ARROWS ASTRAY

INTRODUCTION

Today, our Pastor told a rather humorous story about a terrible mistake he had made while playing a round of golf with some friends. Apparently, his drive had been fairly decent, and he had thought he had an opportunity to be on, or at least near, the green in two strokes. He pulled what he thought was the appropriate club from his bag, addressed the ball, and hit what, quite possibly, was the best shot of his life. As he watched his shot, he stood in amazement while a sense of euphoria swept over him. Then his moment of glory and awe was interrupted by the roaring laughter of his friends. When he asked what was so funny they replied, “That was a fantastic shot, the only problem is you were aiming at the wrong green.”

The same is true in archery or in any other sport for that matter. We must be certain we are aiming at the right target. It matters not how carefully we may aim or with what finesse we may discharge the arrow. If the arrow is aimed at the wrong target, it is bound to be an arrow astray.

Consider what happens in the theological arena when a person is doctrinally disoriented. It makes no difference how eloquently he may speak or with what passion he may deliver his message; his most carefully chosen proof-texts will be arrows astray, since they have been aimed at the wrong target. The problem we are describing is caused by beginning with faulty presuppositions.

To change the metaphor, imagine what would happen if you began to type with your fingers on the wrong home keys on the keyboard. This is how the preceding sentence would appear—yp vjsmhr yjr ,rys[jpt. o,shomr ejsy epi;f js[[rm og upi brhsm yp [u[r eoyj upit gomhrt pm yjr etpmh jp,r lrud pm yjr lrunpstf. What went wrong with my typing? Did I fail to control my fingers adequately to insure they struck the key my brain prompted them to strike? No, my fingers went exactly were my brain told them to go. In fact, they went into exactly the same relative position they were in when I typed the first sentence. What, then, was the problem? The answer is simple; I began in the wrong place. Because of that error, everything I did subsequently was errant.

The same is true in the realm of theology. Anytime we begin with the wrong presuppositions, unless we reason illogically, we are bound to arrive at the wrong conclusion. Golf balls hit toward the wrong green, unless they are terribly hooked or sliced, will invariably land on the wrong green; arrows shot at the wrong target will, even when aimed with the greatest precision, inevitably be arrows astray; verses of Scripture, when viewed through the spectacles of faulty presuppositions, will consistently be misinterpreted.

If we ever hope to make any progress toward unanimity in our theological views, we must begin by discussing our presuppositions instead of arguing about our conclusions. Then, we must be certain our presuppositions are drawn from the Scriptures properly and contextually interpreted, not from our own emotionally and sentimentally charged opinions. In the following pages, my purpose is to examine a number of faulty presuppositions that have either been erroneously derived from or imposed on misunderstood and misinterpreted proof texts. Then, I want to suggest what our presuppositions ought to be if we base them on the plain teaching of Scripture.

What are some of the presuppositions that have controlled the interpretations of those who espouse the Arminian position? The following are only a few of them:

Many issues raised by those who believe in God’s sovereignty in salvation are unimportant, and have brought unnecessary division in the body of Christ.
God loves all sinners equally and in the same way.
God would not be fair unless he at least gave everyone a chance to hear the gospel and believe. He owes everyone an opportunity.
God’s purpose is determined by what he foresaw would occur.
Though God has all power, he has determined to limit his sovereign power by the boundaries of the sinner’s “free will” decision.
6. Though all are sinners when we are born, God has determined to give us all the ability to believe if only we would exercise it properly. He never gives one sinner a greater enabling than he gives to another.
7. If Jesus had not provided salvation for everyone when he died, God would have no basis on which to judge sinners, since he really didn’t provide an adequate opportunity for them to be saved.
8. The Holy Spirit does his best to convert every sinner, but the sinner can effectively thwart his best efforts.
9. Those who are consistent Arminians believe it is within the power of the sinner’s will to decide to stop believing. Those who apostatize were at one time truly believers who, at whatever point they chose, could stop believing and be eternally lost.
10. Many, willing to be inconsistent with their belief in the freedom of the will, believe sinners who choose to believe are saved for eternity no matter what they do. In reality, they believe the unconverted have twice the “free will” believers have. Unbelievers have the power to choose to believe or not to believe. Believers can never choose to be lost again. Those who fail to manifest evidence of saving faith are merely thought of as “carnal Christians.”

If the proponents of the “free will” doctrine can demonstrate, by an exegetically sound interpretation of plain Scripture texts, that these are sound presuppositions, the debate will be over. If, on the other hand, we can show there is no biblical foundation for these suppositions, perhaps they will at least stop their railing against us long enough to give these matters a little serious thought.

Are these verses, as discharged from the drawn bows of “free will” believers, solid evidence of biblical and theological truth, or are they merely arrows astray? Let’s find out.


CHAPTER 1
THE SECRET
THINGS
Deuteronomy 29:29

Every time I think of this verse it reminds me of a story a friend of mine once told me about two men he knew. It seems these two men had been arguing about deep theological matters for which they could neither find reasonable solutions nor arrive at an agreement concerning a resolution to a number of thorny problems. Finally, in an attempt to be conciliatory, one of the men, intending to give his friend the reference to this well-known verse, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God. . . .”(Deut. 29:29), said to the other, “Go home and read Deuteronomy 28:28.” When his friend arrived home, he immediately looked up the reference and read, “The LORD will smite you with madness and blindness and confusion of heart.”

There are times when we must acknowledge that the biblical waters into which we have waded are over our heads. In fact, there may be times when we feel the Lord has indeed smitten us with madness, blindness, and confusion of heart. Then, the Spirit gently reminds us of the Apostle’s words in Romans 11:33, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past tracing out!”

How humbling it is when we plumb the depths of our theological understanding and quickly hit bottom. At such times we must remember there are certain truths God has kept secret for himself into which we dare not intrude. There is mystery that surrounds the doctrines of the Trinity, the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Jesus, the Christ, the nature of God’s decree, divine sovereignty and human responsibility and many others. Though God has revealed to us many truths about himself, there are many areas in which we find ourselves unable to fully comprehend his attributes. In fact, one of his attributes is his inscrutability. We simply cannot fully fathom the depths of his being and his ways with men. Someone has remarked that it is when we try to unscrew the inscrutable that we get into trouble. This is just to say we should never seek to comprehend God or his truth beyond that which he has made known to us in the Holy Scriptures. John Calvin wrote,

. . . .let us remember that the human mind enters a labyrinth whenever it indulges its curiosity, and thus submit to be guided by the divine oracles, how much soever the mystery may be beyond our reach.[1]

Yet, though there is danger in delving into matters God has kept secret, that is not the problem I wish to address in this chapter. It can hardly be said of professing Christians of our day that we think too much. Our problem is we have almost come to believe it sinful to think at all. Remember, the same text that tells us the secret things belong to the LORD our God, also tells us the revealed things belong to us and to our children. For example, God has surely kept secret his reasons for choosing some for salvation and passing over all the rest. The only reason he gives in Scripture is that it was well pleasing in his sight. Yet, he has revealed to us that he made that choice before the world was created. It is wrong for us to speculate concerning the reasons for God’s eternal choice of his loved one, but it is equally wrong for us not to meditate on the glorious truth that God has set his love on his people from all eternity.

There are several questions we should consider when we seek to determine what God’s people ought to know. One such question concerns what is revealed. What has God made known? Does the Bible say anything about God’s eternal purpose? Does he tell us whether faith causes regeneration or regeneration causes faith? Has he made known to us anything at all about the purpose of Christ’s death relative to his eternal decree? Of course, the answer to all these questions is yes.

A second question is then in order. To whom were these truths revealed? Did God move holy men to make these matters known only to select groups of ivory tower theologians? Did he reserve knowledge of his eternal purposes for pastors and teachers and give them the prerogative to conceal them from ordinary Christians? Of course not! He has revealed these truths to ordinary people. He intends ordinary people to know them and profit from them.

People often speak of “practical theology.” I submit to you that all theology is practical theology. If God has revealed it to us in his Word, you can be sure he had a reason for doing so. That does not mean all revealed truth will be “practical” in the popular sense of that word. There is nothing more practical than a study of the attributes of God, but I may not understand how to directly apply all I know about God to my secular job on Monday morning. Yet, when I have wept over some painful loss until I have no more power to weep, then I can encourage myself in the LORD, my God. It is not for me to question whether what God has revealed is practical for my spiritual growth. He who has revealed it knows what I need far more than I. Additionally; it is not the prerogative of the shepherds of God’s flock to withhold any portion of his revealed truth. When Paul gave his farewell address to the Ephesian elders, he declared his faithfulness in declaring all God’s truth to them. He said,

Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God (Acts 20:26-27).

One problem that plagues today’s church is false shepherds who teach what they know people want to hear instead of what we need to hear. This plight is reminiscent of the situation Jeremiah describes in his day. He wrote, “A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land. The prophets prophesy lies, the priest rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way” (Jeremiah 5:30-31). Is it any wonder the church lacks power when non-Christians or at best immature Christians are controlling its spiritual diet?

There is one final question I would like to ask before I leave this subject. Who has the authority to decide what truth is important and what truth is not? Who has the right to say, for example, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is important, but the doctrine of eternal election is not? Would a true child of God have any problem provoking controversy if his shepherd were proclaiming that justification before God is partially based on the sacrifice of Christ and partly on the works of the believer? Of course not! Would anyone who understood the gospel blame him if he refused to listen to such false teaching? In truth, those who love God’s truth would applaud him if he challenged such teaching and censure him if he did not. Now ask yourself a question. What often happens if someone begins to challenge someone who teaches that God has done the best he can do to save sinners and his plan will fail if we, Christians, don’t do our job? Or suppose he takes issue with one who teaches that sinners are really the ones who are in control in the matter of eternal salvation. Even if God made some kind of choice, his choice was merely a rubber stamp of the decision he had foreseen the sinner would make. Are there not those who tell him that such matters are not really important? “All that is really important,” they say, “is faith in Christ.”

The answer to our question is only God has the authority to determine what is important truth for God’s people to know and what is unimportant for our life and growth in grace. How can we know the difference? The answer is simple. He has revealed what is important and kept secret those truths we do not presently need to know. In other words, anything God has revealed is important and worth understanding precisely as he intended. We cannot afford to be sloppy and imprecise about our understanding of spiritual truth any more than a musician can afford to be imprecise about the notes he plays. What one of us is willing to tolerate imprecision in our doctor, our hair dresser, our chef, or our airline pilot? Yet, in matters that concern our eternal welfare, it seems anything goes as long as the preacher or teacher is warm, sweet and has a heart for people. What we need today is men who have a heart for God and a mind willing to engage in the hard task of biblical scholarship. If God is worth knowing at all, he is worth knowing exactly as he has revealed himself in his Word.



CHAPTER 2
FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD
John 3:16

The Popular Understanding of the Verse

John 3:16 has been called the most beloved verse in the Bible, yet this verse has been among the most misunderstood and misused verses in the Bible. It has often been used to show that any idea of sovereign election could not be true since “God loves everyone and loves everyone equally.” We are told, “God is doing the best he can to save everyone, but he can’t unless they let him.” Our purpose is to consider the words and phrases of this verse one by one and discover the meaning the author intended when he penned these glorious words.

FOR--looks back to what John wrote in verse fifteen concerning the correspondences between the serpent Moses lifted on a pole in the wilderness and the Son of man who was lifted up on the cross and, on account of the cross, to glory. Just as the serpent was lifted up for all to see, so the Son is lifted up in the sight of all who hear the gospel as the grand remedy for all sinful ills. If this lifting up had not occurred, the entire race would have perished in sin. Jesus has been lifted up so that anyone and every one who believes on him might be saved. We are to understand this “might be” in the sense that such salvation would never have been possible had he not been lifted up. Here is a universal call of the gospel. All who hear the gospel are freely invited to look and live. The only qualification anyone must have as his warrant for looking in faith to Jesus is that he is a poor, helpless sinner who is perishing in his sins. All without exception who look in this way will be delivered from the guilt, power, and penalty of their sins. By the evangelist’s use of the word “for” in verse sixteen, he intends to inform his readers that this universal offer flows from God’s universal love.

GOD SO LOVED- the Greek word translated “so” may refer not only to the intensity of God’s love but also to the manner in which he has expressed that love. It concerns not only the extent to which God loved the world but also to the manner in which he loved the world. In the words that follow, the evangelist will describe the manner in which God loved members of this fallen race. This love of God is an uncaused love. It matters not whether the objects of that love were elect or non-elect sinners; in either case the loved ones were undeserving and instead deserved God’s wrath and curse.

THE WORLD--The popular misconception is that John used the word translated “world” to denote every human being without exception. That misconception is further complicated by the unwarranted assumption that God has loved all sinners in the same way and to the same extent. There is no question God grants common grace to all without exception though even that universal beneficence is given by degrees. Some have greater light than others. Though it was gracious of God to give his Son to die in the sight of all (As Paul said to Festus, “These things were not done in a corner.” (Acts 26:26)), it is a mistake to infer from this that it was God’s intention, in giving his Son, to save all sinners. John clearly states the purpose God intended to accomplish in giving his Son. It was that “the ones who believe might not perish. . . .”
As we intend to show, the idea that God’s purpose is the salvation of all sinners without exception is clearly contrary to the teaching of a host of other clear passages. If we insist John is telling us God’s love extends to all without exception and that he loves all equally, we will be forced to accept the conclusion that his “love” is reduced to a sentimental but ineffectual wish. If God’s love is both universal in the sense that “world” is taken to refer to all without exception and effectual (as far as it goes), it cannot be conceived as anything other than general beneficence toward his creation. It must be a love that does not redeem; a love that does not deliver from sin.

Why Use the Word, “World?”

But, you might ask, if John did not intend us to understand that God loves all without exception and loves them equally, why did he use the word “world?” He used this word for several reasons.

First, he used it to connote the fallen nature of those whom God loved. The term has negative moral connotations. It was fallen creatures; creatures who had rebelled against God and deserved his everlasting curse whom God loved. By placing the words “God” and “world” side by side, the evangelist draws a stark contrast between those whom God loved and the infinitely holy being who loved them. Thus, John used the word to show God’s great condescension in loving and coming to the rescue of his fallen creatures. It was this great mystery of condescension the puritan, Joseph Alline was describing when he wrote, “There was everything in us to turn God’s stomach but nothing to turn his heart.”

At times, Jesus and the New Testament writers used the term “world” to denote the world of unbelievers. Warning his disciples of what they would face after his departure Jesus said, “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:19). In John seventeen, he prayed for those whom God had given him out of the world. He said, “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). Probably the most frequently overlooked aspect of John’s use of the word translated “world” is the true and biblical universality of God’s love. It seems likely John was using the word “world” to counteract a tendency toward Jewish exclusivism. The common idea among the Jewish people of his day was that God would send the Messiah to save Israel and condemn the “world.” To them, the world consisted of anyone who was not a member of the covenant nation. In other words, the world consisted of the Gentile nations. John’s purpose was to rid them of this idea and show them God’s love extended to all without distinction. The Son is given for sinners of all nations so that whoever among them believes might be saved. This true and biblical universalism is reflected in the song of the twenty-four elders as they praise the Lamb for his redeeming grace. They sang, “You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; For you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests unto our God; and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:9). Many of us learned a helpful little song when we were barely able to talk that explains exactly what John had in mind. I goes like this,

Jesus loves the little children;
All the children of the world--
Red and Yellow, black and white,
They are precious in his sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

The phrase, “All the children of the world” clearly refers to all without distinction (Red and yellow, black and white), not all without exception.

Speaking at the council of Jerusalem, Peter described how “God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name.” See Acts 15:7-14).

We are not suggesting, as some have, that the word “world” refers to the world of the elect. The question of election or non-election per se is not even posed in this context. Instead, we are arguing that John used the term to instruct us that God’s design in sending his uniquely begotten Son extended far beyond the borders of the covenant nation, Israel. He did not send his Christ to condemn the world, i.e., the Gentile nations, but that the world might be saved. It was the world he loved, not the nation of Israel alone.

THAT HE GAVE HIS ONE AND ONLY SON

The result of God’s love is that he gave his one and only Son not merely to live as one of us but to die a death that we deserved. We cannot escape the conclusion that when the evangelist penned these words he was thinking of God’s command to Abraham in Genesis twenty-two, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering. . .” (v.2). In the context of that narrative, even while Isaac was under the knife of the divine sentence, God provided himself a sacrifice. He provided a substitute to die in the place of the chosen seed, Isaac. Now in a far greater way, God, in sovereign grace and mercy, has provided himself a sacrifice in graciously giving his son to suffer and die in the place of all who will believe in him. No wonder the hymn-writer exclaimed,

O the love that drew salva­tions plan!
O the grace that brought it down to man!
O the mighty gulf that God did span at Calvary.
Mercy there was great and grace was free.
Pardon there was multiplied to me.
There my burdened soul found liberty-- at Calvary.

William R. Newell


THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH. . . .

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who believe the phrase “whosoever will” means EVERYONE. Everyone would have to include the whosoever will nots as well as the whosoever wills, would it not? The same is true of the phrase “whosoever believeth.” Had the phrase been translated, “in order that everyone who believes in

him might not perish, but have everlasting life,” the misunderstanding might not have gained such strength. It is God’s purpose to save all who will believe in Christ, not all sinners whether they will believe or not.

It was not John’s purpose in this verse to explain the source of saving faith or why it is that some believe and some do not. It was not his purpose here to explain that no sinner will ever choose to come to Jesus unless God draws him effectually. It was his purpose in this verse to set forth the free and universal offer of the gospel. To the truth that whoever believes the gospel will certainly be saved there is no exception. None will ever perish who rests his hope in Christ. It is also without controversy that all who believe will have eternal life.

What is God’s Design According to John’s Gospel?

The problem emerges when well meaning people begin to read ideas into the verse that neither the human nor the divine author intended. To suggest, based on this verse, that it is God’s purpose to save everyone is absurd. If we wish to inquire about God’s purpose, we should consult passages that actually concern the purpose of God in the salvation of sinners. Consider some of those passages with me. Though the Bible is replete with passages that concern the purpose of God in the sinner’s salvation, for our purposes we will confine ourselves to the fourth Gospel. The first passage I would call to your attention is found in chapter six, beginning with verse thirty-seven. Jesus tells his hearers, “All that the Father is giving me shall come to me, and him that comes to me I will by no means cast out.” The focus in this verse seems to be on what the Father was currently doing, namely drawing sinners to Jesus. If the Father draws them, they will surely come to him. But, does the Father draw sinners randomly, or does he draw them according to an antecedent plan? Jesus’ answer is that he has come down from heaven to accomplish the will of the Father who sent him (v.38). And what, you might ask is that will? He answers, “This is the will of the Father who sent me, that of all he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (v.39). Here Jesus speaks not of those whom the Father is [present tense] giving him, but of those whom the Father has given him. When did this donation occur? There are two possibilities: he could be referring to those whom the Father has already drawn to him and enabled to believe, or he could be referring to those who were given to him in the decree of election before the world began. Something Jesus said in John chapter ten gives a clue to his meaning here. He tells us in verse sixteen, “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear my voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” Here he tells us he has these sheep already, but they have not yet heard his voice [they will hear my voice]. It seems clear, then, that his reference must be to a gift that was given before time began. Can this will of the Father to save his chosen people through Christ be thwarted by the “free will” of the sinner? No! Jesus says, “Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice. . . .” Finally, consider Jesus’ words in John seventeen, verses one and two. He prayed, “ “ . .Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you, as you have given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as you have given him..

These verses, among a host of others in the Bible, make it clear that God is sovereign in the salvation of sinners as in every other realm. Unless the Father gives them grace, drawing them effectually to his Son, sinners will never come to Jesus in saving faith. Our God is not a well-meaning but helpless old man who wishes the best for his creatures but has no ability to effect his benevolent wishes for them. He is a sovereign conqueror who always accomplishes what he has purposed. Those on whom he has set his everlasting love will certainly be his forever.







CHAPTER 3
GOD IS NOT WILLING
2 Peter 3:9

To the question, “Who is responsible if sinners perish in their sins?” we answer unequivocally, it is the sinner alone who must bear the burden of his guilt before God. God’s free offer of mercy in Christ is sincere and openly and universally pub­lished. His self-dis­closure in His created universe, in the human conscience, in His commandments and in His Christ is so resplendent that only crea­tures whose hearts have been blind­ed by sin could fail to see His glory. In fact, the Apostle Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, has informed us that God has revealed Himself in such a way that He would leave us sinners without a reasonable defense if we refuse to glorify Him as God (Romans 1:20-21).

Yet, this is not the only question we must con­sider if we would be responsible students of God’s Word. We must also ask, who is responsible if sinners turn from their sins, embrace Christ in saving faith and enjoy God’s glorious presence for a blissful eternity? Again, our answer and the consistent answer of Scripture is that it is God and God alone who saves sinners all by Himself.

Some, apparently in a well-meaning but misguided effort to protect God’s character and emphasize the sinner’s responsibility, have imagined a God who never intended for anyone to be lost and has limited His sovereignty in this matter to the imagined freedom of the human will or made the success of His efforts to save sinners contingent on the faithfulness of Christians to spread the gospel. Such an idea is reflected in a line from a well-known gospel song that reads, “Jesus would save, but there’s no one to tell them, . . .” Is God so impotent He can find no one to tell them? Where is the verse that tells us God has limited His sovereignty in the salvation of sinners to the almighty “free will” of man?

One of the stock proof texts in the arsenal of those who would protect God from any charge of unfairness to sinners is 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord. . .is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” This text is often cited as the absolute proof that God is really helpless in the matter of the sinner’s salvation. “If the sinner goes to hell, we are told, it is not because of God’s will but because of the sinner’s will.” Now, there is little question the Scripture teaches that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the sinner turn from the evil or his way and live. Because He is righteous and holy, He cannot but desire that His creatures also be righteous and holy. In His mercy and com­passion, God stretches out His arms to His erring creatures and invites us to return. Yet, though we believe this is clear and incontrovertible truth, it does not tell the entire story. These truths concern the character of a God who delights in mercy. The other issue that is most often ignored concerns God’s eternal decree to glorify Himself in the salvation of sinners. We believe it is impossible to interpret 2 Peter 3:9 as it is commonly understood if we understand the Bible’s teaching about God’s eternal and immutable decree.

We would call your attention, first, to the ellipsis points in the citation of the verse in question. Ellipsis points are inserted to indicate that a portion of a text has been omitted. It is always a good rule of thumb to beware of the dots. We should always ask what has been omitted and why? We must always consider the context out of which proof texts have been extracted. What is the subject under discussion? How does the text fit into that discussion? Does the text appear to be in contradiction to any other portion of the Scripture and, if so, how can the seemingly contradictory texts be reconciled. It is in the effort to seek reconciliation between such texts that theologians are born. The reason we have so few good theolo­gians in our day is that most are accustomed to sweep­ing under the rug any texts they can’t fit into their “theological systems.”

We rarely hear any quote 2 Peter 3:9 fully and in context. This is how the entire verse reads, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” These words should immediately raise the following questions in your mind.

1. To what promise does Peter refer?

2. How have some counted Him slack [slow] in fulfilling that promise?

3. Who are those who have considered Him slow concerning his promise?

4. Are those he calls “us” different from the “some who have considered him slow concerning His promise?”

5. Does the text say anywhere God has willed to save all sinners?

6. Is there anything in the context that tells us what the effect of God’s longsuffering will be?

If we answer these questions correctly according to the context, it will be impossible for us to hold on to the erroneous belief that God is willing to save sinners, but they just won’t let Him. This view of an impotent deity is absolutely foreign to the Scriptures.

Let’s take these questions one by one and see where the context leads us.

1. To what promise does Peter refer?

Verses three through eight make it clear that the promise about which Peter is writing is the promise of the Lord’s coming to judge and destroy ungodly men. “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this ‘coming’ he promised.”

2. How have some counted Him slack [slow] in fulfilling that promise?

They have scoffed at the idea of judgment and implied He will never come and punish them for ungodliness and unrighteous behavior.

3. Who are those who have considered Him slow concerning his promise?

These are the scoffers Peter has mentioned.

4. Are those he calls “us” different from the “some who have considered him slow concerning His promise?”

Peter clearly distinguishes between these scoffers and those he calls “beloved [dear friends NIV]” and “us.” In this context, he does not talk about God’s longsuffering toward the scoffers but His longsuffering toward “us.” In other passages other New Testament writers address the issue of God’s patience toward the ungodly and state the effects of that patience. In Romans 2:4-5, Paul states that God’s patience and kindness that should cause the sinner to repent actually has the effect of sinners treasuring up more wrath for the day of God’s wrath and judgment. In Romans nine, twenty-two Paul tells us God bears with great patience the objects of His wrath so that He might show His wrath and make His power known. In neither of these cases does the space God gives sinners to repent have any saving effect on the non-elect.

5. Does the text say anywhere God has willed to save all sinners?

The answer is a simple “no.” Before we finish this discussion, we want to address the issue further and ask what would happen if God had willed the salvation of all sinners.

6. Is there anything in the context that tells us what the effect of God’s longsuffering will be?

Yes. Peter states in verse fifteen that. . .our Lord’s patience [longsuf­fering] means salvation. . .. In other words, the Lord’s patience eventuates not in the frustration of His purpose but in the salvation of His people. He is longsuffering toward us, not wishing that any of us (His beloved ones) should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance. Interestingly, the text says nothing about God wishing that anyone repent. A better translation would be, “ “ . .but on the contrary, that all should have room for repentance..

Now, consider the popular assumption that God has willed the salvation of all sinners. First, ask whether there is a text of Scripture that states this concept. I suggest one does not exist unless the reader reads the concept into the verse. Second, ask whether such an assertion would contradict other clear statements of Scripture. What does the Bible tell us about everything God has decreed? The answer is unmistakable. God’s will always comes to pass. If God had willed the salvation of all sinners, all sinners would be saved. God always accomplishes what He has purposed. Consider the following verses.

Psalm 115:3 “But our God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases him.”

Isaiah 46:9-11 “Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say; My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. From the east, I summon a bird of prey; from a far off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.”

Daniel 4:35 “All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: ‘What have you done?’”

These are just a few of the texts that teach us that God acts according to His purpose [decree], and His purpose is never frustrated. What God has willed certainly comes to pass exactly as He has willed it. God saves the sinners He tries to save. Not one of them is lost. Paul wrote,

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. Moreover, those he predestined, he also called, and those he called, he also justified, and those he justified, he also glorified. What shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us (Romans 8:28-31)?


CHAPTER 4
IF ANY MAN WILL OPEN THE DOOR
Revelation 3:20

Too often when a gospel invitation is given to sinners, it is issued in such a way that Jesus appears helpless to save. He is portrayed as an ineffectual, effeminate, impotent beggar standing at the door of the sinner’s heart seeking to gain entrance. He would come in, but the door has no latch on the outside, and even if it did, Jesus has no key. Unless the sinner unlocks the door by the key of his “free will,” Jesus can do no more than he has done.

Several years ago Ralph Carmichael reflected this characterization in a popular religious song entitled, “The Savior is Waiting.” He wrote,

The Savior is waiting to enter your heart-
Why don’t you let Him come in?
There’s nothing in this world to keep you apart-
What is your answer to Him?

If you take one step toward the Savior my friend,
You’ll find His arms open wide.
Receive Him and all of your darkness will end;
Within your heart He’ll abide.

Refrain
Time after time He has waited before,
And now He is waiting again
To see if you’re willing to open the door-
Oh how He wants to come in.

If you are an average evangelical Christian, you are probably wondering what is wrong with the picture we have portrayed. “After all,” you might ask, “doesn’t Jesus stand with outstretched arms waiting to embrace any sinner who repents and believes?” Of course, any who believe the Bible would reply with a resounding “Yes!” Additionally, you might ask whether it is not true that, in the gospel, Jesus expresses his desire that sinners repent and trust him alone for salvation. Again we would reply in the affirmative. Is it not also true, you might inquire, that Jesus shows great patience with sinners, giving them abundant space to turn and believe in him.? Again, you would hear no voice of dissent. Where, then, could we possibly find a problem with this cherished song?

The first problem we see with this song is it fails to recognize the deep rift sin has created between our holy God and defiant sinners when it says, “There’s nothing in this world to keep you apart.” The truth is, there is a great deal to keep sinners apart from a holy and sin hating God. On the one hand, there is God’s holy hatred of sin and of sinners who continue in rebellion against him. Of him the Psalmist wrote, “The arrogant cannot stand in your presence: you hate all who do wrong” (Psalm 5:5). Please notice the text does not tell us “God hates the sin but loves the sinner.” The universal message of the Bible is that God’s wrath remains on the sinner who remains outside of Christ. On the other hand, there is the sinner’s unholy hostility against God. Paul wrote, “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” (Romans 8:7). As long as a person remains in a state of sinful nature, he will never seek the Savior.

The second verse suggests that sinners have the ability to initiate a relationship with God on their own. It says,

“If you take one step toward the Savior my friend,
You’ll find His arms open wide.”

It is true if the sinner could take one step toward the Savior, he could take all the rest. The problem is because of sinful nature the sinner is running away from the Savior as fast as he can. Unless he is born from above, he will not and therefore cannot even take one little baby step in the right direction. If Jesus waited until sinners initiated the salvation process, he would wait in vain forever.

The third problem with this song is it gives the impression that Jesus is not only helpless, he is even ignorant of what the sinner’s decision will be. Look at the words!

Time after time He has waited before,
And now He is waiting again
To see if you’re willing to open the door-
Oh how He wants to come in.

Poor Jesus! He has done his best, but no one wants him. Isn’t this a pathetic view of our mighty Savior? Even those who believe God’s choice was based on the sinner’s “free will” decision believe Jesus at least knows beforehand what choice sinners will make. It is no wonder sinners don’t want to trust him with their eternal souls, if he is as impotent and ignorant as this song represents him to be

The verse that has been misinterpreted to produce this misrepresentation of the Savior is Revelation 3:20, in which Jesus says, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one will hear my voice and will open the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him and he with me.” There are several questions I would like to ask about this verse that, when answered properly, should show this verse was never intended to be used as it has been.

The first should be an obvious one. What is the context in which the words were spoken? Second, to whom is Jesus addressing these words? Third, how does the larger context describe the one who stands at the door knocking? Forth, does the verse tell us anything about whether the one addressed has the ability, unaided by divine grace, to answer Jesus’ entreaty and open the door?

First, the verse is found in a context [3:14-22] in which Jesus is admonishing one of the seven churches of Asia Minor because they had become lukewarm and felt they were rich , increased with goods and in need of nothing from him. He has told them they make him sick at his stomach so that he is about ready to vomit them out of his mouth. Yet, unwilling to leave them without encouragement, he holds forth this hope found in verse twenty. Though the church as a whole seems hopeless, Jesus offers to fellowship on an individual basis with any who will open to him.

Second, the verse is addressed not to sinners outside of Christ but to members of the church. Verse twenty-two says, “He that has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” There is nothing wrong with using the verse, by way of application, to invite sinners to Christ, since he indeed invites all to open to him, but this is not the interpretation of the verse.

One of the Puritan writers, John Flavel, preached an entire series of sermons on this text which he applies to Jesus offer of the gospel. [2] Yet, his treatment of the text differs markedly from its present day use. Among the ways it differs are these: 1. He makes it clear that the sinner has locked and barred the door and, if left to himself, will never let Jesus in. 2. He shows that the voice of Christ is more than an external call of the gospel. Instead, it is the internal call that enables the sinner to freely receive Jesus as he is offered in the gospel. Flavel wrote,

The external voice is evermore ineffectual and successless, when it is not animated by that internal spiritual voice. It was marvelous to see the walls of Jericho falling to the ground at the sound of ramshorns; there was certainly more than the force of an external blast to produce such an effect; but more marvelous it is, to see at the sound of the gospel, not only the weapons of iniquity falling out of sinner’s hands, but the very enmity itself out of their hearts. Here you see is a voice in a voice, an internal efficacy in the external sound; without which the gospel makes no saving impression.[3]

Third, it is important that we see who it is who stands at the door in Revelation 3:20. We need to replace in our minds the image presented by Holman Hunt’s painting of Jesus standing at the door with an image of the risen, glorious sovereign whom John sets before us in this context. Look at his description from chapter one of the Revelation. John wrote,

10I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a loud voice, like the sound of a trumpet, 11saying, ‘Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches. . . .’12And I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands; 13and in the middle of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His breast with a golden girdle. 14And His head and His hair were white like wool, like snow; And His eyes were like a flame of fire; 15and His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been caused to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. 16And in His right hand he held the seven stars; and out of
His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. 17And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, ‘Stop being afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of hades. . .’ (Revelation 1:10-18).

Though the description John gives is symbolical, it is clear the one he describes is no ineffectual wimp who elicits our sympathy. Here is one who could break down the door of the sinner’s heart if he wished. Of course, he does not need to since the voice of his effectual grace is the key that opens the sinner’s heart. If he holds the keys of death and hades, you can be sure he also holds the keys to the sinner’s heart. Hear Luke’s words when he describes the conversion of a woman named Lydia “ He wrote,

And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabric, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul (Acts 16:14).

A bit later in chapter eighteen, Luke speaks of Apollos’ ministry by which “he helped greatly those who had believed through grace” (v27). Sinners, left to themselves in a state of sinful nature, never believe the gospel. If sinners believe, it is because God, in grace, has enabled them.

The Bible never once speaks of sinners opening their hearts to the Lord. If the Bible never says it, why do we insist on doing so? Why not use biblical and theologically correct terminology when we preach the gospel? If you want to be honest in your presentations of the gospel, try doing and saying only what the apostolic message warrants you to do and say. Go only as far as they go. I challenge you to find one instance of the apostles asking sinners indiscriminately, “Do you know God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you life?” Incidentally, can you imagine a bumper sticker on the back of Noah’s ark that read, “Smile, God Loves You”? Try to find a passage in which, in the course of a gospel message, the apostles ever said, “Jesus died for you. Now you need to open the door of your heart and let him come in.” Don’t waste your time looking, because such a passage doesn’t exist. Most of our modern evangelical jargon has come not from the Bible but from fallacious and theologically vacuous “gospel songs.”

If you must insist on using this text in gospel presentations, say all the text says but only what the text says. Let sinners know who it is who stands outside seeking to gain entrance. Never give them the impression he is powerless to do anything about the hardness of their hearts. Never tell them the only door knob is on the inside. Never tell them Jesus has no key.

Our final question about this text is whether the text says anything about the sinner’s ability, unaided by grace, to open to the Savior. Of course, the answer is NO! Responsibility does not imply ability.

Should we urge sinners to welcome the Savior in saving faith? Absolutely! Do we believe it is within the sinner’s power to do so? Absolutely not! Paul wrote,

“The natural [soulish] man cannot [note he does not say “May not”] welcome the things of the Spirit of God, neither is he able to know them, because they are discerned by means of the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

We invite sinners to do what is impossible unless God calls them effectually. When Jesus’ disciples asked, “Who, then, can [is able to] be saved,” his answer was not “anyone can be.” Instead, he answered, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:27).

Don’t tell sinners what they can do. Tell them what they must do, and leave the rest to the sovereign power and grace of God.

If you must take your theology from hymns, let it be from such hymns as Joseph Hart’s time honored favorite “Come ye sinners.” He wrote,

Come ye sinners, poor and wretched,
Weak and wounded, sick and sore;
Jesus ready stands to save you,
Full of pity, joined with power.
He is able, He is willing; doubt no more.

Notice the balance. Not only is our Savior full of pity and compassion for sinners; that pity and compassion is joined with the power to do something about the sinner’s condition. Hart continues,

Let not conscience make you linger,
Nor of fitness fondly dream;
All the fitness he requireth
Is to feel your need of him;
This he gives you;
=Tis the Spirit=s rising beam.

Joseph Hart 1759






CHAPTER 5
YOU WILL NOT COME TO ME
John 5:39-40

ASearch the Scriptures: for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And you will not come to me, that ye might have life.@ (John 5:39-40)@

How often those who believe in the power of Afree will@ have imagined they have in these verses an excuse for their groundless teaching. In fact, if these verses teach anything, it is that even sinners well schooled in biblical truth are, if left to themselves, totally averse to God and his gospel. It was not the power of Afree will@ about which Jesus was speaking. Instead, he was confronting his hearers whose intensive biblical study had left them bereft of any spiritual desire to bow the knee to him as their sovereign Lord with their culpability in rejecting him.

According to Greek grammar it is possible to translate the first phrase of verse thirty-nine either as an indicative or an imperative. The King James translators opted for the imperative, ASearch the Scriptures,. as though these men were not already searching the Scriptures. It seems more likely, in light of the context, he intended the indicative, AYou are searching the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life.@ These were people who had dedicated their lives to the study of the Old Testament Scriptures. If anyone knew the central message of those writings, they should have known. Yet, despite all their scriptural knowledge, they had missed the Scripture’s most important message. Jesus said concerning those writings, Athey are they which testify of me. . . .@ To make matters worse, their problem was not one of intellectual deficiency but of spiritual depravity. Literally, Jesus said to them, AYou wish not to come to me that you might have life.@ To imagine that sinners possess the power of free will because they are able to reject the light is as illogical as the conclusion that a prisoner is free because he is able to embrace his shackles.

It is remarkable that Arminians are willing to expend such energy to defend a doctrine that is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. Where does the Scripture even mention the term Afree will@ apart from those references to a Afree will@ offering, which merely means an offering that was not commanded but freely given? That the biblical writers freely invite sinners to faith with expressions such as Awhosoever will [the one who is wishing] let him come and take of the water of life freely,@ is no indication that sinners have either the inclination or the ability to come.

Now, since I have been so audacious as to deny this cherished teaching, perhaps I should give reasons for doing so. In order to deal with this issue adequately we should first try to give a reasonable definition of the term “free will.”
For the Arminian, the term means that sinners are enabled by the power of prevenient grace to choose good as well as evil. In that sense, it seems most modern preachers and Bible teachers and certainly their hearers fall rather into the camp of the Pelagians. Most seem to believe sinners have an innate ability to choose to trust Jesus as Savior and bow to him as Lord that equals their ability to reject him. It is as if they believe every aspect of the sinner’s being has been affected by sin except for the will. For them, the will is like a little man running around inside the
man that is totally independent from the man himself. Of course, the entire issue is whether such a view can be supported by texts of Scripture.

When I deny that sinners possess freedom of the will, I am not denying that sinners act freely in choices they make. Man is surely a free agent. He is not an automaton who bears no responsibility for his actions. When Judas betrayed the Lord of glory, he performed that treacherous act not because he was forced to do so by sovereign providence, but because he wanted to. In denying the sinner possesses free will, I am simply affirming the sinner’s will is governed by his nature.

Every one of us chooses according to his highest inclination. The will is captive to the nature that governs it. In this sense, even God does not have a free will. He can only choose what is in accordance with his nature. The trouble with the sinner is not that he cannot choose what he wishes, but that he cannot wish what he ought to choose. This is true because the sinner’s choices are determined by his nature. Since his nature is sinful, his choices will be sinful as well.

The problem with those Jesus addressed in these verses is they willed not to come to him that they might have life. Left to themselves they would certainly perish in their sins. This is true not because God, in accordance with an eternal decree, prevented their faith but because their perverted and rebellious natures disposed them to unbelief.

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who believe the doctrine of sovereign election somehow involves God preventing some who truly wish to be saved from coming to faith in Christ. It is as if God were saying, “I know you really want to come to Christ and bow to him as sovereign Lord, but I am not going to allow you to do so because you are not among the elect.” The fallacy with such reasoning is it assumes there are sinners who, apart from divine enablement, truly wish to come to Jesus in saving faith. Such, of course, is not the case. While we are in a state of sinful nature, Jesus could say to each of us as he did to the Scribes, “You wish not to come to me that you might have life.”

Any who wish to come to God by faith in Christ must know that God has already been at work in their hearts, since they would never wish to come otherwise. C. H. Spurgeon said, “If you will have Jesus, he has you already. . . .”[4]

Consider the biblical description of human beings in a state of sinful nature. This is what the Psalmist wrote,

Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.
Their venom is like the venom of a snake,
like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears,
That will not heed the tune to the charmer,
however skillful the enchanter may be (Psalm 58:3-5).

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesians urging them no longer to live habitually as other Gentiles do. In other words, he exhorts them no longer to live as they did prior to conversion. This is how he describes them,

. . .they are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. (Ephesians 4:18-19).

­Now, does it sound as if there is anything in sinners thus described that is even slightly inclined to faith in Christ? The Apostle Paul leaves no doubt about where sinners’ propensities lie when he writes,

There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. (Rom. 3:11). The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.(1 Cor. 1:18). The man without the Spirit does not accept [welcome] the things that come from the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14).

Let me leave you with this question. If sinners do not have a spiritual understanding or desire for God and are not seeking him; if the gospel message is foolishness to them every time they hear it; and if they are spiritually incapacitated so they cannot welcome spiritual truths, where is the vaunted power of free will?





CHAPTER 6
CHOOSE THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE
Joshua 24:19

“What about man’s free will? Are you saying people don’t have a choice?” These are questions that seem to be the stock in trade of those who wish to deny God’s sovereignty over all things. It seems people are more concerned to protect the idea of man’s absolute autonomy than even to consider that God might truly be God.

First, it is important to understand that the two questions above have decisively different answers. I intend to answer these questions more fully in a later chapter, but for now suffice it to say that though sinners do not possess the power of free will, we do have a choice.

Sometimes, in a desperate effort to defend the vaunted idea that man’s will is “free,” those who deny God’s absolute sovereignty over his creation, cite Joshua’s parting words to Israel, “. . .Choose this day whom you will serve. . . “ (Joshua 24:19). In the face of such a clear statement of the sinner’s responsibility to choose, how can anyone deny sinners possess the power of free will?

Of course, my first response to this question is that simply because a person has responsibility to make proper choices does not mean he has the ability to make proper choices. Every human being is responsible to keep God’s holy law, but no sinner is able to keep it. Does inability, in this case, cancel out responsibility? Of course not!

The question of “free will” is not one of responsibility but of ability. There is no question Joshua charged the Israelites with the responsibility of making a choice. In fact, in the verse in question, this was a choice they were well able to make. Notice, he does not ask them to choose between serving Jehovah and serving false gods. Apart from God’s enabling grace, they could not have chosen to serve Jehovah. The choice was between two different sets of false gods. Look at the text.

And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. So the people answered and said: ‘Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods. . . . We also will serve the LORD for He is our God.’

But Joshua said to the people, “You cannot serve the LORD, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins . . .” (Joshua 24:16-19).

Where is the power of free will in these verses? The message is, though they could choose between damning alternatives, they could not choose to serve God and righteousness. So it is with all sinners. In a state of nature, we are all able to choose between damning alternatives but we cannot and will not choose God and righteousness. In Romans 3:11, the Apostle tells us, “There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.”

The issue is not whether sinners ever seek God and godliness. Instead, the issue is whether sinners, left to a state of sinful nature, will ever choose God and godliness. If anyone is ever justified before God, it is because they have sought God with all their heart. Unless sinners choose to leave their sins and follow Jesus, they will never be saved. In other words, the issue is not whether sinners choose to seek God or God chooses and seeks sinners. Both are clearly true. The issue is who takes the initiative in the application of redemption. Did God choose sinners because they have chosen him, or is it the other way around? The biblical answer is that sinners would never choose Christ and righteousness were it not for God’s prior work in their hearts. We chose him because he has chosen us; we seek him because he sought us; we love him because he first loved us.

I will close this short chapter with the words of three hymns that express these thoughts beautifully. The first was penned in 1707 by the well-known hymn writer, Isaac Watts. He wrote,


How sweet and awful is the place
With Christ within the doors,
While everlasting Love displays
The choicest of her stores.

While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast,
Each of us cry, with thankful tongues,
“Lord, why was I a guest?

Why was I made to hear Thy voice,
And enter while there’s room,
While thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?”

’Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew us in;
Else we had still refused to taste,
And perished in our sin.

Notice that Mr. Watts did not deny that sinners have a choice; he simply acknowledged the biblical truth that, left to ourselves, we would make a “wretched choice, and rather starve than come.”

The second hymn, written a little more than a century later, expressed much the same thought. In 1836, Josiah Conder penned the following words,


‘Tis not that I did choose thee,
For, Lord that could not be;
This heart would still refuse thee,
Hadst thou not chosen me.

Thou from the sin that stained me
Hast cleansed and set me free;
Hast cleansed and set me free;
That I should live to thee.

‘Twas sovereign mercy called me
And taught my op’ning mind;
The world had else enthralled me,
To heav’nly glories blind.

My heart owns none before thee
For thy rich grace I thirst;
This knowing, if I love thee,
Thou must have loved me first.

Josiah Conder

The third hymn was composed by an unknown author in the early twentieth century. Learn its message well. If you are a believer today, it is only because the Lord sought and found you.

I sought the Lord, and afterward I knew
He moved my soul to seek him, seeking me;
It was not I that found, O Savior true,
No, I was found of thee.

Thou didst reach forth thy hand and mine enfold;
I walked and sank not on the storm-vexed sea,-
‘Twas not so much that I on thee took hold,
As, thou, dear Lord, on me.

I find, I walk, I love, but O the whole
Of love is but my answer, Lord, to thee;
For thou wert long before-hand with my soul,
Always thou lovest me.











CHAPTER 7
WHOM HE FOREKNEW
Romans 8:29

The doctrine of foreknowledge has, for centuries, generated a great deal of heated controversy. It is one’s understanding of this doctrine that ultimately determines one’s view of eternal election. On one hand, Arminians, understanding the word as merely a reference to God’s foresight of future events or of men’s actions, will argue that God’s eternal choice of certain sinners for salvation was based on his foresight not only of their faith in Christ but also of their perseverance in faith to the end. Calvinists, one the other hand, understanding the word as a reference to God’s eternal love and intimate knowledge of his chosen people, will argue that God’s choice of certain sinners for eternal salvation was free, sovereign and unconditional. The issue we must decide is which of these views is supported by this text.

What Does This Text Actually Teach?

The most effective way to decide this issue is simply to ask what this verse actually teaches, or perhaps more accurately, what it does not teach. It is my contention that those who believe eternal election was based on foreseen faith have illegitimately read ideas into the text the writer never intended.

God’s Omniscience of Things Future?

People often assume that foreknowledge is merely God’s omniscience of things future. It is true God knows all things past, present, future, and possible, but this is clearly not what the Apostle intends by his use of this term. If it were, his statement in Romans 8:29 would lead us to an erroneous conclusion. Since the text says nothing about whether what God “foreknew” was good or evil, believing or unbelieving, we would have to conclude that this foreknowledge was all-inclusive. His omniscience extends to all his creatures and all their actions. God knew everything about everyone and all we would ever do, think, feel, or choose. If this view were correct, “Whom he foreknew,” would have to refer to everyone without exception. Yet, the text states,

For whom God foreknew, he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the firstborn of many brethren. Moreover, whom he predestinated, them he also called, and those he called, them he also justified and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30).

Notice the unbroken link between “whom he foreknew” and “them he also glorified.” All those he foreknew and only those he foreknew, he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son. Additionally, all those he predestined and only those, he also called. Those and only those whom he called, he also justified, and all those and only those whom he justified, these he also glorified. If you will follow this unbroken chain carefully, you will
notice he refers to the same group of people throughout the entire passage. From this, we would have to conclude,
wouldn’t we, that if “foreknew” refers to God’s omniscience of all things future, all people and all their future actions, God will ultimately glorify everyone, even unbelievers? Of course, we know from many other Scriptures this is not the case.

Foreseen Faith?

To avoid the fallacious conclusion of the previous assumption, some have posited the view that foreknowledge refers to God’s foresight of the believer’s faith, repentance, and perseverance. In modern day formulations of this doctrine, its adherents, since they believe neither in repentance nor the necessity of perseverance, often omit repentance and perseverance as the objects of God’s foresight. Often they tell us, “God looked down through the corridors of time and saw there would be some who would willingly choose to believe the gospel.” We will consider this statement in a moment, but first, ask yourself if this text states what it was that God foresaw. Does it state that God foresaw faith, repentance, perseverance or anything related to eternal salvation? Kenneth Taylor, in his often overly free paraphrase of the New Testament, read his Arminian theology into Romans 8:29 when he wrote, “For from the very beginning God decided that all who came to him-and all along he knew who would-should become like his Son, so that his Son would be First, with many brothers. “There is no question God knew from the beginning who would come to him. The question is, where can one find any Greek text of this verse that gives the slightest support to this outlandish rendering? The truth is, there is absolutely no textual support for this rendering. Though it is true all translation involves a certain amount of linguistic latitude, a translator is never warranted to read his theology into his translation. Romans 8:29 says nothing about God basing his eternal choice of believers on anything he foresaw in them. It matters not how much the proponents of the conditional election view may wish the text would mention faith as that which God foreknew, it just is not there.

Remember, if God’s choice were based on his foreseeing that some would choose him, his choice was not a choice at all. It was merely a rubber stamp on man’s decision

What God Saw When He Looked Down from Heaven

Did God know from all eternity there would some who would believe the gospel and some who would not? Of course he did. God has known all things from eternity. The question we need to ask is whether that faith would have existed had God not, according to his sovereign purpose, opened the hearts of his people and enabled them to believe.

In Psalm fourteen, the writer leaves no question that when God looked on sinners in a state of sinful nature, there was not a single one who sought after him. This is what he wrote,

The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt,
There is none who does good,
No not one (Psalm 14:2-3).

If God’s choice were based on what he saw about the actions and choices of sinners, he would never have chosen anyone. The only faith God has foreseen is faith he has effected by calling his people according to his eternal decree.

In his excellent commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, John Murray wisely remarked,

It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is a sovereign distinguishing love.[5]

The Meaning of “Foreknew” in Romans 8:29

Our first clue concerning Paul’s usage of this term is that whatever it means, it refers to God’s knowledge of people, not to events, actions, or choices people would make. The text says, “whom he foreknew,” not “what he foreknew.” “Whom” is a word that refers to people, not to events or actions people will perform. Whatever Paul intended by his use of this word, it must go beyond mere prior knowledge of how people would behave.

Prōginōsko--What does it mean?

The word translated “foreknew” is derived from a verb that means, I know beforehand. It is made up of a prefix that means before, a verb that means, I know. Although the classical distinction between the verb ginōskō
and its synonym, oida had been blurred in Koine (common) Greek, its usage still goes beyond a mere intuitive knowledge or knowledge of facts. It is the word the Septuagint translators used to render the Hebrew word, yāda’. In these instances, the writers intend to convey the idea of intimate knowledge. Consider the following examples of this word’s usage in the Septuagint (LXX):

1. The expression of Adam’s love for Eve in sexual intercourse “And Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived. . . .”(Gen. 4:1).

2. God’s choice of Abraham, “For I have known him” (Genesis 18:19). NIV and RSV translate this
“For I have chosen him.”

3 God’s consecration and appointment of Jeremiah, “before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. . . .” (Jer 1:5).

4. Jehovah’s love for his covenant people, Israel (Amos 3:2). “You only have I known of all the families of the earth.”

5. Jehovah’s approval of the righteous man’s way. “The LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” (Psa 1:6).

There are, of course, other examples of this usage illustrating the same idea of intimate knowledge, choice, approval, etc.

Jesus and the New Testament writers used the word in the same way. Consider just a few examples:

1. Used of sexual intercourse “And [he, Joseph] did not know her [Mary] till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. . . .” (Matt 1:25).

2. Jesus’ lack of love for or approval of the wicked, “Then will I profess unto them, ‘I never knew you;’ Depart from me, you who work lawlessness” (Matt. 7:23).

3. God’s love for and approval of his people, “the Lord knows those who are his. . . .” (2 Tim 2:19). This clearly refers to an intimate knowledge of his people, not a mere knowledge of who they are or of facts about them.

It is this word, in compound with the prefix pro, that forms the verb, “foreknew” in Romans 8:29.

In the seven occurrences of this word in its verb [foreknow] and noun [foreknowledge] forms, only two, Acts 26:5 and 2 Pet 3:17, refer to prior knowledge in an intellectual or cognitive sense. In both verses, the reference is to human knowledge of coming events or of prior knowledge of a person. In its remaining five occurrences, Acts 2:23, Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20 and 1 Peter 1:2, including Romans 8:29, it refers to God’s knowledge of people beforehand in the sense of loving beforehand, choosing beforehand, or entering into a relationship beforehand. It is unlikely, for example, that Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:20 merely mean God knew facts about Jesus and the crucifixion ahead of time. Romans 11:2 obviously refers to people on whom God has set his love and with whom he had entered a covenant relationship. Would it not seem strange to reduce its meaning in its other two occurrences to a mere knowledge of how people would react to the gospel?

It seems there is but one conclusion we can draw. God has set his love on his people from all eternity. His choice of certain favored sinners for eternal life and glory was not conditioned by what he foresaw in the sinner nor was it cold and arbitrary. Instead, God’s great heart of love was set on his chosen ones from the foundation of the world. John Murray rightly concluded that the phrase “. . .whom he foreknew. . . .” means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved’[6]

It was this great truth the hymn writer had in mind when he penned these glorious words,

’Twas with and everlasting love
That God his own elect embraced;
Before he made the worlds above,
Or earth on her huge columns placed.

Long ere the sun’s refulgent ray
Primeval shades of darkness drove,
They on his sacred bosom lay,
Loved with and everlasting love.


Then in the glass in his decrees,
Christ and his bride appeared as one;
Her sin, by imputation, his,
Whilst she in spotless splendor shown.

Oh love, how high thy glories swell!
How great, immutable, and free!
Ten thousand sins, as black as hell,
Are swallowed up, O love, in thee!

[Loved, when a wretch defiled with sin,
At war with heaven, in league with hell,
A slave to every lust obscene;
Who, living, lived but to rebel.]

Believer, here thy comfort stands,
From first to last salvation’s free,
And everlasting love demands
An everlasting song from thee.

Kent


CHAPTER 8
THE GRACE OF GOD THAT
BRINGS SALVATION
Titus 2:11

The issue to which I now wish to call your attention is one that arises from a common interpretation of Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, . . .” (NKJ) The New American Standard translates it a bit differently, “ For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,. . . .” (NAS). I do not intend to spend any time trying to determine which of these translations better conveys the Apostle’s intended meaning, since that is not the issue I wish to discuss. The matter on which I would like to focus your attention is the common misconception of the Apostle’s use of the term, “all men.” Whether the grace of God has appeared to all men or has brought salvation to all men, we still need to understand rightly what the term “all men” really means.

All Always Means All

The prevalent view seems to be that, “‘All’ always means all and that’s all all means.” Of course, no one truly believes that applies all the time. For example, who believes Paul uses the word “all” of all people and things without exception in 1 Cor 10:33, when he writes, “just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.” If these words are taken in an absolute, universal sense, we have a problem with the consistency of the Scriptures. Paul would be made to contradict his remarks in Galatians 1:10. In that epistle he wrote, “ “. . .For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bond servant of Christ.. Of course, one could argue that Paul was using the word “pleased” in different senses in these verses. Still, I suspect no one believes Paul tried, in any sense, to please every individual in the world without exception. As should be clear to anyone, the context of 1 Cor 10:33 shows he refers to all classes of people, i.e., Jews, Greeks, and the church of God (see v. 32).

All--Not All Without Exception

We could, of course, cite many example of the biblical writers’ use of the word “all” in ways that fall short of absolute universalism. There is no need to waste the reader’s time with material that anyone can easily discover for himself with the aid of a simple concordance. A careful study of the Bible will reveal that though all always means all, it does not always mean all in the universal sense--All without exception. The context must decide what “all” means. At times the word refers to all of a class, for example, there are times the word denotes all of a class
(John 1:16; 3:26; 11:48; Rom 5:8; 1 Tim 5:20). There are other times the word denotes all without distinction (all sorts) rather than all without exception (Rom 3:23,[7] 1 Tim 2:4,6; Titus 2:11, cf. 2:1-10).

The Phrase “All Men” in Titus 2:11

There are compelling reasons for believing the term, “all men,” in Titus 2:11 refers not to all people without exception but all without distinction. As usual, it is the context that makes this clear. In fact, I suspect the most significant single cause of people’s inability to interpret the Bible correctly is their failure to properly consider the context.

The Preceding Context

In chapter two of his epistle to Titus, the Apostle has begun to exhort him concerning his ministry to the Cretans over whom he had been given oversight. He wrote, “But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine”(v. 1). Then he gives the reason he should do so by enumerating the duties and responsibilities of different categories of people within the church. He continues,

2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things‑‑4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. 6 Likewise exhort the young men to be sober‑minded, 7 in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, 8 sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you.9 Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things [emphases mine].

Notice he began with the duties of older men, then moved to the duties of older women and so on until he came to the duties of those who were on the lowest rung of the social ladder, namely, bond slaves. Since some of his readers may have thought it impossible that God would allow himself and his truth to be glorified by these menial servants, Paul takes time to address the issue. He writes,

Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things (v.10).

He, thus, leads his readers to understand that even bond slaves, by being obedient to their masters, not talking back or stealing, but by being trustworthy, can beautify the gospel with their lives. Who could have imagined that God would accept glory from such ignoble members of society, but the good news is that even they may make the gospel look good.

The very next word in the passage is the word translated, “For” or “Because.” They may honor God because God’s saving grace has appeared to all men, older men, older women, young women, young men, masters and, yes, even bond slaves. In other words, the saving grace of God has appeared to all without distinction. Everyone who is able to bring glory to God is able to do so because the saving grace of God has appeared to him. It is this understanding Calvin had in mind when he wrote,

That it is common to all is expressly testified by him on account of the slaves of whom he had spoken. Yet he does not mean individual men, but rather describes individual classes, or various ranks of life. And this is not a little emphatic, that the grace of God hath let itself down even to the race of slaves; for, since God does not despise men of the lowest and most degraded condition, it would be highly unreasonable that we should be negligent and slothful to embrace his goodness.[8]

Context that Follows

Whether we translate verse 11, “ . . .the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” or “ . . .the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” one thing is certain, the Apostle is not talking about grace that merely offers or announces salvation. He is talking about grace that saves. If the grace he has in mind truly saves, the “all men” in view cannot be all without exception unless we believe all will ultimately be saved. We know this to be true because he tells us the saving grace about which he writes is also schooling grace. This grace teaches us. If we are not being taught by grace, then this grace has not yet appeared to us, or alternately, this grace has not yet saved us. This grace, when it appears to us or saves us, also teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and live soberly and godly in the present age. If we are not being thus taught, we have no evidence the grace of God has appeared to us or has saved us. Now ask yourself a simple question, Is everyone without exception being taught to deny ungodliness and world lust etc? Of course, the answer is no.

Additionally, those who are the recipients of this grace are “looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous of good works.”

Now, it should be obvious to any thinking reader that this cannot refer to all people without exception. It refers only to those God has brought to saving faith in the Lord Jesus.



CHAPTER 9

The Whole World and Every Man
Hebrews 2:9 and 1 John 2:2

I have chosen to address these verses together since they both concern the same issue. That issue is this; did Jesus intend by his death to make salvation possible for every person or did he intend to secure salvation for those given him by the Father before the world began?

Many seem to believe the simple answer is found in texts like these. Of course, the reason they believe this is they are willing to ignore the true meaning of these passages in context and accept a simplistic view based on a mindless theological system. It would never occur to many to dig any deeper than the surface to discover whether their belief has any biblical foundation.

Questions To Ponder

Before we examine these texts in context, I would like to ask a few theological questions. Today, I heard a pastor say, “Jesus died for Adolph Hitler and Usama Bin Laden.” These were my questions:

1. If Jesus died for them, what did he do for them when he died? 2. What was his purpose in dying for them? 3. If he intended to save them, why didn’t he? 4. If he died for them in the same sense he died for believers, does the death of Christ for believers give us any security that we are safe for eternity? Was he assuming Hitler became a believer just prior to his death and that Usama Bin Laden will certainly come to faith? If this was not his assumption, and I suspect it was not, is there any security for the believer? If so, from where does that security come? It could not come from the death of Christ. He tried to save Hitler, but, as far as we know, Hitler has perished in his sins. Of course, all I am saying is predicated on the biblical presupposition that not all will ultimately be saved. Jesus said,

13 Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it (Matt 7:13‑14).

5. Did Jesus’ death actually pay the penalty for anyone? If so, did he pay it for everyone? 6. If he paid the penalty for everyone, does God punish unbelievers in hell for sins for which Jesus has already paid?

A Redemption that Does Not Redeem

In reality, a redemption that allows sinners to perish in their sins is no redemption at all. If we assume that Hitler perished in his sins, any view that Jesus died for him destroys any security and comfort the believer might derive from Christ’s redeeming work. After all, if Jesus tried to save Hitler and failed, how can I have any confidence his death will keep me out of hell? If he did no more for believers than for those who are perishing under the wrath of God, his death accomplished nothing. It was a redemption that did not redeem, a reconciliation that did not reconcile, a propitiation that did not satisfy and a justification that did not declare anyone righteous.

The Believer’s Confidence

The believer’s confidence that he will never perish is based on the Spirit borne conviction that the whole of his debt was charged to his substitute. If Jesus truly died as the believer’s substitute, even God cannot lay any thing to the charge of his chosen ones. Augustus M. Toplady was certainly theologically accurate when he wrote,

If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine,
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my bleeding surety’s hand,
And then again at mine.


Only Three Possibilities

The great Puritan, John Owen, posited that there are only three possibilities concerning the intent and consequent extent of the atonement:

1. Christ died for all the sins of all men--If this were the case, all would be saved. This would clearly contradict a host of Scriptures.

2. Christ died for some of the sins of all men--if this were the case, none would be saved since there would be sins for which payment had not been made.

3. Christ died for all the sins of some men--If Jesus’ death is understood as all the biblical writers viewed it, as an accomplishment, this is the only view that can be justified biblically.

Jesus’ All-Sufficient Death

Now, if the only truth the pastor intended to express is that Jesus’ death has sufficient value to save even Hitler or Usama Bin Laden if they repented and believed the gospel, I could not agree more. Yet, this is not the issue in question. Those who believe the doctrine of God’s sovereign grace in the salvation of sinners have historically believed in the abundant sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice. The Canons of Dort, the historical statement of the so-called, “five points of Calvinism” formulated at the Synod if Dort (1618-19), state, “The death of the Son of God is
the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”

Since what any sinner needs to satisfy the wrath of God and reconcile him to an offended sovereign is what every sinner needs, if Jesus died for one sinner, he did what every sinner needs to be put right with God. He would not need to do any more to save every sinner than he has done to save one sinner.

The Real Issue

The true issue is whether Jesus intended by his death to save all without exception. In other words, it is not really the sufficiency and the extent of Christ’s redemptive work that is in dispute, but its intent and design. No one who believes the Bible truly believes the effects of Jesus’ death extend beyond those who are actually justified.


Redemption By Appointment

Did the pastor really mean Jesus intended to save Hitler? That is difficult to answer since many believe Jesus did not intend to accomplish salvation for anyone; he only “died to make sinners savable,” whatever that means. In their view, Jesus death was not intended to secure the salvation of any sinner. It was only intended to provide a possibility of salvation for all sinners. They would argue the only limitation in the death of Christ is in its application. In response to that assertion I would have to ask if it is limited in its application, must it not also have been limited in its design. God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11). That is to say anything that happens, occurs according to a previous design. In other words, if an event occurs, you can be sure God designed it to occur as it did. If there is a limitation in the efficacy of Jesus sacrificial work in its application to certain sinners only, that limitation was in the mind of God when Jesus gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins.

Accomplishment or Mere Provision

The Scriptures represent the intent of Jesus’ redemptive work, not merely to make the salvation of sinners potential or possible, but as an actual accomplishment. We need to understand that justification before God is not based on faith in Christ. It is not faith in Christ that saves. It is Christ who saves through faith. The everlasting salvation of God’s chosen people was an objective reality when Jesus died at Calvary. He did not merely make it possible for me to be saved if I believed. He made it certain his people would believe by purchasing for the believer the gift of the enabling Holy Spirit. Surely, the hymn writer was right when he wrote,

On the cross, he sealed my pardon,
Paid the debt, and set me free.

The Texts

It makes no difference how compelling our theological arguments may be if they can be discredited by plain texts of Scripture. Whenever this issue of the extent of the atonement arises, someone is bound to boldly assert that Hebrews 2:9 and 1 John 2:2 settle the issue beyond all dispute. I suggest this is due to at least two fatal flaws in
their exegesis of these and other verses. The first is their presupposition that whenever the words, “all,” “world,” and “every one,”occur in the Bible, they always refer to all people without exception. As I have pointed out, a simple search of a good concordance will reveal this is not the case. The second is perhaps the most egregious flaw in all faulty exegesis. It is the error of failing to consider the context. It is possible to prove anything from Scripture if one is willing to cite proof-texts that have been removed from their biblical context. This has clearly been the case in the glib citing of these two verses and others like them. Consider these texts with me in the contexts in which the writers intended us to read them.

Hebrews 2:9

It is in Hebrews 2:9, a well-known but greatly misunderstood verse, we find the phrase, “that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.” Before we consider this verse and seek to understand who it is for whom Jesus tasted death, it is very important that we consider the context in which this phrase occurs. We find this phrase in a passage in which the writer is seeking to demonstrate the superiority of the Messiah to angels. In the preceding chapter he has shown that Jesus is better than the angels because he has by inheritance received a better name than they. They are but servants; he, because of his redeeming work, has been installed on the throne as the incarnate Son of God. He is the creator; they are merely created beings whose task it is to serve the redeemer and the redeemed. Their place is to worship and before his throne. His place is to wield a sovereign and righteous scepter over the nations of the world.

Now, in verse five of chapter two he begins a new argument relating to Jesus’ superiority to angels. He tell his readers God, the Father, has not subjected the world to come [the age of the Messiah] to angels, but to redeemed man. As evidence of his claim, the writer cites a well-known Psalm. Having first drawn attention to the weak and helpless condition into which man has fallen, the psalmist then alludes to the glorious condition in which Adam was created. Not only does he allude to the glory that belonged to Adam when he came from the hand of his Creator as one who bore God’s image and the glory; he also alludes to the glory and dominion God will, in the world to come, restore to redeemed man in Christ. He wrote, “You have made him a little lower than the angels and You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of your hands; You have put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:5-6).[9] The problem is that though the writer clearly argues that the age of the Messiah has come with the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom at his resurrection, we do not yet see all things put under the feet of redeemed man. Hebrews two, verses 5-9, provides an excellent example of the already/not yet tension that exists not only in this epistle but also throughout the New Testament Scriptures. Though the age to come has been inaugurated, it has not yet been consummated. .Already, in the age of the Messiah, all things have been put under the feet of man, but we do not yet see all things put under him [redeemed man]. How is this tension to be resolved? It is this question that sets the stage for the writer’s proclamation in Hebrews 2:9.

‘But we see Jesus, who was made for a little while lower than the angels that he by the grace of God should taste death for every one, on account of the sufferings of death, [has been] crowned with glory and honor.” As a result of his death sufferings, Jesus has been crowned with glory and honor. Though we do not yet see all things put under man in the age of the Messiah, we see the quintessential man, Jesus, who has taken our flesh and blood [human nature], exalted to the throne of glory.

Once we understand the author is writing about the new creation, of which believers are a part, it is easier to answer the question, who is the “everyone” for whom Jesus tasted death? Was it for every member of Adam’s race (the old creation) for whom he tasted death? Did he, by his redeeming work, intend to restore glory and dominion to unbelieving rebels? Will God crown all men, believers and unbelievers alike, with glory and honor? Of course not! The “everyone” for whom Jesus tasted death clearly refers to every member of the new creation whom God will certainly raise to glory and give dominion over the works of his hands. As the context makes clear, they are the “many sons” whom God will bring to glory (v. 10), it is the ones “who are sanctified,” those whom he is “not ashamed to call brethren” (v.11), and “the children whom the Father has given him” (v. 13). It is by tasting death, he has brought them to glory. If he will never bring them to glory, you can be sure he never tasted death for them.

1 John 2:2

The context of this verse reveals that John was writing to believers. Over and over again he addresses them as “my little children.” Already, in Chapter one of his epistle, he has identified them as those who are in fellowship with God the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. This being the case, they are the ones whose sins have all been washed clean in the blood of the Lamb and for whose sins the Father has been declared “just” in forgiving them. These are those who “have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous one,” who has become the satisfaction for all their sins.

John Murray wrote,

Propitiate means to ‘placate,’ ‘appease,’ ‘pacify,’ ‘conciliate’. . . . Propitiation presupposes the wrath and displeasure of God, and the purpose of propitiation is the removal of this displeasure. Very simply stated the doctrine of propitiation means that Christ propitiated the wrath of God and rendered God propitious to his people.[10]

Unless we assume God will ultimately save every sinner who has ever lived, we cannot broaden John’s use of the term “world” to include every individual without weakening the biblical meaning of propitiation. It might prove helpful to see how the term is used in its other N.T. occurrences (Romans 3:24ff ; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 4:10), then bring that meaning and understanding to 1 John 2:2 and allow that meaning to define what "whole world" must mean. In all those passages, propitiation is the work of Christ for believers, the redeemed of God, flowing from the eternal love of God for his chosen people. It ensures we will never experience God's wrath since Jesus has borne that wrath in his holy bosom. If that is what Jesus did for the "whole world," in the common understanding of that term, how can God's wrath come on the whole world at the last day?

When John writes, “and he is the propitiation for our sins,” he means the wrath of God for these who have believed has been satisfied forever. It is on this basis that Jesus pleads their cause before the Father’s throne. If John had then turned around and said, “He has not only satisfied His Father’s wrath for us believers, but also for everyone in the world whether he believes or not,” he would have, in so doing, destroyed the basis of confidence he had been building for his readers. It would then be a propitiation that does not propitiation, a satisfaction that does not satisfy.

What, then, did John mean by his use of the word, “world”? Clearly what he is saying is that Christ’s redeeming work has satisfied the Father’s wrath not only for believers [primarily Jewish in this context since John was an Apostle to the Circumcision] in that locality, but also for all believers universally, Jew and Gentile. Jesus has redeemed sinners out of every tribe, tongue, people and nation (Revelation 5:9).

Conclusion

The conclusion we must draw from our investigation of the contexts of these favored proof-texts is that they were never meant to teach that Jesus intended to save all people. The intent of his death was to effectually secure the eternal redemption of those whom the Father had given him. If he did no more for believers than for those who are perishing under the wrath of God, his death accomplished nothing. It was a redemption that did not redeem, a reconciliation that did not reconcile, a propitiation that did not satisfy and a justification that did not declare anyone righteous. Such a view destroys the only basis of confidence believers have of everlasting life. If, in his work of redemption, Jesus did no more for them than for those who are already in a place of torments, the ground of their confidence before God’s judgment throne is gone. The reality is we can draw near to God’s holy throne with confidence because Jesus has satisfied God’s wrath for us. He is the propitiation for our sins. As the captain of our salvation, he will unfailingly bring many sons to glory.


CHAPTER 10
I WILL DRAW ALL MEN UNTO ME
John 12:32

One detail that distinguishes those who believe in free will from those who believe in free grace is the doctrine of prevenient grace. Historically, Arminians have shared the Calvinist’s[11] view that sinners, left to sinful nature, are totally depraved and incapable of faith in Christ. The disagreement arises when the Arminian[12] advances the idea that God grants all sinners grace to enable them decide for Christ. This they call “prevenient grace”. Prevenient grace differs from the Calvinist’s doctrine of irresistible grace. or effectual calling in at least two points. First, the Arminian’s “prevenient grace” is granted to all people equally. It is often seen as an effect of the Holy Spirit’s work of conviction. Second, prevenient grace, though necessary for faith, is resistible.

The most damaging blow to this popular view is there is not a shred of Scripture to support it. Most seem content to appeal to verses that speak of the sinner’s responsibility to believe and assume that God would never hold sinners responsible to perform a duty he did not enable them to carry out. Others, in an attempt to give this teaching an aura of biblical truth, have appealed to Jesus’ words in John 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” To them the meaning is clear; Jesus death on the cross somehow draws every person without exception to him. This is mysteriously effected though the vast majority of these never even hear the gospel.

I believe this view is absolutely absurd. First of all, it is a view that completely ignores the context in which this verse is found. Second, it ignores Jesus’ teaching that all whom the Father draws to the Son will come to him (John 6:37,44-45). Jesus said, “Everyone, therefore, who has heard from my Father and learned from him, comes unto me.” Third, a person cannot be said to be “drawn” unless he has at least some slight inclination to come to Jesus. Millions do not even know of Jesus, much less do they feel inclined to embrace him in saving faith. One of the uses of the word translated, “draw,” is to describe a net full of fishes being dragged to shore. I point this out not to suggest that sinners are forced to come to Jesus unwillingly as fish are dragged to shore unwillingly but to show that the drawing in view is effectual and not a mere moral suasion.

If one is interested in seeing an exercise in exegetical casuistry he should consider the following comments by the respected commentator, R.C.H. Lenski. Commenting on this passage he wrote,

This is the same drawing as that mentioned in 6:44 (compare 6:44), there predicated of the Father, here of Jesus; . . . This is the drawing exerted by grace through the means of grace (Word and Sacrament), alike in effectiveness and seriousness for all men, not in any way limited on God’s part. Yet here, as in 6:37; 6:44; 10:16; 11:52, and other connections, Jesus is speaking of this universal and unlimited grace only insofar as it succeeds in actually drawing men from the world to himself. All are alike drawn, but by their perverse obduracy many nullify all the power of grace and harden themselves in unbelief (Matt. 23:37), while others, in equal sin and guilt, are converted by this same power of grace. Why some are thus lost and others won, all being under the same grace, constitutes a mystery insoluble by our minds, about which we know only this, that those who are lost are lost solely by their own guilt, while those who are won are won solely by divine grace. Jesus is speaking only of the latter when he says, “I will draw all unto me.”[13]

He then continues by identifying the “all” as those who will actually come to faith in Christ. Does “all” refer to those who are “won solely by divine grace,” or “some [who are] lost and others won, all being under the power of the same grace.” Is there any reader who cannot see the blatant contradictions inherent in these comments? If so, lets consider a few of them.

First, since he has referred us to John 6:37 and 6:44, we need to see his comments on those verses. There he wrote,

But in these expressions, “all that the Father gives,” and, “all that he has given,” Jesus speaks of all believers of all ages as already being present to the eyes of God, he also thus is giving them to Jesus. . . .There, however, is not a fixed number, in some mysterious way chosen by an absolute decree of God to be such a gift to Jesus. Such an exegesis is wholly dogmatic and carries in to what Jesus says a thought that is not contained in his words. On the other hand, equally dogmatic is the view that those who constitute God’s gift to Jesus are those who in the first place are morally better than the rest, or who at least act better than the rest when the gospel is brought to them. These words of Jesus are without a trace of either predestinarian­ism or synergism. God’s grace is universal. He would give all men to Jesus. The only reason he does not do so is because so many men obdurately refuse to be part of that gift. On the other hand, God’s grace is alone efficacious. Every man who believes does so only and wholly by virtue of this grace.

In the next paragraph he continues,

The Father’s drawing (v.44) is one of grace alone, thus it is efficacious, wholly sufficient, able to change the unwilling into the willing, but not by coercion, not irresistibly. Man can obdurately refuse to come. Yet when he comes he does so only through the blessed power of grace.[14]

Now, perhaps I am just dense, but to me Mr. Lenski’s comments seem absolutely self-contradictory. Maybe my problem is I don’t understand some of his vocabulary. He seems to like the word “obdurate,” and its derivatives. For example, he wrote,

All are alike drawn, but by their perverse obduracy many nullify all the power of grace and harden themselves in unbelief (Matt. 23:37), while others, in equal sin and guilt, are converted by this same power of grace [italics mine].

I had thought the word obdurate meant “Not easily moved to pity or sympathy; hardhearted. Hardened and unrepentant; impenitent. Not giving in readily; stubborn; obstinate; inflexible.”[15] Webster’s unabridged dictionary offers the following synonyms: callous, hardened and distinguishes them as follows--

Callous denotes a deadening of the sensibilities; Hardened implies a general and settled disregard for the claims of interest, duty, and sympathy; Obdurate rises still higher and implies an active resistance against the pleadings of compassion and humanity.

Mr. Lenski would have us believe all sinners are alike in their state of guilt and sin before God. He wrote, “ . . .while others, in equal sin and guilt, are converted by this same power of grace [italics mine].” When he tells us these others are “equal” in sin with the rest, does he include in that “sin” the devastating effects of sin on the sinner’s nature? Are all sinners equally depraved at heart or are some sinners only semi-depraved? Perhaps some sinners are callous, others are hardened, but the really bad ones are Obdurate. The last time I read the Bible I had the distinct impression that all sinners, left to themselves in a state of sinful nature, fall into the “obdurate” class. Consider the following verses:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of this heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5).

The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there are any who under­stand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, no, not one (Psalm 14:2-3).

The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; they are like the deaf cobra that stops its ear, which will not heed the voice of charmers, charming ever so skillfully (Psalm 58:3-5).

Concerning Judah and Jerusalem the prophet wrote,

The whole head is sick, the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no sound­ness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; They have not been closed, or bound up, or soothed with ointment (Isaiah 1:5-6).

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, everyone, to his own way. . .(Isaiah 53:6).

But we are all like an unclean thing and all our­ right­eousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is no one who calls on your name, who stirs himself up to take hold of you. (Isaiah 64:6-7).

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it (Jeremiah 17:9)?

You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you (Acts 7:51).

But the natural [soulish man--person without the Spirit] does not receive [welcome] the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).

And you [he made alive] who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were my nature children of wrath, just as the others( Ephesians 2:1-3).

This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blind­ness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness (Ephesians 4:17-21).

Does that not sound obdurate to you? It does to me. Unless we are prepared to argue that those described in these verses are more hardened by nature than we are, there is a formidable problem with Mr. Lenski’s view. If we all fit that description, and I believe we do, how is it that any of us become willing to bow the knee to the sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ? That is a question we must answer if we expect to make any progress in understand­ing God’s saving grace.

Another word I am having trouble with is the word, “effica­cious.” I had thought the word meant, “producing the effect intended; having power adequate to the purpose intended; as an efficacious remedy for disease.”[16]

Mr. Lenski wrote,

God’s grace is universal. He would give all men to Jesus. The only reason he does not do so is because so many men obdurately refuse to be part of that gift. On the other hand, God’s grace is alone efficacious.

The Father’s drawing (v.44) is one of grace alone, thus it is efficacious, wholly sufficient, able to change the unwilling into the willing, but not by coercion, not irresistibly. Man can obdurately refuse to come. Yet when he comes he does so only through the blessed power of grace.

There is a question I must ask. Which is more powerful, the efficacious grace of God or the obdurate rebellion of the sinner? How can the grace of God be both efficacious [producing the effect intended; having power adequate to the purpose intended] and resistible at the same time? Is this “grace” able to change the callous and hardened but unable to change the obdurate? Is it not true that if any sinner is obdurate, all sinners are obdurate? If the grace of God is effectual in bring one sinner to repentance, would it not be efficacious in bring any sinner to repentance.

If a powerful force encounters two objects of equal size, weight and density, perhaps both exerting an equal resistance in the opposite direction, wouldn’t that force be expected to have an equal effect on both objects? If an equal effect were not achieved, would we not conclude either that the force exerted on the one object was different from the force exerted on the other or that there was some difference in the objects causing a disparate reaction? Perhaps, the reader can imagine another possibility; I cannot.

Now, if Mr. Lenski and others of his persuasion insist that the only grace God gives in seeking to bring sinners to himself is a grace that can be effectively resisted by the obduracy of the sinner’s will, they can arrive at only one conclusion. Despite their protestations to the contrary, they must conclude there is a difference in the sinners who encounter the force of this so called “efficacious” grace. Some sinners are less obdurate than others. Lenski wrote,

Why some are thus lost and others won, all being under the same grace, constitutes a mystery insoluble by our minds, about which we know only this, that those who are lost are lost solely by their own guilt, while those who are won are won solely by divine grace [italics mine].

Here I am reminded of a wise proverb I once read, “To those who lack the will to know the truth, nothing is so mysterious as the obvious.”

The reason some are lost and others won is no mystery at all to those who believe the plain teaching of Scripture. It is God who makes one sinner differ from another. His grace is indeed efficacious when it is brought to bear on those who have been the objects of his everlasting love and electing grace. If we are called, we are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28).

Returning to our analogy, if the objects in question are equal in every way, yet there is an unequal reaction when force is brought to bear, what must we conclude? Must we not reason that the force exerted on one object must have been different from the force applied to the other?

Here we ask the Apostle Paul’s question, “Who makes you differ from another and what do you have that you did not receive? Now, if you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it” (1 Cor. 4:7).

We can only answer one of two ways. We will either say, “I, unlike the obdurate sinners around me, responded favorably to the universal but resistible grace of God,” or “By the free, sovereign, distinguishing, and efficacious grace of God, I am what I am.”

Remember the hymn we cited earlier? In it, the hymn writer asked,

Why was I made to hear His voice,
And enter while there’s room,
While others make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?


His answer?

’Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew me in;
Else I had still refused to taste,
And perished in my sin.

Isaac Watts 1707

The Meaning of John 12:32

If John 12:32 does not mean Jesus draws all sinners to himself in some mysterious and ineffectual way, what does it mean? I believe the New King James Version translation of this verse captures Jesus’ true meaning. It reads, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

Perhaps the most important factor in the proper interpretation of any text is a due consideration of the context in which we find it. We need to consider what had occurred immediately before Jesus spoke these words. John has told us in verses twenty and twenty one of this chapter that certain Greeks had approached the disciples requesting an audience with Jesus. As soon as the disciples told Jesus about this request he began to speak of the absolute necessity of his death. It seems clear he was teaching them there could be no inclusion of Gentiles in the gospel harvest unless and until he had offered himself as a sacrifice for sin. He said, “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone, but if it dies, it produces much grain” (John 12:24). Unless Jesus is lifted up to die on the cross there will be no harvest. Sinners, both Jew and Gentile, will be left to perish in their sins.

Jesus was saying, “It is not yet time for me to extend the offer of my grace to these Greeks [Gentiles] who are seeking me, but when I am lifted up from the earth, then I will draw people from every nation to me.”

If we understand the verse in this way, we will no longer feel constrained to explain a universal but ineffectual drawing that is mysteriously extended to myriads of sinners who never even hear of Jesus Christ. If “all men” includes every person without exception, why is it that many never feel the slightest inclination to embrace Jesus the Christ in saving faith and heartfelt repentance?

It is clear he refers instead to drawing sinners without distinction, people of every nation. When he has been lifted up from the earth in death, and, through death, lifted up to glory, then he will grant these Greeks their wish. They will see Jesus, but in a way they could never have seen him had he not been lifted up to die. As a result of his death, the good news of his glory will extend even to them.


CHAPTER 11
WHOEVER SHALL CALL. . .SHALL BE SAVED
Romans 10:13

One area of controversy in the debate between those who believe in free will and those who believe in free grace is the causal order between faith and regeneration. Those who believe the sinner’s will is free insist that faith must precede God’s work of regeneration. Those who believe salvation is totally the result of God’s free grace believe sinners cannot believe unless God first regenerates them by his Spirit. In an effort to buttress their contention, some free will believers have appealed to Romans 10:13, “ “ . .For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. “ According to them, the verse clearly teaches that anyone who believes, [calls on the name of the Lord] will be regenerated. Therefore, faith must be what causes God to regenerate sinners.

As in so many cases, the problem with this view is its faulty assumptions. First, those who hold this view assume the term, “saved,” is equivalent to the term, “regeneration.” In reality, the term, “saved,” is much broader than the term, “regeneration.” Being regenerated is certainly one aspect of being saved, but the two are anything but equivalent. For every believer there is a past, present, and future tense of salvation. The believer has been saved, is being saved, and is yet to be saved. Their effort to limit the term, “saved,” to one facet of that salvation, is completely arbitrary. Second, their view ignores the context in which these words are found. In order to determine the meaning of the word, “saved,” we must examine the context to learn what aspect of salvation the writer is discussing.

It is not difficult to ascertain the subject under discussion in this context. In fact, much of the Epistle to the Romans revolves around the same subject. The issue is not, “How can a man be regenerated?” In reality, that question is never asked or answered in the Bible. The question Paul considers is, “How can a man be justified before God?” He is concerned to show the gospel reveals “a God righteousness,” that is, a righteousness God produces and, therefore, a righteousness God approves. Whenever we find the term, “God’s righteousness,” in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, it refers not to God’s attribute of rectitude, but to his method of putting sinners right with himself.

When Paul wrote, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved” (v.1), his concern was not their regeneration but their justification before God. It is true, unless they are regenerated, sinners will never believe, and unless they believe, they will not be justified [saved]. Still, this is not the subject on which Paul focuses. Clearly, the concern of verses three and following is “righteousness” before God. Listen to the text, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law. . . “(Rom 10:3-5). Can there be any question Paul is talking about justification, not regeneration?

The Bible never tells us regeneration is through faith, but it does teach that those who believe God’s promise will be justified. Since justification is through faith, does it not make more sense to understand Paul to mean, “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be justified?”

CHAPTER 12
Today is the Day of Salvation
2 Corinthians 6:2


This verse has become a standard weapon in the altar call arsenal of the average evangelical. Often the evangelist tells sinners if they do not respond during this “invitation” their opportunity for salvation will be lost, as if somehow God is limited to that brief period in which to accomplish his work. He pleads, “Now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”

That there is urgency to the gospel call is without controversy. Whenever we proclaim the gospel, we should seek to persuade sinners immediately to bow the knee to the sovereignty of Jesus, the Lord. Our problem, then, is not the call to immediate faith in Christ or to reminding sinners they have not promise of tomorrow. What we have a problem with is the misuse of a verse that has nothing to do with the immediacy of the gospel call.

There are two problems created whenever we misinterpret or misapply a verse of Scripture. First, we give a meaning to the verse neither the human writer nor the Holy Spirit had in mind and second, we rob believers of the meaning the author intended us to understand. In this case, it is probably the latter that disturbs us most.

It is glorious news the Apostle proclaims in these verses. Clearly, his exhortation is to believers, “We, then, . . . plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1). This verse looks back to Paul’s marvelous declaration in the preceding chapter that God has made Jesus, him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. He now exhorts us to live as those whom God has granted grace to be regarded righteous in his sight. Don’t receive this grace for nothing; live a life consistent with your profession.

If anyone should object that since justification and sanctification cannot be separated, such a failure in the area of sanctification would be impossible, we would have to agree. Still, such exhortations are the necessary means to effect the believer’s sanctification. Just as the certainty of an elect person’s eternal salvation does not obviate the necessity of the gospel proclamation, so the certainty of the justified person’s ultimate conformity to the image of Christ does not render exhortations to live a holy life unnecessary.

As a powerful motivation to obey this exhortation the Apostle cites a passage from one of Isaiah’s “Servant Songs,” Isaiah 49:8, “In an acceptable time have I heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you.” He applies this verse that was originally addressed to Jehovah’s servant, the promised Messiah, to those who are united to him as their covenant head. The good news is that we are living the time Jehovah has deemed suitable for showing favor. This period in which we live is a day of salvation.

There are other similar declarations in the Scripture about this day of salvation. In Luke four, Jesus informed his auditors that he was the LORD’S anointed one who came to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. Here, the reference is to the Jewish year of jubilee, a year of acceptance and forgiveness. Jesus told his hearers that, in his coming, the fulfillment of that prophesy had been realized. He said, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (v.21).

In a similar prophesy, Psalm 118:22-24, the psalmist foretold a time when the builders of Israel would reject him who was to be the chief cornerstone in God’s building. He wrote, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’S doing; It is marvelous in our eyes.” Then he wrote, “This is the day the LORD has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” The day to which he refers is not a twenty-four hour day but a period of time inaugurated by the establishment of the LORD’S Anointed One as the chief cornerstone in God’s new temple. It is in this new “day,” we as new covenant believers are privileged to live. Since we have received such great and precious promises, we must give special care that we do not receive the grace of God in vain.


CHAPTER 13
If We Sin Willfully
Hebrews 10:26


The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote, “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. . . .” (Hebrews 10:26). It would be impossible to calculate how many of God’s children have been shaken by well meaning but misguided teachers who have woefully misinterpreted and misused this verse. Such teachers have told them if they ever committed an act of willful sin after the point of conversion, they could not be forgiven since there is no sacrifice for those who commit sin deliberately. If such were the case, there would be no multitude of the redeemed surrounding the throne to sing the praises of God and of the Lamb. Who is there among us who has not committed sin deliberately after we confessed faith in Christ? Those who are honest will have to confess to purposeful and knowing rebellion against the sovereign even after the point of conversion. Though we must do so with shame, we must acknowledge we have acted at times as if we had never tasted the grace of God at all. If this verse teaches we cannot commit acts of rebellion against the Lord of heaven and earth after the point of conversion, we would all have been doomed long ago.

If Hebrews 10:26 does not teach that God’s redeemed people cannot commit acts of willful rebellion against our sovereign Lord, what does it teach? Again, the error of many interpreters lies in their failure to consider the context of such verses. In this case, apart from couching this verse in the context of the Scripture as a whole, the responsible interpreter should consider the context provided by the epistle. A clear and predominant theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the necessity of perseverance. The writer has, throughout this epistle, been seeking to dissuade his readers from committing the sin of apostasy. Apostasy is an open denial of the truths in which one once openly confessed his belief. The writer had addressed his readers again and again concerning their responsibility to continue in their profession of faith in Jesus, the Messiah. He had told them if they go back to Judaism, there is no hope for them. The general context of the epistle should make it clear that the sin about which the writer warns his readers is not just any sin, but the sin of apostasy.

The immediate context in which we find this verse brings this truth into even bolder relief. In the verse that immediately precedes our text, the writer had admonished his readers not to forsake the assembly of believers. Despite the modern usage [misuse] of this verse, the writer did not intend it as a club to beat people over the head if they missed a church meeting. What the writer warns against is the sin of forsaking the believing assembly altogether. His readers were in danger of forsaking their new found faith and returning to Judaism. In fact, according to this verse, some had already been guilty of such a departure. To avoid this fatal error, the writer counsels his readers to admonish one another and to do so increasingly as they saw the day approaching.

Earlier in the treatise he had warned them not to neglect so great salvation. Failure to heed that warning will eventuate in a departure from the living God. None has ever forsaken him who did not begin by neglecting his great salvation. Apostasy doesn’t occur in a day or in a week. It is an insipient process that often occurs over a period of years. Its progress is so gradual as to be almost indiscernible, but sooner or later, its final end will be eternal doom. Unless we are immersed in a vibrant Christian community in which we are continually encouraged to keep on keeping on, we are liable to first neglect and then utterly forsake the Christian faith.

The word, “For,” [because] (v. 26), makes it clear that verse twenty-six looks back to what has preceded it. It gives a reason for obeying the admonition of verse twenty-five. Don’t forsake the Christian faith because to do so is to forsake the only hope sinners have. To sin willfully in this context is to commit apostasy. It is to turn one’s back on Christ and return to those broken cisterns that can hold no water.

In the temporal situation in which these words were penned, the Jewish sacrifices had already been rendered useless. Now, the blood of a lamb was no more holy than the blood of a sow. No longer was there a valid sacrifice in the Judaistic system. Even those sacrifices God had commanded could never, as long as they continued to be offered, take away sin. Now, even those had come to a decisive end at the crucifixion of that one to whom all those sacrifices had pointed. To go back to Judaism would have been a return to a system that could offer no effectual sacrifice for sins. If, by the willful sin of apostasy, one rejected the only efficacious sacrifice for sins, there no longer remained a sacrifice for sins. The only thing left was a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. If he who despised Moses’ law died without mercy, how much greater will be the condemnation of those who knowingly and willingly go back from their confession of faith in the Lord’s Anointed One?

Our fear, then, should not be the fear of losing our standing with God because we have willfully committed some undefined act of rebellion that will cause him to turn his back on us. If we are truly in Christ, in judicially forsaking his Son on the cross, God has already turned his holy face away from us once. We are assured he will never do so again. What we must avoid is the temptation to grow weary and willingly forsake the only sacrifice who can do helpless sinners good.

CHAPTER 14
Justified by Works
James 2:14-26


James’ teaching in this passage has provided fertile ground for controversy. Some have imagined a contradiction between his teaching and the teaching of the Apostle Paul on the subject of justification. Paul clearly taught that justification is by faith alone, but it seems as if James teaches that justification is, at least in part, by works. After all, did James not write, “You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:24)? Martin Luther was so sure that James’ teaching contradicted Paul’s teaching he referred to the Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw.”

Is it possible we could have misunderstood Paul’s message and that justification before God is truly based on our works of obedience to God as well as on the obedience of Christ? Could there truly be contradictions in the Bible? If not, what is James teaching in this passage? These are crucial questions since they concern our eternal destiny.

Perhaps we should first speak to the question about contradictions in the Bible. One presupposition of every evangelical Christian is that since the Bible’s one author is God the Spirit, there can be no true contradictions in it. In giving a consistent revelation of Himself, God would not move the human writers of Scripture to make contradictory statements. It is the task of the theologian to discover how seemingly contradictory statements weave together in the grand tapestry of God’s revealed truth. If this presupposition is correct, there must be a reasonable explanation for this seeming contradiction between Paul and James.

First, we should probably determine if James truly believed anyone could be justified before God by his works of obedience to the Law. It should not go unnoticed that in the immediate context of this passage, James wrote, “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). This being the case, there is no hope of salvation for any fallen son of Adam. We go astray as soon as we are born, speaking lies (Psalm 58:3). If our justification before God rests in any part on our works of obedience to the law, it rests on a foundation that cannot support its weight.

It seems to me, the best approach to this problem is to be certain we are asking the right questions. If we asked the question, “How can a man be justified before God?” would we expect the same answer as if we asked the question, “What is the nature of faith?” Those are two distinctly different questions, and we would expect two distinctly different answers, would we not? The reason Paul and James give different answers is they are answering different questions. On the one hand, Paul answers the question, “How can guilty sinners be declared righteous in the sight of a holy God?” James, on the other hand, answers the question, “What is the nature of that faith through which alone sinners can be justified? Paul explains what faith does; James explains what faith is. Paul defended the gospel against the legalists who insisted that justification is based on human works of obedience to God’s law. Thus, he responded that justification is by faith in Christ alone, apart from the works of the law. James defended the gospel against the libertines who suggested that the faith that is unto salvation is mere intellectual assent to the facts of the gospel. Thus, he responded that a faith that is without works can never justify.

Notice the question he poses, “What does it profit, my brothers, though a man says he has faith, and has not works? Can faith save him” (James 2:14)? His question, in the original, expects a negative answer. The word, “faith,” also has the definite article in the original, “the faith”. In such a construction, the reader’s attention is drawn back to the aforementioned faith—“The kind of faith formerly mentioned, faith that does not produce works, cannot save him can it?” In answer to that question, both Paul and James would solidly agree. In his Epistle to the Galatians, Paul describes the nature of that faith that alone justifies before God, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith that works by love” (Gal 5:6). The Protestant reformers put it this way, “Justification is by faith alone, but never by a faith that is alone.” What James was saying is that faith that does not work by love, is not justifying faith. Just as professed concern about an ill-clothed and hungry brother is not real concern unless it moves us to clothe and feed him, so faith is not real faith unless it moves us to godly obedience. Talk about your faith all you like, but we will not believe you if that faith does not produce obedience to the revealed will of God. Sinners are justified before God by faith alone; faith is justified before a watching world by works alone.

I close this brief chapter with the cogent and helpful comments of the Puritan, Thomas Manton, who wrote,

It is notable that the Apostle doth not say, ‘if any hath faith,’ but ‘if any man say he hath faith.’ Faith, where it is indeed, is of use and profit to salvation; and he that hath faith is sure of salvation, but not always he that saith the hath faith. In this whole discourse the apostle’s intent is to show, not what justifieth, but who is justified’. Not what faith doth, but what faith is. And the drift of the context is not to show that faith without works does not justify, but that a persuasion or assent without works is not faith; And the justification he speaketh of is not so much of the person as it is of faith[17]



CHAPTER 15
What About the Carnal Christian?
1 Corinthians 3:1-3

Whenever we begin to talk about the certainty of the saint’s perseverance in faith and holiness, someone is bound to ask, “But what about the carnal Christian?” By this they mean, what about all those how have made a profession of faith in Christ but continue to act just like the unconverted? This doctrine has become popular among those Arminians who wish to be known as Calvinist because they believe in the preservation of the saints. By this they mean, all who have made a profession of faith in Christ are eternally secure no matter what they do. They imagine this is somehow a substitute for the Calvinistic teaching of the perseverance of the saints. The problem is, the preservation of the saints is only half of the biblical teaching. The Bible teaches that the saint’s perseverance is both necessary and certain because God, by his Spirit, preserves us, enables us to keep on believing, and produces in us the evidence of saving faith. The “carnal Christian” advocate teaches the certainty of the professed believer’s eternal salvation but ignores the necessity of the believer’s perseverance in faith and holiness. For them, it is possible for one who has once professed faith in Christ to live exactly as the unconverted and still be sure of eternal bliss in heaven.

The “carnal Christian doctrine” was first introduced by C.I. Scofield in his popular reference Bible and has been perpetuated by such teachers as Lewis Sperry Chafer, Bill Bright, and Charles Ryrie. C.I Scofield wrote,

Paul divides men into three classes: psuchikos, “of the senses” (James 3:15; Jude 19) or “natural,” i.e. the Adamic man, unrenewed through the new birth (John 3. 3,5); pneumatikos, “spiritual,” the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God (Eph 5:18-20); and sarkikos, “carnal,” “fleshly,” the renewed man, who, “walking after the flesh,” remains a babe in Christ (1 Cor. 3:1-4). The natural man may be learned, gentle, eloquent, fascinating, but the spiritual quality of Scripture is absolutely hidden from him; and the fleshly, or carnal, Christian is able to comprehend only its simplest truths, “milk” (1 Cor. 3:2).[18]

Lewis Sperry Chafer represents the “carnal Christian” as one who has made a decision but who is still dominated by the flesh.[19] One wonders how this accords with Paul’s statement in Romans six, “Sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are no longer under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14).

The problem with this position is at least two-fold. First, it says much more about the “spiritual man” than the Scripture says. Where is the man who walks in the Spirit and is in full communion with God? I have known many Christians over the years but have never known one who always batted a thousand in the area of communion with God. Even the spiritual man commits sins. Second, it ignores the biblical truth that the Spirit will not allow a true believer to continue under the dominion of sin. The best Christian still commits sin; the worst Christian still makes progress in sanctification. A friend of mine put it this way, “Every Christian is carnal but there are no carnal Christians.” If we followed the most holy person we know for twenty-four hours, we would, at some point, observe him acting like a non-Christian. At times, we all act out of character with ourselves as Christians. We all have areas of fleshliness remaining in us, and any person who is totally under the dominion of sin is not a Christian at all.

What, then, was Paul teaching in his Epistle to the Corinthians? We must first understand the passage is not intended to set forth theological truth relative to the doctrine of sanctification. It is rather a hortatory passage, one that exhorts his readers to act differently. If we are going to develop a doctrine from Scripture, we should do so from a passage in which that teaching is being set forth explicitly. In the passage in question, the apostle is rebuking his readers because in one specific area of behavior, they are acting like unbelievers would act. They are acting like mere men, unaided by the Spirit. Does this mean they were acting like unbelievers in every area of their lives? Not at all! It simply meant they needed to repent of their actions in regard to their sectarianism.

Those who espouse the “carnal Christian” doctrine like to appeal to a verse later in the chapter in which they say Paul refers to a man’s works being burned up. They suggest this verse refers to a Christian being saved by the skin of his teeth. All his works are “wood, hay, and stubble” that will be burned up in the Day of Judgment. His life has been a total waste, but he will be saved. Here, too, they have totally missed the point of the passage. A careful examination of the passage will reveal that Paul is writing not about believer’s works, but about the work, i.e. the ministries, of those who have been entrusted with the work of the gospel. Notice, in verse nine, the apostle draws a distinction between those who have been granted oversight of God’s church and those who are under their care. “For we are laborers together with God: you [pl.] are God’s cultivated field, you [pl.] are God’s building.” He goes on to talk about the responsibility of the builders to build with the proper materials. He, the apostle, has laid the foundation, and every man, every builder of God’s building, is to take heed how he builds on the foundation. He then says, “Every man’s work [not works] will be tested by fire.” He refers not to the believer’s individual works but to the ministries of those who have been entrusted with the ministry of the gospel. Every overseer of God’s people will have his work tested by the fire of God’s judgment. If anyone has, in his ministry, defiled God’s temple [building], God will destroy him. The passage has nothing to do with the works of believers as such. Instead, it concerns the ministries of the overseers of God’s flock.

The plain teaching of Scripture is that a believer, who has no works to authenticate his faith, has no true faith at all. It matters not how many times he may have walked the aisle of the church, if he has no works to indicate his repentance, he has never truly repented. Such people are not Christians at all but are still in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity.

There is a vast difference between the perseverance of the saints and the preservation [eternal security] of those who have made a public profession of faith in Christ. The Bible teaches that true believers will continue in faith and obedience to the end because God by his Spirit continues to preserve and maintain their faith. We work out our salvation because it is God who works in us, giving us the desire and the ability to do that which pleases him (Philippians 2:13). This is a far cry from the modern perversion of the doctrine that says all who have made a profession of faith are eternally secure no matter what they do.

CONCLUSION

We began this study by listing ten presuppositions that control the “free will” proponent’s view of and approach to the Scriptures. Now that we have looked at some of their favorite proof-texts and discovered they are truly arrows astray, we simply want to conclude by stating some truths drawn from Scripture that should control our approach to and understanding of God’s revealed truth. They are the following:

There is nothing God has revealed that is too insignificant for us to understand and act on righteously (See-Acts 20:20, 27).

God’s love for sinners is free [uncaused by anything in the sinner], sovereign and distinguishing. Some are the objects of God’s eternal and never failing love; others are the objects of his never ending wrath (Rom.9:14-24; Eph. 1:4-5; 2 Tim. 1:9).

God’s ultimate purpose in creating and sustaining the universe is the manifestation of his glory (Rom 11:36; Col. 1:16). By the glory of God we mean the sum of his glorious attributes. Pursuant to that goal, God has decided to make some the objects of his everlasting love, to the glory of his grace and leave others to justly perish in their sins to reveal his holy justice. Had he chosen to condemn all, he would not have manifested his mercy, love and grace. Had he chosen to redeem all, he would not have revealed the rigor of his holy justice.

God would be just if he allowed us all to remain in our sins and perish in hell for eternity. He owes us nothing but his everlasting wrath and curse (Romans 3:3-8).

Nothing in the entire universe, even the vaunted power of the sinner’s “free will,” can thwart the purpose God has determined to accomplish (Psa. 115:3; Isa. 46:9-11; Dan. 4:35). Toplady wrote, “

The work which his goodness began,
The arm of his strength will complete;
His promise is Yea and Amen,
And never was forfeited yet.
Things future, nor things that are now,
Not all things below or above,
Can make him his purpose forego,
Or sever my soul from his love.

Those whom God calls, he calls “according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). Unlike the prevenient grace of Arminian theology, efficacious grace or effectual calling enables chosen sinners to believe and secures their willing compliance to the gospel command.

The death of Jesus on the cross provided a righteous basis for the justification of all sinners. On the basis of his death alone, God could justify every sinner who ever has lived or ever will live if this were his purpose. Yet, that God has not purposed to save every sinner through the death of his Son, does not in any way diminish the value of his death or the culpability of sinners who refuse to submit to God’s revealed will.

When God lays bare his almighty arm in the application of redemption to his chosen people, he makes his people willing in the day of his power. Our most powerful resistance to the claims of his gospel vanishes in the face of the invincible power of his grace.

All in whom God has begun a good work will persevere in faith to the end (Rom. 8:37; Phil.1:6. God always finishes what he has begun. Those who have apostatize from the faith have given evidence they never truly submitted to the demands of the gospel by God given faith and godly repentance (1 John 2:19). True believers don’t go back (Heb. 10:39).

Every true child of God will give some evidence of the saving work of God in his life. John wrote, “Whoever has been born of God does not practice sin, for his seed remains in him; and he cannot go on practicing sin because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.1 Trans Henry Bevridge, Grand Rapids:Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Calvin, John, Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprint 1979.

Chafer, Lewis S. He that is Spiritual, Grand Rapids: Dunham Publishing House, 1967.

Flavel, John, The Works of John Flavel, Vol IV, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, Reprint ed. 1968.

Lenski, R.C.H., The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, . Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961

Manton, Thomas, An Expostion of the Epistle of James, (Marshallton, Del: The National Foundation for Christian Education, reprint ed.

McKechnie, Jean, Ed. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language-Unabridged. New York: The Publisher’s Guild, Inc., 1960.

Murray, John, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint ed. 1961.

Murray, John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament--The Epistle To the Romans, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

Scofield, C.I., The Scofield Reference Bible, New York: Oxford University Press, 1945.

Spurgeon, C.H., All of Grace, London: The Book Society, nd.

[1]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.1 Trans Henry Bevridge (Grand Rapids:Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966) p. 129.
[2]John Flavel, The Works of John Flavel, Vol IV, (London: The Banner of Truth Trust). Reprint ed. 1968, pp. 3-235
[3]Ibid, p. 170.
[4]C.H Spurgeon, All of Grace, (London: The Book Society, p. 31), nd.
[5]John Murray, The New International Commentary on the New Testament--The Epistle To the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p.318.
[6]Ibid, p. 317
[7]Though the word “all” in Romans 3:23 ultimately refers to all without exception, its use in context refers to Jews as well as Gentiles. The preceding verse makes the statement,“ . .there is no difference. . . “That should lead the exegete to ask the question, “No difference between whom?” That question should then lead him to verses 9-20 of that chapter. The passage begins with these words, “What then? Are we [Jews] better than they [Gentiles]? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin. . . .” The Apostle’s argument is there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Both are sinners and both must be justified on the same basis. It is not the Gentiles alone who have sinned; all, both Jews and Gentiles have sinned.
[8]John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprint 1979), pp. 317-18.
[9] For a fuller treatment of this and other Messianic Psalms, see the author’s book, In These Last Days, New Covenant Media,1998. pp. 195-224.
[10] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint ed. 1961), p. 30.
[11]A Calvinist is one who believes God saves sinners all by himself [monergism].
[12]An Arminian is one who believes sinners cooperate with God [synergism] in the application of redemption.
[13]R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel.(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961) pp. 375-76.
[14]Ibid., pp464-5.
[15]Jean McKechnie, Ed. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language--Unabridged.(New York: The Publisher’s Guild, Inc., 1960.) p. 1232.
[16]Ibid., p.578.
16Thomas Manton, An Expostion of the Epistle of James, (Marshallton, Del. The National Foundation for Christian Education, reprint ed.), p.232.
[18] C.I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 1214.
[19] Lewis S. Chafer, He that is Spiritual,,(Grand Rapids:Dunham Publishing House, 1967), p. 20.