Posts Tagged ‘Millard Erickson’

Driscoll’s Unlimited, Limited Atonement, Part 2

Posted: February 6, 2012 in Christ
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
15

Driscoll’s Unlimited/limited Atonement is unlimited in the benefit of the atonement. The benefit of the atonement is similar to Common Grace which some of the Reformed men have accused him of teaching. No where does Driscoll state that the provision of Christ’s death is unlimited.

Driscoll quotes Charles Haddon Spurgeon to support his unlimited, limited view: Spurgeon in a sermon that he titled “General and Particular” dealt with this very issue. He’s my dude. He said, “There is a general influence for good flowing from the mediatorial sacrifice of Christ. And yet it’s special design and definite object is the giving of eternal life to as many as the Father gave him.” He teaches both positions: that in one sense Jesus died for everybody and we’re all benefited by that. But in a saving way for the forgiveness of sins, Jesus only died in that sense for the elect that the Father has given him.

Near the end of his sermon, Driscoll states “All of that to say I believe Spurgeon is absolutely right, that the person and work of Jesus has benefited us all. We all have great benefits from Jesus.”

What are the Common Grace benefits of Christ’s death for all according to Driscoll?

1)Human dignity and value

2) Charity

3) Rule of law

4) Private property

5) Education

Wherever Christianity has spread, these common grace benefits have followed. This is the unlimited aspect of Jesus’ atonement according to Driscoll. The fourth view of atonement is the unlimited provision of Christ’s atonement for the world. This is the preferable view.

4. Unlimited Atonement is the belief that the death of Christ accomplished two purposes: He provided the basis for the salvation of all people and He secured the salvation of believers.

The position is also referred to sometimes as Amyraldianism or three or four-point Calvinism.

In France the controversy continued largely around Moise Amyraut (Moses Amyraldus) who taught at the Academy of Saumur and John Cameron who also taught for a short time at the same school. Both men did not believe in limited atonement. Amyraut became the theological father of four-point Calvinism . . . Such men as Charles C. Ryrie and John Walvoord could be classified as four-point Calvinists (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, pages 2 and 5).

“The Scriptures represents the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the atonement therefore is limited, but the application of the atonement through the work of the Holy Spirit” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 771).

“Christ most certainly died to secure the salvation of those who believe and it is our conviction that the Bible teaches that Christ died to provide a basis of salvation for all men” (Lightner, p. 46).

A. Biblical references that relate the atonement to believers only.

All five-point Calvinists inevitably foster to some degree a limitation upon kosmos references pertaining to the soteriological import. This limitation is usually shown by pointing out references (such as Luke 2:1; Jn. 1:10; 12:29; Acts 11:28; 19:27; 24:5; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:6; Rev. 13:3, etc.) that cannot mean everyone within the world. Such limited redemptionists as Symington, Pink, Berkhof, and Shedd may be consulted. It must be conceded that such references as above, and others, could have such a limitation placed upon them (Bowman, p.30).

Hodge is an example of this reasoning: “Every assertion, therefore that Christ died for a people, is a denial of the doctrine that He died equally for all” (Charles Hodge, p. 549).

These passages do not state that Christ only died for believers. Because Christ died for the whole, He also died for a specific part. But to say that Christ only died for believers contradicts the universal passages. Isaiah 53:5 says that Christ died for Israel: “He was wounded for our transgression.” Does this mean that only Jews can be saved? Isaiah 53:6 says Israel was sinful: “All we like sheep have gone astray.” Is total depravity limited to Jews? Matthew 1:21 says that “Christ shall save his people from their sins.” Would limited redemptionists say that Gentiles cannot be saved because of this verse? In Galatians 2:20, Paul limited the death of Christ to himself: “The Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Does this mean that Christ only died for Paul and none other because of the limitations of Galatians. 2:20?

B. There are verses that teach Christ died for all people.

Peter in 2 Peter 2:1 teaches that the Lord died for all people, even those who do not get saved, and thus, false teachers. Both Dr. Bowman and Charles Ryrie give extended explanations of this verse. Both Dr. Bowman and Ryrie state that limited redemptionists explain that this verse does say that the Lord “bought” the false teachers, but that this verse is what the false teachers claimed and Peter only recorded their denial. One example is Louis Berkhof.

The most plausible explanation of these passages is that given by Smeaton, as the interpretation of Piscator and of the Dutch annotations, namely, “that these false teachers are described according to their own profession and the judgment of charity. They gave themselves out as redeemed men, and were so accounted in the judgment of the Church while they abode in her communion? (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941, p. 397).

However, the normal sense of language has Peter stating the fact that these false teachers denied the Lord who paid for their sins on the cross, thus stressing the depth of their apostasy.

I like the way Robert Lightner ends his book The Death He Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement on page 148 with a proper conclusion and moment of worship of Christ our Savior, who died in our place, and the whole world.

The death Christ was a death in the place of all men—a death which accomplished a work that completely satisfied God the Father. It was a death which provided life for every member of Adam’s lost race who has ever lived or ever shall live—a death that made it possible for the Father to be just and at the same time the Justifier of any sinner who does nothing more that receive Christ as personal Savior.

Driscoll’s Unlimited, Limited Atonement, Part 1

Posted: February 6, 2012 in Christ
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
19

Mark Driscoll set off a controversy among some of the reformed, whom he called, ”Young, nitpicking, theologically geeky, Calvinist crazy-makers who are like a rock in my shoe” when he preached his modified Calvinist position on the death of Christ which he calls “The unlimited, limited atonement.”  Click to hear the sermon http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/christ-on-the-cross/unlimited-limited-atonement.

Did Christ die for all people (unlimited atonement) or just believers, i.e., the elect (limited atonement)? Or was Christ’s atonement a unlimited, limited atonement?

There Are At Least Four Different Views

1. Universalism is the belief that all people eventually will go to heaven.

Driscoll does a good job at refuting universalism and also unitarianism in his sermon on unlimited, limited atonement.

Why is this view wrong? The following references refute this view (Lk.16; Rev. 20:11).

Limited atonement people, however, accuse unlimited atonement people of Universalism. Limited atonement people quote Mt. 20:28 as proof. “For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and give his life a ransom for many.”

No man pays a ransom without the certainty of the deliverance of those for whom it is paid. It is not a ransom unless it actually redeems. And an offering is not sacrifice unless it actually expiates and propitiates. The effect of a ransom and sacrifice may indeed be conditional, but the occurrence of the condition will be rendered certain before the costly sacrifice is offered (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, vol. 2 p. 548).

Dr. Bowman agrees that “ransom” in Mt. 20:28 with the preposition anti (in exchange for) used with ransom is limited to believers.

Soteriologicaly, the “many” (Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45) would be limited to only those set free by the purchase price . . . Therefore, this preposition anti is not necessarily a proof for universal provision as it views those only who are actually purchased. However, it does not exclude the fact that Christ’s death was in behalf of (or, for the benefit of ) others as will be discussed later (Dr. Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p.25).

Dr. Bowman went on to discuss the preposition “huper” which does have a universal provision meaning as in 1 Tim. 2:6 where Paul said that Christ gave himself a ransom “for all men” (antilutron huper panton).

Paul combines the two words and uses the preposition huper which carries the idea of substitution as well as the connotation of benefit. Five-point Calvinists limit the panton (“all”) to a relative sense of all races (Jews and Gentiles) or to all kinds of men. But it is obvious that Paul is using anthropos in a generic sense as referring to mankind not classes or races. Compare the “all men” (vss. 2, 4) and “men” (v. 5) with the tous andras of verse 8. The panton modifies the noun (“men”). It would be rather unnecessary and redundant to say that God desires that all classes of men be saved (v.4) and that Christ is a mediator between God and all races or kinds of men (v.5). This is unnecessary as God’s decree is not necessarily concerned with races but with individuals (Dr. Bowman, pages 27, 28).

Here is how Millard Erickson answers this view:

Equally compelling is 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul says that Christ Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all.” This is to be compared with the original statement in Matthew 20:28, where Jesus had said that the Son of man came “to give his life as a ransom for many.” In 1 Timothy, Paul makes a significant advance upon the words of Jesus. “His life” (tan psuchan autou) becomes “himself” (haeuton); the word is “ransom” (lutron) appears in compound form (antilutron). But most significantly here, “for many” (anti pollon) becomes “for all” (huper panton). When Paul wrote, the words of the tradition (i.e., as they appear in Matthew) may well have been familiar to him. It is almost as if he made a deliberate point of emphasizing that the ransom was universal in its purpose (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, pages 830, 831).

These comments by Dr. Bowman and Erickson also refute the Five-point Calvinist’s definition of “all” meaning “all without distinction” verses the biblical definition of “all” which is “all without exception” in passages like 1 Tim. 2:1-6.

2. Arminianism is the belief that Christ died for all.

In 1609, the Five Arminian Articles or the Remonstrance were written by the followers of Jacob Arminius “in opposition to those parts of the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism which stressed what came to be known as the five points of Calvinism, which were later set forth at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p.36).

The Five Points of Arminianism

I. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.

II. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved.

III. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed.

IV. This grace may be resisted.

V. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation. (Roger Nicole, “Arminianism,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960, p. 64).

Article II of the Five Arminian articles elaborates the meaning of Christ’s death. Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the work of the Gospel of John 3:16 (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, III New York: Harper and Son Publishers, 1919).

Robert Lightner insightfully informs as to the true meaning of this apparently harmless statement and the importance of the word “obtained.”

The crucial point of this statement regarding the purpose and extent of the atonement centers in the word “obtained.” This is precisely the Arminian view, not only that Christ’s death provided salvation for all but that His death obtained it for all.  This explains, of course, why Arminianism believes each member of Adam’s race possesses sufficient grace to be saved . . . this strikes at the very heart of that great Biblical doctrine of total depravity. Total depravity means that man possesses nothing nor can he do anything to merit favor before God . . . This means in reality that the decision to believe or not to believe is quite unrelated to the election purposes of God or the effectual working of the Holy Spirit but rests ultimately and entirely with the individual (The Death Christ Died, pages 37-40).

The sufficient grace of Arminianism is in contrast to efficacious grace of God or the effective calling of the Holy Spirit referred to by Ryrie in chapter 56 in Basic Theology.

3. Limited Atonement is the belief that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect.

The views of the Arminians set forth in the Remonstrance of 1610 were examined and rejected as heretical at a national Synod in Dort, meeting from 1618 to November 13, 1619. Not only did the Synod reject the Remonstrance position but it also set out to present the true Calvinistic teaching in regard to the five matters called into question.

This they accomplished by stating what we know today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The term Calvinism was derived from the great reformer John Calvin (1509-1564), who along with many others expounded these views.

The “five points of Calvinism” presented at the Synod are as follows: (1) total depravity; (2) unconditional election; (3) limited atonement, or particular redemption; (4) irresistible grace, or the efficacious call of the Spirit; and (5) perseverance of the saints or eternal security (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p. 40).

What is ironic about the Calvinistic view of limited atonement is that Calvin did not hold to it.  Here is a quote from Calvin’s commentary on Galatians: “God commends to us the solution of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” Paul Hartog has written a new book on Calvin’s view of atonement where he documents Calvin’s view. Click here for a PDF http://www.baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/a-word-for-the-world.pdf

Because of the difference between Calvin and his followers, Driscoll calls himself a Calvin not a Calvinist.

Concerning the limited atonement view that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect Dr. Bowman comments:

This is most certainly correct but this writer feels that such is too narrow to encompass the obvious Scriptural data concerning the provision that has been made for all men. Assuming this to be correct for sake of argument then the provisionary nature of Christ’s death is also an aspect of the divine decree (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p. 5).

Most limited atonement advocates believe in some form of “double predestination.”  “I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, as he certainly foreknew were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed” (Calvin, Christian Institutes, 2:23).

The term “double predestination” itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more that the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to “double predestination”—and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settle is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:22; Jude 4) (Phillip Johnson, Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism, www.spurgeon.org/-phil/articles/sup_infr.htm,p.1)

Condemnation in Scripture is based on the sinner’s actions of rejection, not God’s reprobation (2nd Thess. 1:8).

Often the phrase, the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, is use by unlimited redemptionist, but incorrectly used as Robert Lightner states.

Though those among Calvinists who accept limited atonement thus confine the extent of the atonement to the elect, it should not be thought that they limit the sufficiency or value of Christ’s death. This they do not do. The usual statement coming from them is to the effect that the death of Christ was sufficient for all men but efficient only for the elect. This statement is intended by limited redemptionists to satisfy those who object to their limited view. But does it really answer the difficulties raised by the scriptural passages which teach the universality of the atonement? What they really mean when they say Christ’s death was sufficient for all is that His blood was of such infinite value that no more could have been required of the Father had He intended the Son’s death to extend to all men (Lightner, p.43).

1. Five point Limited Atonement sees the atonement as unlimited in the value of the atonement as just presented by Lightner. This view has the provision of Christ’s atonement only for the elect.

2. Unlimited Atonement sees the atonement as unlimited in provision for all. Driscoll never uses the word provision in his unlimited view and therefore I see his view as not fully Biblical. Only Unlimited Atonement has provision for all not just the elect.

In Part 2, we will examine how Driscoll’s view is different from some limited atonement views and also present the fourth view of atonement: unlimited atonement view.


The New Jerusalem or Heaven on Earth (Revelation 21-22) Part One

Posted: January 24, 2012 in End Time Events, Sermons
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

When a Sunday school teacher quizzed her fifth-graders about how one gets to heaven, she got all correct answers: One doesn’t get there by being good, giving away money, or being a nice person. “Well, then,” she asked, “how does one get heaven?” Before any of the regular students could answer, a boy who was visiting the class that week shouted out, “You gotta be dead!” (David Jeremiah. What You Always Wanted to Know about Heaven, 100).

The visitor was correct. “It is appointed to man to die.” If you are a believer when you die or are raptured, the last two chapters of God’s Word describes Heaven your future eternal home.

John ends his prophecy of end time events in the book of Revelation with two chapters devoted to Heaven. God reveals to John that there will be a New Heaven, a New Earth and a New Jerusalem. The New Heaven is the really the first and second heaven with the curse removed and the New Earth is our planet that has been renovated with fire (2 Peter 3:7). The New Jerusalem is the third Heaven, where God dwells now, but in eternity will be on earth in the New Jerusalem according to 21:2-3.

So literally, Heaven will be on earth in the New Jerusalem. An angel gives John a guided tour. The guided tour begins from a distance from an aerial view where the architecture of the City is described. Then the angel proceeds inside to admire the interior decorations of the New Jerusalem.

The point of the tour is not for us to be awestruck with the beauty of the City. The New Jerusalem is a literal city with symbolic meanings so we will be awestruck with God and His Lamb.

I. The New Jerusalem Described Externally (21:10-20) This is the aerial view.

A. The City is brilliantly illuminated with all the outward manifestation of all of God’s attributes i.e., His glory (21:11).

The City is crystal clear so nothing blocks God’s glory. The City is not the center of attention but God and Christ who light it up.

The City reminds us of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:14 and 16: “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” God lets His light shine for eternity for His glory.

B. A Great and High Wall (21:12).

When the walls of Jerusalem were down in the OT, God’s people were vulnerable to attack and thus God’s name was in reproach (Nehemiah 2:17). The enemy would taunt God’s people, “Can’t your god keep the walls up around His city?” This reproach on God fired Nehemiah to rebuild the walls.

When we see these massive walls around the New Jerusalem we will want to sing with great Reformation warrior for justification by faith, Martin Luther, “A mighty fortress is our God a bulwark never failing.”

C. Twelve Gates guarded by angels (21:12-13). Robert Thomas says these are large gate towers of which smaller gates were a part. On these gates are the names of the 12 Tribes of Israel who represent the Old Testament people of God.

The Old Testament people of God will be living in the New Jerusalem protected in this gated community with angels as security guards. These OT believers would remember that one angel in the OT killed 185,000 Assyrians in one night and was not even winded at the end.

We will be forever reminded of our eternal security in Christ.

D. Twelve Foundations (21:14) are visible unlike most foundations and bear the names of the 12 apostles who represent the New Testament people of God or the Church. Israel has not replaced the Church in this age nor the age to come.

Also in Ephesians 2:20, Paul says that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles.”

Those massive foundations will not let us forget that we are in Heaven because our lives are founded on the Word of God.

E. The City is 1400 miles square (21:15-16).

This is the city Abraham looked for according to Hebrews 11:8-10. If this city were to land on America instead of Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem would cover the USA from Canada to Mexico and from the Appalachian mountains to California. That is 2 million square miles of land area just on the bottom floor.

Randy Alcorn in his book on Heaven estimated if there are 12 feet between each floor there could be 600,000 floors which equal 1.2 billion square miles. There be will room enough for all the believers of all the ages and all the babies who have died or been aborted since Roe vs Wade in 1973 which is about 1 million each year.

The city is an eternal object lesson of the greatness of God’s grace.

F. Walls of Jasper are 216 feet thick (21:17-18).

John will now return and give additional information about the previously mentioned sections of the city. It is as though, John could not tell us everything at once about the glorious city. It would overload our circuit and blow all our fuses.

The wall is measured by an angel. A. T. Robertson interprets this phrase, “Though measured by an angel, a human standard was employed” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, VI, 474). The New Jerusalem is not a state of mind.

J. Oswald Sanders denies the literalness of John’s description: “Gates of pearl and streets of gold are plainly figurative and should be so interpreted. So, to the question, Is heaven a place? The answer is, Yes and no. It is not a place in the material since in which, say, Jerusalem is a place while heaven is not an actual city, it is like a city.”

Millard Erickson says the New Jerusalem is both a state of mind and a literal city. To which Wayne Grudem responds: “Something either is a place or it is not a place” (Systematic Theology, 1159). Jesus promised his discourage disciples in John 14:3, “I go to prepare place.” End of argument.

The walls like the city are crystal clear so again they will not filter the glory of God.

G. The Twelve Foundations are twelve different jewels which allow the glory of God to shine through like a giant prism of beauty (21:19-20).

While the wall is crystal clear each of the 12 foundations is a different color such as deep blue, bright green, red and white, deep red, gold, pale-green, sea-green, yellow-green, violet, and purple. The glory of God shines through these foundations like a spectacular prism reflecting the glory of God for all to behold.

H. The Gates are Pearls (21:21).

These pearls are not the size of peas strung together to make a necklace. These pearls are as big as large tower gates in a wall nearly as thick as a football field.

Pearls speak of beauty out of pain. The little oyster receives an irritation or a wound, and around this offending article that may be has penetrated and hurt it, the oyster layers over it and over it, again and again until it builds a pearl (Stephen Davey’s sermon).

As we go in and out of the City we will be prompted over and over again of the gigantic sufferings of Christ. “Those pearls, hung eternally at the access routes to glory will remind us forever of One who hung upon a tree (John Phillips, Exploring Revelation, 254).

These last two chapters are the climax to the Revelation of Jesus Christ so we are not surprised that Christ will be fully unveiled in the New Jerusalem.

In my next post we continue on our guided tour of the interior of the New Jerusalem.

 

        

The Security of the Believer, Part One

Posted: February 18, 2011 in Security of the Believer
Tags: , , , , , ,
16

Lucy and Linus, now famous little people in Charles Schulz’s cartoon Peanuts, are staring out the window. The rain is pouring down. Lucy speaks: “Boy, look at it rain . . . what if it floods the whole world?” Linus answers: “It will never do that. In the 9th chapter of Genesis, God promised Noah that would never happen again, and the sign of the promise is the rainbow.” Lucy is looking directly at him as he is speaking. She turns back toward the window, smiles big, and announces: “You’ve taken a great load off my mind.” To which Linus responds: “Sound theology has a way of doing that.”

Allegedly, in 1789, Ben Franklin said, “Nothing is certain but death and taxes.”

Let’s add one more certainty: the eternal security of every child of God. Like Linus, this should take a great load off your mind. People still carrying this load have lots of questions.

Is once saved always saved biblically true?

Is the person who made a profession but only came to church briefly really saved?

Does God kept us saved without our co-operation?

Do we have any responsibility in the matter of eternal security?

Which of the following statements by leading theologians would you say is true.

Baptist theologian A. H. Strong’s belief about perseverance

“Every believer, has a charge to keep; and the keeping of ourselves is as important a point of Christian doctrine as is the keeping of God” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907, p.882).

Baptist theologian Millard Erickson’s belief’s about perseverance

While Hebrews 6 indicates that genuine believers can fall away, John 10 teaches that they will not. There is a logical possibility of apostasy, but it will not come to pass in the case of believers.  Although they could abandon their faith and consequently come to the fate described in Hebrews 6, the grace of God prevents them from apostasizing . . . Consider as an analogy the case of parents who fear that their young child may run out into the street and be struck by a car. One way the parents can prevent that from happening is to build a fence around the yard. That would prevent the child from leaving the yard, but would also remove the child’s freedom. Try as he or she might, the child could not possibly get out of the yard. That is the idea some persons have of what perseverance is. Another possibility is for the parents to teach and train the child regarding the danger of going into the street and the importance of being careful.

This is the nature of the security which we are discussing. It is not that God renders apostasy impossible by removing the very option. Rather, he uses every possible means of grace, including the warnings contained in Scripture, to motivate us to remain committed to him. Because he enables us to persevere in our faith, the term perseverance is preferable to preservation (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker,1985, p.994).

Calvinism’s belief about perseverance

Calvinism’s position is represented by the Synod of Dort’s statement.

The Synod of Dort’s statement on perseverance of the saints in Dec. 17, 1618:

By reason of these remains of indwelling of sin, and also because of the temptations of the world and of Satan, those who are converted could not persevere in that grace if left to their own strength. But God is faithful, who, having conferred grace, mercifully confirms and powerfully preserves them therein, even to the end (Peter Y. De Jong, editor, Crisis in the Reformed Churches, Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968, p.254).

Also representing the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-46).

Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance Of The Saints

1. They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved (Grudem, p.1187,  1188).

Arminianism’s belief about perseverance

The Synod of Dort’s statement was in response to the Arminian Remonstrant’s position against perseverance also presented at that meeting as follows:

“True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish” (Jong, p.228).

Roman Catholicism’s belief about perseverance in opposition to the Reformation is stated in the Council of Trent in 1545-1563

“If anyone maintain that a man once justified cannot lose grace, let him be accursed”

1. THE DOCTRINE OF THE SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER IS TRUE BECAUSE

A. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because “We are Kept by the Power of God” (1 Pet. 1:3-5).

Dr. Robert Lightner sees a double security in verses 4 and 5.

Such is the heavenly possession of every believer. Peter added that it is “reserved in heaven for you.” “Reserved” means “closely guarded” or “preserved.” There are no conditions attached to this promise, no “ifs” or “buts” about it. Personal faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior guarantees the recipient of God’s grace a secure inheritance. An inheritance reserved for the heirs and the heirs kept for the inheritance mean double security. Concerning those possessing the inheritance described in verse 4, Peter said, “who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (v.5). The word “kept” is a military term in the original . . . Since it appears in 1 Peter 1:5 in the present tense, the emphasis is upon the continual process of being garnished or guarded. How the child of God needs this protection! What assurance it brings to know each saint has it (Robert Lightner, Sin, The Savior, and Salvation, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991, pages 236, 237).

How does God guard and protect believers by his power? “. . . through faith.” God energizes and sustains our faith.

How long will God energize and sustain our faith? “. . . unto salvation ready (prepared) to be revealed in the last time.” God will energize and sustain our faith until the final phase of our salvation, that is, our future glorification and all that is included in our future inheritance.

This is the answer to the Arminian objection that eternal life or the perseverance of the saints is dependent on the believer’s continued belief in Christ: God is the reason we continue to believe. “Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief” is our constant cry to which God continually answers.

B. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by God’s Love (Rom. 8:31-39).

C. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by God’s Obligation to Complete our Salvation (John 6:40).

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

“It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that everyone who truly believes in Christ will remain a Christian up to the day of final resurrection into the blessings of life in the presence of God” (Wayne Grudem, page 789). The Arminian response to this promise is voiced by Grant R. Osborne in Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts. Osborne states that John 6:35 conditions eternal life on the present tense of believing not just the initial act of believing for salvation (p.171).

Wayne Grudem answers this charge. While it is true that Jesus here speaks not just of initial saving faith but of a faith that continues over time, the verse does not go so far as to specify that ‘everyone who believes continuously until his or her death will have eternal life,’ but rather simply says that ‘everyone who is presently in a state of believing in Christ’ will have eternal life and Jesus will raise him up at the last day. The verse speaks about all who presently are in a state of believing in Christ, and it says that all of them will be raised up by Christ at the last day (Wayne Grudem, p. 789).

D. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by God’s Answer to His Son’s Prayer (Heb. 7:25).

Does God the Father answer his Son’s prayers? Jesus in John 11:41 and 42 answers that question.

E. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by God’s Promise for Trials and Temptations (1 Cor. 10:13).

F. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by Christ’s Promise (John 10:28).

“I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Nor can we pluck ourselves out of God’s hands or this promise is not foolproof. God knows that we are our greatest enemy.           

G. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by the Seal of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30).

The Holy Spirit is God’s “earnest” or down payment by which God commits himself to fulfill by giving us the rest of the inheritance in heaven. The God who said, “Owe no anything” (Rom. 13:8) will pay his debts.

H. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by God in Order to Enjoy Assurance (1 John 5:13).

In Part 2, I will answer objections to the doctrine of the security of believers.

Personal Angelic Body Guards? Part 2

Posted: December 29, 2010 in Angels & Demons
Tags: , , , ,
0

We are examining some Scriptures used to defend the belief in personal guardian angels

1. Psalm 91:11 is thought to teach each believer has one assigned guardian angel (See Part 1).

2. Some use Mt. 18:10 to teach that each child has only one guardian angel assigned at birth.

This was the view of Thomas Aquinas in his The Summa Theologica. Question 113 addresses the guardianship of the good angels and Article 5 asks whether an angel is appointed to guard a man from his birth?

“As long as the child is in the mother’s womb it is not entirely separate, but by reason of a certain intimate tie, is still part of her: just as the fruit while hanging on the tree is part of the tree. And therefore it can be said with some degree of probability, that the angel who guards the mother guards the child while in the womb. But at its birth, when it becomes separate from the mother, an angel guardian is appointed to.”

Jesus is talking about only children who are already believers “who believe in me” (18:6). Aquinas taught on the basis of Mt 18:10 that each child at birth was assigned a guardian angel. Jesus is warning about offending a little child. If anyone offends a little child, God has angels ready to deal with the offenders. Jesus says these angels are in heaven, not on earth shadowing their charge. Jesus says these angels are “always beholding the face of God the Father” rather than guarding believers.

3. In Acts 12:15, Luke records that a group of believers believed in guardian angels.

But this group of believers is not exactly the model for us to follow in belief or practice. They were praying for God to deliver Peter from prison and when God answered their prayer, they would not believe it. Instead of believing that God had answered their prayer, they thought Peter’s guardian angel was at the door knocking.

“The reply to Rhoda reflects the Jewish tradition that a guardian angel resembles the person to whom it is assigned. But a report indicating that certain disciples believed in guardian angels does not invest the belief with authority. Some Christians still had mistaken or confused beliefs on various subjects. In absence of definite didactic material, we must conclude that there is insufficient evidence for the concept of guardian angels” (Erickson, vol. 1, page 445).

The believers in the prayer meeting were mistaken about Rhoda being crazy. She was not. The believers in the prayer meeting were also mistaken about Peter. They did not believe Peter was at the door. He was. An angel had helped break Peter out of prison, but then left for heaven, rather than constantly guarding him.

This thought leads us to Hebrews 1:14 which is part of Hebrews one and two,the most thorough discussion on angels in the New Testament. The final word on any doctrine in Scripture is found in the Epistles. As we have already seen, angels do not perform all the ministries found in the Gospels (delivering God’s revealed Word to individuals) and in the book of Acts (breaking innocent believers out of jail).

4. Hebrews 1:14 is the final teaching on angels.

Angels minister by serving God and worshiping God (see Part 1). They worship God as witnessed in Revelation. They also serve believers according to Heb 1:14. From Hebrews one and two we learn:

a. Angels are inferior to Christ.

1) God calls Jesus His Son, not angels (Heb 1:4-5).

2) God commands angels to worship His Son (Heb 1:6).

3) God has exalted His Son an eternal King above angels His servants (Heb 1:7-9).                    

4) God has assigned angels to serve believers in the world created by Christ (Heb 1:10-14).

5) Christ in His incarnation became man not angels because angels do not have a physical body and can not die (Heb 2).

Many advocates of guardian angels teach that we should develop a relationship with our guardian angel. Terry Lynn Taylor advocates this in her book Guardians of Hope: The Angel’s Guide to Personal Growth. “Basically, I’m suggesting that you become best friends with your guardian angel! Pretend you have an invisible best friend who witnesses everything you experience and with whom you can share insights” (page 13).

“When children make up invisible playmates on their own, it is generally cute, harmless, and even therapeutic. When adults recommend to other adults that they pretend to have an invisible friend who will protect them day and night as a guardian angel, that’s bad advice” (Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr. Sense & Nonsense About Angels & Demons. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007, 80).

The Word of God teaches us to “grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (not angels),” “Draw nigh to God (not angels) and He will draw nigh to you,” and “Seek first the kingdom of God (not angels).”

Not only are angels inferior to Christ but next we learn from Hebrews 1:14 that

b. Angels serve only believers.

Hebrews 1:14 says that angels are ministering spirits “to them who shall be heirs of salvation” or believers. Psalm 34:7 teaches the same truth as Hebrews 1:14, “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him”. If an unsaved person claims to see an angel there are three possibilities:

a) That unsaved person was either dreaming.

b) That unsaved person mistook a human for an angel. It was not an angel who changed your fat tire, it was a good Samaritan.

c) That unsaved person was visited by a fallen angel/demon.

From Hebrews 1:14 we have discovered that angels are inferior to Christ, that angels only serve believers and also that

c. Angels are created by God.

It is God who ultimately protects us, and Hebrews 1:14 says angels are “sent forth” by their Creator to protect believers.

Why was James the apostle martyred in Acts 12 and Peter was delivered? Did James’ guardian angel fail? No it was God’s will for James not to live.

What about babies and small children who die, did their guardian angel fall asleep on the job? No, God is ultimately in charge not angels. While God sometimes uses angels to protect us as He sometimes uses other believers or police officers or the military, God does not need angels to protect us because He is all powerful.

David Jeremiah opens his book on angels entitled, What The Bible says about Angels, “In a doctor’s office one fall day last year, I was told I had cancer. I’m sure you’ll understand when I say I was fearful. It was one of those times when I would have cherished having an angel with me in the room, assuring me everything would be okay. In the months that followed I felt the same fear when I prepared to have surgery on two occasions. An angel’s hand holding mine as I was wheeled into the operating room would have been treasured comfort. But as far as I knew, I’d never seen an angel. Never. Did that mean something was wrong with me? Why did other people have that privilege? Wasn’t I spiritual enough?” (page14).

But near the end of David Jeremiah’s book he (page 188) summarizes my thoughts: “But if this is disappointing news to you, and you’re dismayed to think there may not be a specific angel responsible for your protection, you need not jump up in fear to check the locks on your doors and windows. There’s plenty of evidence that God himself is looking out for you.”

Christmas Sermon on Angels, Part 2

Posted: December 23, 2010 in Angels & Demons
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

Sometimes angels are invisible. At other times they appear human. Angels are also described as having wings. On rare occasions, brilliant lights accompany angels. “Angels get so absorbed in their work that even their appearance is governed by their assignment. Depending on the task God gives them in serving us, they may remain invisible to our eyes, or appear in ordinary human form, or take on some more glorious aspect. Their form—what they are—depends on their function—what they do. As J. M. Wilson says, ‘In general they are simply regarded as embodiments of their mission’” (David Jeremiah. What the Bible Says About Angels. Sisters: Multnomah Books, 1996, 181).

We have observed Gabriel performing his ministry of delivering his message to Zacharias. Now he delivers his greatest message.

B. Gabriel’s second message wsas to Mary with the message of the birth of Jesus in Luke 1:26-38.

1) Angels focused their attention on God and not themselves. Gabriel once again is sent from God in heaven to deliver a message to Mary in Nazareth about her virgin birth of Christ. Gabriel delivers his message “and departed from her” (1:38). The study of angels is difficult because the Bible is God centered and not angel centered. “Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God’s revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. When they are mentioned, it is always in order to inform us further about God, what he does, and how he does it” (Erickson, p.434).

2) When Mary visits Elisabeth, both of them make much of Christ not the angel who had visited them 1:39-47. Billy Graham called angels, “God’s secret agents” for a reason. Angels do not draw attention to themselves when they deliver God’s message. They fly under the radar. They are sleath in their ministry. They are invisible. They prefer not to be seen or recognized. In Luke one Gabriel said little about himself. He appears, delivers God’s message and then disappears. Their appearance is nondescript. Mark 16:5 says the angel was “a young man.” Luke 1:11 says simply “an angel of the Lord appeared.” That is in stark contrast today with angelmania.

John Randolph Price in his book The Angels within Us (that is an odd title because the only people who have angels in them are sinners who are demon possessed with a fallen angel. So if you have an angel within you, you are in trouble) described a female angel who had “the face and form of a beautiful woman wearing a flowing white robe trimmed in gold” (page 4). I think angels are embarrassed with so much attention given to them.

C. Angels are watching our ministry according to several verses. In 1 Cor 4:9 Paul says we are a spectacle or theater to the world and angels. Not only are the unsaved watching our lives but God’s angels are observing how we serve God. I wonder if angels are pleased with our service to the God they so willingly serve?

D. Angels not watch our service but model ministry for us. Sometimes Scripture pictures angels with six wings to show the swiftness with which angels obey God’s commands. In His model prayer, Jesus taught us to pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” by angels.

2. God also created angels to Worship Him. (In Revelation 22:8-9 John was forbidden to worship the angel who delivered to him the book of Revelation)

A. Those caught up in the angel craze worship angels.    

1) Some religions even encourage and teach angel worship. John MacArthur writes, “Did you know that along with worshiping God and Christ, the Catholic Church has promoted the worship (i.e. veneration) of saints and angels for centuries. In his book on Catholic theology, Ludwig Ott writes, ‘The worship of angels by men is justified. That which the council of Trent teaches as to the invoking and worshiping of saints may also be applied to angels.’ And so they worshiped angels—the primary angel is Michael. In fact, in the Catholic calendar there is an event called Michaelmas September 29th. There were even two famous and large churches built to honor him: one by Constantine near Constantinople, and the other in Rome” (God, Satan and Angels, MacArthur p.126).

2) The worshipping of angels is forbidden by Paul in Colossians 1:16; 2:18-19 because believers were already being tempted by the GGnostics to worship angels. Worship of angels is a substitute for worshiping God. Joan Webster Anderson writes in her book Where Angels Walk: True Stories of Heavenly Visitors, “Angels offer a form of spirituality devoid of Jesus and God….the search is for spirituality, but without God” (quoted from What the Bible says about Angels, page 16).

B. The worship of God is one of the chief activities of angels throughout Scripture.

1) The angel who announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds was joined by an angelic choir who broke out in the worship of God in 2:13-14.

2) There is a special group of angels around God’s throne who always worship. This group is mentioned in Revelation 4:8: “The four living creatures had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.” This group of angels leads you and me in worshiping God for His great creation in 4:9-11.

3) Soon after their creation when God created the heavens, angels shouted for joy when God next created earth as recorded in Job 38:7. Erwin Lutzer, in a message, said that perhaps God lined up all the angels He had just created when He created the heavens and just before He created earth and the universe in six days and said, “Watch this!” And when God said, “Let there be light” and there was light that the angels shouted and sang God’s praise.

4) We will join this choir in Heaven one day in Revelation 5. Read this preview of our participation in worship in heaven and imagine what it be like when we join the innumberable angelic choir blessing God for our redemption.

C. Angels not only watch our service but they observe our worship. According to 1 Cor 11:10 angels are watching if we are submissive to one another in worship. What do angels who model perfect worship think of our worship?

Conclusion. We believers can please angels who our fellow servants (Revelation 22:8-9) when we serve God as His messengers and worshippers, but the unsaved can also bring delight to angels by trusting Christ. Jesus made this point: “I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10).

Origin of the Soul

Posted: March 19, 2010 in Sin
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

What does the statement “Like father like son” mean? Of course it means we are like our parents in some ways. We inherited something from mom and dad. What did we inherit? Perhaps our looks or the lack of looks. Mannerisms. Personality. I was in Cracker Barrel once and was reading some of the signs for sale. One read, “I child proofed the house, but they still got in.” Another read, “If it were not for coffee, I would not have any personality.”

We inherited our physical and immaterial soul from our parents. At least that is one view of three major views. The three major views are the preexistence of soul view: the creationist view which is not to be confused with the  creationist view of the universe and man, and the traducianist view.

I. The Preexistence of the Soul View

Church father, Origen, believed these preexistent souls fell into sin and this is the reason for the differences in persons now. “Origen looks upon man’s present material existence with all its inequalities and irregularities, physical and moral, as a punishment for sins committed in a previous existence” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 196). A. H. Strong mentions Polanus’ teaching that God gives souls to boys at forty days and to girls at eighty days after conception (Strong, Systematic Theology, p.491). This view is similar to the reincarnation in Eastern religions. This view cannot be true because Rom. 5:12 teaches that sin began with Adam not preexistent souls. Otherwise these preexistent souls were not sinners. Also this view denies the doctrine of eternal punishment for individuals who die without Christ (Luke 16:19-31).

II. The Creationist View of the Soul

This is view commonly held to by Reformed theologians. Robert Reymond, who believes in Traduciansim, is an exception. This is Charles Hodge’s position. Here are some of Hodges arguments. This view is consistent with the Scriptures such as Ecc. 12:7 “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.” In Isa. 57:16, God refers to “the souls which I made.” In the chastening passage of Heb. 12, the author writes: “We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” Another argument from Hodge is that Christ’s sinlessness could only be true if His soul were created (Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, pp.70-76).

In response to Hodge’s first argument that these passages teach that God created souls, we would say that God created each person’s body and soul indirectly by means of parents. Even Wayne Grudem who advocates creationism says “that God usually acts through secondary causes. Even if we say that God is the ‘Father of spirits’ and the Creator of every human soul, just as he is the Maker and Creator of each of us, we must still also affirm that God carries out this creative activity through the amazing process of human procreation” (p. 485). In Psalm 139:13-14 David says God created him in his mother’s womb. How did God create David? Directly or indirectly?  Not by forming David out of the dust of the ground but indirectly through his parents. When Isa. 57:16 says God made souls, He did so through parents.

Hodge’s second argument concerning the sinlessness of Christ as proof for creationism is simply answered by making Christ the exception. Christ is not only the exception of not inheriting a sinful soul from His mother but He is the exception in many areas. His birth was an exception. He did not have a human father. His sinless life was an exception. He had no sin nature. His physical resurrection was an exception. He arose never to die again.

A major objection to creationism is the idea that God creates directly or indirectly a sinful soul. Wayne Grudem, who believes in creationism of each individual soul, admits “that God gives each child a human soul that has tendencies to sin” (p. 485). Charles Hodge apparently seeing the difficulty of God creating a sinful soul stated: “It is moreover a historical fact universally admitted, that character, within certain limits, is transmissible from parents to children. Every nation, separate tribe, and even every extended family of men, has its physical, mental, social, and moral peculiarities which are propagated from generation to generation” (p. 253).

III. The Traducian View

Only once did God breathe into man’s nostrils the breath of life (Gen. 2:7). God created woman from the rib of Adam in Gen. 2:22. From Adam and Eve came the next person (Gen. 4:1). What is transmitted from parents to a child at conception and birth? Not just a physical resemblance or the material. But spiritual and moral tendencies: both good and bad.

The bad is inherited. “Heredity in God’s visiting of sin to the third and fourth generation” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 496). This statement is based on Ex. 20:5: “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” An example is Abraham’s weakness to lie was passed on to the fourth generation. Abraham lied in Gen. 12:13 about Sara being his wife two times in Gen.12:13 and 20:12 when he said “Sara is my sister.”  Abraham’s son, Isaac carbon copies the lie in Gen. 26:7: Rebecca “is my sister.” Jacob, Isaac’s son, lies in Gen. 27:19: “I am Esau thy firstborn.” Jacob’s sons lie to Jacob about Joseph in Gen. 37. This is certainly a challenge to parents to check and correct sins in their lives lest those sins be repeated and punished in their children.

This subject has bearing on inherited sin and imputed sin. Inherited sin or our sin nature came from our parents but imputed sin came directly from Adam. There is a connection with the origin of the soul and inherited and imputed sin.

The Reformed view says that Adam was our representative and when he sinned God counted all people sinners not because we sinned in Adam but because our representative sinned. This is called the Federal Headship view or Representative view of original sin. Allegedly, this agreement was spelled out in the so-called Covenant of Work between Adam and God. Consequently, God creates each soul sinful because we were not present spiritually in Adam when he sinned.

The other view teaches that we actually sinned in Adam and therefore die because our sin. This view is called the Natural or Realistic Headship or Seminal view. God punishes each person with death not because of someone else’s sin, Adam our representative, but justly because we sinned in Adam. Because we sinned in Adam, each person is born with a sin nature inherited from our parents who inherited their sin nature from their parents all the way back to Adam. 

Here is Strong’s statement of the Representative position. “With Adam as their representative God entered into covenant, agreeing to bestow upon them eternal life on condition of his obedience, but making the penalty of his disobedience to be the corruption and death of all his posterity. In accordance with the terms of this covenant, since Adam sinned, God accounts all his descendants as sinners, and condemns them because of Adam’s transgression. In execution of this sentence of condemnation, God immediately creates each soul of Adam’s posterity with a corrupt and depraved nature which infallibly leads to sin, and which is itself sin” (Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 612-613).

Millard Erickson also makes this connection. “The two major approaches see the relationship in terms of federal headship and natural headship. The approach that sees Adam’s connection with us in terms of a federal headship is generally related to the creationist view of the origin of the soul. This is the view that the human receives his physical nature by inheritance from his parents, but that the soul is specially created by God for each individual and united with the body at birth (or some other suitable moment). Thus, we were not present psychologically or spiritually in any of our ancestors, including Adam. Adam, however, was our representative. God ordained that Adam should act not only on his own behalf, but also on our behalf. The consequences of his actions have been passed on to his descendants as well. Adam was on probation for all of us as it were; and because Adam sinned all of us are treated as guilty and corrupted. Bound by the covenant between God and Adam, we are treated as if we have actually and personally done what he as our representative did….The other major approach sees Adam’s connection with us in terms of a natural (or realistic headship). This approach is related to the traducianist view of the origin of the soul, according to which we receive our souls by transmission from our parents, just as we do our physical natures. So we were present in germinal or seminal form in our ancestors; in a very real sense, we were there in Adam. This action was not merely that of one isolated individual, but of the entire human race. Although we were not there individually, we were nonetheless there. The human race sinned as a whole. Thus, there is nothing unfair or improper about our receiving a corrupted nature and guilt from Adam, for we are receiving the just results of our sin. This is the view of Augustine” (Erickson, Christian Theology, pp. 635-636).

God’s Call to Salvation, Part 2

Posted: December 1, 2009 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
17

The following is an impressive array of theologians who believe the Scriptures teach an effective, effectual call or efficacious grace.

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Since it is clearly indicated that one hundred percent of those predestinated are called, and one hundred percent of those called are justified, and one hundred percent of those justified are glorified (Rom. 8:30). . . .Likewise, there is a general call which may be felt whenever the gospel is preached, and it, too, may be resisted as it often is; but over against this is the efficacious call of Romans 8:30. In this passage, as before observed, it is assured that everyone whom God predestinates is called, and the precise numerical company, again, of those called are justified, and that same company—no more and no less—are to be glorified (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. III Soteriology, Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, pages 211 and 216).

This divine call which results in salvation is called efficacious grace because it is certainly effectual in revealing the gospel and in leading to saving faith.

John Walvoord

In contrast to this work of God is the general call to salvation given to all who hear the gospel. In this sense, Christ said, “I come not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt. 9:13). The call to repentance and faith was not always heeded, as demonstrated by the fact that Christ also said, “For many are called, but few chosen” (Matt. 22:14). An examination of the many references to calling in the New Testament will reveal, however, that in most instances they refer to the efficacious call. Efficacious grace, then, stands in contrast to common grace as the effectual call stands in contrast to the general call.

For practical purposes, the grace provided is involved in the call given, and divine calling and the grace which is inherent in it are the same subject (John Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1991, p.120).

Dwight Pentecost

The word “predestination” is logically followed by the word “called,” which is to be understood in its normal designation in which God calls whom He has foreknown, those whom He has elected, those whom He has predestinated, unto Himself. The call of God to the elect of God—who have been predestinated unto glory—is the consummating act of God’s foreordination. God sees to it that His purpose will be accomplished. Those whom He has chosen for Himself will be brought to Himself, that His foreknown and predetermined program might be brought to consummation. The Apostle, in Roman 8:30, said, “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.” The call, then, is a summons to Himself, because they have been predestined unto glory by His foreordained purpose and program.

God’s call is not a call to the human will, asking the human will unaided by divine grace, to respond. God’s call is also God’s enablement; and God, who issues the call, imparts the power through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to respond to that call, so that the sinner who is dead, who is without life, who is under condemnation and judgment, may hear God’s call; and although he has no power in himself because he is dead, and no desire to respond because God has been put out of his life, he is enabled by the Holy Spirit to respond to the gracious invitation (Dwight Pentecost, Things Which Become Sound Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965, pages 141, 142).

 Charles Ryrie

Efficacious grace is the work of the Holy Spirit which effectively moves men to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior. It is the work of the Spirit which moves men to believe; therefore, it may be said that no man is saved against his will (Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, p. 61).

 Robert Lightner

Salvation becomes a reality when, at the moment of faith, the Holy Spirit imparts life to the believing sinner. When the Holy Spirit moves in this way upon the individual, His ministry is always 100 percent effective (note Rom. 8:28-30 that those called are glorified). This work of the Spirit in moving sinners to trust in Christ, the sin bearer, has been called efficacious grace, or effectual grace (Robert Lightner. Sin, The Savior, and Salvation, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 154).

 Hoyle Bowman

Such a position obviously separates the work of Christ on the cross from the Holy Spirit’s application of that work to the sinner. As has been stated the cross does not secure its own results. The effect must be prompted by another cause which is the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit issuing in saving faith (Hoyle Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, Winston/Salem: Piedmont Baptist College, p. 6).

 Robert Gromacki

This general call is an expression of divine grace. It alone does not save nor does it always lead to salvation. Man must respond to this call. Paul wrote, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Ro 10:13). However, not every man answers God’s general call by calling upon Him. Many are called, but few are chosen. The chosen are those who are the objects of God’s effectual call. They are the called ones according to God’s eternal purpose (Ro 8:28). It is God’s direct will that these called receive all that is involved in God’s gift of salvation. Note Paul’s words, “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” (Ro 8:30). These called have already (according to God’s sovereign decree) been foreknown and predestinated. Their justification and glorification are just as certain as their calling (Robert Glenn Gromacki, Salvation is Forever, Chicago: Moody Press, 1973, pages 39, 40).

Millard J. Erickson

Special calling is in large measure the Holy Spirit’s work of illumination, enabling the recipient to understand the true meaning of the gospel. This working is necessary because of the depravity which is  characteristic of all humans prevents them from grasping God’s revealed truth. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, George Ladd remarks that “only by the illumination of the Spirit can men understand the meaning of the cross; only by the Spirit can men therefore confess that Jesus who was executed is also Lord (1 Cor.12:3)” (Millard J. Erickson. Christian Theology, Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985, 931).

Wayne Grudem

We may define effective calling as follows: Effective calling is an act of God the Father, speaking through the human proclamation of the gospel, in which he summons peope to himself in such a way that they respond in saving faith. It is important that we not give the impression that people will be saved by the power of this call apart from their own willing response to the gospel. Although it is true that effective calling awakens and brings forth a response from us, we must always insist that this response still has to be a voluntry, willing response in which the indivdual person puts his or her trust in Christ” (Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, 692-693).

From this list we see that both dispenstationalists and reformed theologians believe in the effective call. But there is usually a difference in the relationship between the effective call and regeneration. Reformed theologians believe that regeneration precedes the effective call and saving faith. For example, Wayne Grudem writes, “Scripture indicates that regeneration must come before we can respond to effective calling with saving faith” (page 700).

I agree with Millard J. Erickson who wrote that, “The logical order is calling, conversion, regeneration….The special calling is simply an intensive and effective working of the Holy Spirit. It is not the complete transformation which constitutes regeneration, but it does render the conversion of the individual both possible and certain. Thus the logical order of the initial aspects of salvation is special calling—conversion—regeneration” (pages 932-933).

This is where I disagree with Piper’s sermon: The Free Will of the Wind: “So what verse 8 is teaching is this: We don’t cause the Spirit to bring about the new birth any more than we make the wind blow. Or to be more specific, the decisive act of will in the new birth is not ours. The Spirit’s will is decisive. To be sure, our will moves in the moment of the new birth. Change happens in us. There are perceptible effects of the wind—“ you hear its sound.”

Even Grudem admits “that two passages suggest  that God regenerates us at the same time as he speaks to us in effective calling:1 Peter 1:23 ‘since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.’ And James says, ‘He chose to give us birth through the word of truth’ (James 1:18 NIV)” (Grudem, 700).

SERMON: REDEMPTION by God the Son (Ephesians 1:7-12)

Posted: September 26, 2009 in Atonement, Christ, Ephesians Class, Sermons
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Mark Driscoll set off a controversy among some of the reformed, whom he called, ”Young, nitpicking, theologically geeky, Calvinist crazy-makers who are like a rock in my shoe” when he preached his modified Calvinist position on the death of Christ which he calls “The unlimited, limited atonement.”  Click to hear the sermon http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/christ-on-the-cross/unlimited-limited-atonement.

Did Christ die for all people (unlimited atonement) or just believers, i.e., the elect (limited atonement)? Or was Christ’s atonement a unlimited, limited atonement?

There Are At Least Four Different Views

1. Universalism is the belief that all people eventually will go to heaven.

Why is this view wrong? The following references refute this view (Lk.16; Rev. 20:11).

Limited atonement people, however, accuse unlimited atonement people of Universalism. Limited atonement people quote Mt. 20:28 as proof. “For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and give his life a ransom for many.”

No man pays a ransom without the certainty of the deliverance of those for whom it is paid. It is not a ransom unless it actually redeems. And an offering is not sacrifice unless it actually expiates and propitiates. The effect of a ransom and sacrifice may indeed be conditional, but the occurrence of the condition will be rendered certain before the costly sacrifice is offered (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, vol. 2 p. 548).

Dr. Bowman agrees that “ransom” in Mt. 20:28 with the preposition anti (in exchange for) used with ransom is limited to believers.

Soteriologicaly, the “many” (Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45) would be limited to only those set free by the purchase price . . . Therefore, this preposition anti is not necessarily a proof for universal provision as it views those only who are actually purchased. However, it does not exclude the fact that Christ’s death was in behalf of (or, for the benefit of ) others as will be discussed later (Dr. Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p.25).

Dr. Bowman went on to discuss the preposition “huper” which does have a universal provision meaning as in 1 Tim. 2:6 where Paul said that Christ gave himself a ransom “for all men” (antilutron huper panton).

Paul combines the two words and uses the preposition huper which carries the idea of substitution as well as the connotation of benefit. Five-point Calvinists limit the panton (“all”) to a relative sense of all races (Jews and Gentiles) or to all kinds of men. But it is obvious that Paul is using anthropos in a generic sense as referring to mankind not classes or races. Compare the “all men” (vss. 2, 4) and “men” (v. 5) with the tous andras of verse 8. The panton modifies the noun (“men”). It would be rather unnecessary and redundant to say that God desires that all classes of men be saved (v.4) and that Christ is a mediator between God and all races or kinds of men (v.5). This is unnecessary as God’s decree is not necessarily concerned with races but with individuals (Dr. Bowman, pages 27, 28).

Here is how Millard Erickson answers this view:

Equally compelling is 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul says that Christ Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all.” This is to be compared with the original statement in Matthew 20:28, where Jesus had said that the Son of man came “to give his life as a ransom for many.” In 1 Timothy, Paul makes a significant advance upon the words of Jesus. “His life” (tan psuchan autou) becomes “himself” (haeuton); the word is “ransom” (lutron) appears in compound form (antilutron). But most significantly here, “for many” (anti pollon) becomes “for all” (huper panton). When Paul wrote, the words of the tradition (i.e., as they appear in Matthew) may well have been familiar to him. It is almost as if he made a deliberate point of emphasizing that the ransom was universal in its purpose (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, pages 830, 831).

These comments by Dr. Bowman and Erickson also refute the Five-point Calvinist’s definition of “all” meaning “all without distinction” verses the biblical definition of “all” which is “all without exception” in passages like 1 Tim. 2:1-6.

2. Arminianism is the belief that Christ died for all.

In 1609, the Five Arminian Articles or the Remonstrance were written by the followers of Jacob Arminius “in opposition to those parts of the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism which stressed what came to be known as the five points of Calvinism, which were later set forth at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p.36).

The Five Points of Arminianism

I. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.

II. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved.

III. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed.

IV. This grace may be resisted.

V. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation. (Roger Nicole, “Arminianism,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960, p. 64).

Article II of the Five Arminian articles elaborates the meaning of Christ’s death. Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the work of the Gospel of John 3:16 (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, III New York: Harper and Son Publishers, 1919).

Robert Lightner insightfully informs as to the true meaning of this apparently harmless statement and the importance of the word “obtained.”

The crucial point of this statement regarding the purpose and extent of the atonement centers in the word “obtained.” This is precisely the Arminian view, not only that Christ’s death provided salvation for all but that His death obtained it for all.  This explains, of course, why Arminianism believes each member of Adam’s race possesses sufficient grace to be saved . . . this strikes at the very heart of that great Biblical doctrine of total depravity. Total depravity means that man possesses nothing nor can he do anything to merit favor before God . . . This means in reality that the decision to believe or not to believe is quite unrelated to the election purposes of God or the effectual working of the Holy Spirit but rests ultimately and entirely with the individual (The Death Christ Died, pages 37-40).

The sufficient grace of Arminianism is in contrast to efficacious grace of God or the effective calling of the Holy Spirit referred to by Ryrie in chapter 56 in Basic Theology.

3. Limited Atonement is the belief that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect.

The views of the Arminians set forth in the Remonstrance of 1610 were examined and rejected as heretical at a national Synod in Dort, meeting from 1618 to November 13, 1619. Not only did the Synod reject the Remonstrance position but it also set out to present the true Calvinistic teaching in regard to the five matters called into question.

This they accomplished by stating what we know today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The term Calvinism was derived from the great reformer John Calvin (1509-1564), who along with many others expounded these views.

The “five points of Calvinism” presented at the Synod are as follows: (1) total depravity; (2) unconditional election; (3) limited atonement, or particular redemption; (4) irresistible grace, or the efficacious call of the Spirit; and (5) perseverance of the saints or eternal security (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p. 40).

What is ironic about the Calvinistic view of limited atonement is that Calvin did not hold to it.  Here is a quote from Calvin’s commentary on Galatians: “God commends to us the solution of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” Paul Hartog has written a new book on Calvin’s view of atonement where he documents Calvin’s view. Click here for a PDF http://www.baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/a-word-for-the-world.pdf

Concerning the limited atonement view that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect Dr. Bowman comments:

This is most certainly correct but this writer feels that such is too narrow to encompass the obvious Scriptural data concerning the provision that has been made for all men. Assuming this to be correct for sake of argument then the provisionary nature of Christ’s death is also an aspect of the divine decree (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p. 5).

Most limited atonement advocates believe in some form of “double predestination.”  “I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, as he certainly foreknew were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed” (Calvin, Christian Institutes, 2:23).

The term “double predestination” itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more that the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to “double predestination”—and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settle is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:22; Jude 4) (Phillip Johnson, Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism, www.spurgeon.org/-phil/articles/sup_infr.htm,p.1)

Condemnation in Scripture is based on the sinner’s actions of rejection, not God’s reprobation (2nd Thess. 1:8).

Often the phrase, the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, is use by unlimited redemptionist, but incorrectly used as Robert Lightner states.

Though those among Calvinists who accept limited atonement thus confine the extent of the atonement to the elect, it should not be thought that they limit the sufficiency or value of Christ’s death. This they do not do. The usual statement coming from them is to the effect that the death of Christ was sufficient for all men but efficient only for the elect. This statement is intended by limited redemptionists to satisfy those who object to their limited view. But does it really answer the difficulties raised by the scriptural passages which teach the universality of the atonement? What they really mean when they say Christ’s death was sufficient for all is that His blood was of such infinite value that no more could have been required of the Father had He intended the Son’s death to extend to all men (Lightner, p.43).

1. Five point Limited Atonement sees the atonement as unlimited in the value of the atonement as just presented by Lightner. This view has the provision of Christ’s atonement only for the elect.

2. Driscoll’s Unlimited/limited Atonement is unlimited in the benefit of the atonement. The benefit of the atonement is similar to Common Grace which some of the Reformed men have accused him of teaching.

3. Unlimited Atonement sees the atonement as unlimited in provision for all. Driscoll never uses the word provision in his unlimited view and therefore I see his view as not fully Biblical. Only Unlimited Atonement has provision for all not just the elect.

4. Unlimited Atonement is the belief that the death of Christ accomplished two purposes: He provided the basis for the salvation of all people and He secured the salvation of believers.

The position is also referred to sometimes as Amyraldianism or three or four-point Calvinism.

In France the controversy continued largely around Moise Amyraut (Moses Amyraldus) who taught at the Academy of Saumur and John Cameron who also taught for a short time at the same school. Both men did not believe in limited atonement. Amyraut became the theological father of four-point Calvinism . . . Such men as Charles C. Ryrie and John Walvoord could be classified as four-point Calvinists (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, pages 2 and 5).

“The Scriptures represents the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the atonement therefore is limited, but the application of the atonement through the work of the Holy Spirit” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 771).

“Christ most certainly died to secure the salvation of those who believe and it is our conviction that the Bible teaches that Christ died to provide a basis of salvation for all men” (Lightner, p. 46).

A. Biblical references that relate the atonement to believers only.

All five-point Calvinists inevitably foster to some degree a limitation upon kosmos references pertaining to the soteriological import. This limitation is usually shown by pointing out references (such as Luke 2:1; Jn. 1:10; 12:29; Acts 11:28; 19:27; 24:5; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:6; Rev. 13:3, etc.) that cannot mean everyone within the world. Such limited redemptionists as Symington, Pink, Berkhof, and Shedd may be consulted. It must be conceded that such references as above, and others, could have such a limitation placed upon them (Bowman, p.30).

Hodge is an example of this reasoning: “Every assertion, therefore that Christ died for a people, is a denial of the doctrine that He died equally for all” (Charles Hodge, p. 549).

These passages do not state that Christ only died for believers. Because Christ died for the whole, He also died for a specific part. But to say that Christ only died for believers contradicts the universal passages. Isaiah 53:5 says that Christ died for Israel: “He was wounded for our transgression.” Does this mean that only Jews can be saved? Isaiah 53:6 says Israel was sinful: “All we like sheep have gone astray.” Is total depravity limited to Jews? Matthew 1:21 says that “Christ shall save his people from their sins.” Would limited redemptionists say that Gentiles cannot be saved because of this verse? In Galatians 2:20, Paul limited the death of Christ to himself: “The Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Does this mean that Christ only died for Paul and none other because of the limitations of Galatians. 2:20?

B. There are verses that teach Christ died for all people.

Peter in 2 Peter 2:1 teaches that the Lord died for all people, even those who do not get saved, and thus, false teachers. Both Dr. Bowman and Charles Ryrie give extended explanations of this verse. Both Dr. Bowman and Ryrie state that limited redemptionists explain that this verse does say that the Lord “bought” the false teachers, but that this verse is what the false teachers claimed and Peter only recorded their denial. One example is Louis Berkhof.

The most plausible explanation of these passages is that given by Smeaton, as the interpretation of Piscator and of the Dutch annotations, namely, “that these false teachers are described according to their own profession and the judgment of charity. They gave themselves out as redeemed men, and were so accounted in the judgment of the Church while they abode in her communion? (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941, p. 397).

However, the normal sense of language has Peter stating the fact that these false teachers denied the Lord who paid for their sins on the cross, thus stressing the depth of their apostasy.

I like the way Robert Lightner ends his book The Death He Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement on page 148 with a proper conclusion and moment of worship of Christ our Savior, who died in our place, and the whole world.

The death Christ was a death in the place of all men—a death which accomplished a work that completely satisfied God the Father. It was a death which provided life for every member of Adam’s lost race who has ever lived or ever shall live—a death that made it possible for the Father to be just and at the same time the Justifier of any sinner who does nothing more that receive Christ as personal Savior.

Inspiration of Scripture: “Who or What was Inspired?”

Posted: September 19, 2009 in Bible
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

There are primarily two views on this subject of who or what was inspired in the inspiration process of writing Scripture.

1. THE AUTHORS WERE INSPIRED TO WRITE THE INSPIRED WORD

A. H. Strong wrote, “The inspiration of the Scripture writers” (Systematic Theology, 212, 213). Charles Hodge wrote similarly, “Inspired men the organs of God” (Systematic Theology, 156). Erickson, in his usual middle of two views position, wrote, “Inspiration is herein conceived of as applying to both the writer and the writing” (219). Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad “The New Testament was originally written by its inspired authors in the Greek language” (The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, p. ix).

I think some of these men were not thinking or writing technically about inspiration but more popularly. Sometimes when we are preaching or teaching on some other subject besides inspiration we say in passing, “God inspired the authors of Scripture” without stopping to give a lecture on the difference.

2. THE WORDS WERE INSPIRED

“What is the difference between inspiration and inscripturation? Inscripturation is the work of the Holy Spirit by which He guided the minds of the human authors and writers so that they chose the precise words necessary to accurately reflect the exact truth God intended, while reflecting their own personality, writing style, vocabulary, and cultural context. Inspiration refers to the God-breathed character of the written autographs of Scripture which constitute the exact expression of God’s revealed truth. In other words, inscripturation refers to the Spirit-directed process by which the Bible was put into writing, whereas inspiration refers to the product—the character of the written text that was inscripturated.” (Dr. Robney Decker in Paraklesis).

Charles Ryrie, “God superintended the human authors of the Bible so that they composed and recorded without error His message to mankind in the words of their original writings” (Basic Theology, 71). Ryrie does not use the word inspiration in reference to the writers of Scripture only the written Word.

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix wrote “in literal biblical terminology, inspiration is the process by which Spirit-moved writers recorded God-breathed writings. Hence, when inspiration is viewed as a total process, it includes both the writer and the writings; but, when it is seen as a product (as in II Tim. 3:16), it relates only to the writings (graphe). This picture is well summarized in Hebrews 1:1 “God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets,” to which II Timothy 3:16 would add the thought “in their writings” (emphasis supplied) (A General Introduction to the Bible, 27).

This is the view I prefer, not because these men hold to that view, but because the only time “inspiration” is used in the Bible, 2 Timothy 3:16, it is used in reference to God’s Word and not the writers. And in 2 Peter 1:21, when the authors of Scripture are being referred to, “inspiration” is not used.

Older Entries