CHAPTER ONE:<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
The study of God\u2019s sovereignty in relation to human responsibility is a fragment of a larger topic called Soteriology. This doctrine includes everything the Bible teaches about salvation, which would entail the issues of election, predestination, foreknowledge, and so on. The topic tends to trigger a lot of emotions, often generating more heat than light.<\/p>\n
The issue involved here has to do with this question: How would one deal with two biblical concepts that seem to contradict each other? The first concept is divine sovereignty, and the other concept is the freedom of the human will. In the Scriptures, there are several things that fall under the category of antinomies. An antinomy is two things that are both true, but they apparently contradict each other. It is not like a paradox, where one thing might be wrong. Here we have two basic concepts the Bible presents as being true, but they appear to contradict each other.<\/p>\n
The most common antinomy, for example, is the Trinity. The Bible teaches God is one; the Bible teaches God is three. Those are two basic truths we simply have to accept by faith as being true. We try to explain it with different charts. The charts help to define the Trinity, the unity of God, but no matter how well we present it, at some point, it is not fully comprehensible. At some point, the illustration tends to fail. If there is an antinomy and one goes too far one way or the other, he ends up with the problem of false teaching. If one goes too far on the Trinitarian side, he ends up believing in tritheism: three different gods altogether. If he goes to the unity extreme, the oneness extreme, he ends up with modalism. Modalism denies that there are three persons in the Godhead. The teaching of modalism is that there is only one God who sometimes appears as the Father, sometimes appears as the Son, and sometimes appears as the Holy Spirit. The \u201cJesus only\u201d teaching for example has gone to the unity extreme. In that view, Jesus is the Father; Jesus is the Son; He is also the Holy Spirit. If there is an antinomy and one goes too far one way or the other and does not keep the two things in balance, he will end up with some kind of a false concept.<\/p>\n
The same antinomy holds true with what is being discussed in this study: the antinomy between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man, or human responsibility. These will be covered individually. There are a few things to mention about each one. A brief outline of three different ways people try to solve the apparent contradiction will be presented, and then we will seek to find the basic, balanced, biblical view.<\/p>\n
One must keep in mind that eventually we always have to accept all antinomies, including this one, by faith, because it is what the Bible teaches. We will not be able to fully harmonize them in our minds. Again, if one goes too far on the side of divine sovereignty, he ends up with a problem; if he goes too far on the human responsibility side, he will have a problem too.<\/p>\n
Take, for example, the new theology that is catching on in different circles called \u201cthe openness of God.\u201d The proponents of this teaching have gone too far to the side of human freedom and human responsibility. The openness of God theology teaches that God is not fully omniscient. While He knows a lot, the one thing He does not know is the different choices people will make. Hence, He is not omniscient. The followers of this theology have gone overboard with human responsibility.<\/p>\n
At the same time, if one goes too far with sovereignty, he ends up teaching that there is absolutely no free will. He would teach that people are saved whether they willed it or did not will it. Some of the elect are dragged into the Kingdom kicking and screaming. That has gone over to the sovereignty extreme.<\/p>\n
Again, let us look at the two concepts and keep in mind that the Bible teaches both.<\/p>\n
Regarding divine sovereignty, the Bible teaches that God is fully in control of this entire universe. He is in control of all events, whether they are physical events, catastrophic events, or human events. God\u2019s sovereignty is emphasized over and over again throughout Scripture. Some of these Scriptures will be examined later in this study.<\/p>\n
The Bible tells us that God does not only control what comes into existence, but that most of the control He exercises is over what continues to exist. Ephesians 1:11 is a passage for the sovereignty side: in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his will. Notice the last phrase: all things after the counsel of his will. This emphasizes divine sovereignty, that everything that ever happens in the universe somehow is connected with God\u2019s sovereignty. Everything that happens in the universe is something He wills and allows to happen, in some way. Divine control is exercised over the universe, over the angelic realm, over the human realm, over the animal realm. It also involves in a very close way, as we will see, the issue of redemption, salvation, and what part we play in it, and what part we do not play in it.<\/p>\n
We believe God is in sovereign control over all earthly affairs. If we are believers, we go to bed each night assured that God is in control of things. Everything that is happening, whether we understand it or not, somehow fits within His all-encompassing, pre-ordained plan. We go to sleep knowing that nothing can thwart God\u2019s plan and that nothing can happen to us outside His will, because all things work together for good to them that love God (Rom. 8:28). We go to bed with that assurance each night if we are mature believers. All this emphasizes God\u2019s sovereignty.<\/p>\n
On the other side of the coin is human responsibility, where the Bible also just as clearly teaches that people are individually responsible for their moral choices. They are somehow responsible for their eternal destinies. Whether they end up in the Lake of Fire or the New Jerusalem, that is somehow relevant to the choice they make. Throughout the Bible, God calls upon people to make a choice. Joshua declared to the people of Israel, in the closing days of his life, Choose you this day whom ye will serve (Josh. 24:15). It is obvious that the Israelites were able to make some kind of a choice and were challenged to make it. Thus we have this same concept of human responsibility. Even when we have statements in the Bible about God hardening the hearts of certain ones, like the heart of Pharaoh, it also indicates in the same context that somewhere along the line Pharaoh also hardened his own heart.<\/p>\n
We believe God holds us morally responsible for the choices we make, and He expects us to make moral decisions. If we are not able to make any moral decision, if we really do not have such a will, it is inconsistent for God to hold us responsible for choosing things that He Himself predestined us to choose. Yet the Bible constantly exhorts us to believe, and in becoming believers, the Bible exhorts us to live godly lives. The Bible holds us responsible for the choices we make, either as unbelievers or as believers. If there is no real free choice of some kind, then how could God justly reward us or punish us for the choices we make?<\/p>\n
So these are the two issues we have to deal with; this is the antinomy. Everything that has been said about the sovereignty of God is found in Scripture, but everything that has been said about human responsibility will also be found in Scripture.<\/p>\n
That is the dilemma. How can both concepts be true? If we are really able to make moral, meaningful decisions, then somehow, we must be able to act against God\u2019s will. But if we can act against God\u2019s will, then how can God be said to be sovereign? How can God say that His will is always carried out? If God is in full control, how can man make immoral choices? If we cannot make moral choices, then how can we be held responsible? In other words, how can we be both free and predestined at the same time? The question this dilemma poses is: To what extent does human freedom place limitations on God\u2019s sovereignty?<\/p>\n
In the history of dealing with the subject, people have come up with three basic solutions. The following is a brief summary of each view.<\/p>\n
One solution is that God\u2019s predestination is based on His foreknowledge. Since God is omniscient, He knows what choice each individual is going to make. Based upon that foreknowledge, God elected the elect. God looked down the corridors of time, and by His omniscience, He could see who would believe and who would not believe. Because of His omniscience, He has a foreknowledge of those who will believe, and therefore, He elected the elect based upon that foreknowledge. This view emphasizes human freedom. Humans are totally free to either reject or accept God\u2019s choice. Since God is all-knowing, because He is in sovereign control of the whole universe, He knows exactly what choice each individual will make. He knew what that choice was going to be even before He created the universe. On the one hand, God is not bound by time. He controls the whole universe. At the same time, human freedom actually exists. God knows what choices man will make on his own and then incorporates those choices into His plan. That is one solution.<\/p>\n
The basic problem with this first solution is that God says a lot more about the meaning of foreknowledge. As we will see, foreknowledge means a lot more than merely knowing in advance. It has a closer relationship to what is foreknown than merely to know in advance. If God\u2019s choice were based upon those who would choose Him, it is not really an election that is on the basis of divine grace, but on the basis of human effort, because the picture is that man chose God first, and then God chose man as a result. The elect make a choice and become elect as a result of it. The first choice is made by man and not by God. God has chosen man because man chose God first.<\/p>\n
The second suggested way to deal with these two issues is that predestination comes in spite of God\u2019s foreknowledge. The first view presented goes to the human responsibility extreme; this view goes to the sovereignty extreme. God works with such an unapproachable sovereignty that He makes His choices in total disregard for human choices. God will determine whom He will save, whether these people believe or do not believe. No human being has anything to say about his own salvation. At some point, God simply grants him that salvation, whether he wants it or not. This view is a total denial of free choice. In fact, those who hold this view actually come out and say there is no such thing as free will. Instead, God simply applies His irresistible grace on the unwilling, forcing them to believe.<\/p>\n
Now, one of the problems we can mention briefly with this view is that this totally contradicts the concept of God\u2019s love not being coercive. God never forces love on anyone. This view ultimately is what leads to limited atonement, contradicting what the Bible says, that He died for all, not just for some.<\/p>\n
The middle view is that God\u2019s predestination is in accordance with His foreknowledge. It is not based upon foreknowledge; it is not in spite of His foreknowledge; it is in accord with His foreknowledge. This view reflects the very phrase that Peter used in 1 Peter 1:2: according to the foreknowledge of God. God\u2019s predestination is not based upon His foreknowledge of human freedom, nor is it in spite of human choices. As we shall see, ultimately, predestination and foreknowledge take place at the same point of time; there is no chronological or logical order. They both are one and the same in their outworking.<\/p>\n
God foreknows things because He planned out those things. Within that plan, He allows man to make free choices in certain areas. Whether one holds to foreknowledge only or to predestination and foreknowledge, either way, the end product is the same, because once God foreknows something, it has to happen. Otherwise, God would be wrong in what He foreknows.<\/p>\n
For example, God foreknew that Judas would betray Yeshua (Jesus), which meant eventually Judas would betray Yeshua. Yet Judas was not forced to betray the Messiah. Judas chose of his own will to betray Him. God did not compel him; He did not force him to do so. Rather, Judas acted on his own free will and betrayed Yeshua. Yet God foreknew that would happen, and once He foreknew it, it was unavoidable. Ultimately, either way, one ends up with the same result.<\/p>\n
That is the larger picture; it will become clearer as this study proceeds.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER TWO:<\/p>\n
OVERVIEW OF THE FIVE VIEWS<\/p>\n
For centuries, believers have struggled with the question of predestination versus the free will of man. To this day, theologians still disagree what the answer might be. Those who emphasize human freedom view it as a reflection of God\u2019s self-limiting power. Others look at man\u2019s freedom as something that is infallibly guided by Him. Five main views have emerged over the centuries, which we will look at in this chapter.<\/p>\n
I. Arminianism<\/p>\n
Arminianism received its name from Jacobus Arminius (1560\u20131609), a professor of Divinity at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands. Arminius had studied theology under Theodore Beza, a Protestant theologian and scholar from France who played a major role in the Reformation. As Calvin\u2019s successor, Beza was one of the stronger advocates for the Reformed doctrine of predestination. His student, Jacobus Arminius, on the other hand, influenced in great part by the teachings of Johann Kolmann, retreated from this position. While this led to hefty disputes and theological Calvinist-Arminian clashes even during his lifetime, the theology of Arminianism did not become fully developed until after his death. Over the centuries, though, his doctrine has become the majority view in Protestant churches.<\/p>\n
Today, there are different strains of Arminianism. The more classic view of this theology can be compared with semi-Pelagianism, a compromise position between a radical free-will doctrine and the strong predestinarian views of Augustine. People who followed this position in the 17th and 18th century were called Remonstrants. The British theologian and founder of the Methodist movement, John Wesley, adopted this form of Arminianism and refined it with a strong evangelical emphasis on the doctrine of justification by faith. Today, Arminianism is found in the Church of the Nazarene and other Wesleyan groups, as well as the Pentecostal movement, the Assemblies of God, the Church of Christ, the Seventh-day Adventists, and many Baptist groups. Some elements of Arminianism and especially semi-Pelagianism can also be found in Roman Catholicism.<\/p>\n
The following are the five points of Arminianism.<\/p>\n
1. Free Will: There is first of all free will, meaning that man has full human ability. In this view, the sin of Adam has polluted man, but we do not inherit the guilt of sin. We do not inherit the sin nature, so man has the ability to do good, even to be perfect. In this context, sin consists of acts of the will. Man can conform to God\u2019s will on his own, and his will is one of the causes for regeneration.
\n2. Conditional Election Based upon God\u2019s Foreknowledge: Arminianism teaches that God looked down the corridors of time, and in His omniscience, He knew who would believe. Those who would believe were foreknown, and election was based upon His foreknowledge. In this view, human responsibility takes a larger role, a priority, over divine sovereignty.
\n3. Universal Atonement: Universal atonement means that Messiah died for all and not only for one specific group.
\n4. Resistible Grace: Resistible grace means that the grace of God can be resisted.
\n5. It is Possible to Fall from Grace: Arminianists teach that it is possible to fall from grace, which they define as the possibility to lose one\u2019s salvation. One loses his salvation by some specific sin or by many sins or by simply ceasing to believe. In this view, election is based upon foreknowledge. It is a sovereign act of God whereby He chose in Messiah Yeshua for salvation all those whom He knew in advance would believe. It is still an act of grace, because God grants His salvation on those who do not deserve it, but He chose beforehand those whom He knew would believe.
\nArminianism teaches that God has given sufficient grace to all men to believe. The work of the Holy Spirit is limited by the human will. But even after a person is saved, he could still be lost. What it would take to be lost will vary within this camp. One extreme says one can lose his salvation after almost every sin. Thus, one must be saved and resaved after every sin. In place of being born again, one is born again and again and again. But most in this group do not go that far. They would say one can lose his salvation not for any sin, but only for certain big sins. But they disagree among themselves what these big sins are, and often their individual backgrounds determine what they feel that sin is. One person wrote me saying he believed that the only sin that would cause a person to lose his salvation is suicide.
\nThere are those in this camp that say no act of sin would cause one to lose his salvation, but if he ceases to believe, then he loses his salvation. God will never take away salvation because of the sin that is committed, but one can walk away from his salvation by ceasing to believe. Thus, while they believe one can lose his salvation, exactly what it takes to lose one\u2019s salvation will not be the same with different teachers and different groups.<\/p>\n
II. Calminianism<\/p>\n
Calminianism is primarily Arminianism with one key difference: eternal security. Calminianism therefore stands for something like this: We choose our salvation freely, but cannot lose it once we have it. This view is seen among many (but not all) Baptist and independent churches.<\/p>\n
As in Arminianism, there are five points in Calminianism.<\/p>\n
1. Free Will: The Calminian view of free will or human ability is the same as that of Arminianism.
\n2. Conditional Election: The Calminian view of conditional election is the same as that of Arminianism.
\n3. Universal Atonement: The Calminian view of universal atonement is the same as that of Arminianism.
\n4. Resistible Grace: The Calminian view of resistible grace is the same as that of Arminianism.
\n5. Eternal Security: The only difference between Arminianism and Calminianism is this last point. The Calminian view is that one cannot lose his salvation under any circumstance.<\/p>\n
III. Moderate Calvinism<\/p>\n
The first two views are mostly found within the Arminian camp; the last three are within the Calvinistic camp. When we distinguish between the three views within Calvinism, we must address the issue of the lapsarian position. The term \u201clapse\u201d means \u201cfall\u201d; it focuses on the fall of man in Genesis 3. The different lapsarian views depend upon the order of the decrees of God. How Calvinistic one is will determine where the lapse takes place.<\/p>\n
The Moderate Calvinistic view holds to sublapsarianism, which consists of five decrees. First, God decreed to create all men. Second came the lapse, the decree to allow the Fall. Third was the decree to provide salvation for all. Fourth was the decree to elect some and bypass the rest. And fifth was the decree to apply salvation to the elect when they believe, and salvation is applied only when they believe. That is why in this view, faith must precede salvation; faith precedes regeneration.<\/p>\n
With that background, the five points of Moderate Calvinism would be as follows:<\/p>\n
1. Total Depravity: All three groups within Calvinism speak of \u201ctotal depravity,\u201d but they do not always define it the same way. In the case of Moderate Calvinism, total depravity simply emphasizes that sin has touched every part of man.
\n2. Unconditional Election: \u201cUnconditional\u201d means God did not elect on the basis of foreseen faith. That was not the basis for election. Election was not based upon what God knew people would believe, but He simply elected the elect unconditionally.
\n3. Unlimited Atonement: This view of Calvinism holds to unlimited atonement. The Bible teaches that Yeshua died for all. He provided salvation for all.
\n4. Irresistible Grace: God\u2019s salvation grace is irresistible, and for that reason, the elect will respond to this grace and choose to believe.
\n5. Perseverance of the Saints: Normally, those who hold to the Moderate Calvinism view prefer the expression \u201ceternal security.\u201d The reason why other Calvinists employ the term \u201cperseverance of the saints\u201d is because they like to work with an acronym based upon the flower called \u201ctulip.\u201d This view was developed in Holland, and the tulip is best known as the Dutch flower. Based upon that, they like to use the word \u201ctulip\u201d as an acronym to represent the five points of their view: \u201cT\u201d represents \u201ctotal depravity\u201d; \u201cU\u201d stands for \u201cunconditional election\u201d; \u201cL\u201d stands for \u201climited atonement\u201d, \u201cI\u201d represents \u201cirresistible grace\u201d; and the \u201cP\u201d is the \u201cperseverance of the saints.\u201d According to their view, all saints will persevere to the end and never fall into carnality for any length of time.
\nBut Moderate Calvinists not only hold to unlimited atonement (which changes the acronym T-U-L-I-P to T-U-U-I-P); they also prefer the term \u201ceternal security\u201d or \u201cthe perseverance of God.\u201d God perseveres for the saints; the saints do not always persevere. This would be the middle ground that the author holds.<\/p>\n
IV. Strict Calvinism<\/p>\n
The Strict Calvinist holds to the lapsarian view that is called infralapsarianism, \u201cinfra\u201d meaning \u201clater.\u201d According to this doctrine, the first decree is the decree to create. Second is the decree to permit the Fall. Third is the decree to elect some. Fourth is the decree to bypass the rest. Fifth is the decree to provide salvation only for the elect. And sixth is the decree to apply salvation to the elect.<\/p>\n
The key difference between the two forms of Calvinism is that in Moderate (or four-point) Calvinism, God provides salvation for all, but salvation is applied only when the elect believe. In Strict (or five-point) Calvinism, God provides salvation only for the elect, but it goes beyond this. God actually obtained salvation at the cross for the elect, and therefore the elect virtually are saved already. That is where, in this view, regeneration precedes faith. The followers of five-point Calvinism do not put a lot of stress on the necessity to believe for salvation. God at some point simply zaps the elect person with regeneration, and then he believes.<\/p>\n
A. The Five Points<\/p>\n
The five points of Strict Calvinism are as follows:<\/p>\n
1. Total Depravity: Salvation precedes belief because of the way five-point Calvinists define total depravity: They define it as total inability.
\n2. Unconditional Election
\n3. Limited Atonement: The Messiah died only for the elect to secure their salvation.
\n4. Irresistible Grace
\n5. Perseverance of the Saints: Strict Calvinists teach that the saints will persevere to the end. If they do not, they were never saved to begin with. They deny the existence of carnal believers. They believe the elect can fall into sin, but they cannot fall into continuous sin. If somebody falls into continuous sin, it means he was not saved to begin with. That is why those who hold to the four-point view prefer the term \u201csecurity.\u201d The word \u201csecurity\u201d focuses on God keeping the elect secure, as over against perseverance of the saints. But in Strict Calvinism, the saints have to persevere before they can be sure they are really members of the elect. That is why there is often a lack of assurance: How does one know he has persevered to the end until he has reached the end?<\/p>\n
B. Defense of Limited Atonement<\/p>\n
The key distinction between Moderate and Strict Calvinism is point number three: unlimited versus limited atonement. Because we will be dealing with this extensively, defending the unlimited view, we should say a few things about how Strict Calvinists defend limited atonement. At this point, their views will be presented along with an explanation as to why they believe what they believe. Later we will discuss why this is wrong. Let me summarize what they teach on this in seven points.<\/p>\n
1. \u201cMy\u201d or \u201cHis\u201d<\/p>\n
Strict Calvinists focus on the pronouns \u201cmy\u201d and \u201chis.\u201d In Isaiah 53:8 and 11, for example, it says that He died for the transgression of my people. Strict Calvinists define the phrase my people to be the elect only.<\/p>\n
Matthew 1:21 says: He shall save his people from their sins. They define the phrase his people as being only the elect.<\/p>\n
Luke 1:68: He came to redeem his people. His people, according to their teaching, can only be the elect.<\/p>\n
John 10:15 and 29 speak of his sheep. His sheep can only be the elect.<\/p>\n
John 15:13: He came for his friends. His friends can only be the elect.<\/p>\n
In John 17:9, Yeshua said: I pray not for the world. He does not pray for the world; therefore, the world is not something He would provide salvation for.<\/p>\n
Acts 20:28: The Church was purchased with his own blood. The Church here is the elect only; it is only the elect for whom His blood was provided.<\/p>\n
Romans 5:10 says: We were reconciled. We must be the elect only.<\/p>\n
Romans 8:32\u201335: He delivered His Son up for us all. The us all means only \u201call the elect.\u201d<\/p>\n
Second Corinthians 5:21: Our behalf. It is the behalf of the elect.<\/p>\n
Galatians 1:4: He died for our sins. Our means only the elect.<\/p>\n
Ephesians 1:7: Our redemption. Our must be the elect alone.<\/p>\n
Ephesians 5:25\u201327: He died for the Church. The Church is the elect. Strict Calvinists claim He died only for the Church and no one else.<\/p>\n
Titus 2:14: He gave himself for us, us being the world of the elect.<\/p>\n
Thus, one major argument five-point Calvinists use focuses on these pronouns. They define phrases like \u201cHis people\u201d and \u201cmy people\u201d as referring only to the elect. We will see in our subsequent studies that this cannot be true. We will also see that God sometimes uses those terms of unbelievers, who are not members of the elect.<\/p>\n
2. All for whom Messiah Died also Died in Messiah<\/p>\n
The second argument Strict Calvinists use is that all for whom Messiah died also died in Messiah. That is a true statement, but they go on to interpret it to mean that He therefore provides salvation only for the elect.<\/p>\n
Romans 6:3\u201311: We are united with Him, and we died with Him.<\/p>\n
Second Corinthians 5:14\u201315: One died for all, therefore all died.<\/p>\n
Colossians 3:3: For ye died, and your life is hid with Messiah in God.<\/p>\n
These three passages do teach that all for whom Messiah died, died in Messiah, but the Strict Calvinist goes on to say that, therefore, they mean He provided atonement in a limited sense\u2014only for the elect.<\/p>\n
3. The Purpose of the Atonement<\/p>\n
The Strict Calvinists\u2019 third line of argument has to do with the purpose of the atonement, which was to give people actual possession of eternal life, and actual possession is given only to the elect.<\/p>\n
Luke 19:10 states: He came to save that which was lost. Since not all men are saved, salvation was provided only for the ones who are saved.<\/p>\n
Romans 5:10: Those reconciled shall be saved.<\/p>\n
Second Corinthians 5:21: He was made to be sin for those who are to become righteous.<\/p>\n
Galatians 1:4: He gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world. He gave Himself for our sins only, meaning only for those of the elect.<\/p>\n
Galatians 3:13: He gave Himself for those redeemed from the curse of the law. Therefore, He only gave Himself for the redeemed, and the redeemed have to be the elect alone.<\/p>\n
Ephesians 1:7: It is the redeemed for whom His blood was shed. Strict Calvinists would interpret this verse as meaning that He died for no other.<\/p>\n
The purpose of the atonement was to provide actual possession of eternal life. If that is really true, then obviously, atonement would be limited.<\/p>\n
4. Yeshua Laid down His Life only for a Qualified Group<\/p>\n
Strict Calvinists teach that Yeshua laid down His life only for a certain qualified group. They claim that He Himself said, and the apostles taught, that He laid down His life not for all humanity, but only for a certain qualified group. To support their argument, they quote Matthew 1:21: It is he that shall save his people from their sins. Again, his people is defined as being the elect only. That is a good example of what happens when one gets away from the Jewish background of the Gospel of Matthew. As will be shown later, the phrases \u201cmy people\u201d and \u201cHis people\u201d are used of the people of Israel, whether elect or non-elect.<\/p>\n
Strict Calvinists also quote John 10:11\u201315, where it says that He gave Himself for His sheep. His sheep are a certain, qualified group, the elect.<\/p>\n
We are further told that He died for the Church, and the Church is an elect, qualified group (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25\u201327).<\/p>\n
5. God\u2019s Love is Particular<\/p>\n
According to Strict Calvinists, God\u2019s love is particular; He does not love everyone with the same kind of love. Romans 1:7 says: To all that are in Rome, beloved of God. If Strict Calvinists were more consistent with their logic, they should say that all that are in Rome, beloved of God, means He only died for the believers of Rome and no other believers.<\/p>\n
Romans 5:8: But God commends his own love toward us. His love was only for us, the elect.<\/p>\n
Romans 8:32: He delivered Him up for us all. Us\u2014the elect; it was only for the elect.<\/p>\n
Romans 9:13: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Jacob was a member of the elect; that is why he was loved. Esau was not part of the elect; therefore, he was hated.<\/p>\n
Colossians 3:12: God\u2019s elect are holy and beloved. Only they are beloved of God.<\/p>\n
First Thessalonians 1:4: knowing, brethren, beloved of God, your election. Only the elect are loved of God.<\/p>\n
Second Thessalonians 2:13: beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation. Only those who have been chosen from the beginning are beloved of the Lord. He only loves the believer, not the unbeliever.<\/p>\n
First John 4:10: he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Only those who are us, the elect, does He love. Thus, God does not love the whole world; He loves only a certain segment of the world.<\/p>\n
6. If Messiah Died for All and All are not Saved, God\u2019s Plan is Frustrated<\/p>\n
If Messiah died for all and all are not saved, then God\u2019s plan is frustrated. That is a logical argument. But it is also human deduction and not biblical teaching. It could be God\u2019s plan to provide salvation for all. It could be God\u2019s plan to only elect some, and so God\u2019s plan is not frustrated. But this argument is based upon the premise that the purpose of the atonement is to actually secure salvation for the elect.<\/p>\n
7. How Do they Respond to Passages that Say Messiah Died for All?<\/p>\n
How do Strict Calvinists respond to verses that state, \u201cGod so loved the world\u201d? How do they respond to those passages that say Messiah died for all?<\/p>\n
Strict Calvinists define the term \u201cworld\u201d in a limited sense. When the Bible says, God so loved the world, it means the world of the elect alone. They go to passages like Luke 2:1, where the term world is used only of the Roman world, and to Romans 11:12, where the word refers to the Gentile world. They point to passages where, in that context, the term \u201cworld\u201d has a limited meaning. The trouble with this approach is that in the context of salvation, the term \u201cworld\u201d does not have a limited meaning. It is called proving something by an irrelevant context. That is how Strict Calvinists deal with verses like John 3:16. God so loved the world only pertains to the world of the elect.<\/p>\n
What about the word \u201call\u201d? The Strict Calvinist also says \u201call\u201d can have a limited meaning. When the Bible says \u201call,\u201d it means \u201call of the elect,\u201d not \u201call people.\u201d Here again, they point to passages where in context \u201call\u201d does have a limited meaning. And it is true that in certain contexts the word \u201call\u201d\u2014like the word \u201cworld\u201d\u2014can have a limited meaning. For example, Romans 5:18 says: all men to condemnation; all men to justification. Obviously, in this verse, all would be limited because only those that believe are justified.<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 10:23 both state: All things are lawful. Now, obviously all things are not lawful; there are things which are unlawful. Here the word all does have a limited meaning.<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 15:22 says: In Adam, all die, so also in Messiah, shall all be made alive. That, too, has a limited meaning. In Adam, all die. That is mostly true. That was not true for Enoch or Elijah. It will not be true for those living at the time of the Rapture. And in Messiah, shall all be made alive. Again, for the Strict Calvinist the all here would be \u201call of the believers.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ephesians 1:23: the fullness of him that fills all in all. Again, contextually, that would be a limited all.<\/p>\n
These are the seven basic reasons Strict Calvinists give for believing in limited atonement. What five-point Calvinists are saying so far is true. There are passages where the term \u201call\u201d has a limited meaning; however, the context shows it is limited. But where it deals with the provision for the atonement, the context does not show any limitation. Here, again, we come across what is called the fallacy of irrelevant context.<\/p>\n
V. Hyper-Calvinism<\/p>\n
The last view is called Hyper-Calvinism. This is the most extreme of the Calvinistic views. Hyper-Calvinists hold to supralapsarianism. By \u201csupra\u201d they mean the decree to elect precedes the decree to create. In the first two views, election follows the Fall, but in this view, the election is the most important element, and the order of the decrees is as follows:<\/p>\n
First, the decree to elect some to salvation and some to Hell: This view automatically holds to double predestination. People have not only been predestined to go to Heaven, they are predestined to go to Hell. This is the only view that holds to double predestination. Second, the decree to create both elect and non-elect: God already decreed to elect those who would go to Heaven and to elect those who automatically go to Hell. Third, the decree to permit the Fall. Fourth, the decree to provide salvation for the elect. Fifth, the decree to apply salvation for the elect: Like the Strict Calvinist, the Hyper-Calvinist believes that the cross itself applies salvation to the elect, and therefore regeneration precedes faith. And sixth, the decree to condemn the rest to Hell.<\/p>\n
The five points of Hyper-Calvinism are as follows:<\/p>\n
1. Total Depravity
\n2. Unconditional Election: Again, the uniqueness here is double predestination. We will see that in the Bible, the term \u201cpredestination\u201d is only used in reference to believers. Scripturally, it is only used in reference to salvation, never to damnation. There is no biblical text that teaches that some are predestined to Hell, but it is certainly a logical conclusion at which the Hyper-Calvinists have arrived. The Bible is very clear that believers are predestined, but there is no mention of any decree to predestine some to Hell. In fact, the phrase the Bible uses is God simply \u201cpassed the others by.\u201d He elected some; the rest He passed by. The biblical picture, as we will see, is that because we have inherited the sin nature of Adam, all humanity is already under condemnation and heading for Hell. From the time we were born, we were already heading for Hell. God elected some to salvation; the rest He simply passed by. It is not God\u2019s predestination that sends them to Hell; it is their own sin that sends them to Hell.
\n3. Limited Atonement
\n4. Irresistible Grace
\n5. Perseverance of the Saints<\/p>\n
VI. Summary<\/p>\n
This introduction has portrayed the bigger issues. The issues involve trying to balance an antinomy in which the Bible teaches that God is sovereign, but at the same time there is human will and human responsibility. The Bible teaches both as true.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER THREE:<\/p>\n
KEY WORDS<\/p>\n
The next area to be discussed in this study covers some key words concerning predestination. These are words that appear in various predestination and election passages. These terms will be defined, and then, as the five points are covered, we will see how these terms are used in the places where they appear in the Scriptures.<\/p>\n
I. Foreordination<\/p>\n
The first key word is \u201cforeordination.\u201d Predestination and foreordination really mean the same thing. They are translations of the same Greek word, so sometimes it will say \u201cpredestination\u201d or \u201cpredestined,\u201d and sometimes it will say \u201cforeordination\u201d or \u201cforeordained.\u201d One must keep in mind, though, that the translations are based on the same Greek word. Literally, the word means, \u201cto mark off beforehand,\u201d \u201cto fix beforehand,\u201d or \u201cto determine beforehand.\u201d<\/p>\n
The word is used six times in the New Testament. The first place is Romans 8, where it appears twice. Romans 8:29 says: For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained [or predestined] to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. The second usage is found in Romans 8:30: and whom he foreordained [or predestined], them he also called: and whom he also called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. In these two usages, it is specifically a reference to believers that have been predestined or foreordained.<\/p>\n
In Ephesians 1:4\u20135 we read:<\/p>\n
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained [or predestined] us unto adoption as sons through Yeshua Messiah unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.<\/p>\n
Then in verse 11 we read: in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained [or predestined] according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his will. Within these verses in Ephesians, the word \u201cforeordination\u201d is used twice, dealing with the predestination of individual believers.<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 2:7 says: we speak God\u2019s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that has been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory. Here, what have been predestined are the mysteries of God. Although they are only now being revealed in the New Testament, they were predestined to be revealed long before.<\/p>\n
The last passage in which the word is found is in Acts 4:28. Verse 27 lists specific individuals and groups who are specifically guilty of Messiah\u2019s death. Individually, it names Herod and Pilate; corporately, it mentions Israel and the Gentiles. Verse 28 says, to do whatsoever your hand and your counsel foreordained [or predestined] to come to pass. This is a reference to Messiah\u2019s death. His mistreatment and death at the hands of these individuals and these groups were predestined long ago.<\/p>\n
There is one key observation to make now, which will be important when the different types of Calvinism are discussed: The word \u201cpredestination\u201d or \u201cforeordination\u201d is only applied to the elect. If it is applied to individuals, it is applied to the believers only. It is never once used of the non-elect. The Bible never says anyone is predestined to go to Hell. To avoid going to either extreme of an antinomy, we always have to be careful to stop where the Bible stops. One might argue logically, and the Hyper-Calvinist does argue logically, that since He predestined some to be saved, it has to mean He predestined some to go to Hell. That is a human deduction though that crosses the line. We must leave the matter where the Bible leaves it: The word \u201cpredestination\u201d only concerns predestination to salvation, not predestination to damnation.<\/p>\n
II. Decree<\/p>\n
The second key word is \u201cdecree.\u201d The basic biblical meaning is the act by which God establishes the certainty of what He has planned or determined. Once God has set out a plan, He issues a decree to make sure that what He has planned does come to pass. Ephesians 1:11 clearly states that the decree of God includes everything that happens in the whole universe, leaving nothing out. Everything that happens is somehow involved in the decree of God.<\/p>\n
By His decree, God establishes the certainty of everything that has been planned, predetermined, predestined. While everything happens because God has decreed it, it does not mean that He has the same relationship to every part of the plan. Within His plan, some things happen because God decrees them to happen directly; they come from His directive will. But some things happen only by His permissive will.<\/p>\n
In Romans 1:24\u201328, where Paul discusses what happens to the pagan world because it has rejected the revelation given through creation, God simply abandons the people to fall into their various sins. The progression is from idolatry to heterosexual immorality to homosexual immorality. God simply gives them over to these things. He did not directly cause them to commit these sins, but His decree, His plan, allowed for these sins to occur and for people to participate in them.<\/p>\n
God does permit certain things to happen, like simple acts of men, but He is not directly responsible for those things in His plan. What He is directly responsible for are those things He actually directly wills to happen. Whatever God has decreed, either by His directive will or by His permissive will, will come to pass, and the decree guarantees it.<\/p>\n
In the following brief overview of some Scriptures, we will point out what each passage says as far as these points are concerned.<\/p>\n
Job 22:28 states: You shall also decree a thing, and it shall be established. Once God has decreed something, it is unavoidable.<\/p>\n
Daniel 11:36 declares: for that which is determined shall be done. Once God has determined that something will happen, it will happen. That is why we have the guarantee that every prophecy will be fulfilled. Every historically unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled in the future. Because God has determined something, it has to come to pass.<\/p>\n
Luke 22:22 says: For the Son of man goes, as it has been determined. Why did things happen to Yeshua the way they happened? Because they were already determined by God\u2019s decree.<\/p>\n
Acts 2:23 explains, that whatever Yeshua suffered, He suffered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.<\/p>\n
In Acts 4:27\u201328 we read that, whatever those individuals and groups did, happened because God has so decreed it to come to pass.<\/p>\n
III. Foreknowledge<\/p>\n
The third key word is \u201cforeknowledge.\u201d As a noun, it is used three times: In Romans 8:29 and in 1 Peter 1:2, it speaks of the believers\u2019 salvation; in Acts 2:23, it is used of the sacrifice of Messiah. As a verb, it is used in Romans 11:2, that He foreknew Israel; in 1 Peter 1:20, He foreknew the sacrifice of the Messiah.<\/p>\n
Both the Arminian view and the Calminian view focus a lot on this word. Since they totally reject the concept of foreordination or predestination, they claim that predestination was based upon God\u2019s foreknowledge. God looked down the corridors of time, and He could see those who would believe. Because He foresaw their faith, He then elected them accordingly. Thus, election is based upon God foreseeing their faith, on account of His foreknowledge.<\/p>\n
The main problem with this view is that the basic usage of the term does not mean to merely \u201cknow in advance.\u201d Rather, it means one can \u201cknow in advance\u201d because of preplanning. We all do this on a limited level. We plan ahead and then do it, but we knew we would do it because we pre-planned it. Being human and finite, things may go wrong. We may miss plane connections; we may get sick; other things may happen. We foreknew we would do something because we planned to do it, but things could go wrong. However, in the case of God, nothing can go wrong because of His decree.<\/p>\n
There is a good example of this in Acts 2. In this passage, it is clear that foreknowledge does not merely mean \u201cto know in advance,\u201d but to know in advance because it was pre-planned that way. Acts 2:23 says: him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay. Does this verse mean that GodGod simply foresaw that they would kill the Messiah? That God did not have in His plan that Messiah would die? He simply looked down the future, and He saw they would kill Yeshua? Obviously, according to the total biblical record, God foreknew Messiah would die because He had already planned for Him to die from the foundation of the world. Messiah was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. In this verse, that foreknowledge is based upon God\u2019s determinate counsel or decree. God decreed Messiah would die for sins. Because God decreed it, that is how He foreknew it.<\/p>\n
Very common throughout Scripture is the concept that knowing something is not merely perception. The concept of truly knowing involves some kind of a relationship. The following are some examples.<\/p>\n
In reference to Abraham, Genesis 18:19 says:<\/p>\n
For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of Jehovah, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that Jehovah may bring upon Abraham that which he has spoken of him.<\/p>\n
The word knowing here does not mean He simply knew who Abraham was. It is not mere mental perception. He had a special relationship with Abraham, a covenantal relationship, and that is the emphasis of knowing.<\/p>\n
Exodus 2:24\u201325 says:<\/p>\n
24And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25And God saw the children of Israel, and God took knowledge of them.<\/p>\n
At this point, did God simply take notice that they were in Egypt as slaves? It is not mere perception. It means that He has a special relationship with the people because of the Patriarchs, because of the Abrahamic Covenant. He took special knowledge of them in that He is about to move on their behalf.<\/p>\n
Some other examples are as follows:<\/p>\n
Hosea 13:5: I did know you in the wilderness. God knew Israel before the wilderness, but again this emphasizes a unique relationship.<\/p>\n
Amos 3:2: You only have I known of all the families of the earth. This is in reference to Israel. Did God not know about all those other nations? Of course He knew about them, but He had no special relationship with them; He had no covenantal relationship with them. Solely of Israel He can say, You only have I known of all the families of the earth.<\/p>\n
In Matthew 7:23, addressing false prophets, He says: I never knew you. But being omniscient, He obviously knows who and what they are. He never knew them in that He had no unique relationship with them.<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 8:3: if any man loves God, the same is known by him. This too is in reference to believers. God has a special knowledge of us. Does He not know anything about unbelievers? Of course He does, but He does not have a relationship with unbelievers as He has with us who are believers.<\/p>\n
Galatians 4:9: but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God. Because we have come to know God in salvation, He also knows us. He knew us before we were saved, but He now knows us in a very special relationship sense which was not true before our salvation.<\/p>\n
First Peter 1:20: who was foreknown indeed. When dealing with the passages concerning the issue of foreknowledge, although some want to interpret them as foreknowledge of the believers\u2019 faith, they actually never say that. The Bible never says what He foreknew; it always speaks of whom He foreknew. It is always the individual or corporate body He foreknew, not what He foreknew. Thus, foreknowledge is never used in the sense that He foresaw believers\u2019 faith and elected them accordingly. He had a special foreknowledge of them.<\/p>\n
Romans 11:2 is an example: God did not cast off his people, meaning Israel in this context, which he foreknew. It does not say that He foreknew they would believe, and that is why Israel was chosen. Was Israel chosen because God saw they would believe? If God foresaw they would believe, He foresaw wrongly. In the whole history of Israel, only a minority has believed. In the days of Elijah, out of some two to three million people in the Northern Kingdom, merely seven thousand were believers. But it is the people of Israel whom He foreknew in that He had a special covenantal relationship with them.<\/p>\n
Romans 8:29 is another example. Paul says, For whom he foreknew. It does not say what He foreknew, that He foreknew their future faith. It speaks of whom He foreknew. It is an individual relationship because He foreknew them, because He foreordained them.<\/p>\n
Thus, foreknowledge does not mean mere perception of the future. Omniscience covers that. Rather, there is a relationship between foreknowledge and that which is foreknown, and that relationship is there because of the next term, election.<\/p>\n
IV. Election<\/p>\n
The basic meaning of \u201celection\u201d is \u201cto choose.\u201d Out of the mass of humanity, God freely chose certain individuals for salvation. This will be covered further, when the five points are discussed, because one of those five points is unconditional election. There are a few passages to note that relate to election: Romans 9:11\u201313; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9.<\/p>\n
The basic meaning is that out of the mass of humanity, God elected some to be saved. This will be elaborated later.<\/p>\n
V. Calling<\/p>\n
Another key word that comes up in the predestination passages is \u201ccalling.\u201d The basic definition is \u201cthe summoning of the elect.\u201d It is a special call to which only the elect respond. In their response to faith, they receive their salvation. John 6:44 says: No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Hebrews 9:15: they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Romans 9:11: We have not been saved by works, but by Him who calls us. Romans 9:24: He called to salvation both Jews and Gentiles.<\/p>\n
There are quite a few other passages; this is a rather common term. While there is a general call, a call that goes out to all to proclaim the gospel, there is a special call to which the individual believer responds.<\/p>\n
VI. Will<\/p>\n
Related to this discussion is the word \u201cwill\u201d; election is based upon the will of God. Ephesians 1:11 states: having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his will.<\/p>\n
VII. Purpose<\/p>\n
Another term that comes up in discussions about free will versus predestination is \u201cpurpose.\u201d One will find the term in Romans 8:28\u201330 and Ephesians 1:9. The point is that predestination is not capricious; it has a purpose in view.<\/p>\n
VIII. Good Pleasure<\/p>\n
All that comes to pass is for the good pleasure of God (Eph. 1:9). Philippians 2:13: it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Ultimately the purpose of all the elements is to achieve the glory of God.<\/p>\n
IX. Adoption<\/p>\n
The last word is \u201cadoption.\u201d It is connected with predestination in Ephesians 1:5. There are three key passages on the word \u201cadoption.\u201d Two will be covered here. The first is Romans 8:28\u201330:<\/p>\n
28And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. 29For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.<\/p>\n
Notice several of these terms that have just been covered appear in this passage. One finds the same number of terms (or even more) in Ephesians 1:3\u201311:<\/p>\n
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua Messiah, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Messiah: 4even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: 5having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Yeshua Messiah unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved: 7in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him 10unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Messiah, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say, 11in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his will; \u2026<\/p>\n
CHAPTER FOUR:<\/p>\n
MODERATE CALVINISM<\/p>\n
The five points of Calvinism will be presented here from the Moderate Calvinistic perspective. As we go through these points, we will begin to delineate differences between Moderate Calvinism and the other systems.<\/p>\n
The presentation of the five points uses the acronym based upon the Dutch flower tulip, T-U-L-I-P. However, because in this particular view we do not hold to limited atonement, it is T-U-U-I-P.<\/p>\n
I. Total Depravity<\/p>\n
A. Meaning<\/p>\n
The basic meaning of total depravity is that man, when he fell into a state of sin, lost all ability to do any spiritual good. He is dead in sin. There is nothing he can do that will commend him to God in any way insofar as salvation is concerned. There is nothing man can do that would even remotely help him earn his salvation. Man basically fails the test of being able to please God. No single act of man, no matter how good, carries any merit before God.<\/p>\n
Depravity is total in two ways. It is total because, first, it affects all people. All of us are from Adam, and Adam\u2019s fallen state has affected all of us, since we are all his descendants. Second, sin has affected every part of man.<\/p>\n
To help define it even more clearly, we will consider it both negatively, what it does not mean, and then positively, what it does mean. Negatively, total depravity does not mean four things. First, it does not mean everybody is as bad as he can be. As bad as one is, he can even get worse. Second, it does not mean that people do not have some kind of a conscience in relation to God. Man in his depravity still has a conscience. Third, it does not mean unbelievers indulge in every type of sin. Fourth, it does not mean that people cannot do things which are good.<\/p>\n
Positively, total depravity means two things. First, it means that corruption extends to every part of man\u2019s being. Sin has touched every part of man. Second, no matter what good things man does, they cannot commend him to God for righteousness\u2019 sake. Some passages where this comes out are as follows:<\/p>\n
John 1:13 describes the origins of how we come to faith: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Depravity is such that man, left purely to himself, will not be able to will to be saved.<\/p>\n
John 6:44: No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. Left to himself, no man is able to come to God the Father, until some kind of divine drawing takes place. Later, in verse 65, He says, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.<\/p>\n
Romans 3, a rather extensive indictment, emphasizes that, left to himself, no man will see God. Romans 3:10\u201318 says:<\/p>\n
10as it is written,
\nThere is none righteous, no, not one;
\n11There is none that understands,
\nThere is none that seeks after God.
\n12They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable;
\nThere is none that does good, no, not so much as one:
\n13Their throat is an open sepulchre;
\nWith their tongues they have used deceit:
\nThe poison of asps is under their lips:
\n14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
\n15Their feet are swift to shed blood:
\n16Destruction and misery are in their ways;
\n17And the way of peace have they not known:
\n18There is no fear of God before their eyes.<\/p>\n
Notice how inclusive Paul makes it: There is none that seeks after God. He says \u201cno one\u201d more than once and even focuses on the number one: \u201cnot even one.\u201d Total depravity means that, left to himself, nobody will ever seek God.<\/p>\n
In Romans 7:18, Paul writes: For to will is present with me [he does have a will], but to do that which is good is not. He has the will, but he cannot seem to exercise the will to do the right thing.<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 2:14, speaking about the natural man or the unbeliever, states he does not have the capacity to understand spiritual truths: Now the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him. Why not? Because, left to himself, he cannot. There is a basic inability.<\/p>\n
According to 2 Corinthians 4:3\u20134, the gospel is hidden to them that are lost because they have been blinded by Satan.<\/p>\n
Ephesians 2:1\u20133 says:<\/p>\n
1And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, 2wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience; 3among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: \u2026<\/p>\n
We were spiritually dead in sin; therefore, until we were saved, we were children of wrath.<\/p>\n
Other passages include Ephesians 4:8; Titus 1:15; and 1 John 5:19, which teaches that the whole world lies in the lap of the wicked one.<\/p>\n
B. Ramifications<\/p>\n
There are four ramifications of total depravity.<\/p>\n
1. Total Depravity is the Condition before Salvation<\/p>\n
First, the emphasis of depravity is on man\u2019s condition before he is saved. Second Timothy 2:25\u201326 states that we are scared by the devil and have been taken captive by him unto his will\u2014Satan\u2019s will. Galatians 3:22 explains that man is under sin. The Scriptures have shut up all things under sin. Ephesians 2:1 emphasizes spiritual deadness: ye were dead through your trespasses and sins.<\/p>\n
The picture is that those who are born into a state of depravity are viewed as already being condemned. These passages do not say one will be condemned after he dies. Those who are born under sin, under Adam, are under condemnation already.<\/p>\n
John 3:18: he that believes not is judged already. He is already under divine judgment.<\/p>\n
John 3:36: he that obeys not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. The verb abides is in the present tense. He is already under the wrath of God.<\/p>\n
Romans 1:18 too uses the present tense: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.<\/p>\n
We have to picture depravity the way God does: All humanity is already under sin, already under judgment, already under wrath, heading for Hell and the Lake of Fire. People were not predestined that way. They were born that way. Romans 3 has taught us that not one of these members of mass humanity, if left completely to himself, will seek God.<\/p>\n
2. All of Humanity May not do Absolute Good<\/p>\n
The second ramification is that all of humanity cannot do absolute good. \u201cAbsolute good\u201d means to do enough to earn one\u2019s salvation.<\/p>\n
3. All of Humanity Can Do Relative Good<\/p>\n
Third, all of humanity can do relative good. It is never good enough because it will always be measured against God\u2019s holiness, which is absolute holiness, but man can do relative good. That relative good must be measured against God\u2019s absolute holiness. All of man can do good works, which are appreciated by others, but they will never earn salvation. Good works will never gain one any merit or favor in the sight of God.<\/p>\n
4. Humanity has Free Will<\/p>\n
The fourth ramification is this: Humanity does have free will, but the free will is limited by man\u2019s nature. Man cannot do anything towards his salvation, not even believe. That is why the Strict Calvinist and the Hyper-Calvinist both teach that regeneration precedes faith, that man must become spiritually alive before he can believe. They teach that faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it. In other words, first one is born again, and then he believes.<\/p>\n
Their teaching is based on their extreme view of what total depravity means. They teach that we have nothing to do with our spiritual birth. It occurs with or without our consent being asked. It does not matter whether one wants to be saved or not; he is forced to be saved. Salvation occurs without our consent being asked. If any person believes, it is because God has quickened him. If any person fails to believe, it is because God has withheld that grace.<\/p>\n
The soul is dead in sin when first transferred to the spiritual life; then it exercises faith and repentance. That is why the Strict Calvinist and the Hyper-Calvinist do not stress believing all that much. Until God \u201czaps\u201d one, he cannot believe.<\/p>\n
With that view in mind, one is already saved before he believes, so why bother even asking people to believe? But when Strict Calvinists are asked why they still tell people to believe, their answer is generally the same: It is because they are commanded to. On one hand, they claim that regeneration, the new birth, comes before one believes. On the other hand, they tell people to believe to be saved merely because they were commanded to. They cannot see the contradiction in how they work things out.<\/p>\n
How do the Strict Calvinist and the Hyper-Calvinist answer the question, \u201cWhat must I do to be saved?\u201d Paul answered the question rather simply: \u201cBelieve in the Lord Yeshua Messiah and you shall be saved.\u201d The Strict Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists on the other hand answer the question this way: \u201cNothing. You cannot do anything. You are dead and totally unable to respond to God until you are regenerated. You have no part in salvation. God must do it all. You cannot exercise saving faith until later on.\u201d One cannot do anything to be saved. God must regenerate him first, and then he has faith, and even that faith itself is a gift from God. It does not come from anything one does. One really cannot be saved until God gives him the faith to be saved.<\/p>\n
What does the sinner have to do to get saved? What does one tell a person that he must do to try to find salvation?<\/p>\n
Dr. William Greenough Thayer Shedd (1820\u20131894), a systematic theologian who was a Strict Calvinist, suggested that one tells an unbeliever to do three things. First, he should read and hear the divine Word, read the Bible. Second, he must give serious application of the mind to the truth. Third, then, he should pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit to regenerate him. One cannot just tell the unbeliever, \u201cBelieve on Messiah and you will be saved.\u201d Because one has to be regenerated first, all one can do is go home, read the Bible, pay attention, and ask God that He will give one the gift of faith so he finally can be saved.<\/p>\n
Dr. John MacArthur, a very well-known radio Bible teacher from California, believes the same thing. This is how he gives the invitation at the end of a message:<\/p>\n
Faith is a gift from God. It is permanent. The faith that God gives begets obedience. God gave it to you, and He sustains it. May God grant you a true, saving faith, a permanent gift that begins in humility and brokenness over sin and ends up in obedience unto righteousness. That true faith\u2014it is a gift only God can give. If you desire it, pray, and ask that God will grant it to you.<\/p>\n
Here is the problem: These Strict and Hyper-Calvinists are telling people that there is nothing they can do to believe until God gives them the faith with which they could believe. What must he do to be saved? The sinner must beg for God to give him saving faith. So the condition for salvation is praying for faith, not believing in what Messiah did on the cross. They do not seem to see the contradiction because they claim the reason that regeneration must precede faith is because the person is totally dead in sin. But they tell the person who is dead in sin to read the Bible, to believe it, and to beg God to give saving faith. As someone once said, \u201cThat is a pretty lively corpse!\u201d They downplay the necessity of faith or belief because of this concept that regeneration must come first.<\/p>\n
That is the extreme view of total depravity. If one adheres to what the text says, total depravity means that man, left to himself, will not seek God. Total depravity is true if man is left to himself. But if God works and enables him to exercise belief that will bring about regeneration, then that is a different issue. If we adhere to what depravity means as seen biblically, man\u2019s depravity is such that he cannot and does not initiate any move toward God on his own. Being totally depraved, he is unable to help himself.<\/p>\n
They keep emphasizing the concept, \u201cWell, you are dead, spiritually dead, and like a corpse, a spiritual corpse cannot do anything.\u201d But they define \u201cdeadness\u201d in a way that it is not defined by Scripture. The Bible talks about three different types of death: physical death, the second death, and spiritual death.<\/p>\n
In physical death, the spirit separates from the body. The physical body becomes lifeless. What happens to the soul? It continues in conscious existence. It might be in Heaven; it might be in Hell. But the soul continues in conscious existence. Deadness in the Bible does not mean annihilation of the soul, only a separation.<\/p>\n
What is the second death? The second death is separation from God forever in the Lake of Fire.<\/p>\n
What is spiritual deadness? Spiritual deadness is separation from God. But God does not picture spiritual deadness as a corpse. If one were to go to any street, any shopping mall, any place where there are a lot of people around, most of the people one would see are spiritually dead. But they are walking; they are breathing; they are eating; they are drinking just as well as the one who is not spiritually dead. In other words, there are some things spiritually dead people still have a capacity to do. They are not just corpses. A certain amount of light was given to enlighten every man (John 1:9).<\/p>\n
Even spiritually dead people make choices in the spiritual realm. They are able to choose lesser sins from greater sins. Unbelievers are able to resist temptations that believers fall into. So yes, unbelievers are spiritually dead, but the Bible does not picture them as corpses. They are seen as dead in certain areas, but not all areas.<\/p>\n
Thus, the first point of Moderate Calvinism is total depravity, where the Bible points out that sin has corrupted and touched every part of man so that, left to himself, he will never respond to any spiritual thing. Left to himself, as Paul said, no one will search for God; he even specifies, no, not even one. That is why if anybody was going to be saved, God had to take the initiative.<\/p>\n
II. Unconditional Election<\/p>\n
The second key point, the \u201cU\u201d in both acronyms T-U-L-I-P and T-U-U-I-P, stands for unconditional election. The basic meaning of unconditional election refers to the eternal plan of God, where, on the basis only of His own good pleasure and not on the basis of foreseen faith or merit, He chose some to be saved. Out of the mass of humanity already under condemnation, already heading for Hell from the moment they were born, He chose to save some.<\/p>\n
A synonym for \u201celection\u201d is the word \u201cchosen.\u201d There are several Scriptures related to election.<\/p>\n
Ephesians 1:4 deals with the timing of election: He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. We are already chosen, not when we believe, but from the foundation of the world.<\/p>\n
Second Thessalonians 2:13 says: God chose you from the beginning unto salvation. Election means that the person who has been elected will eventually come to salvation.<\/p>\n
A good example to look at is Acts 13:48: And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Who believed the message Paul preached? The ones whom God had already preordained believed the message. All those who had been ordained, elected, do come to faith. But they come to believe only when they hear the message.<\/p>\n
Romans 9:6\u201324 emphasizes that God\u2019s election was not based upon merit, nor based upon ancestry. The reason we cannot boast that God chose us is because He did not choose us for anything in us.<\/p>\n
Ephesians 1:3\u201314, a passage we discussed earlier, teaches that predestination was determined beforehand. It was an outworking of the love of God. It was for the glory of God.<\/p>\n
Second Thessalonians 2:13 says, God chose you from the beginning.<\/p>\n
The names of believers have been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). Over and over again, a key term for believers is not \u201cChristians\u201d, but \u201cthe elect\u201d (Col. 3:12; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Tim. 2:10; Tit. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:13).<\/p>\n
There are ten ramifications to the doctrine of election:<\/p>\n
1. When the Bible talks about the cause of election, it is always the sovereign will of God, His own good pleasure. This is something God wanted to do. God made His elective choice freely and for His own purpose. (Eph. 1:4; 1 Cor. 1:27\u201328)
\n2. It renders certain the salvation of those chosen. No elect person will ever end up dying without being saved. At some point in his life, he will respond to the gospel. This is reflected in Romans 8:29\u201330. The Acts 13:48 passage also makes this clear: Those who are ordained to eternal life believed; it is certain that the elect will come to be saved.
\n3. God\u2019s election was from eternity, from before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4a states: he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. Second Thessalonians 2:13b says: God chose you from the beginning unto salvation. And 2 Timothy 1:9 adds: who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Messiah Yeshua before times eternal.
\n4. Election is unconditional. It was not conditioned upon any foreseen faith; it was not conditioned upon future good works; it was not based upon anyone\u2019s merit. Romans 9:11 explains: the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calls. Second Timothy 1:9 says: who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our own works, but according to his own purpose and grace.
\n5. Election is a choice on the part of God, and God chose some and not all. Many are called, but few are chosen. The question arises: Why did not God choose everybody? He does not tell us why. Election is unconditional. On the emotional level, people say it is not fair for God not to choose everybody. Actually, God was not obligated to choose anybody. The fact that He did choose some is an outworking of His grace.
\n6. The choice is based upon something in God, not in man. God\u2019s election is always grounded in His own being and for His own glory. In Romans 9:11, we read: being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand. Romans 9:23: vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory. Romans 11:5\u20136: Election is by grace. If it is by grace, it is not because of human works. Ephesians 1:4\u20135: Election was based upon the good pleasure of his will.
\n7. The election is based upon God\u2019s foreknowledge, which in turn is based upon His decree and foreordination. Again, the foreknowledge is not merely knowing in advance, but knowing in advance because of preplanning. This is reflected in Romans 8:28\u201330. First Peter 1:2 says: The elect are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God.
\n8. Election is sure of fulfillment. Election itself does not result in salvation. It guarantees the elect person will be saved. That is why there is a strong emphasis on preaching the gospel in Moderate Calvinism. Election does not mean the elect will be saved anyway. Election means the elect will be saved in a certain way: They must hear the gospel, and they must believe its message. There are elect people out there right now who are not yet saved. There are unsaved elect people walking around. They eventually will come to salvation, but not before someone tells them the gospel. Again, election itself does not save; it only guarantees the salvation of the individual. At some point, he must come to understand the gospel and believe it.
\n9. How is election related to human freedom? It is in harmony with human freedom because no one is forced to believe. The Strict Calvinist and Hyper-Calvinist might say the elect are forced to believe. However, if we keep it in a moderate perspective and leave it where the text leaves it, no one is forced to believe. Everyone who does believe wants to believe. (Phil. 2:13)
\n10. Because God chose only to elect some means others have simply been passed by.<\/p>\n
There are passages that speak about God\u2019s hardening, such as John 12:39\u201340 and Romans 9:22\u201324. The Strict Calvinist and the Hyper-Calvinist will say, \u201cPeople are hardened so that they cannot believe.\u201d That is not correct. God does not harden people so that they will not believe; it is because they do not believe that they are hardened. It is the reverse of what five-point Calvinists often teach. God does not harden men to keep them from believing. Because they do not believe already, some are hardened.<\/p>\n
Romans 9:22\u201323 states:<\/p>\n
22What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: 23and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, \u2026<\/p>\n
Taken at face value, this passage might indicate that He has predestined some to be saved and predestined some to destruction. The difference is in the Greek text. When it mentions the vessels of mercy, it uses the passive voice. The passive voice means God made them fit for salvation. God makes those who are saved fit for salvation. However, when it deals with those fitted for destruction, it uses the Greek middle voice, which means they fit themselves for destruction. The vessels of wrath fit themselves for destruction. Vessels of mercy are made fit by God for salvation. The other ones He simply passes by.<\/p>\n
Revelation 13:8 makes the point that certain names were not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb. The elect have been written, but the non-elect did not have their names written. He simply passed them by.<\/p>\n
God has elected, but not because of any merit. Election has a purpose behind it. People who have become members of the elect are expected to do something. On the human level, their purpose is for good works and service. John 15:16 says we have been chosen to bear fruit. According to Galatians 1:15\u201316, we have been called to preach the gospel. Ephesians 2:10 says we have been called to do good works. The same point is made in 1 Thessalonians 1:4\u201310. The purpose for man is service and good works; the purpose for God will be His own glory. Other verses that make this point are Ephesians 1:6, 12, and 14.<\/p>\n
God took the initiative with this second point of Moderate Calvinism, which is unconditional election. Out of the mass of humanity, already under judgment, already under condemnation, heading for its final place, the Lake of Fire, from that mass of humanity, He chose some to bring to salvation. He elected some. It was unconditional in that it was not based upon any merit in the individual; it was not based upon any foreseen faith. It was based upon God\u2019s own free will, God\u2019s own free choice, in accordance with His own will, and for His own good pleasure.<\/p>\n
III. Unlimited Atonement<\/p>\n
Now we come to the third key point of Calvinism, which is the issue of the atonement. Normally in Calvinism when there are the five points of the flower tulip, T-U-L-I-P, the \u201cL\u201d stands for \u201climited atonement.\u201d That is the view of Strict Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. But Moderate Calvinism, which is the author\u2019s position, holds to unlimited atonement; hence the acronym T-U-U-I-P.<\/p>\n
A. Meaning<\/p>\n
What does unlimited atonement mean? It means that Messiah died for all humanity, and salvation, based upon that death, is therefore offered to all humanity.<\/p>\n
B. The Issue<\/p>\n
The issue is the extent of the atonement. For whom did the Messiah die? This distinguishes the three different key views.<\/p>\n
Arminianism and Calminianism hold the same view of the atonement: Messiah died to obtain salvation for all men, but only those who believe will experience it. Arminianism and Calminianism go on to say that God has given sufficient grace to everyone to believe.<\/p>\n
Strict Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism teach that Messiah died to secure the salvation of the elect. The atonement was designed only to save the elect and nothing more. Strict Calvinism teaches that the atonement not only makes salvation possible for the sinner, it actually secures it:<\/p>\n
\u2026 the Calvinist teaches that the atonement meritoriously secured the application of the work of redemption to those for whom it was intended and thus rendered their complete salvation certain.<\/p>\n
The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only.<\/p>\n
This is equivalent to saying that He died for the purpose of saving only those to whom He actually applied the benefit of His redemptive work. That is why Strict Calvinists hold to a limited atonement.<\/p>\n
When a Strict Calvinist or a Hyper-Calvinist presents the actual issue at hand, he has to be very careful how he states it because he will state it as if we only have two options. One must choose either one option or the other. The way one author puts it is as follows:<\/p>\n
Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming to the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? This is the question, and that is the only question.<\/p>\n
That is a wrong statement. He presents the case, \u201cDid He come to save only the elect, or did He come to save all men?\u201d If one only has those two choices, he ends up having to believe in limited atonement because it is obvious God is not going to save everybody. If there are only these two options, then the purpose of the atonement was to provide and secure salvation only for the elect; otherwise, we end up with universalism, which teaches that everybody is going to be saved.<\/p>\n
But that is not the correct way to present the question. Although he says, \u201cThis is the question, and that is the only question,\u201d it is not. The question should be phrased differently.<\/p>\n
C. The Issue in the Phraseology of Moderate Calvinism<\/p>\n
Moderate Calvinism teaches: \u201cMessiah died as a substitution for the sin of all men and to provide salvation for all men,\u201d not to secure the salvation of anybody. Again, Messiah died as a substitution for all humanity and to provide salvation for humanity. From this perspective, then, the death of the Messiah provides the basis of salvation for those who believe, which will be the elect. It also provides the basis of condemnation for those who do not believe, the non-elect.<\/p>\n
Those who hold to limited atonement do not come to their conclusion based upon the exegesis of Scripture because the fact is that there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that says He died only for the elect. Earlier in this study, the passages which the limited atonement people use were presented. Not one of those passages says He died only for the elect. The defense for limited atonement is not based upon exegesis; it is based upon logic. If the first two points are true, that man is totally depraved and God elected only some, then logically, it would seem, the atonement would be only for the some He elected. That does make logical sense, but we are not to ask what is logical, but what is scriptural. What does the Bible teach about the subject?<\/p>\n
Because limited atonement is based more on logic than exegesis, the majority of those who believe in limited atonement automatically believe in Replacement Theology. The majority of Strict Calvinists, and likely the vast majority of Hyper-Calvinists, holds to Replacement Theology. The reason is this: If the purpose of the death of Messiah was only the salvation of the elect, and since the elect make up the Church, one cannot have more than one people of God. Therefore, the one people of God is the Church, not Israel.<\/p>\n
There are exceptions to the rule. One will find Strict Calvinists who are not replacement theologians. John MacArthur is an example for this. Nevertheless, a majority of Strict Calvinists believe in Replacement Theology. It is a logical conclusion in their system.<\/p>\n
In general, those Calvinists who do not believe in Replacement Theology are largely Moderate Calvinists. There are exceptions to this as well.<\/p>\n
The Moderate Calvinist believes that the design of the atonement was not to secure salvation for anyone, but to be a substitute for the sins of all humanity and to provide salvation for all humanity. The Moderate Calvinist does not hold to universalism. We do not believe all are going to be saved in the end. Furthermore, Moderate Calvinism affirms that all people are lost. Even the elect before they are saved are lost. Anyone who will be saved must believe. While the Father will do the drawing, the one drawn must believe.<\/p>\n
D. Some Differentiations<\/p>\n
How does one differentiate between limited and unlimited atonement? Limited atonement teaches the death of Messiah is actual for the elect; it secures their salvation at the cross, with no salvation benefits for the non-elect. The proponents of this base their belief upon the usage of pronouns in passages such as Isaiah 53:5: us and our; and Matthew 1:21: His people, which they define to be the elect.<\/p>\n
Unlimited atonement on the other hand teaches that the death of the Messiah is actual for the elect and potential for the non-elect. God did provide salvation for the non-elect. If they do not believe, it is because of their depravity, their inability, because they are bound to their sins.<\/p>\n
Limited atonement says the value of Messiah\u2019s death is received at the time He died. Unlimited atonement says the value of Messiah\u2019s death is only received when faith is exercised.<\/p>\n
Both groups believe that the death of Messiah is sufficient to save everybody; it is sufficient for all. But in limited atonement, it is a bare sufficiency\u2014so bare, it is insufficient to save the non-elect. In unlimited atonement, it is an ordained sufficiency\u2014it is sufficient to save the non-elect if the non-elect had the capacity to believe. It is their depravity and not God that keeps them from believing.<\/p>\n
E. The Evidence for Unlimited Atonement<\/p>\n
1. The Passages that May Show Limited Atonement<\/p>\n
The passages enumerated earlier will fit here as well.<\/p>\n
Matthew 20:28 and Matthew 26:28 use the term many.<\/p>\n
John 10:15: His sheep.<\/p>\n
John 15:13: His friends.<\/p>\n
John 17:2\u201324: He prays for the elect only.<\/p>\n
Acts 20:28: The verse is talking about the Church only.<\/p>\n
Romans 4:25: Our.<\/p>\n
Galatians 3:13: Us.<\/p>\n
Ephesians 1:3\u20137: Messiah is the Redeemer of His elect people.<\/p>\n
Ephesians 5:25\u201327: Messiah gave himself up for the Church.<\/p>\n
Second Timothy 1:9: Us.<\/p>\n
Hebrews 9:28: The many.<\/p>\n
Revelation 13:6, 8: The Lamb was slain for those whose names were written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world.<\/p>\n
People who believe in limited atonement use these passages to support the argument that Messiah died only for the elect.<\/p>\n
2. Answer<\/p>\n
When one examines each one of these verses in its context, as well as the verses discussed earlier, he will notice that not one of these passages states He died only for the elect. Just because other groups are not mentioned in these passages, does not mean they are excluded if they happen to be mentioned elsewhere. If one uses the logic of those who hold to limited atonement, one would end up saying there are some passages that teach He died only for Israel. There are three examples.<\/p>\n
Isaiah 53:8 says:<\/p>\n
By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.<\/p>\n
Who is the my people here? Who were Isaiah\u2019s people? The Jewish people. In verse 8, he does not mention anybody else but the Jewish people. If one uses the same logic, it means He died only for the Jews, not for the Gentiles.<\/p>\n
The same thing happens in John 11:51, where it states that the Messiah should die for the nation. Which nation? The Jewish nation. If one goes by that passage, He only died for Israel.<\/p>\n
Acts 13:23: Of this man\u2019s seed has God according to promise brought unto Israel a Saviour, Yeshua. This verse only mentions Israel; therefore, should we conclude that He died only for Israel, because no other group is mentioned? If we use the same logic that the limited atonement people adhere to, we would conclude that. We know He did not die only for Israel because in other passages, Gentiles are mentioned, although they were not mentioned in the passages we just looked at.<\/p>\n
Another example is Galatians 2:20:<\/p>\n
I have been crucified with Messiah; and it is no longer I that live, but Messiah living in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.<\/p>\n
The only one for whom Messiah died mentioned in verse 20 is Paul. If you use that same logic, then, the atonement was really limited! He died for Paul and no one else. That is the fallacy of the limited atonement argument.<\/p>\n
Thus, if there are passages that clearly show that He did die for the non-elect, then they are included. One has to go through some exegetical gymnastics to avoid that conclusion.<\/p>\n
Those who hold to unlimited atonement have no problems with the limited passages. Yes, He did die for Israel; yes, He did die for Paul. Ultimately, salvation is applied only to the elect, to those who will believe. But that does not mean He did not die for the others as well. The problem confronting those who hold to limited atonement is how to deal with passages that teach unlimited atonement.<\/p>\n
3. Passages that Show an Unlimited Atonement<\/p>\n
a. Passages that Speak of the Whole World<\/p>\n
These passages include the following. John 1:29: the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world! John 3:16\u201317: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son. And God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. John 4:42: this is indeed the Saviour of the world. John 6:32\u201351: He gave his life for the world. He says in verse 51b, the bread, which I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. Second Corinthians 5:19: God was in Messiah reconciling the world unto himself. First John 2:2: he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. First John 4:14: the Father has sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. There are numerous passages that clearly do say He died for the sins of the world, even specifying the whole world. If John truly wanted to say that the Messiah died for the whole world, how else could he say it than the way he said it?<\/p>\n
What do limited atonement people do with these passages? They come up with three possible solutions. The first option is: When the writer mentions \u201cthe world\u201d in these passages, he only means \u201cthe world of the elect.\u201d Is that a natural meaning of these passages, or does one force his theology into those passages? The Greek word used is kosmos. There is more than one Greek word for \u201cworld,\u201d but the word kosmos emphasizes the ordered world under Satan\u2019s authority. Kosmos stands in contrast to chaos. Instead of chaos, we have an ordered kosmos. But order, kosmos, is the world under Satan\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n
One thing is clear: The word kosmos never is equivalent to or a synonym of the Church, especially the way the word is used in John\u2019s Gospel. In fact, the way John uses kosmos, it often describes those who are in opposition to believers and who hate believers. For example, in John 15:18\u201319, the world is the world of unbelievers who hate the believers. John 17:16 says that Yeshua and the believer are not of the world. First John 5:19 states: the whole world lies in the lap of the wicked one. If one were to conduct dictionary-wise, lexical studies, he would find that it is impossible for \u201cthe world\u201d to mean \u201cthe world of the elect,\u201d unless his theology requires it.<\/p>\n
A second way the people who hold to limited atonement try to get around this problem is to claim that the term \u201cworld\u201d means \u201cthe Gentiles in addition to Jews.\u201d However, that is not the meaning of the word kosmos, either. The word kosmos does not mean \u201cGentiles.\u201d<\/p>\n
A third way they try to get around these passages is to show that Messiah died without distinction, both for Jews and for Gentiles, but not without exception. But again, they have to presuppose the limited atonement view. They do not exegete the passage as it reads from the context. They interpret it by the presupposed theology of limited atonement. They presuppose that He did not die for the non-elect; they then have to reinterpret kosmos to somehow fit their theology.<\/p>\n
b. Passages that are All-Inclusive<\/p>\n
There are passages, which are all-inclusive, such as Luke 19:10: For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost. How many are lost? All are lost, including the elect. The elect are lost before they are saved. He came to those who are lost.<\/p>\n
Romans 5:6: Messiah died for the ungodly. Are only the elect the ungodly? Does this mean that the non-elect are godly? Everybody is ungodly.<\/p>\n
Second Corinthians 5:14\u201315: one died for all.<\/p>\n
First Timothy 2:4\u20136: He gave himself a ransom for all.<\/p>\n
First Timothy 4:10 is a rather good passage. It says He is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe. Notice Paul makes a distinction between the elect and the non-elect. The elect are those who believe. But he specifies He is not just the Savior of the elect, who believe; He is the Savior of all\u2014both the elect and non-elect.<\/p>\n
Titus 2:11: the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.<\/p>\n
Hebrews 2:9: He tasted death for every man. The Greek word here is even more specific. It does not mean \u201cfor all men,\u201d so he could make some exceptions, but for every man, which leaves no room for exceptions.<\/p>\n
Second Peter 3:9: wishing that all should come to repentance.<\/p>\n
The way people who hold to limited atonement interpret these passages is to limit the word \u201call\u201d being only \u201call of the elect.\u201d They might say \u201call\u201d means \u201call of the elect\u201d or \u201call\u201d simply means \u201call different kinds of people.\u201d But if one tried to put that definition in all these passages, it renders them meaningless.<\/p>\n
As mentioned earlier, limited atonement people point to passages where the word \u201call\u201d is sometimes limited, but we know it is limited because the context makes it clear. But if the context does not clearly indicate a limitation, then one must take \u201call\u201d to be all-inclusive. So if it says, \u201call have sinned,\u201d and the context is not limited, we know it includes everybody. In these salvation passages, there is nothing in the context that implies the \u201call\u201d is to be limited\u2014unless one\u2019s theology requires it.<\/p>\n
c. Universal Offer of the Gospel<\/p>\n
The offer of the gospel is universal, which implies that in order for one to preach the gospel to all, He had to have died for all. There is no indication of restriction in any of the 110 passages where the Bible uses the term \u201cwhosoever.\u201d For example, John 3:16 says: whosoever will. Acts 2:21: Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Acts 10:43: Every one that believes on him shall receive remission of sins. Romans 10:13: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Revelation 22:17: He that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take the water of life freely. Acts 17:30: All men are called upon to repent.<\/p>\n
A universal offer to all requires a provision for all. A non-elect person cannot be condemned for not accepting something that was not offered to begin with. If salvation is not provided for the non-elect, the non-elect cannot be condemned for not accepting the offer. It is not available to him to begin with.<\/p>\n
But the atonement is not limited; it is available to him. It is his own sin and depravity that keep him from believing. God does not keep him from believing. If atonement is limited, God does keep him from believing.<\/p>\n
d. The Lost<\/p>\n
Luke 19:10: The lost cannot be limited only to the elect. Furthermore, He died for sinners. The term \u201csinner\u201d cannot be applied only to the elect. (Rom. 5:6\u20138; 1 Tim. 1:15.)<\/p>\n
4. Key Terms Concerning the Issue of Salvation<\/p>\n
The three key terms that concern the area of the issue of salvation are: redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation. These terms are not limited only to the elect; they are extended to the non-elect.<\/p>\n
a. Redemption<\/p>\n
The basic meaning of the word \u201credeem\u201d in Greek is \u201cto purchase.\u201d The Greek word, agorazo, is used thirty times. Twenty-four times, it has nothing to do with redemption; it is just buying something mundane. But six times the word is used in its redemptive sense.<\/p>\n
Both 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 1 Corinthians 7:23 explain: Ye were bought with a price. Revelation 5:9 speaks of a declaration to the Son: for you were slain, and did purchase unto God with your blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. Purchased, or redeemed. In Revelation 14:3, we read that the 144,000 were purchased out of the earth, and Revelation 14:4 adds that they were purchased from among men. Then there is 2 Peter 2:1 which states:<\/p>\n
But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them [or redeemed them], bringing upon themselves swift destruction.<\/p>\n
Notice who has been redeemed, who has been purchased: the false teachers, who are denying even the Master that bought or redeemed them. They are denying Him. They are of the non-elect, and even as the non-elect, they have been redeemed. The Messiah paid the redemption price even for these non-elect, false teachers destined for the final destruction whom Peter describes in detail in the remainder of this chapter.<\/p>\n
Limited atonement people try to get around this. Because they are so devoted to their view, they have to use exegetical gymnastics for passages like 2 Peter 2:1. When one reads their material, he cannot help but notice that they do not all agree as to how to get around it, but there are several different ways by which they try.<\/p>\n
One way is to focus on the Greek word for \u201cLord.\u201d Peter does not use the normal Greek term for \u201cLord,\u201d but the Greek word from which the English word \u201cdespot\u201d comes: despotase, despot. They claim that in this case, because Peter says \u201cdespot,\u201d he is not emphasizing Yeshua as Mediator in a salvation sense, but simply Yeshua as Master or Lord. The obvious meaning is that He has to be Lord to save, anyway. The trouble with that argument is Jude 4, where the author does use the word \u201cdespot\u201d of Messiah in a salvation sense.<\/p>\n
A second way they try to argue around it is what they call \u201cThe Christian Charity View.\u201d That means Peter is simply quoting what they claim, although it is not really true. They claim to have been redeemed by Messiah, so the apostle mentions it, giving the argument to their side. Exercising \u201cChristian charity\u201d, he simply allows for the possibility that it is true, though he knows it is not. Thus, Peter is only quoting what they are claiming. But there is no indication that Peter is quoting anyone; he is stating a basic fact: They have been redeemed.<\/p>\n
The third way they get around it is what they call the \u201cSovereign Creation View.\u201d This view says He bought them in the sense that they are His creatures by creation, not by salvation or redemption, because there is no price of redemption given here. But there is no price of redemption given in Revelation 14:4 either, and there it is salvation.<\/p>\n
So all these attempts claim the text really means that He owned them or He just let them have their way or He is just Lord and Master but not Savior. These are attempts to get around the obvious, that the word \u201credemption\u201d is used of non-elect people. If unlimited atonement is true, we do not have to play these games with the text; we just take it as it is. Redemption was provided even for the non-elect. However, the redemption is applied only to those who believe.<\/p>\n
b. Propitiation<\/p>\n
The second key word in the context of salvation is propitiation. First John 2:2, states: and he is the propitiation. Propitiation is a word that means \u201cto satisfy the wrath of God.\u201d He is the propitiation for our sins. But it then says: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. Who are the ours? The elect. Who is the whole world? The non-elect. Again, the word used here is kosmos. The kosmos is the world under Satan\u2019s system.<\/p>\n
Those who believe in limited atonement try to get around this. If one just takes it as it is, the meaning is obvious. But they cannot take it as it is. It does not fit with their preconceived theology. They come up with different ways to get around it, but they do not agree among themselves, so they offer different views.<\/p>\n
One way to get around 1 John 2:2 is to say the passage is speaking geographically. When it says \u201cus,\u201d the writer means \u201cus believers of Asia Minor.\u201d The world then is the rest of the world outside of Asia Minor. That is just not a natural meaning. He is not speaking geographically anywhere in this context.<\/p>\n
Another way to get around this is by using what they call the \u201cChronological Interpretation.\u201d The \u201cus\u201d are the believers of the first century and the world all the believers of subsequent centuries.<\/p>\n
Then there is the racial interpretation. The \u201cus\u201d are the Jews, and the world consists of the Gentiles. But again, the word kosmos never means \u201cGentiles.\u201d<\/p>\n
These kinds of interpretations are trying to get around the text. They are not explaining the text. Taken as it is, propitiation is both for the elect and non-elect. If the Messiah died for the whole world, how else could John say it than the way he did?<\/p>\n
c. Reconciliation<\/p>\n
The third key term regarding the issue of salvation is reconciliation. We read in 2 Corinthians 5:18\u201320:<\/p>\n
18But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Messiah, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; 19to wit, that God was in Messiah reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Messiah, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Messiah [we are ambassadors there], be ye reconciled to God.<\/p>\n
Notice what the passage indicates about the concept of reconciliation: He reconciled the whole world to Himself. Messiah renders the whole world savable. Unlimited atonement does not mean all will be saved because it is applied only to those who believe. The whole world has been reconciled; therefore, Paul says, we are ambassadors preaching to individuals: \u201cBe reconciled.\u201d If they believe, the work of reconciliation is applied to them individually. God reconciled the world in general through the death of His Son.<\/p>\n
The concept of reconciliation is also discussed in Colossians 1:20\u201322:<\/p>\n
20and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens. 21And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, 22yet now has he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him.<\/p>\n
Paul starts by pointing out that the whole world has been reconciled. There is the universal provision of reconciliation in verse 20, but in verses 21\u201322, it is applied individually only when people believe.<\/p>\n
The way limited atonement people get around these two passages is to say it just means God is reconciling the elect one by one throughout the ages until the last elect person is finally born and saved. Again, this is an attempt to get around the obvious; it does not really explain the text as it reads.<\/p>\n
5. Ramifications<\/p>\n
a. The Issue<\/p>\n
The issue is not that the design of the atonement is to save the elect or to save all. Rather, the design of the atonement was to provide salvation for all, and it is provisionary for all.<\/p>\n
b. Certain Guidelines<\/p>\n
First, all men are born lost. Even the elect are lost before they believe.<\/p>\n
Second, all men must believe to be saved. There is no salvation apart from believing.<\/p>\n
Third, while those who hold to limited atonement want to claim that regeneration precedes faith, if anything is true, one believes before he is regenerated. Actually, belief and regeneration come at the same instant of time. The very second one believes he is regenerated. Salvation and regeneration happen at virtually the same instantaneous point of time.<\/p>\n
Fourth, the Father needs to draw those who come to Him.<\/p>\n
Fifth, faith is always the instrument for receiving salvation. In Greek, it is always dia, which means \u201cthrough\u201d and is followed by the genitive. It does not mean we are saved on account of our faith; we are saved through faith. Faith is the instrument by which we receive the gift of salvation. The correct way to put it is: We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in the Messiah alone.<\/p>\n
Ephesians 2:8\u20139 states:<\/p>\n
8for by grace have ye be saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not of works, that no man should glory.<\/p>\n
Both Strict Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists try to claim that the gift here is faith. Thus, even the faith we need to receive our salvation is a gift of God. Saving faith is the gift. They would therefore claim that the word that is the faith. However, that is an impossible interpretation based upon the Greek text. There is a basic principle in Greek grammar which teaches a masculine modifies a masculine, a feminine modifies a feminine, and a neuter modifies a neuter. The word faith here is a Greek feminine noun. The word that is a demonstrative pronoun, but it is neuter. So it cannot refer back to the word faith. Rather, it goes back to salvation. The point is that the whole salvation package is the gift.<\/p>\n
What is the gift? The gift is salvation. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that saving faith is a gift. For example, in John 4:10, the gift of God is eternal life. In Acts 2:38, the gift of God is the Holy Spirit. This is also mentioned in Acts 8:20; 10:45; and 11:17. In Romans 5:15\u201317, there is the gift of righteousness. Second Corinthians 9:15 says that the Messiah is the gift. In Romans 5:16, salvation is the gift. In Romans 6:23, eternal life is the gift. The word gift is never used of saving faith. This is the one verse Strict and Hyper-Calvinists like to use to try to prove that even the faith with which we believe is a gift from God; however, the gift does not refer to the faith, but it refers to salvation.<\/p>\n
Sixth, not all of God\u2019s desires were included in His decree. In Ezekiel 18:23\u201332, He says, \u201cI would Israel repent and not die.\u201d That is God\u2019s desire, but the decree does not include that all people will repent and not die. In Matthew 23:37, Yeshua says: how often would I have gathered your children together. He is speaking about Jerusalem. His desire was to bring about Israel\u2019s restoration at that time. His desire was to restore Jerusalem. His desire was to bring about Israel\u2019s final gathering. That was His desire, but it was not part of God\u2019s decree to do so at that time. John 3:17: God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. That was His desire, but the whole world would not be saved through Him. It was not part of the decree He chose. He will judge the world. The same point is made in John 12:47. First Timothy 2:4: who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. That is His desire, but it is not included into His plan. Second Peter 3:9: not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. That was His desire, but it is not included into His final plan. Again, not all of God\u2019s desires were included in His decretive will.<\/p>\n
c. Meaning of Limited Passages<\/p>\n
The limited passages only mean that salvation is going to be applied to the elect, but even so, only when they believe. By themselves, not one of these passages excludes the non-elect.<\/p>\n
d. The Cross is not the Only Saving Instrumentality<\/p>\n
In the limited atonement view, the cross is the saving instrumentality. The benefits of the cross apply with death, not when people believe. However, biblically, the cross is part of the saving instrumentality, but not the only part. Other things are necessary, such as believing, regeneration, and divine calling. All of these are also part of saving instrumentality.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, who the elect are is not determined by the cross, but by those who respond to effectual calling, or, as elsewhere noted, irresistible grace.<\/p>\n
e. The Necessity of Faith<\/p>\n
Again, people who hold to limited atonement give lip service to the necessity of faith, but it really does not play a major role because they clearly teach that regeneration precedes believing. People essentially are already saved before they believe. But if they are already saved before they believe, why do they need to bother to believe to begin with?<\/p>\n
f. Salvation and Faith<\/p>\n
Strict Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists go on to say that if we teach that one has to exercise faith for salvation, then we are teaching salvation by works because then faith would be a work. The Bible though does not treat faith as a work.<\/p>\n
Over and over again, the Scriptures say that we are not saved by works, but through faith. As far as the Bible is concerned, faith is not a work in the sense of a works salvation. Because faith is the means of receiving the gift, faith is not the means of earning the gift; no one could claim merit for doing so.<\/p>\n
When we share the gospel, we always emphasize to the person there is no work one can do to be saved. Salvation is a free gift received through faith.<\/p>\n
John 6 contains the discourse on the Bread of Life. Yeshua was speaking to a mixed audience of both those who believed and those who did not believe. Verses 28\u201329 say:<\/p>\n
28They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? 29Yeshua answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he has sent.<\/p>\n
On one hand, the Bible teaches against works salvation. The only work that saves is the work of faith, and yet faith is not classed as the kind of work that qualifies for works salvation because faith is the means of receiving the gift, not the means of earning it. We are saved through faith, not on account of our faith.<\/p>\n
The balance is this: God has to do the saving; man must do the believing. The Bible never says, \u201cSeek the gift of faith.\u201d It says, \u201cBelieve.\u201d So faith is simply not classed as a work in all these passages.<\/p>\n
g. Messiah Died for Fallen Man<\/p>\n
The fallen man emphasizes all humanity, and so the extent of the atonement is the same as the extent of all humanity, which is universal. Thus, Messiah died for all humanity, and because of that death, salvation is offered to all. The death of Messiah is the basis for salvation for those who do accept. It is the basis for condemnation for those who do not accept.<\/p>\n
h. Universal Gospel<\/p>\n
To summarize what was mentioned previously, there cannot be universal preaching of the gospel if it has not been provided for all. Those who hold to limited atonement say Messiah did not die for the non-elect, so they can never really legitimately say to everybody, \u201cMessiah died for you,\u201d since they do not know who the elect are. Many of those who believe in limited atonement are very strong on this. They would claim that one must never say to a non-believer, \u201cMessiah died for you,\u201d because if he is not of the elect, Messiah did not die for him.<\/p>\n
However, if one believes in unlimited atonement, he can say that, legitimately and honestly, Messiah really did die for all.<\/p>\n
i. Messiah Died for Our Sins<\/p>\n
This has to do with the value of Messiah\u2019s death. Proponents of limited atonement will claim that if Messiah died for all, but all are not saved, then we have lost the value of the blood. The value of Messiah\u2019s death is lost if all for whom He died are not saved. This presupposes that the design of the atonement was to save. But again, the design of the atonement was to provide. Because He provided salvation for all, there is no failure if all do not come to faith.<\/p>\n
j. Conclusions<\/p>\n
If we take the Bible literally and not presuppose our theology as we read it, what the Bible teaches is, first, Messiah died as a substitute for all men, but second, His death is applied only individually to those who believe. So, third, atonement is unlimited in its availability. But, fourth, it is limited in its application.<\/p>\n
6. Objections to Unlimited Atonement<\/p>\n
a. The Death of Messiah and the non-Elect<\/p>\n
Here the argument of those who believe in limited atonement is this: Either God fails to accomplish His purpose or He does not fail. If His purpose is to save all of the elect, then He has not failed; if His purpose is to save everyone, then He has failed. This presupposes that the design of the atonement was to save, but, as we have pointed out, it was not. It was to provide.<\/p>\n
Redemption is not the guarantee of salvation. Redemption only is applied individually once one believes. The death of Messiah does not save by itself. It does not save apart from faith.<\/p>\n
b. The Sin of Unbelief<\/p>\n
Here they claim if Messiah died for all sins, that would include the sin of unbelief, and if He died for the sin of unbelief, it means all unbelievers will be saved. But the Bible treats unbelief in a very distinct manner. The only thing that condemns one forever is unbelief. There is no other sin by itself that condemns one forever. If one commits the sin of murder, he can still be saved. If he commits the sin of stealing, he can still be saved. If he commits the sin of adultery, he can still be saved. No matter what sin one commits, he can still be saved if he believes.<\/p>\n
The only sin that one cannot be saved from is unbelief. Only when unbelief gives way to belief is one saved. The Bible treats the sin of unbelief as a separate unit, a separate category.<\/p>\n
c. The Work of Messiah is Efficacious<\/p>\n
What Strict and Hyper-Calvinists mean when they say that the work of Messiah is efficacious is that it affects everyone He is designed to die for. Since it is only the elect who are coming to Him, that again shows He died only for the elect. But the design was not merely to save the elect; the design was greater. It was to render salvation possible for all. The purpose was to render all men savable, but they are not saved until they believe.<\/p>\n
d. John 8:24<\/p>\n
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.<\/p>\n
The way the argument goes is like this: Here Yeshua says that the people He was speaking to would die in their sins because they were non-elect. Then the proponents of limited atonement make a logical leap that this shows He was not intended to bear their sins by His death. The people to whom He was speaking would die in their sins because they were non-elect and therefore He would not bear their sins. But notice the reason He does not bear their sins: It is because they do not believe. The reason they die in their sins is their unbelief.<\/p>\n
Verse 30 goes on to state: As he spoke these things, many believed on him. Notice that within the group to whom He was speaking in verse 24, there were elect people, so He indeed will bear the sin of them all. The ones who will die in their sin are those who do not believe. The issue is not a lack of provision; the issue is a lack of belief.<\/p>\n
e. Ephesians 5:6<\/p>\n
Let no man deceive you with empty words: for because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience.<\/p>\n
Because of these things, the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Strict and Hyper-Calvinists interpret this verse as follows: The phrase sons of disobedience equals \u201cnon-elect.\u201d Since they suffer the wrath of God, it shows Messiah did not die for them.<\/p>\n
But is it always true that the term sons of disobedience equals \u201cthe non-elect\u201d? If we go back in this very same book, to Ephesians 2:1\u20133, we read the following:<\/p>\n
1And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, 2wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience; 3among whom we also all once lived \u2026<\/p>\n
Notice that even the elect at one time were the sons of disobedience. Until they believed, they were just as much sons of disobedience as anyone else. The very same book uses the very same phrase to show that the term sons of disobedience does not equal \u201cthe non-elect.\u201d<\/p>\n
This again shows that the benefits of His death are not applied at the time of His death; they are applied only when people believe.<\/p>\n
f. Romans 8:32<\/p>\n
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?<\/p>\n
The argument is that the word all in this context is obviously restricted to the elect only, and therefore it is only the elect for whom Messiah died. It is true that in this context the word all is restricted, but that does not mean that every place the word all is used the salvation group is also restricted.<\/p>\n
Each verse must be interpreted by its own context. So if the context limits the word all, it is one thing; if it does not limit it, it is another. In the context of the other passages mentioned earlier, it is not limited. This is the fallacy of irrelevant contexts.<\/p>\n
g. Universalism<\/p>\n
Here Strict Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists claim that if one holds to unlimited atonement, it must mean one believes in universalism. But we do not believe that everybody will eventually be saved because we understand the importance of believing for salvation. The cross is not the only saving instrumentality; the cross does not provide its benefits without the prerequisite of believing. Believing that God has provided salvation for all does not mean all will be saved. Only those who believe will be saved.<\/p>\n
h. The Completed Work of Messiah<\/p>\n
The argument here is this: If we say that salvation is not applied at the cross, then, they claim, the work of Messiah is incomplete. If the elect are not saved at the death of Messiah, then the work of Messiah is incomplete. That presupposes their definition of the purpose of the atonement.<\/p>\n
If the purpose of the cross was to provide salvation for all, and there is nothing more God must do to provide salvation for all, then the cross does indeed represent the completed work of Messiah. What does \u201cthe completed work of Messiah\u201d mean? It means that everything He needed to do to provide salvation for all has been done. The work of Messiah is complete. Now it is up to the individual to receive the benefits of the cross through faith.<\/p>\n
The cross by itself does not save any more than election by itself saves. The benefit of salvation must be received through faith.<\/p>\n
i. Unlimited Atonement and Unconditional Election<\/p>\n
Here, five-point Calvinists claim that if one holds to unconditional election, it is inconsistent to hold to unlimited atonement. That is based upon an assumption that election alone saves. However, election alone does not save.<\/p>\n
God can provide salvation for all, and yet only those He unconditionally elected will come to faith. It is not inconsistent. It may not be as logical, but the final issue is not \u201cIs it logical?\u201d, but \u201cIs it scriptural?\u201d What does the Bible teach, taken at face value?<\/p>\n
j. Messiah\u2019s Intercession<\/p>\n
Here the argument goes like this: It is clear that Messiah only intercedes for believers. Therefore, He died only for believers. This is a logical leap; no statement of Scripture says that.<\/p>\n
Two different things are involved in Messiah\u2019s work: redemption and intercession. Redemption is completed; intercession is continuous. Thus, it is possible for Him to provide redemption for all, but to intercede only for those who believe. No passage that talks about the intercessory work of the Messiah ever says He died only for those for whom He intercedes.<\/p>\n
k. The Conclusion<\/p>\n
The real issue revolves around the design or purpose of the atonement. This is the real issue: What is the design or purpose of the atonement and the place of faith in salvation? One must balance both principles. Both atonement and faith are designed in connection with salvation. If one focuses too much on the faith aspect of it, he will end up with too much human sovereignty and Arminianism. If he goes the other way and focuses on the design as salvation only for the elect, then he goes to the other extreme.<\/p>\n
7. Further Objections to Limited Atonement<\/p>\n
a. Universal Passages<\/p>\n
There were many examples of how passages containing the words world, all, and every are interpreted. The universal passages must be interpreted as they read and not based upon one\u2019s presupposed theology. There are indeed places where the terms world and all are limited, but the context shows they are limited. However, in the salvation passages we discussed, the context does not indicate a limitation of these words.<\/p>\n
b. Universal Benefits from the Cross<\/p>\n
Those who hold to limited atonement also believe that there are certain aspects of the cross which are universal. They divide the benefits between natural and spiritual. The non-elect gain the natural benefits of the cross, but they do not gain its spiritual benefits. However, the Bible nowhere makes such a division. One will not find anywhere in Scripture that there are natural benefits of the cross which are for everybody and spiritual benefits of the cross which are only for the elect.<\/p>\n
c. The Love of God<\/p>\n
While this is not true of all, some who hold to limited atonement claim that God does not love the non-elect. God can only love believers, and therefore, He cannot love the non-elect.<\/p>\n
However, God has frequently stressed His love for Israel, even when Israel was in virtually total unbelief. Deuteronomy 7:7\u20138 declares God loved His people while they were in Egypt, and yet Israel consistently rebelled against God. In spite of every act of rebellion and in spite of the fact that the majority were not believers, God still said He loved them.<\/p>\n
Another passage is Hosea 11, which answers the question, \u201cCan God love the non-elect?\u201d Great portions of Israel are non-elect, and yet notice what God states in verse one: When Israel was a child, then I loved him. He loves Israel. When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. Verse two goes on to state that the more the prophets called them, \u2026 the more they sacrificed unto the Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. Throughout the chapter, Hosea points out how the Israelites were in unbelief, unregenerate, and non-elect, yet God loved them.<\/p>\n
It is simply not true that God does not love the non-elect. There may be a difference in the degree of love between elect and non-elect, but the Bible does not teach He does not love the non-elect. Thus, when it says He loves the world, we can take it as it reads: He does love the world. The Scriptures nowhere limit the love of God only to the elect.<\/p>\n
d. The Universal Offer of the Gospel<\/p>\n
This is a summary of what was already mentioned previously: The fact that we are commanded to preach the gospel to all means that salvation is offered to all. It is true that only the elect are going to respond, but we cannot offer something to people that is not provided for them. Since we are told to proclaim the gospel to all, it means it is provided to all.<\/p>\n
Those who hold to limited atonement can never honestly say to anybody, \u201cThe Messiah died for you.\u201d On the other hand, if one believes in unlimited atonement, he can honestly say this to everyone.<\/p>\n
e. The Covenant of Grace<\/p>\n
The Covenant of Grace is a key element of Covenant Theology, which in turn is the major representative of Replacement Theology in the United States. If one really looks at the arguments for limited atonement, he has to come to the understanding that they are not based upon exegesis of Scripture. Limited atonement is always based upon logic. That logic, in turn, is based upon a covenant called the Covenant of Grace.<\/p>\n
Proponents of limited atonement define the Covenant of Grace as follows: The Covenant of Grace is the agreement God makes with the elect. The agreement is that He will send His Son to secure their salvation, and they promise to believe.<\/p>\n
Covenant Theologians reject what we call the biblical covenants. They do not believe in the Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, the New Covenant, and so forth in the way the Bible treats them. Rather, they will see them simply being parts of this overall Covenant of Grace. But one will not find the Covenant of Grace mentioned anywhere in Scripture. Covenant Theologians cite Scriptures like Genesis 3:15. But if one looks at this verse, he will not find the Covenant of Grace there as they define it.<\/p>\n
Because they believe in an imaginary Covenant of Grace, which is foundational to their theology, found nowhere in Scripture, they have to hold to limited atonement since they can only have one people of God. That has to be the elect, the Church; it cannot be Israel.<\/p>\n
f. Active and Passive Obedience<\/p>\n
Those who believe in Covenant Theology and who hold to Strict or Hyper-Calvinism distinguish between active obedience, which is what Yeshua suffered through His life, and passive obedience, which He suffered at His death. They claim that the benefits of His active obedience go out to all, but His passive obedience only goes out to the elect. The Bible makes no such distinction anywhere. It is just their way of trying to get around the universal passages.<\/p>\n
g. The Necessity of Faith<\/p>\n
The Strict Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists play down the necessity of faith. As mentioned before, they merely give it lip service. On one hand, they teach regeneration must precede faith and that even that faith itself is a gift from God. In this system, one is saved before he believes, and yet, over 150 times when the Bible talks about what one must do to be saved, it always mentions believing or faith. Every time the Bible talks about \u201cWhat must I do to be saved?\u201d it never says, \u201cPlead to God to give you saving faith.\u201d What it does say is, \u201cBelieve on the Messiah\u2019s death for sin and resurrection, and thus accept the free gift of salvation.\u201d<\/p>\n
h. The Convicting Work of the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n
According to John 16:8\u201311, the convicting work of the Holy Spirit is not limited to the elect only. The Spirit\u2019s work of conviction is to make the gospel clear to people, whether they accept it or not.<\/p>\n
Some limited atonement people claim that the non-elect cannot even understand the gospel. That is not what John 16:8\u201311 teaches. The Holy Spirit comes to convict the world. The Spirit\u2019s work is based upon the Messiah\u2019s work. The reason the Spirit will convict the whole world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment is because Messiah did die for that same whole world. He could not condemn them for their unbelief if He did not provide something for them to believe. A conviction means He provides them with something they can disbelieve.<\/p>\n
i. Adam and Messiah<\/p>\n
A good book that treats this section from the Moderate Calvinistic view is called, The Death Christ Died, by Robert Lightner. What this book teaches can be summarized as follows: The author compares the effects of the Fall of Adam\u2014Adam\u2019s one sin\u2014to Messiah\u2019s one act of obedience. The one act of Adam brought death to all; the one act of Messiah brought righteousness unto all. It did not make all righteous, because they have to believe, but it brought righteousness unto all. The disobedience of Adam was co-extensive with the obedience of Messiah. Righteousness has been offered to all who were affected by Adam.<\/p>\n
j. The Resurrection of the Wicked Dead<\/p>\n
The resurrection will occur because of the work of Messiah. It is not only believers who will be resurrected, but unbelievers as well. They do not share the same destiny as believers, but they will be resurrected.<\/p>\n
In John 5:28\u201329, Messiah\u2019s victory over death includes both the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the unrighteous.<\/p>\n
In 1 Corinthians 15:24\u201326, the last enemy that shall be abolished is death. Death is abolished for all, including unbelievers.<\/p>\n
Even unbelievers will be resurrected, according to Revelation 20:12.<\/p>\n
k. The Basis for the Great White Throne Judgment<\/p>\n
The Great White Throne Judgment will be for unbelievers only, where they will be condemned to the Lake of Fire. They are not being condemned only for their sin. They are also being condemned for not believing on Messiah, according to John 3:18 and 36.<\/p>\n
But how can they be held accountable for not believing if it was not provided for them? They cannot be expected to accept that which God did not provide for them to accept.<\/p>\n
l. The Desire of God<\/p>\n
As for the desire of God, yes, it is God\u2019s desire for all to be saved, but the condition is still faith. If anyone is lost, it is not because God failed to provide for them. If anyone is lost, it is only because they failed to believe.<\/p>\n
m. The Bare Sufficiency is of no Comfort<\/p>\n
Claiming that there is a bare sufficiency for the non-elect is of no comfort because the way limited atonement people define bare sufficiency means it is not sufficient to save the non-elect.<\/p>\n
n. Fallen Angels<\/p>\n
According to limited atonement people, God did not provide salvation for the non-elect any more than He provided salvation for fallen angels.<\/p>\n
That is not a fair comparison. It is true; He did not provide salvation for fallen angels. The fallen angels will not be judged for failing to believe on Messiah. When they stand before the Great White Throne Judgment, they will not be condemned for failure to believe on Messiah; they will be condemned for joining Satan in his act of rebellion. The reason they will not be condemned for failure to believe is because God did not provide salvation for them.<\/p>\n
As far as fallen humanity is concerned, the Bible says they are condemned for not believing, but how can they believe in something that God did not provide for them?<\/p>\n
Fallen angels and the non-elect do not have the same standing anyway.<\/p>\n
o. The Necessity of the Will<\/p>\n
The necessity of the will is clear in John 5:40: Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. The reason men are kept out of Heaven is not a lack of provision, but that they willed not to believe. That is the reason they do not come to faith. They are kept out of Heaven not because there was a lack of provision, but because they chose not to accept.<\/p>\n
Romans 8:32 was already discussed. Romans 14:9 states: Messiah died and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. The Lordship of Messiah is not limited to the elect; He must be Lord of both the living and the dead. That includes all humanity. Either one is alive or he is dead. There are elect, living and dead, and non-elect, living and dead. He is the Lord of both.<\/p>\n
First Timothy 1:15 states, Messiah Yeshua came into the world to save sinners. It is impossible to interpret the term sinners to mean only the elect. The non-elect are also sinners. Sometimes the word \u201csinner\u201d is used of the elect, sometimes the non-elect, and sometimes both in passages that are all-inclusive. It may be that belief in limited atonement makes better sense, but we have to go with what the text actually says as it reads.<\/p>\n
When He died, He provided salvation for all, but because of man\u2019s depravity, all will not be saved. Because of the next point in the outline, irresistible grace, the elect will come to Him.<\/p>\n
IV. Irresistible Grace<\/p>\n
There are other terms for irresistible grace. Sometimes it is called \u201cefficacious grace.\u201d Another common term is \u201cefficacious calling.\u201d Why \u201cirresistible grace\u201d? Because if one is going to use the acronym T-U-L-I-P, one must have an \u201cI\u201d, so this is the \u201cI\u201d of the \u201cT-U-L-I-P.\u201d A lot of writers use different terms to mean the same thing. When they use \u201cirresistible grace,\u201d they mean it is irresistible for the elect; of course, the non-elect do not experience this grace.<\/p>\n
A. General Calling<\/p>\n
The meaning of \u201cirresistible grace\u201d should be distinguished from another type of calling known as \u201cgeneral calling.\u201d General calling is the call which goes out to all people to respond to the gospel. The general call is the proclamation of the gospel to all, inviting them to come and believe it.<\/p>\n
It is a legitimate term because He really did die for all. Matthew 11:28 says: Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden. Matthew 22:14: For many are called, but few chosen. Mark 16:15: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. John 7:37: If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. Revelation 22:17: And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.<\/p>\n
A general call is a declaration of the plan of salvation. It is in this context that the Holy Spirit does His work of conviction to convict the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment. It is a call to all people to respond. John 6:29: This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he has sent. Second Corinthians 5:11: Knowing therefore the fear of the Lord, we persuade men.<\/p>\n
B. Effectual Calling<\/p>\n
There is also an \u201ceffectual calling\u201d or \u201cspecial calling\u201d or \u201cefficacious calling\u201d or \u201cefficacious grace\u201d or \u201cirresistible grace.\u201d This is a special call to which only the elect respond.<\/p>\n
Total depravity, defined biblically, means that man, left to himself, because he is dead in his sins, will not respond to God. On his own, he will never seek God. Therefore, by unconditional election from before the foundation of the world, from the mass of humanity under condemnation because of their depravity, God chose to save some.<\/p>\n
Because of total depravity, God must do something to enable the elect to respond. Irresistible grace results in a divine enabling to respond to the gospel. By special, divine enabling of the elect, they are able to exercise the faith they need to receive the free gift of salvation.<\/p>\n
The Strict or Hyper-Calvinists would say that we are not dealing with divine enabling; instead, God Himself must actually regenerate the person and give them the gift of faith. As discussed earlier, that concept is not found in Scripture. Saving faith is never defined in Scripture as a gift. Salvation is the gift or Messiah is the gift or the Spirit is the gift. Never is saving faith the gift. The only passage the proponents of this doctrine go by is Ephesians 2:8\u20139, but, as previously mentioned, they have to violate the rules of Greek grammar to claim that saving faith is a gift. Grammatically, that is an impossible interpretation. It is the salvation that is the gift, not the saving faith.<\/p>\n
If we keep it in a moderate, biblical format, irresistible grace (or efficacious calling or efficacious grace) emphasizes that by this means God gives a divine enabling to the elect which empowers them to respond to the gospel. Without divine enabling, their sin will keep them from responding or even having a desire to respond.<\/p>\n
C. Scriptures<\/p>\n
There are several Scriptures that reflect this teaching. John 1:13 states: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The will of man does not initiate it. The will of God is what initiates it.<\/p>\n
In John 6:37, Yeshua said: All that which the Father gives me shall come unto me. Notice there is no room for any \u201cmaybes\u201d here. All that which the Father gives me. All who are given to Him shall come to Him.<\/p>\n
And so, in Acts 13:48, as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.<\/p>\n
In Acts 16:14, one sees these various concepts coming together\u2014the general call, the effectual call, followed by the believing:<\/p>\n
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul.<\/p>\n
The first important phrase is: who heard us. There is the general call: She heard the gospel. Then God opened her heart. There is the efficacious grace, irresistible grace, or effectual calling. God opened her heart. Third came the belief: she gave heed to what she heard from the apostle.<\/p>\n
Romans 8:28\u201330: Whom He foreordained, He predestined, He also called. Those that were preordained will receive this divine calling to which they will respond.<\/p>\n
Romans 9:16: So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that has mercy. It is by the mercy of God that they are given the special enabling to respond. It would not come from their own fallen will.<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 1:9 says: God is faithful, through whom ye were called.<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 1:23\u201324: we preach Messiah crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, the power of God, and the wisdom of God.<\/p>\n
Galatians 1:15: God who called us through his grace. It was the grace that resulted in this divine, effectual calling.<\/p>\n
Philippians 2:13: it is God who works in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. Only by this divine enabling does the will of the elect respond to the gospel.<\/p>\n
First Thessalonians 5:24: Faithful is he that calls you, who will also do it.<\/p>\n
Second Thessalonians 2:14: We were called through the gospel. The calling results in our responding to the gospel.<\/p>\n
Second Timothy 1:9: who saved us, and called us with a holy calling.<\/p>\n
Hebrews 3:1: As believers we are partakers of a heavenly calling.<\/p>\n
First Peter 2:9: him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.<\/p>\n
God\u2019s response to the problem of total depravity is not as the Strict and Hyper-Calvinists portray it\u2014that God simply forces salvation on the elect, so they are saved whether they want to be or not. Rather, He gives them a divine enabling, and because of this divine enabling, they do respond. They do exercise their will. Until they exercise their will, they are just as lost as the non-elect. They have no salvation until they exercise their will. But it is a divine enabling that enables them to exercise the will, and because the grace of God is such, they will always respond correctly.<\/p>\n
D. Basic Arguments against Irresistible Grace<\/p>\n
The basic arguments against irresistible grace usually arise in two areas. First, irresistible grace is contrary to human effort. Arminians and Calminians claim we must make our own effort for salvation. If grace is irresistible, then it is contrary to human effort. As we look over the passages on total depravity, man, left to himself, would never make that effort. The Scriptures are dogmatic to the point of saying that no one will seek Him.<\/p>\n
A second very common argument is that irresistible grace goes against human responsibility; it goes against human free will. But as discussed earlier, there is no such thing as absolute free will anyway. Our will is bound or limited by what we are by nature. For example, we can will to jump off a building, but we cannot will to jump off and fly. It is not in our nature to be able to will to fly. Man has free will, but it is limited by his nature. As the Bible teaches, left to himself, the sin nature will keep him from ever seeking God.<\/p>\n
On the other side of the coin, those who are in the Strict and Hyper-Calvinistic camp will say that the way we present this divine enabling, the way we define irresistible grace by divine enabling, contradicts divine sovereignty. This is because divine sovereignty, in their view, does not allow for any will, especially in this area.<\/p>\n
Does giving man a measure of free will actually limit the sovereignty of God? If God\u2019s sovereignty is defined in a way that God had no choice, then yes, man\u2019s free will limits His sovereignty. However, if in God\u2019s sovereignty He chose to give man relative free will, it does not violate His sovereignty because His sovereignty allowed that relative free will to be exercised.<\/p>\n
Could God, because He is sovereign, put limitations upon Himself? Has God ever limited Himself? He often does. For example: Is God able to destroy the world with a flood again? Does He have the capacity to do that? The answer is \u201cyes.\u201d Will He do so? The answer is \u201cno.\u201d Why not? Because He said He would not do it that way again. Thus, His sovereignty, the ability to wipe out this earth with water, has been limited by Himself. Because He Himself did the limiting, it does not violate His sovereignty. If, within the sovereignty of God, He allows measures of human will within the nature of man, it does not contradict His sovereignty because He is the one that ordained it to happen that way.<\/p>\n
Strict and Hyper-Calvinists do not like the concept of mere divine enabling. They strongly advocate the concept that regeneration precedes faith, and even that faith, saving faith, is strictly a gift from God. One does not believe to be saved; one is first saved, then he believes. But that would render many passages meaningless. When the Philippian jailer asked Paul, in Acts 16:30\u201331, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Paul\u2019s answer was, Believe on the Lord Yeshua, and you shall be saved. We know that is the correct answer, since Paul is an apostle. In Moderate Calvinism, that is what is taught.<\/p>\n
But if one were a Hyper-Calvinist or a Strict Calvinist, that really is the wrong answer. They would not admit it to be the wrong answer because it would contradict the Scriptures, but in essence that is what the Strict and Hyper-Calvinist would say. From the Strict Calvinists\u2019 perspective, what Paul should have told the jailer is this: \u201cWhen you are saved, or regenerated, you then believe on the Lord Yeshua the Messiah.\u201d Not, \u201cBelieve and you will be saved,\u201d but, \u201cAt some point, God may regenerate you, and then you will believe.\u201d What kind of advice would that be for the Philippian jailer? He would not know what to do from there. Should he just wait around to be zapped by God with regeneration?<\/p>\n
John 3:16 would also have to be changed: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him should not perish, but have eternal life. From a Strict or Hyper-Calvinistic perspective, the verse would have to be rendered something like this: \u201cFor God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, that those who are not to perish but who have been given everlasting life then would believe on Him.\u201d That would render it the way they teach it. But over and over again we see that one first believes, and then he is saved. One first believes, and then he has eternal life. One first believes, and then he is regenerated.<\/p>\n
John 5:24 says: He that hears my word, and believes him that sent me, has eternal life. Yeshua does not say, \u201cHe who has My word and gets everlasting life then believes.\u201d<\/p>\n
John 20:31: but these are written, that ye may believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name. John does not say, \u201cYou will first be saved or regenerated, and then you will believe in Him.\u201d<\/p>\n
Acts 10:43: through his name every one that believes on him shall receive remission of sins. It does not say, \u201cHe that receives remission of sins will then believe on Him.\u201d Believing precedes remission of sins.<\/p>\n
Acts 13:39: by him every one that believes is justified from all things. It does not say, \u201cAll are first justified, then they believe on Him.\u201d<\/p>\n
One would have to go through up to 200 passages that all say one must believe to be saved and reverse them: \u201cNo, you are first given new life, and then you believe.\u201d We therefore have enough examples that show us how Strict Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists force their theology upon the Scriptures. That is not the natural reading of the text.<\/p>\n
V. Perseverance of the Saints\u2014Eternal Security<\/p>\n
The next section covers the \u201cP\u201d in the acronym \u201cT-U-L-I-P,\u201d which stands for perseverance of the saints or eternal security.<\/p>\n
A few words must be said about terminology. \u201cPerseverance of the Saints\u201d is used primarily because Strict and Hyper-Calvinists need the \u201cP\u201d for the acronym \u201cT-U-L-I-P.\u201d But there is a difference in emphasis between \u201cthe perseverance of the saints\u201d and \u201ceternal security.\u201d Both ultimately say the same thing. Ultimately, they both say that once a person is truly saved, he cannot be lost under any circumstances. But those who emphasize perseverance of the saints, which normally are Strict and Hyper-Calvinists, focus on the individual. They go on to teach that a true believer will always persevere in faith and godliness until the end of his life. He may backslide here and there, but he will always come back and persevere to the end. The focus is on the human being. That is why Strict and Hyper-Calvinists do not believe there is such a thing as carnal believers. However, the Scriptures do teach that they exist. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 2\u20133, and the writer of Hebrews, in chapters 5\u20136, both teach the existence of carnal believers. Strict Calvinists do not believe that is possible. They believe that those who are truly saved will persevere to the end, though they fall now and then.<\/p>\n
The term \u201ceternal security\u201d is a better one because it focuses on the real biblical issue: that once one is truly saved, he cannot be lost either by sinning or ceasing to believe, and the focus is on God. We do not keep ourselves saved by persevering. God keeps us saved; therefore, we are eternally secure because of Him. If we want to retain the word \u201cperseverance\u201d for the sake of the letter \u201cP\u201d, in place of saying \u201cthe perseverance of the saints,\u201d we should say, \u201cthe perseverance of God.\u201d It is God who perseveres in keeping the believer saved, in spite of falling into sin, in spite of loss of faith.<\/p>\n
While in the end Strict Calvinists, Hyper-Calvinists, and Moderate Calvinists say the same thing\u2014true believers will always keep their salvation\u2014the difference is the means of keeping it. Is it because believers persevere, or is it because God keeps us saved?<\/p>\n
A. The Meaning<\/p>\n
The basic meaning of eternal security is that once a person has been truly saved, he can never be lost. One who has genuinely been saved by grace alone through faith alone in the Messiah alone can never lose his salvation, either by sinning or by ceasing to believe. We will define this idea further, both negatively and positively.<\/p>\n
Negatively, we consider what it does not mean. First, it does not mean that all who claim to be saved really are saved. A lot of people claim to be saved, but they are not really saved. One example is the group of Matthew 7:21\u201323. The false teachers and false prophets claimed to be saved, but they were not.<\/p>\n
Second, eternal security does not mean that everyone who has undergone a saving ritual is necessarily truly saved. All that is required for salvation is this: One must simply believe the gospel, which is that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. If one believes in his heart that He died for his sins and rose again, he is saved. But in our evangelistic proclamations, especially in the USA, the tendency has been to go along with a ritual, and in the course of time, the ritual itself became the means of salvation. This arose through the great awakenings in the history of the USA. Many people think they are saved because they have walked down the aisle at a meeting. Actually, whether they walk down the aisle or not has nothing to do with their salvation. The issue is: What do they believe in their heart? Those who really believe are already saved before they walk down the aisle. Many of those who walk down the aisle are not saved because they do not believe in their heart, and there are those who do not walk down the aisle that are truly saved because they do believe in their heart.<\/p>\n
Then there is the ritual of reciting the sinner\u2019s prayer. We bring somebody down to the front of the church, and we sit them down and say, \u201cNow pray through the sinner\u2019s prayer.\u201d Actually, if the person is a true believer, he is already saved before he says the sinner\u2019s prayer. Thus, a lot of people end up thinking they are saved because they recite a prayer that is given them to read or they followed along when someone instructs them, \u201cRepeat after me,\u201d or they walk down the aisle. Many of those who go through a ritual are saved in spite of the ritual, not because of it. It is the faith in their heart that saves. The problem is that there are people who have gone through a ritual but are not truly believers to begin with.<\/p>\n
Third, it does not mean that those who trust in both Messiah and some kind of a good work are saved. When people clutter up the gospel with any kind of work\u2014whether it is baptism, church membership, good works, surrendering all, whatever\u2014whenever one adds anything to the gospel content, he might put his trust in that more than the actual gospel itself. Many people who trust both Messiah and some kind of work are not really saved.<\/p>\n
Fourth, it does not mean that a believer has been given license to sin. When they are first taught about eternal security, the usual response from people, especially new believers, is: \u201cDoes that mean I can do anything I want to and not lose my salvation?\u201d One can do anything he wants and not lose his salvation, but as we will see, there are the consequences that will develop because one is a believer.<\/p>\n
Thus, eternal security does not mean these four things. But it does mean the following three basic things.<\/p>\n
First, eternal security applies only to those who have been genuinely saved, those who have genuinely believed.<\/p>\n
Second, once they have received salvation, it means that the extent of their salvation is eternal. From the moment they receive salvation, it is eternal.<\/p>\n
Third, the security of the believer is based on God\u2019s grace and power. It is not based upon our ability to keep our salvation. If it were based upon our ability, every one of us would have lost it by now. It is based upon God\u2019s ability to save and save forever and to keep us saved.<\/p>\n
B. Some Principles<\/p>\n
Some basic principles in dealing with this include the following.<\/p>\n
1. In the Bible, salvation is viewed as a one-time act. It is not viewed as repeated, where one is saved, then lost, then saved again, then lost again. It is always viewed as a single experience: once one has it, he has it. John 3:14\u201315 states: whosoever believes may in him have eternal life. John 4:13\u201314: whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life. John 6:35: he that comes to me shall not hunger, and he that believes on me shall never thirst. John 6:51: I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. There is no concept that one loses his salvation and becomes hungry and thirsty again, and then believes or repents and becomes not thirsty and not hungry again. In every case, salvation is always viewed as a single, not a repeated experience.
\n2. A truly regenerated person will produce some measure of the fruit of righteousness. It may be imperceptible to us, but it will at least be perceptible to God. Sometimes we see people who seem to have no change of life. That might reflect one of two things: They were never saved to begin with, or if they were saved, there is some fruit, but that fruit is something only God can see. But if there is true, saving faith, it will produce some measure of fruit eventually. Matthew 7:17\u201320 explains that a good tree produces good fruit. Titus 2:11\u201312 says that true salvation produces works of righteousness. And James 2:14\u201326 declares faith without works to be dead faith that does not save anyway.
\n3. One of the tests of saving faith is consistency of key doctrines. Colossians 1:22\u201323: continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast. Second John 2: for the truth\u2019s sake which abides in us, and it shall be with us for ever. That is why there is no disagreement on the fundamentals of the faith among those who are truly evangelical believers, among denominations and different church groups. They disagree in other areas, but not on the fundamentals of the faith. There is always unanimity there.
\n4. The fourth principle is that the works of a believer are always rewarded (Heb. 6:10).
\n5. When the New Testament exhorts us to godly living, the exhortation is always based upon what God has done for us. It is not based upon the threat of losing salvation. In Romans 12:1\u20132, after giving the first eleven chapters telling us what God has done for us, Paul states, Therefore. What for? Because of all that God did in Romans 1\u201311, now he pleads: present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, because of the mercies of God. Second Corinthians 5:15 says we should live spiritually; we should no longer live unto ourselves because of what God has done for us. In the first three chapters of Ephesians, he tells us what God has done for us. Ephesians 4:1 says: Therefore. What for? Be-cause of all He did in chapters 1\u20133, walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called.
\n6. Sin will sever fellowship. When we sin and abide in it, it will break fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:6\u20139).
\n7. Another principle is that persistent sin may show a lack of true conversion (1 Jn. 3:6\u201310).
\n8. We never achieve perfection in this life. The great Apostle Paul mentions this fact twice. In Philippians 3:12\u201314, he admits that he is not already perfect. In 1 Timothy 1:15, using the present tense, he confesses: \u201cI am [not I was] the chief of sinners.\u201d There is no ability to achieve sinless perfection in this life.
\n9. There is a difference between position and practice. What we are positionally is not always true of what we are in practice. A good example is the Corinthian Church. Paul affirms the Corinthian Church as being sanctified, yet he goes on to say, \u201cYou are carnal.\u201d Positionally, they are sanctified, but in practice, they are carnal. There is such a thing as carnal believers, but they are still believers.
\n10. Most people who present that one can lose his salvation base salvation on works. They will all say that we are saved by grace through faith. Asked what would cause one to lose his salvation, they answer: \u201cWell, if you commit this sin or that sin, or if you live in this or that sin, you will lose your salvation.\u201d What does one have to do to get his salvation back? The answer: One has to stop doing this sin or that sin. That is salvation by works. However, there was no work one could do to earn salvation; there is no work one can do to lose it. Salvation cannot be gained by works; it cannot be lost by works. Romans 4:4: Now to him that works, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. If salvation is by works, it cannot be of grace. Galatians 2:21: for if righteousness is through the law, then Messiah died for nought. Second Timothy 1:9: not according to our works, but according to his own purpose.
\n11. Because believers still have their sin nature, they can fall in the very same sins as unbelievers. David was elect and a great spiritual believer\u2014just read his psalms. He had a real, personal relationship with God, yet he was guilty of adultery and murder. Solomon, a great believer, responsible for more than one book of the Bible and for many of the Proverbs, fell into idolatry. However, because both men were believers, they fell under divine discipline. They were never threatened with loss of salvation, but they did fall under divine discipline.<\/p>\n
C. Evidences for Eternal Security<\/p>\n
1. Reasons that Depend upon God the Father<\/p>\n
The first reason is on the basis of the sovereign purpose of God the Father. In Romans 8:28\u201330, the same ones He justified will be glorified. God intends to glorify the same group He predestined and called and justified. First Corinthians 1:8: who shall also confirm you unto the end. Ephesians 1:4, 11, 12: He has chosen us to bring Him the glory. Philippians 2:12\u201313: God is working in you to accomplish His will.<\/p>\n
A second reason is on the basis of God the Father\u2019s power to keep. John 10:28\u201329 states:<\/p>\n
28and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father\u2019s hand.<\/p>\n
Romans 4:21: what he had promised, he was able to perform. In Romans 14:4, speaking about a weak believer, Paul says, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord has power to make him stand. Romans 16:25: He is able to establish you. Second Timothy 1:12: He is able to guard that which has been committed. First Thessalonians 5:23\u201324: He will preserve to perfect sanctification the body, the soul, the spirit. Faithful is he that calls you, who will also do it. Hebrews 7:25: he is able to save to the uttermost. First Peter 1:5: Our salvation is kept by the power of God. Jude 24: God is able to keep you from stumbling and present us faultless before the throne.<\/p>\n
A third reason is because of the love of God the Father. He loved us, not just when we became His friends, but while we were still His enemies. In Romans 5:7\u201310 it says that if He died for us when we were still His enemies, He will keep us now that we are His friends.<\/p>\n
A fourth reason in connection with God the Father would be His promise. John 3:16 says the believer will not perish. John 5:24: The believer has already passed out of death into life.<\/p>\n
2. Reasons that Depend on God the Son<\/p>\n
These reasons are found in Romans 8:34\u201339:<\/p>\n
34 who is he that condemns? It is Messiah Yeshua that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Messiah? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Even as it is written, For your sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Messiah Yeshua our Lord.<\/p>\n
The first reason is Messiah has died and He has borne our condemnation.<\/p>\n
The second reason is Messiah has risen, and the believer partakes of His resurrection life.<\/p>\n
Third: He is our advocate. In this passage and in 1 John 1:1\u20132:2, although the believer still has sin in his life, because He is our advocate, there is no loss of salvation. The word \u201cadvocate\u201d basically is our modern term \u201clawyer.\u201d He is our lawyer. We happen to have a Jewish lawyer at the right hand of God the Father. He is always pleading our case. And, furthermore, He has never lost a case. That is why our salvation is eternally secure.<\/p>\n
Fourth, He intercedes. According to Romans 8:34, He is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. It is put more strongly in Hebrews 7:25: he ever lives to make intercession. He ever lives. In other words, there is no break, interruption, or pause in this intercessory work. The same verse says that is why we are saved to the uttermost. We are totally, completely saved because He is always there, without interruption, making intercession for us.<\/p>\n
A fifth connection with Messiah has to do with His role as a shepherd, according to John 10:27\u201330. He states His sheep, the believers, have eternal life. He says they shall never perish. It does not say they will never perish until they commit the next sin or an especially bad sin. They shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of His hand. Hebrews 5:9 says He is the author of eternal salvation.<\/p>\n
One more reason in connection with Messiah is the promise of Messiah. Second Timothy 2:13 states: if we are faithless, if we begin to not have faith, he abides faithful; for he cannot deny himself. He stays faithful to us even if we do not stay faithful to Him. In John 6:35\u201340, He will never cast out those who partake in the resurrection.<\/p>\n
3. Reasons that Depend on the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n
The Holy Spirit does three works in connection with eternal security.<\/p>\n
First: He does the work of regeneration, which gives us eternal life. It is the new birth experience. In 2 Corinthians 5:17, it states that all things become new. Galatians 6:15: We become a new creature. Ephesians 2:10: We are created in Messiah Yeshua. That is the work of regeneration. It is not a work that can be undone. Just as in physical birth, once one is born, he is out here. He cannot go back to his mother\u2019s womb and become a fetus again. Once one is born into the world physically, there is no possibility of returning to a fetal state. Once one is born again, there is no possibility to undo the work of regeneration and become un-born again.<\/p>\n
A second thing to mention regarding the Holy Spirit is that He indwells. The Scriptures do not teach He indwells believers until they commit their next sin; He indwells believers forever. If one could lose his salvation, he would lose the indwelling; if that were the case, then it was not forever. But the promise is this: once He indwells us, He is there forever. John 14:16\u201317 says the Comforter will be with them for ever. First John 2:27 states that the Spirit abides in you. It is a continual abiding.<\/p>\n
A third work in connection with the Spirit is that He seals. We have been sealed by the Holy Spirit. We are not sealed temporarily; we are sealed permanently. Second Corinthians 1:21\u201322 says: He sealed us, and gave us the earnest of the Spirit. Ephesians 1:13\u201314: Ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance unto the redemption of God\u2019s own possession. Ephesians 4:30: He declares, And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed. For how long?\u2026 unto the day of redemption. We are sealed until the final day of redemption, which includes our resurrection, not just until we commit the next sin or the next bad sin.<\/p>\n
4. Romans 8:1\u201339<\/p>\n
Romans 8:1\u201339 teaches the following points.<\/p>\n
First, in verse 1, There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Messiah Yeshua. There is now no condemnation.<\/p>\n
Second, in verses 2\u20138, we have been delivered from the Law.<\/p>\n
Third, in verses 9\u201313, we have the presence of the divine nature; we partake of the divine nature.<\/p>\n
Fourth, in verses 14\u201327, as believers we are now heirs of God.<\/p>\n
Fifth, in verses 28\u201329, we have been predestined to be glorified.<\/p>\n
Sixth, in verses 30\u201339, there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God. He makes a big point. There is nothing\u2014in Heaven, on earth, outside of us, inside of us, not even we ourselves\u2014that can separate us from the love of God.<\/p>\n
5. The Meaning of \u201cEternal\u201d<\/p>\n
The very word \u201ceternal\u201d makes it impossible to lose one\u2019s salvation. The Bible does not say we get eternal life if we die believing. The moment we believe, we already have eternal life. If salvation is eternal, it cannot be lost. If one could lose it, it was not eternal to begin with. Thus, salvation is eternal. Hebrews 5:9 declares the redemption is eternal. In Hebrews 9:12, we are part of an eternal covenant. In Hebrews 13:20, the eternal covenant is the New Covenant, which is an unconditional covenant. What does it mean to be part of an unconditional covenant? It means that no matter what we do, we cannot change our standing in the covenant.<\/p>\n
An example is a previous covenant, the Davidic Covenant, which was unconditional. One of the promises in this covenant was that David will be succeeded by one of his own sons. If that son disobeyed, God would discipline him, but He would not take away His loving-kindness from him, as He took it from him who was before David, meaning Saul. What was the difference between Solomon and Saul? The sin of Solomon was a lot worse than that of Saul. What was Saul\u2019s sin? He offered up a sacrifice which, as a non-Levite, he could not do. Saul did not offer his sacrifice to a foreign god. He offered the sacrifice to the true God. But he sinned because he was not qualified to do so and therefore lost the kingdom. Solomon\u2019s sin was idolatry, which is always viewed as the worst sin in the Bible. Yet God did not remove His loving-kindness from Solomon. The difference was that Saul did not have an unconditional covenantal relationship; Solomon did.<\/p>\n
Our salvation is based upon an unconditional covenant, the New Covenant. No matter what sin we fall into, we cannot be removed from this eternal covenant.<\/p>\n
6. The Finished Work of Messiah<\/p>\n
Keep in mind that when Messiah died for our sins, all our sins were still future. When He died, He died for all our sins\u2014the ones we committed before we were saved, and the ones we committed after we were saved. The finished work of Messiah means He died for all our sins, including the sins we commit after we believe.<\/p>\n
7. First Peter 1:4\u20135<\/p>\n
First Peter 1:4\u20135 says our hope is kept\u2014kept through faith\u2014until the final consummation.<\/p>\n
8. New Creation<\/p>\n
Second Corinthians 5:17 teaches that we are a brand-new creation altogether, a new creation that cannot be undone.<\/p>\n
9. Grace Guarantees<\/p>\n
Ephesians 2:8\u20139 says it is grace that guarantees our salvation, not our works:<\/p>\n
8by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not of works, that no man should glory.<\/p>\n
10. The Believer is a Gift to the Son from the Father<\/p>\n
Because of Messiah\u2019s perfect obedience, the believer is the gift from God the Father to God the Son. This is evident in John 6:37 and 10:29. No one can snatch the believer from His hand or His Father\u2019s hand.<\/p>\n
11. The Seed Abides<\/p>\n
This concept is found in 1 John 3:9. The seed that we now have\u2014the eternal seed\u2014abides continually. It is written in present tense. It is a continuous action.<\/p>\n
12. Salvation is a Gift<\/p>\n
In Romans 11:29 it says: For the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of; they are without repentance. Salvation is given to us as a gift; therefore, it is totally unmerited. How could God take the gift away because of a sin we commit? If God took it away, it would cease to be a gift. We would have to earn it to keep it. But the gifts of God are without repentance, without recall.<\/p>\n
13. Salvation is a Birth<\/p>\n
Salvation is viewed as a birth, which makes it final and unchangeable (Jn. 1:12; 3:3).<\/p>\n
14. The Believer\u2019s Ability<\/p>\n
What the Bible teaches is that just as a believer could not earn his salvation, he does not have the ability to keep it, either. A believer has no more ability to keep himself saved than he has the ability to save himself in the first place. In Galatians 3:3, Paul states: Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh? Obviously not. It is foolish, Paul says, to think that having been saved by grace, one can now hang on to salvation by the works of the flesh.<\/p>\n
15. God\u2019s Payment<\/p>\n
According to Romans 5:10, God paid the highest price for our salvation, the blood of His own Son. He has paid the highest possible price for our salvation; therefore, it is too high a price to give us up now. Paul says, For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.<\/p>\n
16. The Punishment of Sins<\/p>\n
Gross sins or unconfessed sins were always punished by discipline, but not by loss of salvation.<\/p>\n
For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:1\u20135, a believer is sleeping with his stepmother. Is that a gross enough sin to lose one\u2019s salvation? No. However, Paul says they are to put him back under Satan\u2019s authority for the destruction of the flesh; his spirit is still saved.<\/p>\n
In 1 Corinthians 11:29\u201332, believers were getting drunk at the Lord\u2019s table. Did God threaten them with loss of salvation? No. He judged them physically in three ways: For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. Because of this sin, \u201csome of you are weak, some are sick, and some are dead,\u201d but it says nothing about loss of salvation.<\/p>\n
17. The Purpose of Warnings and Exhortations<\/p>\n
When God gives warnings and exhortations, He never threatens with loss of salvation, but He does threaten with two things: discipline in this life and loss of rewards in the next life. In Hebrews 12:1\u20137, the writer points out that one of the reasons for their physical sufferings is divine discipline for failing to progress to spiritual maturity. He points out to them that the very fact they are suffering divine discipline is proof that they are believers. God only disciplines His children; He does not discipline those who do not belong to Him.<\/p>\n
The question is: \u201cCan I do anything I want to?\u201d The answer: Just try it! God will not allow a believer to live in sin for an extended period of time. When we see someone who has made a confession of faith but he sins and never seems to suffer any kind of discipline, it is a sign he was not saved to begin with. If he is a believer, there will be discipline, even if it means physical death.<\/p>\n
D. Arminian Problem Passages<\/p>\n
There are passages people use to try to somehow portray that one can lose his salvation. They have been categorized in various ways.<\/p>\n
1. Scriptures that are Dispensationally Misapplied<\/p>\n
This includes Ezekiel 18:20, 26; 33:7, 8, where God warns the sinner, \u201cI will hold you accountable for his blood.\u201d Some interpret this to mean that Ezekiel could lose his salvation. But if one looks at the context, it says nothing about losing salvation, but losing one\u2019s physical life. These are passages dealing with Israel under the Mosaic Law. They deal with physical accountability, not loss of salvation. The threat to Ezekiel is if he fails to fulfill his role as a prophet, God will hold him accountable and he will die the physical penalty of the Law which is physical death. Nothing is said there about losing individual salvation.<\/p>\n
Another passage is Matthew 24:13: But he that endures to the end, the same shall be saved. Some interpret this to mean that only enduring in faith to the end guarantees salvation. But this is speaking about the Jews in the Tribulation. Those Jews who survive to the end of the Tribulation will be saved. But, as Zechariah 13:8\u20139 points out, two-thirds of the Jewish population will not survive to the end. The third that does, they all will come to saving faith. It is not dealing with losing individual salvation, but with national salvation. That part of Israel that survives the Tribulation will be saved at that time.<\/p>\n
2. Passages that Speak of False Teachers<\/p>\n
When the Bible speaks about false teachers, the passages are not talking about losing salvation; these people are not saved to begin with.<\/p>\n
Matthew 7:15 says: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep\u2019s clothing. There is no indication that these false prophets were saved people who got lost.<\/p>\n
Acts 20:29\u201330:<\/p>\n
29I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.<\/p>\n
There is nothing about these disciples who are being drawn away losing their salvation.<\/p>\n
Romans 16:17, 18: mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling. We are to mark out the people in the assembly who cause divisions and put them out of the church. But there is nothing about losing salvation; the divisive one is just being put outside the fellowship of the church.<\/p>\n
Second Corinthians 11:13\u201315 speaks of false apostles who fashion themselves to appear as apostles of Messiah. The text says they pretend to be believers. They are not believers who lost their salvation, but they are false apostles who pretend to be believers.<\/p>\n
Second Peter 2:1\u201322: These are false teachers who deny the Master that bought them. They do not even claim to be believers.<\/p>\n
First John 2:19: These are people who claim to be believers, but then fell away. John states, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. He tells us they were not believers to begin with.<\/p>\n
Jude 3\u201319 is dealing with false teachers who deny the Lord. They are false, apostate teachers who were never saved to begin with.<\/p>\n
3. Passages that Deal with Outward Reformation<\/p>\n
There are passages that deal with outward reformation, not real salvation. In Matthew 7:22\u201323, He declares to false teachers: I never knew you. Luke 11:24\u201326 speaks about a person who has a demon. The demon leaves; the demon comes back. The assumption is that the person was saved, and then he is lost again. However, nothing in the passage says that the person whom the demon left was saved. The demon was not cast out; rather, he left by his own free will. When he could not find a better place to live, he came back to where he had been. There is no implication that the demonized person was ever saved, before or after.<\/p>\n
There is a difference between profession and possession recognized in Scripture. Second Timothy 2:19 says: The Lord knows them that are his. Many are professors, but He knows which ones are real possessors. And again, in 1 John 2:19, it says there were those who were part of the assembly who had all the appearance of being believers, but they turned out to not be believers to begin with.<\/p>\n
4. Passage on Fruit<\/p>\n
Sometimes passages that deal with fruit are misconstrued to be addressing issues of salvation, especially John 15:6, where it states that if we do not abide in Messiah, the branch is broken off and burned. But the issue here is either being fruitful or not fruitful for the Lord. To be broken off means to lose one\u2019s life. The burning is not the burning of the believer, but the burning of the lack of fruit. At the Judgment Seat of Messiah, in 1 Corinthians 3:10\u201315, the unfruitful works of the believer\u2014the wood, hay, stubble\u2014will be burned. But the believer is not burned. In fact, the text says, he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.<\/p>\n
5. Warnings to All Men<\/p>\n
When the Bible gives warnings to all men, it has nothing to do with the issue of losing salvation. It only emphasizes that if one does not believe, he has no salvation. That is the case in Revelation 22:19; 1 John 5:4\u20135.<\/p>\n
6. Gentiles and the Olive Tree<\/p>\n
Because Romans 11:17\u201324 talks about branches being broken off, the assumption is that it means loss of salvation. In that context, the olive tree does not symbolize salvation. It symbolizes the covenantal blessings. Paul is speaking not individually, but nationally. First, Israel was in the place of blessing, but then, because of unbelief, they were removed from the place of blessing. Now the Gentiles are in the place of blessing. But if they continue not in faith, they can be removed from the place of blessing. The issue is the place of spiritual blessings nationally\u2014for Israel and the Gentiles\u2014not individual loss of salvation.<\/p>\n
7. Passages on Loss of Rewards<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 3:10\u201315 is talking about crowns: The passage speaks of rewards or lack of rewards. There is nothing about the unfruitful believer losing his salvation. Paul specifies exactly the opposite: The unfruitful believer\u2019s works shall be burned, but he shall be saved, yet so as through fire.<\/p>\n
In 1 Corinthians 9:26\u201327, the person could be rejected from the race, but there Paul is dealing with disapproval, the failure to finish the race, failure of being rewarded, not loss of salvation.<\/p>\n
8. Passages on Loss of Fellowship<\/p>\n
Some passages which are used to teach that one can lose his salvation actually deal not with loss of salvation, but with losing one\u2019s fellowship with God. John 13:8 deals not with a loss of salvation, but with a cleansing from daily sin. In John 15:2, the removal described there is removal in this life, not the next one. First Corinthians 11:29\u201332 is talking about physical death, not spiritual death. The weakness and sickness was physical. First John 5:16 refers to the sin not unto death. That is a physical death, not loss of salvation.<\/p>\n
9. To Fall from Grace<\/p>\n
In Galatians 5:4, Paul says if one goes back to the Law, he has fallen from grace. The assumption is that to fall from grace is to lose one\u2019s salvation. That is not the context. The Galatians Paul writes to have been saved, and now they have an option. They can operate in one of two spheres. They can operate in the sphere of grace, which will produce sanctification, or they can operate in the sphere of the Law, which will produce condemnation. If they choose to go back to the Law, if they choose to try to live the spiritual life by the Law, if they go back to the sphere of the Law, they have fallen from grace, meaning they do not have grace as the empowerment to maintain God\u2019s righteous standards.<\/p>\n
10. Passage that Discusses Spiritual Weakness<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 8:8\u201312 speaks about a spiritually weak brother who stumbles. But this is about his stumbling in his spiritual growth, not losing his salvation.<\/p>\n
11. Confusion between Salvation Confession and Daily Confession<\/p>\n
People confuse 1 John 1:9 and make it a salvation verse. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, so if we do not confess our sins, we lose our salvation. But that passage is not dealing with salvation confession. It is dealing with fellowship confession. As believers, we sin and break our fellowship with God, and when we break that fellowship with God, we must restore it by confessing the sin. We are dealing with broken fellowship, not loss of salvation.<\/p>\n
12. The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n
This is based upon Matthew 12:22\u201337. But in context, the ones who were guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit were not saved people who lost their salvation. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a unique sin mentioned only in that one context and in the parallel passages of Mark and Luke.<\/p>\n
That was a special sin of which only Israel was guilty. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was a national sin by Israel where they rejected the Messiahship of Yeshua on the basis of demon possession. That is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the unpardonable sin. Those who rejected Him were not believers who lost their salvation, but these leaders never believed on Him to begin with. It is not a sin that a believer is capable of committing.<\/p>\n
13. Parables<\/p>\n
Some people interpret parables as being about believers who lose salvation. However, these parables are actually describing nonbelievers who were never saved to begin with. In Matthew 13:1\u201323, Yeshua does not deal with believers who end up left out of the Kingdom, but unbelievers who never were in it. In Matthew 24:45\u201325:30, again, it is not believers who missed out on the Kingdom, but unbelievers.<\/p>\n
14. Being Blotted out of the Book of Life<\/p>\n
Because the Bible does talk about being blotted out of the Book of Life, people have assumed this must be the loss of salvation. But if one takes in all the passages about the Book of Life, here is what they teach: The Book of Life contains the names of everybody who has ever been born (Ps. 139:16). When a person becomes a believer, his name is retained in the Book of Life (Rev. 3:5). However, if a person dies in unbelief, his name is blotted out of the Book of Life (Ps. 69:28). It is possible to be blotted out of the Book of Life, but that is not loss of salvation. It means one was never saved to begin with and died that way.<\/p>\n
15. Biblical Characters<\/p>\n
One of the last ways people try to prove that one could lose his salvation is by the lives of biblical characters who seem to start out as saved, but then did something that made them unsaved.<\/p>\n
For example, there are two people in particular. First, there is Lot. They will claim that Lot is an example of a believer who lost his salvation. One does not find that stated anywhere in Genesis. Second Peter 2:6\u20139 classes Lot as a believer and states that his righteous soul was vexed by the sin he saw in Sodom. Peter says Lot had a righteous soul.<\/p>\n
Another character is Samson. People who believe one can lose his salvation claim that Samson started out as a believer, then because of his dalliance with a Philistine prostitute and so on, he lost his salvation. But Hebrews 11:32 classes Samson as a man who had faith.<\/p>\n
Even when David sinned with Bathsheba and prayed his confession, a confession of sin in Psalm 51, he did not ask God to restore his salvation. He asked God to restore the joy of his salvation. That is the difference. We saints, as believers, will always have our salvation. If we rebel, we lose the joy of it, but not the position itself.<\/p>\n
So on the one hand, we have to maintain a balance on this teaching. We are saved eternally. There is nothing we can do from this point on to lose our salvation. But there is a price to pay if we rebel against God. What will it cost us? Here are some things the Bible says we lose if we do not continue faithful to the Lord as believers.<\/p>\n
1. When we become carnal, we lose our reward in the Kingdom (1 Cor. 3:13).
\n2. We lose our fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:3\u201310).
\n3. One of the elements of salvation is joy (Ps. 51:12). It is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16\u201323). We lose the joy of our salvation.
\n4. We begin to lose our direction and purpose in this life (Mk. 8:34\u201338).
\n5. We lose our ministry and testimony to others (Mat. 5:10\u201316; Phil. 2:13\u201316).
\n6. We lose our spiritual sight and therefore our spiritual perspective. We fail to see things spiritually (2 Pet. 1:2\u20139).
\n7. We can lose our assurance of our salvation. We cannot lose our salvation, but we can lose the assurance of it (2 Pet. 1:9\u201311).
\n8. We lose our victory over the world (2 Pet. 2:18\u201322).
\n9. A ninth price we pay is our loss of spiritual stability, our spiritual growth. (2 Pet. 3:17\u201318).<\/p>\n
We do lose something if we fall and continue in sin. The doctrine of eternal security, if we understand it fully, will give us the assurance of salvation. We understand that it is God who keeps us saved; we do not keep ourselves saved. This teaching differs greatly from Roman Catholicism. Cardinal O\u2019Connor, in a New York Times interview, made this interesting statement about the perspective of Roman Catholicism:<\/p>\n
Church teaching is that I do not know at any given moment what my eternal future will be. I can hope, pray, do my very best, but I still do not know. Pope John Paul does not know absolutely that he will go to Heaven, nor does Mother Theresa.<\/p>\n
That is a terrible lack of assurance. But if we go by the Bible, we do have assurance. First John 5:11\u201313 states:<\/p>\n
11And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He that has the Son has the life; he has not the Son of God has not the life. 13These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat you, who believe on the name of the Son of God, may know [not hope, but know] that you have eternal life.\u201d If we follow what the Bible teaches, we do not have to hope that we are saved. We can know that we have eternal life. That is the advantage of the biblical faith.<\/p>\n
E. The Book of Hebrews<\/p>\n
It is important to focus on the five warnings of the Book of Hebrews for two reasons. First, these are the passages that people generally use to teach that one can lose his salvation. The second reason is that these passages are usually interpreted from a modern Gentile perspective, even by those who believe in eternal security. But a proper understanding requires viewing these passages from a first century Jewish perspective.<\/p>\n
The Book of Hebrews was written to a body of Jewish believers in the Land of Israel, who were seriously considering going back into Judaism because of the severe persecution they were facing. They thought that they could give up their salvation temporarily and go back into Judaism until the persecution subsided. Then they could accept the Messiah all over again, and their new salvation would erase the sin of the previous apostasy. That was the option they thought they had. Therefore, the author of Hebrews wanted to write to them and tell them that they do not have this option.<\/p>\n
Often in Gentile thinking, the assumption is that the word \u201csave\u201d or \u201csalvation\u201d refers only to spiritual salvation. Frequently, however, in Jewish writings it has to do with physical salvation, and that is the way these passages in the Book of Hebrews need to be understood. As seen when the five warnings are given, each is correlated with physical judgment and physical death in the Old Testament. Hence, these Jewish believers did not have the option of giving up their salvation and being saved again later. If they did go back into Judaism, they would suffer the judgment of A.D. 70, the judgment for the unpardonable sin, and suffer in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. They would lose their physical lives, but they would not lose their salvation.<\/p>\n
The option they really had was to make the break from Judaism once-and-for-all complete and press on to spiritual maturity. The writer wants to encourage them to press on, so he shows how the Messiah is superior to three main pillars of Judaism: angels, Moses, and the Levitical System. To go back to Judaism is to go back to something inferior, because what they have in the Messiah is so much more superior.<\/p>\n
The author basically follows a logical argument in the Book of Hebrews; however, five times he deviates from his topic to give a warning based upon what he has just said.<\/p>\n
1. The Danger of Drifting Away: Hebrews 2:1\u20134<\/p>\n
Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that were heard, lest haply we drift away from them.<\/p>\n
The first warning begins with the word Therefore, which is a logical, connective word. The author is building on what he had just said in chapter one that Yeshua is superior to angels. Therefore, for that very reason, they must pay close attention to what he is about to say. Why? lest [they] drift away from them, just as a boat that is untied from its mooring will drift out to sea. The Greek word for drift away means \u201cto flow beside or past,\u201d \u201cto slip off,\u201d \u201cto slip under,\u201d \u201cto slip into the wind,\u201d \u201cto disappear from memory.\u201d The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, uses the same word to translate Proverbs 3:21, which says that a father\u2019s counsel should not \u201cslip away.\u201d In Isaiah 44:4, it is used for running water. The emphasis is that they must not let that which they have learned flow away, disappear from memory, or slip away.<\/p>\n
His point is that revelation through the mediation of the Son carries far more solemn obligations for the recipients than revelation that was mediated through angels or men. God used both men and angels to give revelation. In light of the fact that Yeshua is superior to angels, they must give more earnest heed to what He has revealed. The statement, the things that were heard, refers to the body of doctrinal truth in general, but especially the revelation that came by means of the Son.<\/p>\n
Then, he warns against the impossibility of escaping in verses 2\u20133a:<\/p>\n
2For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; 3how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?<\/p>\n
Verse 2 gives the reason they must pay very close attention. In Greek, it is a first class condition: if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, which of course it did, it assumes a fulfilled condition, not merely a possibility. Did the revelation that came through angels prove steadfast? It certainly did, because God used angels in giving divine revelation. For example, while the Old Testament does not tell us that the Law was given by God to Moses through angels, this was part of an old rabbinic teaching that is affirmed by the New Testament in Acts 7:53 and Galatians 3:19. It is also found in this passage, and the implication here is that the revelation which Moses received did come through angels.<\/p>\n
He then states that every sin received its just recompense of reward. It certainly did, but the punishment he is talking about is physical punishment. Why? Because the principle of the Law was that disobedience brought discipline; there were blessings for obedience, but curses for disobedience. The words just recompense or just punishment do not refer to the loss of salvation, but to the loss of temporal blessings in the form of divine discipline. There are some clear examples of this in the Old Testament. For example, in Leviticus 10, Nadab and Abihu sinned, and they were stricken dead. In Numbers 16, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rebelled, and they were stricken dead. In Joshua 7, Achan disobeyed, and he was stricken dead. The punishment of the Law was not loss of salvation; rather, the punishment of the Law was physical death. If that were true under the Law, how much more is it true of revelation given by the Son!<\/p>\n
So he asks the question in verse 3a, \u201cHow can anyone escape if they neglect a salvation mediated through the Son?\u201d The phrase how shall we escape implies that there is no escape possible from a just recompense of reward. It will mean discipline in this life according to Hebrews 12:5\u201311, and it will certainly mean physical death in the coming judgment. If a believer develops complete indifference to what he has received, if he becomes indifferent in carrying out what faith demands, then he is subject to divine discipline. The point is that salvation is in their possession, but they are neglecting it or becoming indifferent to it. By neglecting their salvation, believers may put themselves into a position requiring divine discipline. Under the Law, divine discipline came upon Israel as the Covenant People; but under grace, divine discipline comes upon individual believers who continue in a state of disobedience because they are the children of God. Therefore, the warning is that they must give heed to revelation given by the Son. Why? Because He is superior to angels. Disobedience will not result in a loss of spiritual salvation; disobedience will mean the loss of physical life.<\/p>\n
He shows the superiority of the gospel to the Mosaic Law in verses 3b\u20134:<\/p>\n
3bwhich having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; 4God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will.<\/p>\n
The superiority of the gospel can be seen in three ways. First, the original announcement was spoken through the Lord. Second, it was authenticated by those who heard. Third, it was further authenticated by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n
So in light of the uniqueness of the One who gave this revelation and in light of the uniqueness of how it was tested and authenticated and how it came to those who were the readers of this epistle, the author warns them to be careful that they do not neglect it to the point of becoming indifferent or apathetic. If God did not tolerate indifference to His revelation that came through angels, He certainly will not tolerate indifference to His revelation that came by means of the Son.<\/p>\n
2. The Danger of Disobedience: Hebrews 3:7\u20134:13<\/p>\n
a. The Background<\/p>\n
The background to the second warning is Numbers 13 and 14, which record a very crucial turning point in Israel\u2019s history. Israel had arrived at the oasis of Kadesh Barnea, which was right on the border of the Promised Land. Once they passed Kadesh Barnea, they would be in the Promised Land. From that oasis, Moses sent out twelve spies who came back forty days later and all agreed on one issue: the Land was all that God had said it was, indeed, a land [flowing] with milk and honey. But then came a crucial point of disagreement in that two of the spies said they could take the Land, while the other ten disagreed with their assessment. The result was a massive rebellion against the authority of Moses and Aaron, who nearly lost their lives in a mob scene until God intervened. At that point, God entered into a specific judgment against the generation that came out of Egypt. The judgment was that all those who came out of Egypt would continue wandering in the wilderness until forty years had passed. During those forty years, all would die except the two good spies, Joshua and Caleb, and those under the age of twenty. Therefore, the \u201cExodus Generation\u201d lost the privilege of entering the Land. It would be the next generation, the \u201cWilderness Generation,\u201d that would be allowed to enter into the Land under Joshua.<\/p>\n
The principle in Scripture is that, once a point of no return is reached, the offenders are subject to divine judgment; but the judgment is physical death, not spiritual judgment in the loss of salvation. In fact, Numbers 14:20 does say that the people repented; it even goes on to say that God forgave their sin. It did not affect anyone\u2019s individual salvation, but the physical consequences of their sin did need to be paid. Even Moses had to die outside the Land because of a specific sin he committed. Although this did not affect his individual salvation, he had to pay the physical consequences of his sin. Here again, the correlation is: in the Old Testament, the issue is physical death and the loss of temporal blessings, but not the loss of salvation.<\/p>\n
In Hebrews 3:1\u20136, the writer pointed out that Yeshua the Messiah is superior to Moses. The massive rebellion of Numbers 13\u201314 occurred under the ever-faithful Moses. Now, One greater than Moses has been here. Will there be another massive rebellion by the Jewish believers? That is the background to the second warning.<\/p>\n
b. The Admonition against Disobedience: Hebrews 3:7\u201319<\/p>\n
(1) The Old Testament Lesson: Hebrews 3:7\u201311<\/p>\n
The author begins with a strong admonition against disobedience, starting with the Old Testament lesson of verses 7\u201311:<\/p>\n
7Wherefore, even as the Holy Spirit says,
\nTo-day if ye shall hear his voice,
\n8Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation,
\nLike as in the day of the trial in the wilderness,
\n9Where your fathers tried me by proving me,
\nAnd saw my works forty years.
\n10Wherefore I was displeased with this generation,
\nAnd said, They do always err in their heart:
\nBut they did not know my ways;
\n11As I swore in my wrath,
\nThey shall not enter into my rest.<\/p>\n
There are two bases for this strong admonition against disobedience: first, the sin of Kadesh Barnea; and second, the fact that the Son is greater than Moses. He begins with the word Wherefore, meaning in light of the fact that Yeshua is greater than Moses, do not apostatize through disobedience. He quotes Psalm 95:7\u201311, a poetic account of the same Kadesh Barnea experience. The Greek word he uses for the provocation has become a technical word referring to the sin of Kadesh Barnea.<\/p>\n
The mention of forty years here is significant because the Book of Hebrews was written about forty years after the Crucifixion. The Exodus Generation, of course, failed to enter into the rest of the Promised Land. God manifested His wrath because of their continuous disobedience and sentenced them to physical death outside the Land. The Book of Hebrews treats the Promised Land as a type of rest, but not as a type or symbol of Heaven. The point is that a redeemed people may lose blessings, the enjoyment of which was based upon continuous faith. Although they were forgiven for the sin of unbelief, as Numbers 14:20 clearly states, they suffered the physical consequences of unbelief and forfeited the rest that they could have enjoyed in the Promised Land. The judgment was a physical judgment, physical death. Here again, the issue is not eternal salvation, rather, the issue is that disobedience may result in temporal, physical judgment and the loss of future rewards.<\/p>\n
(2) The Application: Hebrews 3:12\u201315<\/p>\n
12Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God: 13but exhort one another day by day, so long as it is called To-day; lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin: 14for we are become partakers of Messiah, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end: 15while it is said,<\/p>\n
To-day if ye shall hear his voice,
\nHarden not your hearts, as in the provocation.<\/p>\n
The Old Testament lesson is applied both negatively and positively. First, negatively, in verse 12, believers ought to beware because they are responsible for their own conduct. They are warned against developing an evil heart of unbelief and parting from the living God as did the Exodus Generation. Furthermore, the word that is used implies the corrupting of others as well. The falling away here is the negative side of the \u201cholding fast\u201d of Hebrews 3:6.<\/p>\n
Then positively in verse 13, believers were to exhort one another day by day. This emphasizes the responsibility to fellow-believers who happen to be weak in the faith. The exhortation is against the sin of apostatizing from the faith. The sin of apostasy is deceitful because it tricks them into thinking this is the best way out of their present situation of being persecuted for the faith. The antidote for developing a hard heart is a caring and encouraging community of believers.<\/p>\n
In verse 14, he gives the reason for the exhortation and shows why it is necessary. The issue here is not the retention of salvation based upon a persistence of faith, but the possession of salvation as evidenced by a continuation of faith. The Greek word for partakers means, \u201cto have a share of,\u201d \u201cto share with,\u201d \u201cto take part in.\u201d The \u201cif\u201d clause does not mean that they will become sharers if [they] hold fast [long enough]; in the Greek, it is a perfect tense, meaning they are already sharers. But how can one recognize true sharers of the Messiah? Only if they persist in the faith; otherwise, one can never really be sure. They may truly still be saved just as the carnal Corinthians were clearly saved. But there is a lack of evidence to the observer. Thus, if they maintain their faith unto the end, they would prove they really were partakers of Messiah. At present, they were partakers, but continuing to persist in the faith unto the end would be the final evidence of it.<\/p>\n
In verse 15, he quotes Psalm 95:7 once more to show the failure of the Exodus Generation. Again, the result was physical death.<\/p>\n
(3) The Interpretation: Hebrews 3:16\u201319<\/p>\n
16For who, when they heard, did provoke? nay, did not all they that came out of Egypt by Moses? 17And with whom was he displeased forty years? was it not with them that sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18And to whom swore he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that were disobedient? 19And we see that they were not able to enter in because of unbelief.<\/p>\n
This passage asks three questions. In verse 16, the first question is, \u201cWho were the provokers?\u201d The answer is, \u201cThe very people God rescued are the ones who provoked Him.\u201d The very ones who had been delivered from bondage and started out for the Promised Land by faith were the ones who missed the life and rest of the Land because of unbelief.<\/p>\n
In verse 17, the second question is, \u201cWho is it that sinned?\u201d The answer is, \u201cThose who died.\u201d But, again, this was physical death. They sinned and suffered its physical consequences. Their punishment was physical death because, as already pointed out, not all who died were spiritually lost.<\/p>\n
In verse 18, the third question is, \u201cTo whom did He say they would not enter into rest?\u201d The answer is, \u201cThe Exodus Generation.\u201d Disobedience brought rejection and they failed to enter into the rest of the Land. Disobedience is unbelief which, in turn, gave way to the act of rebellion.<\/p>\n
In verse 19, he draws his conclusion: They could not reach the rest they started out for by faith because of unbelief. The rest is that of the Promised Land. Rebellion meant the loss of promised blessings. Notice that Israel did not lose its status as a redeemed people; they did not go back to become slaves of Egypt again. They were still the redeemed, chosen people of God, but they did lose the blessing of the Promised Land and a life of peace and rest in the Land.<\/p>\n
In summarizing the argument of this passage, the generation of those who were redeemed from Egypt failed to enter the rest that was promised because they continued not in faith. Instead, they degenerated downward in three steps: first, they fell into unbelief; second, their unbelief induced disobedience; third, disobedience led to open sin. The application to the present readers of the Book of Hebrews is that they are in a very similar danger. It has been forty years since the Crucifixion, or close to it. Forty years in the wilderness meant that many had died. Will many die now in the A.D. 70 destruction of the Land? They will if they go back into Judaism just to escape persecution.<\/p>\n
(4) The Rest of Faith: Hebrews 4:1\u201310<\/p>\n
1 Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard. 3 For we who have believed do enter into that rest; even as he has said,<\/p>\n
As I swore in my wrath,
\nThey shall not enter into my rest:<\/p>\n
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he has said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works; 5 and in this place again, They shall not enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remains that some should enter thereinto, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience, 7 he again defines a certain day, To-day, saying in David so long a time afterward (even as has been said before),<\/p>\n
To-day if ye shall hear his voice,
\nHarden not your hearts.<\/p>\n
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. 9 There remains therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from his.<\/p>\n
The writer presents a detailed argument in this passage concerning the rest of faith and why it is important that they enter into the life of \u201cfaith-rest,\u201d which is spiritual maturity. If they go back into Judaism now, they will stay in a state of spiritual immaturity, but if they break away and press on, then they will find true maturity.<\/p>\n
(5) The Exhortation to Enter the Rest: Hebrews 4:11\u201313<\/p>\n
11 Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.<\/p>\n
The second warning ends with a strong exhortation to enter into that rest. Again, the rest is spiritual maturity by making their break with Judaism once-and-for-all complete. Thus, in verse 11, the exhortation is to press on; therefore, because of what he said in verses 1\u201310, they must enter into the present rest of faith. Let us therefore give diligence; let us be diligent, denoting a sense of urgency, attentiveness, and quickness. He is not talking about future glory, but this is a present emphasis because the danger is: lest anyone fall [according to] the same example of disobedience. Notice the term same example. For Israel, it was Kadesh Barnea and physical death outside the Land, not the loss of salvation. The readers of the Book of Hebrews were in danger of losing their lives and their eschatological rewards in the Kingdom. Therefore, in verses 12\u201313, they must press on to maturity and not go back, or else they will someday be judged by the word of God, a judgment that will come at the Judgment Seat of the Messiah.<\/p>\n
3. The Danger of Immaturity: Hebrews 5:11\u20136:20<\/p>\n
a. The Fact of Stagnation: Hebrews 5:11\u201314<\/p>\n
11Of whom we have many things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing. 12For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. 13For every one that partakes of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. 14But solid food is for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.<\/p>\n
All four of these verses are rich in content, and each verse carries a specific obligation. The previous teaching the author has just given in verses 1\u201310 brings with it specific obligations. Whenever new truth is revealed, all must submit to it. The revelation of truth is to produce fruit in the believer\u2019s life as it is being perceived. There is always an ever-present danger of resting in previous attainments. What has happened to his readers is that they have reached a certain level and now they are resting on past attainments; they have failed to progress to spiritual maturity. In verses 11\u201314, he deals with the fact of stagnation and spells out specific spiritual problems these believers have.<\/p>\n
First, in verse 11, the author deals with the issue of things which are hard of interpretation. He starts out, Of whom we have many things to say. The whom is Melchizedek and the Order of Melchizedek of verse 10. He has a lot he wants to teach them about Melchizedek. The problem is that the doctrine of the Melchizedekian Order belongs to the category of meat, not milk. What he is afraid of is that his readers, because of their stagnation and failure to progress, will not be able to understand what he will say about the Melchizedekian Order. He is afraid they are not prepared to meet the difficulties that the mention of Melchizedek has caused. That is why he will temporarily drop the subject to scold them. Later, he will pick it up again.<\/p>\n
For now, he states that it is difficult for him to explain to them what this Melchizedekian Priesthood is about because of their spiritual dullness; they have become dull of hearing. The Greek word for dull means \u201cto have no push.\u201d It means to be lazy or sluggish in hearing. That is what makes it so difficult for him to teach them about Melchizedek.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, they have become dull. They were not this way at one time, but now they are different and they have become dull of hearing. Because the Melchizedekian doctrine is hard of interpretation, difficult to explain and to understand, he is afraid he will lose them because they will not understand it. The obligation contained in verse 11 is that every believer must develop a sensitive hearing of things which are hard of interpretation. Every believer must mature in order to handle the deeper things of biblical doctrine.<\/p>\n
In verse 12, the writer gives the reason. These are not new believers. If they were new, baby believers, their inability to understand would be excusable. Every believer starts out as a baby believer when new to the faith, and it is expected that he drinks milk. However, these Jewish believers have been saved for some time because, by this time, they should be teaching the Word. This shows they are not new believers. While not every believer has the gift of teaching, every believer should be able to teach to some degree one-on-one. What has happened to these readers is that they need to be re-taught the first principles, the ABCs of the oracles of God, the ABCs of the divine revelation of Scripture. This means the ABCs of the faith. Melchizedek has to do with meat, but they need milk. That shows their immature state because milk is for the immature believer. Milk has to do with the first principles. Milk has to do with the ABCs of Scriptures. The meat of the Word of God has to do with advanced doctrinal truth and its application in the issues of life. One example of this is the Melchizedekian Priesthood. That is meaty doctrine. For the second time, the author uses the term become. They were not always this way; they became this way. This shows regression. If believers do not advance or progress spiritually, they will regress. The obligation of verse 12 is they need to develop spiritually in order to show ability in teaching instead of being re-taught the same things over and over again.<\/p>\n
In verse 13, he spells out further what constitutes babyhood in the spiritual life. It is failing to make practical use of the knowledge they possess. That makes them unskillful. One who partakes of milk is one without experience of the word of righteousness. As long as a believer fails to apply what he learns, he will remain a baby. The principle is \u201cuse it or lose it.\u201d In their case, these believers knew the Messiah was the final sacrifice, and, yet, they thought there was nothing wrong with returning to sacrifices and symbols. Their problem was not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of exercising that knowledge in real-life situations. They needed to learn how to apply the Word to properly discern right from wrong. The obligation of verse 13 is they must use skill in applying the Word to resolve the major problems in biblical doctrine.<\/p>\n
In verse 14, the writer spells out what maturity means. A mature believer has an unrestricted diet and can partake of solid food. A mature believer is one who is of full age spiritually. The Greek word for fullgrown men is \u201cgoal.\u201d A mature believer has attained the goal of his spiritual life because he did apply what he knew and was, therefore, open to learning more. Spiritual maturity is a result of careful exercise: for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil. A mature believer has the ability to make responsible decisions. The obligation of verse 14 is for all believers to make proper use of what they know.<\/p>\n
This is a summary of the spiritual state of these believers. They have been believers for a long time; they have been taught sound doctrine in the past because by now they are to be teachers. However, they have not retained or used the truth they have been taught and need to relearn the first principles of the oracles of God. They have reverted from adulthood back to infancy in spiritual things. They have lapsed from maturity to immaturity and from \u201cmeat\u201d to milk. Although the spiritual adult and the spiritual babe both have the Word of God, only one knows how to use the Word. Usage of the Word causes believers to progress from immaturity to maturity; a lack of usage means regressing from maturity to immaturity.<\/p>\n
b. The Need for Progression: Hebrews 6:1\u20138<\/p>\n
1Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Messiah, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3And this will we do, if God permit. 4For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, 6and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 7For the land which has drunk the rain that comes often upon it, and brings forth herbs meet for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receives blessing from God: 8but if it bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse; whose end is to be burned.<\/p>\n
Their previous spiritual condition shows that they need to grow. If they fail to grow, there is a great danger of a relapse. This section contains one of the most debated passages in biblical studies. Therefore, it is wise to keep certain principles in mind when interpreting this passage.<\/p>\n
(1) The Principles<\/p>\n
The first principle is that these eight verses need to be interpreted in light of the Book of Hebrews as a whole. That is why it is always better to handle chapter 6 after dealing with the first five chapters. This book, as a whole, was written specifically to a body of believers, and the author of the book speaks to them and treats them as real believers. Furthermore, it was written specifically to Jewish believers who seriously contemplated going back into Judaism and the Levitical System in order to escape the persecution they were suffering at the time. These Jewish believers felt they could go back into Judaism and be saved again later when the persecution subsided. The new salvation would erase the sin of their apostasy.<\/p>\n
The second principle is that this section must be interpreted in light of the immediate context. The immediate context, which began in 5:11, is that the author is trying to get them to press on to spiritual maturity. That is his goal. They must leave babyhood and milk and press on to meat and maturity. The danger is that if they do not, they will make an irreversible decision that will permanently keep them in a state of spiritual immaturity.<\/p>\n
The third principle is the fact that Scripture does not contradict itself, and, consequently, this passage must be interpreted in harmony with biblical truths taught elsewhere in Scripture. If the thrust of Scripture is eternal security, one verse cannot negate the many. The difficult passages must be interpreted by using the clear ones.<\/p>\n
In verses 1\u20133, the writer emphasizes the first principles that now must be left behind. The word Wherefore connects this section with what just preceded it (5:11\u201314): Wherefore, for that reason, they need to leave these basics of Scripture and move on to the more important, meatier things of Scripture. They were already believers, but they were babes. Nevertheless, because they were babes, they did possess spiritual life. As he pointed out in the preceding four verses, at this point they do not need more knowledge. What they need to do is to use the knowledge they already have and then press on for more. As he has already pointed out, they have lapsed into dullness because of disuse of that knowledge. They failed to push ahead and to learn more truth. Again, they were real believers; otherwise, the author would not have expected them to be teachers by then. He admonishes, let us press on unto perfection. The Greek word for perfection means perfection in the sense of maturity. It comes from the Greek root that means \u201cto attain a goal,\u201d and that goal is spiritual maturity. This is the goal God intends for every believer, including these to whom this epistle is written. That, in turn, is the emphasis of Hebrews: press on to spiritual maturity. The emphasis is upon their need to progress spiritually because of the peril of relapse. They need to press on because of the impossibility of repeating the past, and the author will use nature in verses 7\u20138 to exemplify this impossibility. These are immature, baby believers, not because they have been recently saved, but because they failed to mature after being saved for some time. These immature believers need to leave the ABCs of biblical doctrine and go on to maturity. The Greek word for leaving means \u201cto abandon,\u201d \u201cto forsake,\u201d \u201cto put away,\u201d \u201cto put out.\u201d It means passing from one phase of contemplation to another. They must leave behind the ABCs; these things must be settled in their minds once-and-for-all so that they can press forward to the meat.<\/p>\n
(2) Basic Doctrines<\/p>\n
In verses 1\u20132, the author of Hebrews lists some of the first principles or ABCs of the faith. There are six things, but they come in three sets of twos. The first pair deals with conversion; the second pair with ceremonial elements; and the third pair with eschatology.<\/p>\n
The first basic doctrine to be left behind is, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works. The repentance factor emphasizes the negative aspect of the conversion process, a turning away from. In this case, it refers specifically to the Levitical System. It has become dead works because life in the Levitical System was temporary. It had already come to an end with the death of the Messiah. While it was still being practiced by unbelievers, it was no longer looked upon by God as being in any way effectual. The Greek word for dead works is used only here and in 9:14.<\/p>\n
The second basic doctrine was faith toward God. This is the positive side of conversion, a turning to. It refers to their once-and-for-all commitment to the Messiah, which brought them into the salvation state.<\/p>\n
The third basic doctrine is the teaching of baptisms. The word baptisms is plural. The word means \u201cimmersions\u201d or \u201cwashings\u201d by immersions. It probably refers to the ceremonial cleansings of the Levitical System as mentioned in 9:10. If it refers to baptism, it would have a special application to the readers because he is writing to Jewish believers, and among Jewish believers baptism marked the final point of separation from Judaism.<\/p>\n
The fourth basic doctrine is the laying on of hands. In the Old Testament, the laying on of hands was a means for imparting blessings. This was carried over into the New Testament in Matthew 19:13 and Acts 8:17. Also, in the Old Testament, the laying on of hands meant the appointment to an office or work. A priest was appointed to his office by the laying on of hands. It carries over in the New Testament in that elders and deacons are appointed by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6, and others in 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:25). A third way the laying on of hands was used in the Old Testament was in the sense of identification. When the priest laid his hands upon the head of the sacrifices, this identified the sacrifice with Israel (Lev. 1:4; 16:21).<\/p>\n
The fifth basic doctrine is the resurrection from the dead. That, too, is something that should have been settled in their mind, for that, too, is an Old Testament doctrine (Job 19:25; Is. 26:19; Dan. 12:2).<\/p>\n
The sixth basic doctrine is that of eternal judgment such as the Great White Throne Judgment and the Lake of Fire.<\/p>\n
These six things are the ABCs of the faith. These principles are milk, and they should be settled once-and-for-all in the believer\u2019s early spiritual life. These are the things that must be left behind in order to press on to maturity.<\/p>\n
(3) Maturity<\/p>\n
In verse 3, he deals with the importance of maturity, And this will we do. That means \u201cwe will leave these things behind.\u201d The goal can be achieved if the will of the believer and the will of God agree. It is God\u2019s will for them to go on to maturity. When the author says, if God permit, he uses a first class condition in Greek, which assumes it to be true. It means \u201cif God permit this, and He does.\u201d It is God\u2019s will; He wants them to leave behind the ABCs and press ahead to maturity, but God will not force or compel them to go ahead to maturity. Nevertheless, they cannot move forward without leaving behind the indifference of 5:11\u201314. Since it is God\u2019s will for them to press on, their lack of pressing on, their lack of maturity, their failure to press on is not God\u2019s fault but their fault. This shows their dullness is not yet irrevocable or irreversible; these believers can still choose to go on to maturity. They have not yet made the decision to go back to Judaism. However, it is still possible for them to regress so far that it will be impossible to make progress toward maturity; it is possible for them to go beyond the point of no return.<\/p>\n
In verses 4\u20136, the author deals with the danger of relapse and the impossibility of going back. He begins in verse 4a with an affirmation, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. They do have certain spiritual privileges he will list; yet, a lapse is in danger of taking place. This lapse will not accomplish what they think. They think they can, by lapsing, be renewed later, but he is going to show that it is impossible to renew.<\/p>\n
It is important to understand that in the Greek text the word translated it is impossible is in verse 4a. Some English translations have it in verse 6 depending upon the perspective of the translator, but in the Greek text, the word it is impossible is in the beginning of the sentence. The author affirms that something is impossible. In the Greek text, verses 4\u20136 comprise one long sentence. The basic thrust of that sentence is, It is impossible to renew.<\/p>\n
(4) Five Spiritual Privileges<\/p>\n
Then in verses 4b\u20135, he points out that the readers have experienced five spiritual privileges. There is something impossible for those who have experienced these five spiritual privileges to do. The five spiritual privileges are in the Greek aorist tense, which emphasizes completed action.<\/p>\n
The first experience is once [and-for-all] enlightened. This refers to the decisive moment when they were witnessed to and the light was grasped. They understood and believed. It refers to regeneration. The same word is used in Hebrews 10:32. It refers to taking hold of the knowledge of the truth. It means to understand to the point of applying it (Jn. 1:9; Eph. 1:18; 3:9; 2 Cor. 4:4\u20136; 2 Tim. 1:10). The text does not just say enlightened, but once enlightened. The Greek word for once here emphasizes something that is not repeated. The author uses this word several times in his epistle (9:7, 26\u201328; 10:2; 12:26\u201327). The readers were enlightened by the knowledge of the gospel. They received the illumination to understand it (10:32). They were regenerated and saved.<\/p>\n
The second spiritual privilege they had is that they tasted of the heavenly gift. The word tasted means they had a real experience (Acts 10:10; 1 Pet. 2:3; Heb. 2:9). Those who believe the recipients of this epistle were people who were not saved claim they only tasted salvation or \u201cnibbled\u201d at it, but did not swallow it, and therefore did not appropriate salvation. That is not what the word tasted means. For example Hebrews 2:9 states:<\/p>\n
But we behold him who has been made a little lower than the angels, even Yeshua, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man.<\/p>\n
Did Yeshua merely \u201cnibble\u201d at death and not really experience it? By no means! He actually did die. The word tasted means He really did experience it. They did not merely nibble at the heavenly gift; they truly experienced it. They actually appropriated the heavenly gift. The word taste means to hold something in common with something else or with someone else. The word gift can either refer to the Messiah Himself as it does in John 4:10 and 2 Corinthians 9:15, or it can refer to salvation itself as it does in Ephesians 2:8\u20139. Either way, these are saved people. Tasted of the heavenly gift means they had a real, conscious enjoyment of the blessings, of grasping this gift and its true nature. They had possession of real spiritual life.<\/p>\n
The third spiritual privilege is they were made partakers of the Holy Spirit. The word partaker means \u201cto have real participation.\u201d This word partaker is used several times in Hebrews. In 2:14, Yeshua became a partaker of flesh and blood. It does not mean He just came close to it; He actually became flesh and blood. It is also used in 3:1, 14 and 12:8. It always emphasizes real participation. These are not people who only came close to seeing the Holy Spirit work. They were real participants in the Holy Spirit. They had a vital relationship with the Holy Spirit; it was the kind of relationship that comes from being indwelled. The Holy Spirit indwelled them.<\/p>\n
The fourth spiritual privilege is they tasted the good word of God. The Greek term for word is rhema or \u201cthe spoken Word.\u201d This is not simple participation, but this brings out the personal character and the personal experience in it. These Jewish believers did hear special utterances which they realized came from God as in the case of 1 Peter 1:23 and 2:3.<\/p>\n
The fifth spiritual privilege is they tasted the powers of the age to come. They once-and-for-all tasted of the power that will be manifested in the Messianic Kingdom, the Millennium. The word powers is the same one used of miracles in 2:4. The author again says they tasted of it; it means they experienced real rebirth in their lives. They were able, to some degree, to experience the powers of the age to come in their lives. The age to come was the common Jewish term for the Messianic Kingdom. These powers will ultimately be manifested in their entirety in the Messianic Kingdom.<\/p>\n
These are five spiritual experiences the readers of Hebrews have had. These five spiritual experiences show they are real believers. As Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost states:<\/p>\n
Present failure to apply the Word is not necessarily a permanent state as indicated by the exhortation, \u201clet us go on unto perfection\u201d (Heb. 6:1). The word \u201cperfection\u201d here looks back to Hebrews 5:11\u201314 and has the thought of \u201cmaturity\u201d or \u201cadulthood.\u201d Hebrews 6:1 is an exhortation similar to Caleb\u2019s (\u201cLet us go up at once and possess it,\u201d Num. 13:30), and an exhortation to enter into the faith\/life rest promised to the author\u2019s generation, as well as a repeat of Hebrews 4:11, \u201cLet us labor therefore to enter into that rest.\u201d The writer has confidence that his readers will so respond because of the spiritual privileges they have previously enjoyed. These believers have been enlightened (have entered into a knowledge of God\u2019s truth), \u201chave tasted of the heavenly gift\u201d (received eternal life as a gift from God), were \u201cmade partakers of the Holy Spirit\u201d (were indwelt by the Spirit at the time of their salvation), have \u201ctasted the good word of God\u201d (experienced blessings from God through the Word), and have experienced \u201cthe powers of the world [age] to come\u201d (entered into the joys of the faith\/life rest which Messiah will introduce when He establishes His kingdom here on earth). These terms are never used of mere profession, but always of reality. In spite of all this, these believers were failing to move ahead in their experience of God\u2019s blessing. Christian experience never is a permanent plateau but a path to be followed, a race to be run, a course to be pursued.<\/p>\n
It is impossible for those who have had these five spiritual experiences to do something the author presents in verse 6. Some translations read and then fell away, giving it a past tense, though the word itself is a simple aorist participle meaning \u201cfalling away\u201d without indicating any time element or necessarily any actual event. The Greek for \u201cfalling away\u201d is found only here and never again in the New Testament, but it comes from a root which has the concept of apostasy, meaning a falling away from an accepted standard or path. Some translations read if they fell away, but the Greek text does not imply a conditional element. The aorist participle simply states, after falling away. Whatever may be unclear about this verse, one thing is clear: if they fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, it is impossible. Whatever the impossibility mentioned in verse 6 may refer to, he gives two reasons why it is impossible for them to do it.<\/p>\n
The first reason is because it would mean they would have to crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh. The reason it is impossible for them to do this is that it requires a re-crucifixion of the Messiah. Yeshua is never coming back again to be re-crucified. That is impossible. The second reason is because it would put Yeshua to open shame. Because it requires crucifying Him afresh (or a re-crucifixion), because it would put Him to open shame, this is something impossible for them to do. Therefore, if this passage teaches a believer can lose his salvation, then it also means he can never regain his salvation: It is impossible to renew them again to repentance.<\/p>\n
(5) Ten Suggested Interpretations of Hebrews 6:6<\/p>\n
There have been at least ten suggested interpretations of this verse. First, these are merely professing believers but not real believers. They came in contact with believers, they enjoyed the fellowship, they became professors, but they were not possessors. As has been demonstrated earlier in the first five chapters, this cannot be.<\/p>\n
Second, these people were truly saved and truly lost. If so, once lost again, they can never be saved again.<\/p>\n
Third, the word impossible actually means \u201cdifficult.\u201d It is difficult to renew people who have fallen away. The problem with this interpretation is the Greek word does mean \u201cimpossible.\u201d<\/p>\n
The fourth interpretation says it refers to someone who habitually falls away and renews himself over and over again until finally God says, \u201cThat\u2019s enough, no more.\u201d However, the text states once a believer has fallen away, he cannot be renewed again to repentance at all.<\/p>\n
Fifth, this refers to the Old Testament sacrifices. Since nobody sacrifices anymore, and there is no Temple anymore, it is impossible to go back anyway. Yet, this was possible at the time the epistle was written.<\/p>\n
Sixth, the verse is hypothetical. It does not say it could happen. It simply states that if it should happen, these would be the results. However, if this is purely hypothetical, why does the author then give the warning? The presence of the warning means the verse is more than just hypothetical.<\/p>\n
The seventh interpretation is that it refers to rewards and works. This has some merit, but it is not enough to explain the full nature of the warning. Rewards do play a role in the later context but not in this verse.<\/p>\n
Eighth, it refers to loss of future earthly blessings as a result of falling away. A believer would not lose salvation, but he would lose future earthly blessings. This is also true but insufficient to fully explain the intent of the author.<\/p>\n
The ninth interpretation is similar to the first view. It says the readers of Hebrews are merely professors who are in danger of going back into Judaism once-and-for-all after receiving a full knowledge of the truth, and, as a result, they will die in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. They are professors who are not real believers, but have associated with believers.<\/p>\n
The tenth interpretation is the preferred view. Based upon the wider context as well as the immediate context, the meaning of verse 6 would indicate two perspectives on their making a once-and-for-all irrevocable decision. In either case, the text is dealing with actual believers who are in danger of returning to Judaism. If they do, they will be physically destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. Again, the term it is impossible is at the beginning of verse 4. If they go back to the Judaism that rejected the Messiahship of Yeshua, there will be something impossible for them to do.<\/p>\n
There are two reasons why it is impossible for those who have had these five spiritual experiences to be renewed. First, it will require a re-crucifixion of the Messiah: Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh; they thus condone, by their re-identification with Judaism, the decision of the nation that rejected Yeshua on the basis of demon possession. Second, it will put him to an open shame. This phrase is used only here. It means the first death of Yeshua was incomplete and provided an incomplete salvation. It means His first death does not save to the uttermost as it is supposed to do.<\/p>\n
For the tenth interpretation, there are two perspectives as to what it is impossible to do.<\/p>\n
The first perspective is that it is impossible for them to both fall away and be saved again later. This viewpoint is based on the wider context. What the author is basically telling his readers is they do not have the option they thought they had. They do not have the option of giving up their salvation to be saved again later. There is no new salvation that will erase their sin of apostasy and allow them to start the spiritual life all over again. Why? Because this would require a re-crucifixion and it would imply that Yeshua\u2019s first death did not provide a total salvation. It would imply that He really did not save to the uttermost; He did not provide eternal life, but temporary life. Since they do not have the option they thought they had, they must choose another option. According to the first perspective, these Jewish believers do have one of two alternatives, but giving up their salvation to be saved again later is not one of them. The first alternative they have is to press on to maturity. This is what the author has been encouraging them to do, and he will encourage them again. The second alternative is to return to Judaism. Even though this will not mean a loss of salvation, it will mean they will put themselves back under the A.D. 70 judgment\u2014the judgment for the unpardonable sin\u2014and they will die a physical death. Throughout the first five chapters, all the judgments the author has been dealing with have been physical judgments. Every judgment he relates to in the Old Testament is a physical judgment, not a spiritual judgment, and he will do this again in subsequent chapters. The perspective that it is impossible for them to both fall away and be saved again later gives natural force to the word for in verse 4. This view explains why they must press on. They need to go on because it is impossible to go back to an unsaved state. Since it is impossible to go back to an unsaved state, they either stay where they are and then regress, or they press on to maturity. This viewpoint is better in keeping with the wider context.<\/p>\n
The second perspective for the tenth interpretation is based on the immediate context. The readers of Hebrews must now choose to press on to maturity. If they go back to Judaism, this decision will be irrevocable. It will place them in a state of permanent babyhood, and they will not be able to progress to maturity in the future. Earlier, in 5:11\u201314, the author spoke about babyhood and wasted years. The following section deals with the wasted years when the land brought forth thorns. Nothing can be done about wasted years. Now, they must quit producing thorns and begin producing good crops. Based upon the immediate context, which began with 5:11, this would be the meaning. He has been encouraging them to press on to spiritual maturity. If they go back into Judaism, they will make their immaturity permanent, and it will make it impossible to press on to maturity thereafter. The basic meaning of repentance is \u201ca change of mind.\u201d If they make the decision to go back, it will be irreversible, and they will not be able to repent or change their mind afterward. Rodney Decker makes the following comments on the terms falling away and repentance:<\/p>\n
The fifth participle in the chain occurs in 6:6. As noted above, this may not be translated as a conditional, adverbial participle (\u201cif they fall away\u201d), but must be parallel to the preceding four participles. The next question, however, is the meaning of the phrase. It is almost universally assumed that this falling away is, in some way, a soteriological fall. This is assumed by the hypothetical view, the professing believer view, and the conditional salvation view. Since there are no qualifiers attached to this word, and since it occurs only here in the New Testament, the context must determine the reference. \u201cOutside the Bible, [parapipto] may mean no more than \u2018go astray, become lost\u2019 or figuratively \u2018make a mistake.\u2019 \u201d The most common meaning in the papyri is simply \u201cbecome lost\u201d; Walter Bauer defines it as \u201cto fail to follow through on a commitment.\u201d<\/p>\n
The assumption that salvation is the focus of this term is perhaps the single greatest mistake made in attempting to resolve the difficulties of the warning passages. That the first four participles do refer to salvation does not mean that the fifth must also have this reference. The point of the participle string is that people who are genuinely saved (participles 1\u20134) and who then fall (participle 5) face serious consequences. That is, Christians are accountable for their actions\u2014which produce either blessing or cursing (6:7\u20138), depending on whether those actions are obedient or disobedient.<\/p>\n
This suggestion then raises the question of [metanoia]. Can repentance be properly related to Christian maturity or does it demand a soteric reference? Almost without exception discussions of Hebrews 6 assume that the discussion is soteriological and thus equate repentance with initial salvation. This is a frequent tendency in many discussions of repentance in other contexts as well.<\/p>\n
A survey of the semantic field of [metanoia] and [metanoeo] suggests that these terms may not be assumed to be soteric without contextual warrant. That these words do refer to soteriological matters in some (even many) contexts is obvious. A representative sample of non-soteric uses includes the following. Hebrews 12:17 refers to Isaac\u2019s refusal to change his mind when Esau attempted to reclaim his birthright. This has nothing to do with salvation or with sin on the part of the one who was not \u201crepentant.\u201d A similar use of [metanoia] is found in 2 Corinthians 7:9 which refers to the change of mind by the Corinthians as a result of Paul\u2019s letter. The verb [metanoeo] encompasses similar uses. Luke 17:3\u20134 records Jesus\u2019 instructions for forgiving a brother who sins and then changes his mind and (apparently) requests forgiveness from the one against whom he has sinned. Likewise 2 Corinthians 12:21 speaks of Christians who have not repented of particular sins (a representative list of sins for which Paul is concerned in the Corinthian assembly is included). Although they have a corporate reference, Revelation 2:5; 3:13, 19 also speak of believers repenting.<\/p>\n
As was true of the Exodus generation of Kadesh-Barnea, these believers are in danger of making an irrevocable decision after which it will be impossible to change their minds, and this decision will render them subject to physical judgment. It should be kept in mind that the meaning of repentance is \u201cto change the mind.\u201d The first perspective states it is impossible for these who are true believers, who have had those five spiritual experiences, to both give up their salvation and be saved again later. However, the second perspective keeps the interpretation in the immediate context of 5:11\u201314. That is, the decision to return to Judaism will be an irrevocable decision, and this decision will render them permanently spiritually immature. It will be impossible to renew them again unto repentance; they will not be able to change their mind later and press on to spiritual maturity. In the wider context, the return to Judaism would be an irrevocable decision, and it will be impossible to renew them again unto repentance. They will not be able to change their mind about the decision and will now be subject to physical death as a divine discipline. In either case, they will fall under divine discipline to the point of physical death in the judgment of A.D. 70. Randall C. Gleason comments:<\/p>\n
Proponents of this view maintain those described in 6:4\u20135 are genuine believers who became \u201cdull of hearing\u201d (5:11) and lapsed back into spiritual babyhood (5:13). They are warned not to \u201cfall away\u201d into a state of spiritual retrogression and rebellion. They could enter this state through \u201ca critical decision\u201d consisting of a decisive refusal to press on to maturity. At the time of writing, the author indicated that his readers had not yet reached this state. However, the danger was real, and if they continued to disobey they would face divine judgment. This interpretation makes good sense of 6:4\u20135, but it has difficulty with the description of judgment in 6:7\u20138 (cf. 10:26\u201331). Many have quickly dismissed this view because they fail to see the Old Testament allusions to the Exodus generation throughout the passage.<\/p>\n
Understanding [parapipto] as expressing a decisive refusal to trust God which results in a general state of spiritual retrogression parallels the experience of the Israelites at Kadesh-barnea. For example, when they arrived at Kadesh-barnea, they had already seen the pillar of fire and cloud over the tabernacle (\u201cbeen enlightened\u201d), eaten of the manna (\u201ctasted of the heavenly gift\u201d), experienced the Spirit on the seventy elders (\u201cmade partakers of the Holy Spirit\u201d), and witnessed the giving of the Law at Sinai and the miracles of Moses (\u201ctasted the good word of the Lord and the powers of the age to come\u201d). Like the readers of the epistle, the Jews of the Exodus were a redeemed people (Exod. 6:6\u20137; 14:31). And most significantly, the wilderness generation was guilty of refusing to press on (Num. 14:1\u201310) in a way similar to those described in Hebrews 6:6. When the Israelites arrived at Kadesh, they paused and sent spies into the land because they did not trust God\u2019s promise that the land was theirs to possess. When the scouts returned, the majority report was that Canaan was populated by giants who lived in cities with impregnable walls. In spite of the efforts of Joshua and Caleb, the people believed the worst. At that moment the people came to a critical point of decision in which they rejected Moses\u2019 leadership and refused to enter and possess the land. As a result God condemned that generation of adults to die in the wilderness. Though they attempted to enter the land, they were not permitted to do so. Their decision was irreversible.<\/p>\n
Similarities between the Israelites and the readers of the epistle are numerous. As the Israelites refused to obey the voice of the Lord (Num. 14:22) and act according to His promises (Exod. 23:27\u201331; 33:1\u20132), so too these people were in danger of refusing to \u201cpress on to maturity\u201d (Heb. 6:1). Though the Israelites changed their minds and tried to enter the land the next day (Num. 14:39\u201345), they were not permitted to repent of their decision to return to Egypt. Similarly with the readers of Hebrews there was the question of whether God would permit them to go on to maturity (\u201cThis we shall do, if God permits,\u201d 6:3), for once they decided to \u201cfall away\u201d it would be \u201cimpossible to renew them to repentance\u201d (v. 6). As the wilderness generation was denied the right to the blessings of \u201crest\u201d in Canaan and died in the wilderness (3:17\u201319), these Jewish Christians, if they chose to turn away and return to Judaism, would forfeit the blessing of God\u2019s rest and would experience His temporal discipline.<\/p>\n
In summary, like the Exodus generation, the initial readers of Hebrews were at their \u201cKadesh.\u201d They were faced with a decision. If they chose not to go on in maturity, severe judgment would fall on them (6:7\u20138). However, the author also knew that the readers had not yet made that final decision (vv. 9\u201310).<\/p>\n
(6) Five Paraphrases of Hebrews 6:6<\/p>\n
To make this all more understandable, the following are five varieties of paraphrases of the passage.<\/p>\n
1. If they could fall away and then at a later time be saved again, this new salvation would erase the sin of their previous apostasy. However, since they cannot fall away and be saved again, they must press on to maturity and begin bearing spiritual fruit.
\n2. If it were possible to fall away and be saved again, which it is not, then it would be possible to start all over again and remove their past mistakes. Yet, since it is not possible, they must be warned about how they are now living and must press on to maturity. They will give an account of their lack of spiritual maturity at the Judgment Seat of Messiah. It is impossible to fall away and to renew again because of their spiritual position and privileges which the author just listed. Because of these five spiritual privileges\u2014once enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come\u2014because they have had these things, they cannot go back to their original state in the unsaved womb. Because they cannot fall away, they also cannot retreat. Therefore, their option is to remain where they are or to press on to maturity. The reason they cannot do what they think they can is because they cannot re-crucify Yeshua.
\n3. If it were possible to fall away (and it is not), they could begin the spiritual life all over again. Since they cannot begin the spiritual life over again, he warns them about the way they are now living.
\n4. It is impossible for those who are saved to fall away and so remove the record of all the wasted years of failure and babyhood. This would require Yeshua to die again and to put Him to open shame because His first death was not sufficient. Since all of this is impossible and they cannot remove the record of wasted years as a believer, there is only one thing for them to do: to go on to maturity.
\n5. Leaving babyhood behind, let them go on to maturity. It is impossible for them to fall away and then be saved again and start with a new record by means of initial repentance through salvation. This would necessitate Yeshua\u2019s dying again and making His first death of no avail and, therefore, a mockery to those looking on.<\/p>\n
(7) Summary<\/p>\n
To summarize: these Jewish believers did not have the option they thought they had. They did not have the option of giving up their salvation, going back into Judaism, and being saved again later because that requires Yeshua\u2019s re-crucifixion. Moreover, Yeshua will not be coming back to be re-crucified because He has already saved to the uttermost; He has already saved completely. They did have one of two options. The first option was to go back into Judaism. That will not mean the loss of salvation, but it will mean the loss of their physical lives in the judgment of A.D. 70. The second option was to make their break from Judaism once and for all complete. For Jewish believers, then and today, that comes by means of immersion of water baptism. After that, they need to press on to maturity. The rest of chapter six is trying to encourage them to do just that\u2014to press on to maturity. Pentecost\u2019s summary is:<\/p>\n
In his statement \u201cif they shall fall away\u201d (Heb. 6:6), the writer is not speaking of the termination of their salvation, but rather of their failure to continue on the path toward maturity. In their case, maturity will demonstrate itself through their faith in God in their present trying circumstances. That faith will respond to the exhortation, \u201clet us hold fast our profession [confession]\u201d (4:14). They will find strength as they \u201ccome boldly unto the throne of grace\u201d and there \u201cobtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need\u201d (v. 16). Such a failure to avail themselves of the help so readily available would be tantamount to Israel\u2019s unbelief at Kadesh. This failure to walk by faith is the \u201cfalling away\u201d of Hebrews 6:6.<\/p>\n
A serious warning of the consequences of such a failure to walk by faith so as to enjoy the benefits of the faith\/life rest follows: \u201cIt is impossible \u2026 to renew them to repentance\u201d (Heb. 6:4, 6). Just as that generation in Israel permanently lost the blessings provided by God to those who demonstrated their faith in Him by their obedience to His command to enter the land, so these (by a definitive decision to return to the outward forms of the Judaism that they had renounced at their baptism) would permanently lose the blessings and privileges promised to those who walk by faith. Just as that generation in Israel was turned back into the wilderness for forty years, so those in the writer\u2019s generation who refused to continue to walk by faith would experience loss of blessings and privileges in another \u201cwilderness\u201d experience. Just as Israel rejected the God-given leadership of Caleb and Joshua, they would be rejecting the leadership of the Savior in whom they had trusted. Their identification with those who had crucified Christ would be tantamount to crucifying Him again, \u201cseeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame\u201d (v. 6). Such actions would bring about the forfeiture of blessing and privileges and would prevent them from enjoying the benefits of the faith\/life rest.<\/p>\n
Decker concludes:<\/p>\n
What then does it mean that it is impossible to renew them to repentance? In light of the conclusions summarized in the preceding paragraphs it would appear that this warning cautions against \u201cfalling away\u201d because once that line is crossed, God has determined that there can be no restoration\u2014only judgment may be anticipated. Several aspects of this conclusion must be qualified, however. First, the impossibility is not an ontological impossibility, but an economic one. That is, God has determined (for reasons of his own good pleasure) that such limits be set. Although it would be ontologically possible for God to restore one in \u201cworse straits,\u201d to do so would contradict His own decree (and thus His nature). This God cannot do. Second, it is probably not possible for an individual to know precisely when (and perhaps not even if) this line has been crossed. Third, this \u201cline\u201d refers to a point at which God imposes a sentence of inevitable and unavoidable judgment due to sin. It may thus include such things as \u201csin unto death\u201d referred to in 1 John 5:16. Fourth, such judgment does not result in loss of salvation. This is judgment of a believer, not condemnation. Such chastening is referred to again later in Hebrews 12:5\u201311. Fifth, the renewal of repentance refers to the believer\u2019s own change of mind regarding the sin that is involved. The believer will find it impossible to change his behavior or to ask for forgiveness. The text does not indicate whether this is a passive allowance of the believer continuing in sin, or an active, judicial hardening.<\/p>\n
(8) Illustration in Hebrews 6:7\u20138<\/p>\n
The point the author of Hebrews makes in verses 1\u20136 of chapter 6 is illustrated in verses 7\u20138:<\/p>\n
7For the land which has drunk the rain that comes often upon it, and brings forth herbs meet for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receives blessing from God: 8but if it bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse; whose end is to be burned.<\/p>\n
In verse 7, he points out that the law of human life teaches that condemnation follows the neglect of blessings. This is to be observed in nature. In nature, men look for certain results from certain conditions. When rain falls upon the earth and the earth drinks up the rain, people expect it to produce and bring forth herbs for those who have tilled the ground and planted the seeds. In the same way, God\u2019s blessings fall upon all believers alike. The rain is like God\u2019s blessings. The earth is like all believers. Just as rain falls upon all kinds of lands, God\u2019s blessings fall upon all kinds of believers. Like the land, some believers do produce fruit and some do not. Eventually, all must be judged. This verse illustrates the warning and the exhortation of the previous section. Judgment will be the result of not going on to fruitfulness and maturity because the result for fruitfulness will be blessings, but the result for fruitlessness will be rejection or disapproval.<\/p>\n
The timing for this approval or rewarding will come at the Judgment Seat of Messiah (1 Cor. 3:10\u201315). For the land which has drunk the rain that comes often upon it; by way of application, all believers receive positional blessings from God. The land brings forth herbs useful for those by whom it was cultivated. Some believers are fruitful for God and His glory. The result is they receive blessings from God; they are rewarded. Rewards are the product of fruitfulness. Believers who press on to maturity receive God\u2019s blessing of rewards for the Messianic Kingdom because they have lived a useful life for the Lord. Examples of a useful life for the Lord are the works of verse 10.<\/p>\n
Verse 8 gives the result of fruitlessness, but if it bears thorns and thistles. Land bearing thorns and thistles is characterized by fruitlessness. In the case of a believer, these are the works of the flesh listed in Galatians 5:19\u201321. These are the fruits of carnality, not spirituality. This corresponds to those believers who have become dull of hearing in 5:11\u201314. They live a useless life for the Lord. The result is to be disapproved. The same Greek word translated as rejected is used in 1 Corinthians 9:27. Some translations read \u201crejection\u201d, but the better translation is \u201cdisapproval.\u201d Those who are disapproved are near to being cursed. This does not mean \u201ca narrow escape.\u201d It means nearness of judgment that had not yet fallen. However, judgment is near.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, for those who wish to go back to the Law and to the sacrificial system, it means they place themselves back under the curse of the Law once again (Gal. 3:10\u201313). The end product is whose end is to be burned. The word end points to an eschatological perspective. This is the consequence of disapproval at the Judgment Seat of Messiah; there will be works that will be burned. The fruitless land is not burned, but the fruit of the land is; the thorns, briars, and thistles are burned. At the Judgment Seat of Messiah, the believer is not burned, but his works are burned. As in John 15:6, the wood, hay, and stubble of the believer are burned. If these Jewish believers remain in an immature state and fail to press on to maturity, they will be fruitless, their works will be burned, and they will be disapproved. But this does not mean that they lose their salvation, only their reward. On the other hand, if they press on to maturity, they will produce fruit, have good works, and they will be rewarded. Blessings from God may be used or misused in producing a useful or useless life for God.<\/p>\n
(9) Conclusion<\/p>\n
To summarize this section, the irreversible decision of going back to Judaism will result in two things: discipline in this life and loss of rewards in the next life. The Exodus Generation made an irrevocable decision and could not progress to the Promised Land. The generation to whom the Book of Hebrews was addressed could also make an irrevocable decision and fail to progress to maturity. They will reach a point of no return and remain in spiritual immaturity just as the Exodus Generation stayed in the wilderness. Israel did not go back to Egypt and to slavery to become an unredeemed people again. By the same token, these believers will not go back to an unsaved state but will remain in a state of spiritual immaturity. The result was discipline. Israel was disciplined by physical death outside the Land. These believers will be disciplined by physical death in this life and loss of rewards for the Kingdom. Gleason draws similar conclusions:<\/p>\n
In light of the Old Testament blessing-curse motif, the judgment in view in Hebrews 6:7\u20138 is best understood as the forfeiture of blessing and the experience of temporal discipline rather than eternal destruction.\u2026 Thus Paul indicated that it is possible for a believer to be \u201cunproved\u201d if he is not diligent. This is clearly his meaning in 1 Corinthians 9:27, \u2026 to describe a believer who fails to discipline his life in moral purity. Paul followed this warning with examples of the Exodus generation who acted immorally and were physically \u201cdestroyed\u201d (1 Cor. 10:1\u201311). Similarly the judgment of Hebrews 6:8 could be the fate of the Hebrew readers. If they refused to press on to maturity, they too could experience God\u2019s physical discipline resulting in death.<\/p>\n
The expression \u201cclose to being cursed\u201d is not to be understood as a reference to eternal damnation but rather to the immanency of divine discipline culminating in physical death. The \u201ccursings\u201d of the covenant did not affect Israel\u2019s standing as God\u2019s covenant people but were temporal and disciplinary in nature. The expression \u201cit ends up being burned\u201d does not refer to \u201cfinal destructive judgment\u201d as some maintain. Since the \u201cland\u201d is what is burned, this parallels the curses on the land of promise in Deuteronomy 28\u201329.<\/p>\n
Some have suggested that Hebrews 6:8 refers to the agricultural practice of burning a field that was producing only weeds and stubble in order to clear the ground for further cultivation. However, it seems preferable to understand this \u201cburning\u201d as a forfeiture of blessing by the destruction of the land wherein the blessing is experienced. This form of divine discipline can ultimately result in the loss of physical life. The judgment in Hebrews 6:7\u20138 parallels the fate of the Exodus generation that rebelled at Kadesh-Barnea. With the exception of Joshua and Caleb, they all died in the wilderness (Deut. 2:14). Their deaths are not an indication that they were unconverted, because Moses and Aaron also died in the wilderness. Though the \u201crebellion\u201d and \u201cunbelief\u201d of Moses and Aaron were not of the same magnitude as that of the Exodus generation, the same Hebrew words are used to describe the sin of them all (cf. Deut. 9:23\u201324 and Num. 20:12, 24). As leaders, Moses and Aaron were held to a higher standard and their fate was the same as that of the others. All, including Moses and Aaron, were prohibited from entering the land because of their unbelief. Their forfeiture of covenantal blessings was sealed by their physical death outside the land.<\/p>\n
This kind of temporal discipline that could ultimately lead to physical death is also mentioned several times by the apostle Paul. He spoke of delivering certain ones within the church over to Satan \u201cfor the destruction of [their] flesh\u201d so that their \u201cspirit may be saved\u201d (1 Cor. 5:5; cf. 1 Tim. 1:20). Also because of their disregard for the Lord\u2019s Table, several in the Corinthian church \u201cslept,\u201d a metaphor for death (1 Cor. 11:30). If the \u201csin to death\u201d (1 John 5:16) refers to a sin committed by a believer, then this is another example of judgment on a sinning believer resulting in loss of physical life. God may insure an unrepentant Christian\u2019s forfeiture of covenantal blessings by means of physical death.<\/p>\n
4. The Danger of Willful Sin: Hebrews 10:19\u201331<\/p>\n
a. The Bases for the Exhortations: Hebrews 10:19\u201321<\/p>\n
The fourth warning begins with two bases for the exhortations:<\/p>\n
19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Yeshua, 20by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21and having a great priest over the house of God;<\/p>\n
The first basis is free access to God in verses 19\u201320. The word therefore connects what he is about to say with the theological section of 1:1\u201310:18. His argument is based upon the fact that they have the privilege of access into the heavenly Holy of Holies by the blood of Yeshua. They not only have access, but they also have boldness to enter. He describes the way as a new and living way because it is based on the New Covenant and because it consists of a living fellowship with a living Person.<\/p>\n
The second basis is the sovereign power of this High Priest in verse 21. This refers to the Melchizedekian Priesthood over the house of God.<\/p>\n
b. The Exhortations: Hebrews 10:22\u201325<\/p>\n
On these bases, the author gives four specific exhortations in Hebrews 10:22\u201325. The first is an exhortation to faith in verse 22:<\/p>\n
let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water, \u2026<\/p>\n
The phrase let us draw near is a ritual term, referring to worship. This is a call to move away from lukewarmness for the purpose of appropriating grace. The way to draw near is twofold: first, with a true heart; and second, in fulness of faith, which means \u201ca vigorous faith with full assurance.\u201d Next, he gives the way of approaching God: first, having our hearts sprinkled; this uses the imagery of sprinkling of blood in the Levitical System. This facet, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, looks at positional justification. It is in the perfect tense which means that it happened in the past when they first believed and continues into the present. Second, having our body washed with pure water refers to practical sanctification. This is also in the perfect tense; they have been bathed and are still being bathed. Practical sanctification continues throughout their earthly sojourn.<\/p>\n
The second is an exhortation of hope in verse 23:<\/p>\n
let us hold fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for he is faithful that promised: \u2026<\/p>\n
The content of our hope is the fact that Yeshua really is the Messiah. It is God who keeps the Hebrews saved, and His continuous cleansing is the divine side of eternal security. To hold fast is the human side of security, the outward evidence of salvation. The purpose of holding on is that it waver not. A lack of holding on does not mean they were not saved. The reason they should hold on is because he is faithful that promised. Their eternal security is safe because it is dependent upon God\u2019s power. They should hold on to Him without wavering since that will provide the conclusive evidence of their salvation and give them personal assurance of their salvation.<\/p>\n
The third is an exhortation to love in verse 24:<\/p>\n
and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; \u2026<\/p>\n
The exhortation is to consider one another. The Greek word for consider means \u201cto make a careful investigation or careful study.\u201d The purpose is to provoke unto love and good works, not to find fault and criticize. The inward attitude is love, but the outward actions are good works. Yeshua said: If you love me, you will keep my commandments. They do not become lovers of Yeshua by keeping His commandments, but they show their love for Him by keeping His commandments. The way they show their love for the brethren is by doing good works for them.<\/p>\n
Then comes the fourth exhortation, which actually leads to the fourth warning in verse 25:<\/p>\n
not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.<\/p>\n
The Greek word forsaking means \u201cto completely abandon.\u201d The word includes not only the act of assembling together, but the assembly itself. The commandment for the Church is to come together. The Greek word for assembling here is episunagogei, which contains the root for the word \u201csynagogue.\u201d This word is also found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, where it is translated gathering, referring to the Rapture of the Church. Verse 25 sadly goes on to state: as the custom of some is. There were some already refusing to identify themselves with believers by not attending the congregational fellowships. While it is essential that believers gather together, the Bible does not dictate which day of the week this should take place; that decision is left up to each individual congregation. So the exhortation is not to forsake the assembling together for the purpose of exhorting one another.<\/p>\n
The purpose of the exhortation is: as [you] see the day drawing nigh. The phrase so much the more shows the sense of urgency. The reason for the urgency is that the day is drawing nigh. The use of the definite article with the word day means it is the [specific] day and refers to a specific time of judgment. The phrase drawing nigh shows that it is on the verge of occurring. This is the coming judgment for the unpardonable sin, the judgment of A.D. 70; it is the judgment that will fall upon Jerusalem of which Yeshua prophesied in Matthew 24:1\u20132; Luke 19:41\u201344; and 21:20\u201324. His point is that they must continue coming together for mutual encouragement because judgment upon that generation is fast approaching.<\/p>\n
c. The Warning Itself: Hebrews 10:26\u201331<\/p>\n
The fourth exhortation of verse 25 leads the author to the fourth warning itself: the danger of willful sin.<\/p>\n
(1) The Principle for Rejection of the Truth: Hebrews 10:26<\/p>\n
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more a sacrifice for sins, \u2026<\/p>\n
The fourth warning begins with the word For, connecting what he is about to say with what he has just said. The previous verse closed with an admonition to gather together. But in such circumstances, some may refuse to do so, and apostasy might result. So another warning must now be given: if we sin. This is in the present tense, giving it a durative, continuous force. It is a continuous condition, not merely one isolated act of sin. In their case, to go back to Judaism and then continue in it is to go back permanently. The verse continues with the word wilfully in the empathic position, making the Greek text literally read \u201cwillfully if we sin.\u201d The Greek word for wilfully means \u201cdeliberate intention.\u201d Those who choose to sin in this way are doing it voluntarily, not by force. This shows that their action was not out of ignorance, but by deliberate intention; an action that is planned out, determined, and done with forethought.<\/p>\n
This verse gives a principle for those who reject the knowledge of the truth. The word for knowledge means \u201cfull or complete knowledge.\u201d It is epignosis, rather than merely gnosis. It is a full knowledge, and through their reading of this epistle, they will receive full knowledge of the warnings and the consequences of their sin. If they go back wilfully, the first result of this apostasy will be that there remains no more a sacrifice for sins. Since Yeshua was rejected, there is no other sacrifice for sin. This, again, is based on the Old Testament principle that there were no sacrifices for certain sins such as adultery, murder, and blasphemy. For these kinds of sins, one could not offer a sacrifice; instead, they were subject to the penalty of physical death. Once more, it would be physical death, not spiritual death. The nature of the sin is a voluntary sin that the believer wills to commit after he has been saved. The present tense means he keeps on sinning willfully, knowing it is wrong. The action involves the repudiation of former actions that were very good. The consequence of the sin is repudiating one\u2019s former confession of the Messiah.<\/p>\n
But what exactly is this sin of which he speaks? This can be deduced by comparing verses 23\u201325 with verses 26\u201329. It involves a separation of the believer from other believers permanently. It involves returning to Judaism, the Temple, and all that it entails in order to escape persecution. Even worse, this sin involves a denunciation of the three elements of verse 29: the work of the Son, the work of the Father, and the work of the Holy Spirit. For such there is no more a sacrifice for sins. Instead they become subject to judgment. The nature of the judgment is threefold: first, physical death (vv. 28\u201329); second, specifically death in the judgment of A.D. 70 (vv. 25, 27); and, third, the loss of rewards in the next life (vv. 35\u201336).<\/p>\n
(2) Fearful Expectation of Judgment: Hebrews 10:27<\/p>\n
but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries.<\/p>\n
The second result of their apostasy is: a certain fearful expectation of judgment. Because judgment is the only result of rejecting the living way of Hebrews 10:20, there is no sacrifice for willful apostasy. The judgment is described as having a fierceness of fire or the fury that will consume the adversaries. Again, this will be the physical judgment of A.D. 70.<\/p>\n
(3) Physical Punishment under the Law: Hebrews 10:28<\/p>\n
A man that has set at nought Moses\u2019 law dies without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: \u2026<\/p>\n
The author reminds them that under the Law, there was physical death at the word of two or three witnesses. Notice again that the issue here is physical death, not spiritual death. It will also be physical death in A.D. 70, which will be that fearful and final judgment.<\/p>\n
(4) Greater Punishment under Grace: Hebrews 10:29<\/p>\n
of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of grace?<\/p>\n
This verse is the application of all previous teachings. Because Yeshua is greater than Moses, if God punished disobedience under Moses, He will certainly punish it under the Messiah. He then shows exactly what is involved in apostatizing from the faith: to reject the work of the entire Trinity. First, the phrase trodden under foot the Son of God means \u201cflagrant contempt,\u201d \u201cto have scorn,\u201d \u201cto count as worthless.\u201d It means rejecting God the Father who declared Him to be the Son of God. Secondly, this offense involves considering the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified [as] an unholy thing. Notice that he is still sanctified, but in this sin, he treats the blood of Yeshua no differently than the blood of other men; it is treated as common blood, not better blood. This is a rejection of God the Son, as it is His blood that provided for the believer\u2019s atonement and sanctification. Thirdly, the sin had done despite unto the Spirit of grace, meaning an assault of insolence against the Spirit; he insults the Holy Spirit. This is a rejection of the Holy Spirit and identifies him with those who are guilty of the unpardonable sin of Matthew 12, which is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n
(5) The Reason for the Judgment: Hebrews 10:30\u201331<\/p>\n
30For we know him that said, Vengeance belongs unto me, I will recompense. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.<\/p>\n
Next, the writer gives the reason for the judgment and why God must judge so severely: because of the character of God. In verse 30, he quotes two Old Testament passages: first, Deuteronomy 32:35, which teaches that vengeance is the sole prerogative of God; and second, Deuteronomy 32:36, which teaches that God shall judge his people. His conclusion is in verse 31: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.<\/p>\n
Again, the threat is physical judgment, a physical death, in A.D. 70. And once more, the correlation was with the Mosaic method of death by stoning.<\/p>\n
5. The Danger of Indifference: Hebrews 12:25\u201329<\/p>\n
The fifth warning is an admonition against indifference in light of better blood in a better place. Earlier, in verse 24, the writer spoke of the blood of the Messiah being in the New Jerusalem. In light of that, there is an obligation in verse 25:<\/p>\n
See that ye refuse not him that speaks. For if they escaped not when they refused him that warned them on earth, much more shall not we escape who turn away from him that warns from heaven: \u2026<\/p>\n
He reminds them that they had rejected an earthly law in the past, but the One speaking now is from Heaven. Thus, the exhortation is: See that ye refuse not him that speaks. In other words, \u201cDo not block your ears to the voice of God, as the Israelites did at Mount Sinai.\u201d The Greek text uses a very strong word for See, which means \u201cBeware lest.\u201d This emphasizes an obligation that they have in light of verses 18\u201324. The word refuse has the concept of \u201crejecting.\u201d Beware, lest you refuse or reject Him. When the writer says, him that speaks, he uses the present tense in that God is speaking even right now. Yeshua is now warning from Heaven. The author is drawing a contrast between Heaven and earth. Those who reject him that warns from heaven are guilty of greater sin and subject to greater punishment. Here again, he is not talking about salvation, but temporal punishment. Those under the Law did not escape temporal punishment for disobeying the Law, so how can one turn away from the New Covenant and hope to escape physical judgment as well?<\/p>\n
Next he points out in verse 26 that the shaking of Mount Sinai in Exodus 19\u201320 was symbolic of the final shaking of the heavens and the earth:<\/p>\n
whose voice then shook the earth: but now he has promised, saying, Yet once more will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also the heaven.<\/p>\n
The phrase Yet once more is a quote from Haggai 2:6 that deals with the final shaking of the earth just before the Second Coming. In the past, God shook only the earth, but in the future, God plans to shake both the heavens and the earth. Here the writer of Hebrews draws an application to a shaking to occur in the near future, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70. For the present, the One who spoke on Sinai and shook Sinai is now speaking from Heaven quietly in grace. In the future, He will speak loudly in judgment and with shaking.<\/p>\n
Verse 27 states that someday God will introduce a brand new order that is unshakable:<\/p>\n
And this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain.<\/p>\n
He quotes Haggai again to draw the application: that which is shakable is temporary, but that which is unshakable is eternal. The Mosaic Law was temporary, therefore, shakable; the New Covenant will be unshakable, therefore, eternal. In this verse, he anticipates a coming destruction of Jerusalem which eventually will inaugurate the Messianic Kingdom. To go back to a shakable system\u2014the Law, the Levitical System, and all it entails\u2014is to go to something destined to be destroyed.<\/p>\n
He draws the conclusion in verse 28:<\/p>\n
Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe: \u2026<\/p>\n
Wherefore, because we are destined to receive a kingdom that cannot be shaken and that, in turn, will usher in the Eternal Order, let us have grace. He reemphasizes the point he made earlier: the need to appropriate grace. The purpose of appropriating grace is so that we may offer service that is well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe, meaning godly fear.<\/p>\n
Why do they need to do this? The answer to this question is in verse 29: for our God is a consuming fire.<\/p>\n
In this verse, he quotes Deuteronomy 4:24, which points out that, while God is a God of grace, He is also a God of judgment for those who fail to appropriate grace. Rather than going back to Judaism, let them appropriate the grace they need to get them through, because the alternative is divine judgment; again, the warning is discipline in this life.<\/p>\n
The five warnings of Hebrews were addressed to Jewish believers specifically, and the danger was that of physical judgment in this life and loss of rewards in the next. However, it must be emphasized that there is no threat to one\u2019s eternal security.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER FIVE:<\/p>\n
OBJECTIONS TO PREDESTINATION<\/p>\n
One common objection to predestination is: This is not fair to the non-elect. This argument though presupposes human evaluation of what is fair and what is not. God is not obligated to save anybody. He does not have to elect anybody. If He did not elect anybody, nobody would be saved. The non-elect merely suffer the rewards of their deeds. If I see ten poor people out on the street and I choose to give ten dollars to five of them, I am not being unfair to the other five. They were already poor before I came along. So that is just a human judgment.<\/p>\n
The second objection to predestination is this: It represents God as partial and a respecter of persons. That would be true if election were based upon merit, but is not based upon merit. Those of us who are believers, we are elect, and there is nothing about us that caused election to happen. The election was not conditional, but unconditional.<\/p>\n
A third argument is that election leads to pride. If we believe in election, then we go around being prideful: \u201cWe are the elect and they are not!\u201d That would happen only if the doctrine were corrupted to make election on the basis of merit. But it is not based upon merit. There is nothing about us that caused our election to occur. In fact, Arminianism is more apt to lead to pride because it is more man-centered than God-centered. In Arminianism, one has to do a lot to earn his salvation.<\/p>\n
The fourth argument is this: Predestination discourages preaching. Historically, that has not been true. In fact, some of the greatest evangelists in Church history have been Calvinists. Not only does predestination not discourage evangelism, it actually serves as an encouragement for one simple reason: We evangelize because we know election is true, we know there are unsaved elect people out there who will respond to the gospel if they hear it. We have a guarantee of success; there will be a response. What keeps us in Jewish ministry is Romans 11:5: there is a remnant according to the election of grace. God promised that there will never be a time during which there will not be any Jews who are not elect. There are always Jews who are elect, which means there will always be Jews responding to the gospel. That has not discouraged preaching historically.<\/p>\n
The fifth argument is that predestination is the same as fatalism. No matter what we do, nothing can ever change, so why bother? What fatalism teaches is this: What is going to be is going to be; one cannot do anything about it. In fatalism, there is no room for a personal God. Life is controlled by blind chance. There is no place for means, only ends, and there is no place for human responsibility. That is not what predestination teaches. It teaches that behind election there is an intelligent, loving God. When God put out His plan, He did not only ordain the ends, He also ordained the means. That is why predestination gives proper place to human responsibility. The principle here is this: God has ordained not just the end, but also the means. The means is hearing the gospel and believing it.<\/p>\n
Let us consider an illustration from a different field. The Bible teaches God has numbered our days. God Himself has ordained the day we die. We do not know the day we will die; we do not know how we are going to die. But God has already ordained how we are going to die and when we are going to die. We may raise the question: Can we die a day sooner? Can we die any sooner than the day that God has ordained? The answer is \u201cno.\u201d But if the answer is \u201cno,\u201d why eat and drink? We eat and drink to stay alive, so that we can live until the day God has ordained that we will die. Once again we see that God determines both the end and the means.<\/p>\n
We can carry it to the hypothetical extreme, and these questions shall become foolish. For example: Suppose one has decided to simply stop eating and drinking. Eventually he will die of starvation or thirst. Does this mean that is the day God chose for him to die? That is one of those foolish questions. We do not need to answer them. Just eat and drink! Stay alive until God decides otherwise.<\/p>\n
Consider another issue: Has God already planned the answer to our prayers? The answer is \u201cyes.\u201d He has already planned the answers to our prayers. So, the question arises: Why pray? We pray because that is when God will answer our prayers. He ordains both the ends and the means.<\/p>\n
Does God know who the elect are? Of course He does; He did the electing. Is it possible for the elect person not to be saved? No. Then why pray and why witness? Because that is the way the elect will come to saving faith. They need to know what to believe to be saved.<\/p>\n
A very good example of ends and means is Acts 27:21\u201324:<\/p>\n
21And when they had been long without food, then Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have set sail from Crete, and have gotten this injury and loss. 22And now I exhort you to be of good cheer; for there shall be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. 23For there stood by me this night an angel of the God whose I am, whom also I serve, 24saying, Fear not, Paul; you must stand before Caesar: and lo, God has granted you all them that sail with you.<\/p>\n
They have God\u2019s promise. That is the end. No person on this ship is going to die, no matter how bad the storm gets. God has ordained the end. Every living person on the ship will survive the shipwreck. Then verses 29\u201331 continue:<\/p>\n
29And fearing lest haply we should be cast ashore on rocky ground, they let go four anchors from the stern, and wished for the day. 30And as the sailors were seeking to flee out of the ship, and had lowered the boat into the sea, under color as though they would lay out anchors from the foreship, 31Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.<\/p>\n
God will work to save the ship. Nobody on this ship is going to die; God told Paul everybody on the ship is going to survive. So what does it matter whether they jump off or not? It matters because God has also ordained the means. The means is they must all stay on board the ship. Therefore, the soldiers have to make sure everybody stays on the ship. There are these sailors who would try to escape the wreck by jumping out. The end has been stated, but there are also the means to attain it. That is how foreordination works. God has ordained both the end and the means.<\/p>\n
The sixth objection to predestination is that it is inconsistent with human freedom or free will. However, it is not inconsistent simply because, as total depravity teaches, left to himself, man will not do anything to respond to God. He simply will not seek Him. That is why God took the initiative. When we speak about effectual calling, He simply enables them to believe; He does not force them to believe. No person\u2014none of us who are saved\u2014are forced to be saved. Nobody forced us to believe. But the grace of God worked on us in such a way that we chose to believe. Left to ourselves, we are dead in our nature. We cannot respond to God. However, through this irresistible grace, effectual calling, effectual grace, He gives us a divine enabling, and we choose to accept the gospel.<\/p>\n
Seventh, if unconditional election is true, it means there is no sincere offer of the gospel to non-elect. That is true only if one is a Strict Calvinist or Hyper-Calvinist who holds to limited atonement. But if atonement is unlimited, then Messiah died for non-elect as well. When we offer the gospel to the non-elect, it is a genuine offer. Messiah did die for them. It is their sinfulness that keeps them from believing, not a lack of election.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER SIX:<\/p>\n
CONCLUSIONS<\/p>\n
The sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man form an antinomy. An antinomy is two things which are true, though they look like they contradict each other. With all antinomies, one has to stay squarely with where the Bible puts it and not try to over-compensate one way or the other. One must not try to explain it to a point where he has to take one side or the other.<\/p>\n
The example given in the introduction is the Trinity and the oneness of God. This is an antinomy. How can God be both one and three at the same time? Yet the Bible teaches both are true: God is one; God is three. So again, if we try to fully figure it out and go too far one way or the other, we will end up with a false teaching. If we go too far to Trinitarianism, we will end up with three gods. If we go too far the other way, we will end up with only one Person who reveals Himself in three different ways, the fallacy of Modalism.<\/p>\n
The same thing is true with human responsibility and the sovereignty of God. There is a tendency to want to either overcompensate one way, human freedom, or overcompensate the other way, sovereignty of God. It is best to keep it exactly where the Bible stops. Since the Bible does not teach election to damnation, there is no need to teach it. If the Bible teaches He died for all, there is no need to try to make it consistent with unconditional election or say He died only for some. It is just a tension we have to live with because it is an antinomy. If we leave it, where the Bible leaves it, Moderate Calvinism deals with the biblical text honestly.<\/p>\n
title God\u2019s Will & Man\u2019s Will: Predestination, Election, & Free Will
\nauthor Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The study of God\u2019s sovereignty in relation to human responsibility is a fragment of a larger topic called Soteriology. This doctrine includes everything the Bible teaches about salvation, which would entail the issues of election, predestination, foreknowledge, and so on. The topic tends to trigger a lot of emotions, often generating more … <\/p>\n