you agree with this quotation? XXIV

2008-06-19T05:24:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

An exam candidate I was marking (probably aged 16) wrote:

Some more selfish Christians try to live a moral life because they hope to be rewarded by going to heaven. However, the problem with this view is that their motives are wrong and they may not be let into heaven at all.

God at War, by Gregory Boyd (part 4)

2008-06-15T00:00:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

Does anybody else love those Japanese Godzilla films? You have a daft, unfeasible science fiction plot, but you don't have to worry about that because you get to see Godzilla battle another huge monster like Ebirah (the big crab) or Mothra (the big moth).

According to Gregory Boyd, the ancient people of the Near East viewed the cosmos rather like a Godzilla movie, with hostile monsters constantly threatening the world. The principle monstrous adversary of the cosmos was Leviathan, referenced in Psalms 74 and Job 41. This creature (sometimes mistakenly identified as a whale or crocodile) was a fire-breathing water monster. Boyd does not discuss the view held by dinosaur adoring creationists that this was a dinosaur, but I think if the myths of Mesopotamia originated in reality, this view would be compatible with his mythological interpreation.

Boyd also identifies the Behemoth as a creature in the same order. He argues that the purpose of the Lord in describing these creatures to Job was to affirm a warfare worldview. It is thought by many conservative expositors that the Lord was revealing to Job the complexity of His plans, thus entailing that evil was part of some mysterious divine blueprint. In contrast, Boyd argues that God was revealing the awesome power of the cosmic adversaries with which He was doing battle. While the comforters falsely ascribed evil to sin (as do legions of well meaning Christians), the Lord reveals that suffering can be traced to the incredible power of the beings that the Lord has created. These creatures cannot be defeated by man, yet the Lord has the power to overcome them (as is seen in Psalms).

Isaiah 27 also references leviathan:

1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Boyd argues that the leviathan device is here used eschatologically, represeting Yahweh's defeat of evil forces. It is a future event. This is a deviation from the mythological tradition of the water monster being defeated at creation. This reinvention of the myth as eschatological has such importance within the biblical tradition that the apostle John also presents it in Revelation 12 with Satan as the great red dragon. However, it must not be thought that there was any contradiction in presenting in other texts, the leviathan as having been defeated at creation or (as in Job 41) still engaged in an ongoing war. This is a literary device that is used in diverse ways, yet in each case representing a conflict between Yahweh and cosmic evil of unimaginable power. Boyd says of this ongoing conflict:

This "survival of... potent forces of chaos" is what permits classifying the Old Testament view as a warfare worldview. Yahweh's battles are not simply apparent, nor are they simply in the past: they are, for these authors, very real, and they are present, and they are even yet future. While some conservative exegetes fear that acknowledging the ongoing reality of this cosmic opposition compromises Yahweh's "absolute sovereingty," the point of this early Old Testament tradition is to portray Yahweh's sovereingty as being all the greater precisely because he has engaged in conflict and has been victorious. This gives them confidence that He shall do so again in the future.
God at War, p.98

In Boyd's view, at the foundation of the earth something has rebelled against God and continues to make war against His rule over the cosmos. This is rebel and his cohorts is the same being that the New Testament calls, the 'principality and power of the air.' It is the same doctrine of Satan, yet packaged in the Near Eastern mythological form.

Boyd maintains that the sea monster myth is connected theologically with creation. He argues that this material strongly indicates a rebellion against God that occurred in the prehistoric past. The Near Eastern myths that have been introduced and adapted for Scripture are inseperably connected to creation and imply an event that occurs before it.

Boyd revisits Genesis 1. He points out that the main objection to viewing creation in the light of cosmic warfare is the absence of any conflict in the creation account of Genesis 1. Yet Boyd points out that to take this line is to ignore other creation texts in the Bible that imply a cosmic conflict. He queries the notion that Genesis 1 should be viewed as the normative account of creation in Scripture. In a surpisingly unfashionable move (especially given that Boyd is a radical evangelical), he suggests the Gap theory of creation as a means of harmonizing Genesis 1 with the cosmic struggle texts:

Stated differently, both ancient and modern exegetes have argued with some plausibility that the account of Genesis 1 is not so much an account of creation as an account of God's restoration of a world that had through a previous conflict become formless, futile, empty and engulfed by chaos- the world of Genesisd 1:2 in other words. According to this view, sometimes called the "restitution theory" or "the gap theory," but which I prefer to call "the restoration theory," the cosmos that had been created in verse 1 had become embattled, corrupted, judged and brought to the nearly destroyed state we find it in verse 2. The rest of the chapter then describes God's creation of this present cosmos out of the formless and empty chaos of the previously ravaged one.
p.104

This reading makes a connection with the Mesopotmian myth of creation. In that story, the cosmos was created out of the carcass of Tiamat, the sea monster goddess. Thus the cosmos was created out of a ruin. The present world is built on the ashes of a former creation. However, as Boyd points out the defeated enemy in Genesis 1 has not been given the dignity of a name or personal reference. In order to emphasise that there has been a complete new start in perfection, all remembrance of the struggle has been blotted out and the cosmic monster has been depersonalized into simply the 'waters.'

This view entails the importance of mankind in God's creation:

In this view, moreover, humans are made in the image of God and placed on the earth precisely so that they might gradually vanquish this chaos and establish- or better, reestablish- God's all-good plan for it. As God's earthly agents, we are "to effect the conquest of an evil being who had penetrated the creation."
p.107

A similar view to this advocated in Joseph Dillow's excellent book 'The Reign of the Servant Kings.'

Boyd argues that the ruin and restoration idea provides the funamental cosmic backdrop for the Warfare worldview of the Old Testament. It presents the powers of evil as fundamentally connected with the cosmos and the natural forces it contains. The world has been overtaken by an hostile power, who has become its god and prince. Hence, as Boyd points out, the Lord Jesus does not dispute Satan's power to grant Him all the kingdoms of the world. Yet as the same conflict texts indicate, the 'sea monster' is going to be defeated and cut in pieces. Yahweh will triumph and His kingdom will be established over all.

Extreme Free Grace Theology

2008-06-14T14:44:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

The central tenet of Free Grace Theology is faith alone in Christ alone apart from works of any kind. It has always been this way!

I have posed this scenario and question to those who are opposed so bitterly to Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and the Grace Evangelical Society:

Let us say that a man was reading the book of John and came across and meditated upon John 1:12; 3:15-16; 4:10-14; 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 11:25-26. In the process of reading these verses, this man placed all of his faith and trust and hope and certainty into Jesus as his Savior. In other words, this man entrusted his eternal well-being to Jesus. This man, by an act of faith, placed all of his reliance upon Jesus alone for eternal life. And before the man was able to reach the end of the gospel of John, before the passion and resurrection narratives, he died.

Question: Would this man be in heaven or hell?

This is where the balanced people are separated from the extremists. You see, those who have created discord in the Free Grace community with their heresy hunting and factionism, MUST answer that this man is now in hell, and in fact, I have several of them on record stating such.

But even people who do not identify with the Grace Evangelical Society positions would say that this man is in heaven. Why? This man exercised faith alone into Christ alone!

The Duluthian Antagonists wish to paint the GES as extreme. But there is no greater extreme statement than to contend that Christ would throw somebody into hell who nevertheless trusted fully in Him for eternal life and salvation!

The extremists from Duluth must picture Jesus in this way judging the man from the aforementioned scenario:

{Jesus} You believed Me when I said that whoever believes in Me has everlasting life. You entrusted your eternal destiny and well-being into My hands by believing in Me. You trusted me alone for the gift I stated was received by faith in Me. You rested your certain hope of eternal life to my truthfulness and authority.

BUT

Since you did not add to that faith assent to my substitutionary death for sins, and bodily resurrection from the dead (I know you died before you were able to read about it), I must throw you into hell.

Imagine the extreme scenario of someone who fully and completely trusted in Christ for eternal life, yet nevertheless is thrown into hell because of historical and doctrinal stipulations!

It is not extreme to propose that Jesus Christ is truthful when He states that simple faith in Him receives everlasting life! It is not extreme to propose that child-like trust in Him as one's Savior is sufficient to be reckoned righteous.

It is extreme to suggest that faith alone in Christ alone is insufficient to save! It is extreme to propose stipulations greater than personal trust in Christ for salvation!

And it is in this way that the schismatics identified with Duluth Bible Church have moved to the extreme edge of Free Grace theology.

God at War, by Gregory Boyd (part 3)

2008-06-14T09:28:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

God at War is primarily a work of biblical theology and so after the first chapter, Boyd begins to examine the biblical material to make his case for a Warfare Worldview and a Warfare Theodicy. In chapters 2-5, he deals with the Old Testament material and in chapters 6-10 he looks at the New Testament.

In chapter 2, Boyd begins by explaining that in the worldview of the ancient Near East, the theme of spiritual warfare was fundamental. Those in the ancient Near East had a strong belief that sickness was a result of the demonic. In the light of this, Boyd points out that it is surprising how little demonic activity is mentioned in the Old Testament. However, he identifies several examples of demonic or evil angelic beings- Evil spirits from the Lord (Judges 9:22-25), the spirit of confusion (Is 37:7), the sedim or demons (Deut 32:17, Ps 106:37), Lilith (Is 34:14) and the possibility that the scapegoat from the Day of Atonement has a demonic connection.

He then makes a connection between the Old Testament and Mesompotamian myths. Mesopotamian mythology had held to a belief in a primal struggle between order and chaos before the creation of the world. It was believed that the god Marduk had slain the chaotic dragon goddess, Tiamat (remember her, you Dungeons and Dragons players?) and created the world out of her carcass. Similar myths connected the sea with its chaotic monsters with a struggle between good and evil.

Boyd argues that these myths can be found in a different form within a number of biblical texts . He points out that the ancient Hebrews believed that the earth was surrounded by a vast gulf of chaotic water. This water had originally covered the earth, yet had been pulled back by Yahweh (Gen 1:6-10, Ps 24:1-2, 104:2-9, Prov 8:27, Job 9:8, 38:6-12). Boyd argues that in Genesis the waters of chaos have been demythologised by the authors to remove the pagan idea of gods. However, in other texts in which the waters of chaos are personified. In these texts, the battle against hostile waters represents the struggle to defend the cosmos against evil forces. He cites Psalm 104 as an example of this:

5 who laid the foundations of the earth,
that it should not be removed for ever.

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment:
the waters stood above the mountains.

7 At thy rebuke they fled;
at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8 They go up by the mountains;
they go down by the valleys
unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Here the hostile waters must be personally commanded by Yahweh. Boyd explains his take on these texts:

The point of these passages is clearly to stressthat Yahweh (and no other god) reigns supreme over the 'proud' chaotic waters that threaten the foundation of the earth, Indeed, unlike Baal, Tiamat, Enki or any other Near Eastern hero who is said to have controlled the chaos, Yahweh's sovereingnty is such that he can master these destructive forces by his mighty voice alone. Unlike the pagan gods, Yahweh does not even need a weapon! The voice that simply speaks the world into existence simply speaks contrl over the forces that threaten the world.
Gregory A Boyd, God at War, p.86

Nevertheless, he stresses that the waters in these texts pose a genuine threat to the world and Yahweh has engaged in a genuine conflict with them. In another text, Psalm 74, the waters of chaos are even more personalized in the form of a dragon or sea monster:

12 For God is my King of old,
working salvation in the midst of the earth.

13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength:
thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces,
and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

15 Thou didst cleave the fountain and the flood:
thou driedst up mighty rivers.

Here Yahweh is seen battling an immense cosmic opponent. In Isaiah 51:9-11 and Psalm 77:16, the deliverance of Israel through the Red Sea is seen as a re-enactment of this cosmic struggle between the Lord and the sea monster of chaos. Boyd rejects the idea that such monsters should be treated as metaphorical:

Given the cultural context within which all this is being written, one cannot take these statements as mere metaphors. We have simply no reason to assume that the biblical authors did not believe that these cosmic monsters existed. To the contrary, such expressions make sense only on the assumption that the biblical authors did believe in the existence of these anticreation cosmic forces, and did believe that Yahweh had to genuinely battle them.
God at War, p.89

Boyd argued that the struggle between order and chaos did not occur only at creation, but was continually being repeated through Israel's history. The struggles of Israel on earth were a reflection of a cosmic struggle occurring in the spiritual realms. David, for example frequently made use of the metaphor of waters and floods to represent the dangers facing him (Ps 69:14-15, 144:7).

Boyd concludes chapter 2 by pointing out the implications of the hostile waters motif:

Far from holding to any view of the world as meticulously following any divine blueprint, the Old Testament operates with the assumption that Yahweh faces real opposition, and this opposition concerns forces that are foundational to creation. While the whole cosmos was created good, at some early point something went profoundly wrong at a structural level. Only God's fighting on our behalf preserves the order of the world.
God at War, p.92

To be continued

Disturbing news concerning the new book by Dr. J.B. Hixson, Director of the Free Grace Alliance

2008-06-10T22:14:00.000-07:00

by Antonio da Rosa

Free Grace Theology Blog:

Disturbing news concerning the new book by Dr. J.B. Hixson, Director of the Free Grace Alliance

God at War, by Gregory Boyd (Part 2)

2008-06-08T07:00:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

In the first chapter, Gregory Boyd gives his critique of conventional theodicy. He terms this the Blueprint model of theodicy, as it holds that every evil event is part of a divine plan. He gives a more extended treatment of theodicy as a philosophical topic in the sequel, Satan and the Origin of Evil.

In order to illustrate the stark reality of suffering in the world, Boyd gives the example of a Jewish girl, Zosia, who had her eyes cut out of her head, for the amusement of two German soldiers, before the very eyes of her mother.

Boyd presents this incident as just one incident of the nightmare that constitutes much of human experience. He points out that according to much Christian theology, such an incident is part of a meticulous divine plan. In eternity, God had determined that this girl should suffer in this way.

To show the incongruity of much of the Christian approach to suffering, Boyd quotes from several hymns on the subject of God's providence and about God's care for little children. The contrast between the cosiness of such sentiments and the horror of Zosia's experience is deeply disturbing. Boyd rights with justified harshness:

And so it is with a hundred other hymns that Christian congregations around the globe sing routinely, and indeed could have been singing at the moment of Zosia's torture. Ascending up to heaven alongside the screams and sinister laughter could have been the sung proclamation that "Behind a frowning providence [God] hides a smiling face," or "His purposes will ripen fast unfolding every hour...The bud may have a bitter taste, but sweet will be the flower." Zosia's torture, we are apparently to believe, was but the bitter-tasting bud of a beautiful, divinely ordained flower. Behind the apparent divine frown here (the Nazi guards) is, we are supposed to affirm, God's hidden, sovereign smiling face.
Gregory A Boyd, God at War, p.38-39

Boyd argues that viewing such horrifying incidents of human cruelty as instruments of divine sovereignty only intensifies their nightmarish character. Boyd expresses his sympathy with the character , Ivan in Dostoyevsky's Te Brother's Karazamov, who proclaims that a God who uses such evil is immoral and whatever goal he is seeking to acheive is worthless if it comes at the price of a child suffering.

In Boyd's view, Christians seem unable to escape from this Blueprint way of thinking about evil. He gives examples of Christians who have cited the Oklahoma bombing and the AIDS virus as instruments of divine judgment. Boyd does not deny that Scripture clearly teaches that God sometimes uses incidents of suffering as a judgment or to build character, however, in his view, to explain all evil in terms of God's working is to join with Job's comforters. He traces this approach to theodicy back to Augustine, though he argues that those within the Arminian tradition of theology have not significantly moved away from the idea of evil as a divine plan.

Boyd holds that the problem of evil is uniquely Western and post-Augustinian (and of course, still a problem for the Eastern Orthodox, who though critical of Augustine, have taken on board elements of his theodicy). He argues that the authors of Scripture never saw any need to deal with the problem of suffering. Likewise, the Church Fathers before Augustine saw no need to explain the problem of evil. They simply viewed evil events as instances of the conflict between good and evil that was taking place in the universe. Rather than explain evil in terms of a mysterious divine plan, evil was explained in terms of Satan and his minions. Boyd gives several examples of this in Scripture:

For example, Paul's inability to reach Thessalonicahad nothing to do with either what he willed or what God had willed: in his mind, it was simply the result of Satan hindering him (1 Thess 2:18). Similarly, a person's deafness or muteness had nothing to do with either what that person willed or what God had willed: it was for Jesus, at times at least, the result of demons (Mk 9:25). Or to cite an Old Testament example, the delay in receiving heavenly assistance in response to Daniel's desperate prayer had nothing to do with either Daniel or with God: both wanted the prayer answered! According to this inspired work, it rather had to do with a menacing demonic power that interfered with the whole process (Dan 10; cf. Ps82).
God at War, p.53

Boyd (perhaps with a slight lack of originality) blames the Augustinian development on Hellennistic philosophy that regarded God as fixed and unmoveable and therefore unable to engage in the cosmic warfare depicted in Scripture.

He notes positively that in recent years Christian theologians have given heed to some of the appalling events of the Twentieth century and are thus giving more attention to the subject of Satan, fallen angels and demons. However, he believes that this new interest has not yet generated a new approach to theodicy, a gap that in my opinion, his book admirably fills.

To be continued

God at War, by Gregory Boyd

2008-06-07T11:08:00.000-07:00

by Matthew

I have just finished reading God at War, by Gregory Boyd. I have found it a fascinating read. I believe this may be among the most important theological works of the last twenty years.

In some ways this book is advocating what was already going on in my theological direction, namely the vital importance of angelogy in theology. In other ways, it is forcing me to re-think the way I approach the subject of evil and God's providence.

It is my intention to write several posts summarising key arguments in this book.

This book and its sequel, Satan and the Origin of Evil, deal with the subject of evil and the providence of God. Boyd argues that traditional theodicy focuses too much on either God's secret providential plans or else the sin of man as the explanation for evil.

Boyd argues for a Warfare Theodicy, an expanded view of the Free-Will Defence in such a way as to include the free-will of Satan and other angelic beings. Satan and the Origin of Evil, deals with the philosophical issues involved in this Warfare Theodicy, while God at War makes the Biblical case for it.

Boyd argues in this book that both the Old and New Testaments present a picture of the cosmos being in a state of war, chaos and strife. Rather than being under the harmonious rule of divine providence, the cosmos is being wrecked by the enormous power of evil celestial beings who control this world. These beings have been decisively conquered by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, however they continue to resist His rule and authority until their final defeat in the eschaton.

Boyd is an Open Theist, a view I do not share and he criticises Classic Arminians (a position with which I share much common ground) as being far too committed to the Agustinian paradigm for theodicy. While Boyd would probably disagree with me, I do believe that his thesis is compatible with classic theism.

Boyd begins his book by quoting Daniel 10:

12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.

13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Boyd argues that this presents a radical challenge to conventional ideas about the power of prayer among Chritians. This passage tells us that Daniel's prayer and fasting were heard in heaven and he received a response in the angel being despatched. However, this response was delayed by the actions of an evil angelic being, the prince of Persia. This would seem to indicate that evil celestial beings possess the power to prevent prayers being answered. If so, a good deal of the evil and suffering experienced in the world can potentially be explained by the actions of these cosmic powers.

Boyd argues that this is the Warfare Worldview. That is, a view that mankind is at the mercy of spiritual beings, both good and evil. The early Christians, before Augustine and his new view of providence, all held this view. Hence, they did not see evil as a problem in the way that later Christians did. Likewise, the Jews also saw man as caught in the conflict between good and evil angels and demons.

It is not just Augustine which prevents Christians from embracing the Warfare Worldview. Boyd also attributes blame to the rationalism of the West, which mocks the idea of a spirit world. Modern Western Chritians are deeply uncomfortable about the idea of intermediate beings between God and man. The 'second storey' is denied by the liberals and played down by the conservatives. However, Boyd argues that Western Civilisation is unique in its refusal to embrace a Warfare Worldview. He points out that even primitive tribal cultures in Africa and Asia are able to view the suffering and death as attributable to the work of spirits.

I hope in a number of posts in the near future to outline some of Boyd's key arguments that a Warfare Theodicy is fundamentally biblical.

This is a Cult: Did God create cold dead worlds?

2008-06-04T06:20:00.001-07:00

by Matthew

This is a Cult: Did God create cold dead worlds?