Soteriology 101

Total Depravity Defined (Soteriology 101)

Published by Papa Giorgio

What you will find below:

The long debate [which I won’t replicate here] from Soteriology 101 Discussion’s Facebook Page, is over — essentially — this portion of Leighton Flower’s’ book, “Drawn by Jesus.” BUT FIRST, what I will reproduce is the extent of the debate summed up in these two back-n-forths:

ROGER H. responds to Jason R.

[Jason R said] “This is a clear logical impasse you are confronted with…“

What is the logical impasse? A person is born with no ability to choose God. This requires that the person be regenerated. Once regenerated, a person can desire God and can choose God.

[Jason R said] “and there is no compatibilism that can harmonize this faulty logic.”

Once a person is regenerated, he has new desires. He can choose according to his greatest desire.

I don’t see a problem.

JASON R. responds to ROGER H.

it is fascinating to observe how you see no problem with the fact that God ultimately judges the majority of humanity for not receiving Christ when He determined that they never could do so in the first place. You seem content to accept that God can judge someone for their sin of non-repentance even though they have no way of repenting. This is blatantly unjust. You admit that God necessarily has to regenerate someone so that they can believe which equates to conceding that man cannot choose God unless God first chooses and changes them. Man is born into a hopeless state of inability and you cannot see a problem with God judging and condemning man for this inability when he has no way of escaping its pre-determined inevitabilities. I have never heard a sound defense against this Achilles heel of Calvinism… only concessions such as yours.

The entire discussion is enlightening, as it is a real working out of the issue. But this is the portion that Roger H. started out with, mistakenly saying it was from chapter 3:

Chapter 5

The Calvinistic Presupposition of Total Inability

A presupposition is “a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument.”23 We all have presuppositions. Some of them are right, but others are wrong. Wrong presuppos­itions brought to a passage can influence people to draw erroneous conclusions about the meaning of the text in question. This is why objectively evaluating our presuppositions is so important when any passage is in dispute between well-intending brethren.

Your theological opponents have every right to challenge your presuppositions. After all, wrong presuppositions lead to bad exe­gesis. And assuming your presuppositions are correct is just a falla­cious game of question-begging. Unfortunately, this has been James White’s bread and butter. When non-Calvinists have challenged one of his presuppositions in the past, he accuses us of either “changing the topic,” “running off to other scriptures,” or “doing improper exe­gesis.” This is ironic, given that proper exegesis requires biblically correct presuppositions.

Calvinism’s underlying premise is that God decreed for all people since the Fall to be born morally unable to believe what He Himself teaches, so unless you were unconditionally chosen before you were born and irresistibly regenerated into a new creation by a supernat­ural intervening work of God, you will never be morally capable of believing in Him.24 Needless to say, that premise will greatly influence how you understand the Bible regardless of the hermeneutical methodologies, grammatical nuances, contextual considerations, or semantic word studies. A wrong premise skews everything and, therefore, must be evaluated objectively prior to getting into the other pertinent matters. So, let’s start by looking at these three major presuppositions White brings into John 6 based primarily upon his Calvinistic interpretation of Paul.25

Total Inability26

The entire sixth chapter in White’s book on the topic, titled “Human Inability,” sets out to establish this doctrine. Based on his in­terpretation of other scripture, White presupposes that God decreed for all people (since the Fall) to be born unable to believe His own teachings, but God still punishes all who do not believe. Therefore, when White reads John 6 through those presuppositional lenses, he understands the phrase “no one can come” to mean that the natural condition of everyone from birth is such that they cannot under­stand and believe what God teaches.27 For instance, White wrote,

In response to the crowd’s disbelief, Jesus also gives forth a clear explanation of their inability to understand and their inability to come to Him as the one and only source of spiritual life.

Notice that White assumes that the reason the crowds cannot come to Christ is due to a universal inherent condition in which they were born, something God Himself decreed and the individuals had absolutely no control over. In other words, in White’s view, the crowd remains in unbelief because they were born inherently blinded to divinely revealed truth, and God has not intervened to irresistibly change their inherent “default” condition. This is the root of what is known as theistic determinism, a primarily philosophical commitment to the idea that God unchangeably brings to pass (or deter­mines) every meticulous detail, including all moral evil.28

NOTES

23 Oxford Languages Online Dictionary (Oxford University Press)

24 This represents the T,U and I of the Calvinistic TULIP, which will be ex­plored further in the following pages.

25 White wrote, “When the doctrine of election is discussed, most people think immediately of the discussions provided by the Apostle Paul in such great passages as Romans 8-9 and Ephesians 1.” James R. White, The Sovereign Grace of God (New York: Great Christian Books, 2003), 68.

26 White wrote, “Some Reformed writers like others names for this doctrine. One of the best alternatives is `total inability.” Ibid., 48.

27 White wrote, “[Man] is utterly… incapable of coming to Christ, incapable of accepting and understanding spiritual things…” Ibid., 59. Given that White also affirms the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, we know that he affirms God’s universal exhaustive decree of whatsoever comes to pass, which must necessarily include mankind’s innate “default” inability to believe.

28 White wrote, “God’s knowledge of the future is related to His role as Creator —He knows the future because He ordained the future! The course of the future is certain because God created it.” Ibid., 68. Vicens wrote, “We might, for instance, take Feinberg’s definition of an `unconditional’ decree as one `based on nothing out­side of God that move[s] Him to choose one thing or another’ (2001, p. 527) and then characterize theological determinism as the view that God unconditionally decrees every event that occurs in the history of the world. Such a view would ex­clude the possibility that God merely permits some events which He foresees will happen in some circumstances but which He does not Himself determine.” Leigh Vicens, Theological Determinism (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource) accessed online on 12/19/2023. [RPT: 1/29/2026]

Leighton [Charles] Flowers, Drawn By Jesus (Trinity Academic Press, 2024), 47-49.

ROMANS 3:11

A common verse I hear from my fellow believers is “…there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.” – Romans 3:11

SOTERIOLOGY 101 posts combined are from:

In an effort to demonstrate that all people have fallen short of the glory of God and broken His law, Paul quotes from Psalm 14:2-3, which says:

“The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

There are basically two theological approaches for interpreting this passage:

(1) Calvinistic Approach: Apart from a Divine irresistible work of regeneration (by which God changes a chosen individual’s nature and desires), mankind cannot willingly seek to know, understand, or follow God.
(2) Non-Calvinistic (Traditionalist) Approach: Apart from God’s gracious initiative in bringing His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel appeal, no one can merit salvation or consistently seek to obey God in a way that will attain his own righteousness.

The contrast between these two perspectives can be illustrated by this simple question: Does proof that I am incapable of calling the president on the telephone also prove that I am incapable of answering the telephone if the president were to call me? Of course not, yet that is essentially the principle a Calvinist is assuming in their theological approach to this text.

Calvinists read this text to mean that our lack of initiative somehow proves our inability to respond positively to His initiative. They presume that God’s work in sending His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel, calling for all to be reconciled through faith in Christ, is insufficient to enable the lost to respond in faith. But the text simply never says this.

In Romans chapter 3:10-20 the apostle is seeking to prove that no one can attain righteousness by means of the law. But in verse 21 he shifts to reveal a righteousness that can be obtained by means of grace through faith in Christ.

Calvinists seem to think that because mankind is unable to attain righteousness by means of the law that they must equally be unable to obtain righteousness by means of grace through faith in Christ. This, however, is never established anywhere in the pages of Scripture.

Of course, we all can affirm that no one is righteous with regard to the demands of the law. But there have been many throughout the pages of Scripture who have been declared righteous by means of grace through faith.

Calvinists wrongly assume that because mankind is unable to fully keep the demands of the law that they are equally unable to admit their inability to keep those demands and trust in the One who has. Again, this is simply never established in the Bible. HERE>

THE “HERE>” EXCERPT

… If I told my son to clean up his room it would strongly imply that I believed it was within his abilities to do so, especially if I punished him for failure to do so. No decent parent would tell their two day old infant to clean up a mess and then punish them for not doing so. Such an action would expose the parent as insane or completely immoral.

This is basic common sense, but is it applicable to how God deals with humanity? Is the implication in scripture of “you should” mean that “you could?” I think we can all agree that “ought” strongly implies moral ability for all practical purposes, but is that a biblical reality? Sometimes the Bible defies our practical sensibilities and turns our reality up on its ear. Is that the case here? Do God’s expressions of what we SHOULD do imply that we actually COULD do it.[1]

Could the “Rich Young Ruler” have willingly given up his wealth to follow Christ as Zacchaeus does in the very next chapter? Or was Zacchaeus granted an ability that was withheld from the Rich Young Ruler? (Note: I’m speaking of man’s moral/spiritual abilities to repent in faith, not their physical ability or mental assent, so please don’t try to rebut this article with the all too often “catch all” phrase of, “He is able but not willing.”)

Calvinists would agree with the Traditionalists that both Zacchaeus and Rich Young Ruler SHOULD have given up everything to follow Christ, but only the Traditionalist maintains that both of them COULD have willingly done so.

Why do Calvinists insist that COULD doesn’t imply SHOULD when it comes to the Biblical revelation?

Dr. Wayne Grudem, a Calvinistic scholar, explains the issue in this manner:

“Advocates of the Arminian position draw attention to the frequency of the free offer of the gospel in the New Testament. They would say that these invitations to people to repent and come to Christ for salvation, if bona fide, must imply the ability to respond to them. Thus, all people without exception have the ability to respond, not just those who have been sovereignly given that ability by God in a special way.” [2]

Grudem, like John Hendryx of mongerism.com, rebuts this perspective by making arguments such as:

“What the Scriptures say we ‘ought’ to do does not necessarily imply what we ‘can’ do. The Ten Commandments, likewise, speak of what we ought to do but they do not imply that we have the moral ability to carry them out. The law of God was given so that we would be stripped of having any hope from ourselves. Even faith itself is a divine command that we cannot fulfill without the application of God’s regenerative grace by the Holy Spirit.”[3]

Are you following the Calvinistic argument? Here it is put very simply:

  1. God tells man they SHOULD keep all the commandments.
  2. Man CANNOT keep all the commandments.
  3. God also tells man they SHOULD believe and repent for breaking commandments.
  4. Therefore man also CANNOT believe and repent for breaking commandments.[4]

If the fallacy in this argument is not obvious to you, please allow me to explain in this way:

Back when my kids were younger we did a family activity that our church had suggested. I stood at the top of the stairs with my four children at the bottom.

I said to them, “Here are the rules. You must get from the bottom of the stairs to the top of the stairs without touching any of the railing, the wall or even the stairs. Ready, go!”

My kids looked at me and then each other and then back at their mother. With bewilderment in their eyes, they immediately began to whine and complain saying, “Dad, that is impossible!”

I told them to stop whining and figure it out.

The youngest stood at the bottom and started trying to jump, slamming himself into the steps over and over. The more creative one of the bunch began looking for tools to help build some kind of contraption. Another set down on the floor while loudly declaring, “This is just stupid, no one can do that!”

Finally, in exasperation one of the kids yelled out, “Dad, why don’t you just help us?” I raised my eyebrows as if to give them a clue that they may be on the right track. The eldest caught on quickly.

“Can you help us dad?” he shouted.

I replied quietly, “No one even asked me.”

“Can you carry us up the stairs?” he asked.

“I will if you ask me,” I said.

And one by one, I carried each child to the top after they simply asked.

Then, we sat down and talked about salvation. We talked about how it is impossible for us to get to heaven by our own efforts, but if we ask Christ for help then He will carry us. It was a great visual lesson of God’s grace in contrast with man’s works.

But suppose that my children’s inability to get to the top the stairs also meant they were incapable of asking me for help. Imagine how this story would’ve played out if it was impossible for my children not only to get to the top of the stairs but equally impossible for them to recognize that inability and request help when it was offered.

This illustrates the mistake of Calvinism. Let’s go back to their fallacy above as it relates to my story:

  1. Dad tells his kids they SHOULD get to the top of stairs.
  2. Kids CANNOT complete this task as requested.
  3. Dad also tells the kids they SHOULD ask for help.
  4. Therefore the kids CANNOT ask for help.

Do you see the problem now? The whole purpose of presenting my kids with that dilemma was to help them to discover their need for help. To suggest that they cannot realize their need and ask for help on the basis that they cannot get to the top of stairs completely undermines the very purpose of the giving them that dilemma. ….

George C. Scott Explains Calvinism

A scene from the 1979 movie Hardcore, in which an old Calvinist elder goes to find his runaway daughter in the porn underbelly of Los Angeles. This scene with George C. Scott inspired Richard Mouw’s book “Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport.” HEADS UP: there’s some saucy language. And the rest of the film is what you’d expect from a movie about the porn industry in the 70’s.

And here is that promised chapter:

DISHENCHANTED CALVINIST

Chapter 9, GRACE (PDF)

  1. I affirm that the grace of God can be and is at times resisted, and this includes but is not limited to the genuine offer of salvation and resisting the Holy Spirit. The Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 that reprobates “perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” (italics added) Of course, I am rejecting the Calvinist and compatibilist answer that a person refuses because, as a sinner, that is all that he can do. It seems crystal clear in reading the passage without Calvinist spectacles on that the context and language clearly imply that they “should not have refused” and therefore could have believed which entails the idea of otherwise choice, exactly what Calvinism denies.

Further, I affirm that the ability of man to accept or to resist God’s genuine offer of salvation is a part of God’s plan and redounds to His glory; moreover, this genuine offer of the gospel is more than “a good faith offer” as taught by the Calvinist. It is an actual offer from God through His chosen medium, which can be accepted by faith or rejected unto damnation. Finally, this includes the reality that God has given the gift of repentance, and that the clear call of Scripture is for everyone everywhere (Acts 17:30) to repent and be saved, which implies that those called upon to repent can, by the grace of God, repent (Matthew 3:2, 4:17, 11:20; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32, 13:3, 13:5, 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 5:31, 11:18, 20:21, 26:20; Romans 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

Jesus pronounced woe upon all the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida because they did not repent, obviously indicating He believed they had the capacity to repent (see Matthew 11:21). The book of Revelation leaves believers stunned that unregenerate people refuse to repent even when they are suffering from the wrath of God (see Revelation 9:20-21, 16:9, 11). Acts 17:30 reminds us that the call of God to repent is for everyone. Paul said, “and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). The implication obviously means that they could have received the love of the truth and been saved.

In like manner, Stephen preached, “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did”(Acts 7:51). The writer of Hebrews said of those who draw back unto destruction, “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace”? (Hebrews 10:29, italics added). In Noah’s day, God said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever” (Genesis 6:3), clearly implying that He was then. Also why did God bring judgment upon leaders and Jews so they could not hear and see and return if that in fact was their state already? (Isaiah 6:9-10 and Matthew 13:10-17).

Lastly, I affirm the biblical doctrines of grace. Calvinists refer to their beliefs as “The Doctrines of Grace,” which is fine, but it actually does not tell us much. That is to say, the doctrines of any Biblicist are all “doctrines of Grace.” There simply are no other kinds. It is similar to the Calvinist’s continual reference to the sovereignty of God. It tells us nothing since all believers with any biblical fidelity and understanding of God believe in His sovereignty. Further, disavowal of the Calvinist’s definition of the doctrines of grace and sovereignty is not a denial or undermining of the doctrines of grace or the sovereignty of God, but it is what it is, a denial of Calvinism’s definition.

  1. I disaffirm that the Bible teaches that God carries out His salvation plan through selective “irresistible grace.” John Piper describes irresistible grace thusly, “When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of the resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God “irresistible grace.”63 Note that those who receive this act of grace against their will can only believe and those who don’t receive this cannot be saved; therefore, any talk from a Calvinist that God loves people, the lost, hurting, etc., is double-talk because He, according to Calvinism, actually only loves some lost and hurting people enough to offer help. This is a disquieting reality.

Piper says also, “The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills.”” I would note that the Calvinist, as well as Piper’s position, is actually stronger than this in that, not only does the doctrine of irresistible grace mean that God can overcome, but it actually means He will or must. Further, I disaffirm that all verses that say, teach, or imply that man can resist are merely reiterating the position of compatibilism—sure they resist salvation because that is all, according to their nature, that they can do. Moreover, I disaffirm that an offer of salvation through proclamation of the gospel by anyone who views salvation through the grid of Calvinism constitutes a real offer of salvation from God if it can be resisted; because according to Calvinism and compatibilism the real offer of salvation, in any meaningful sense to the person, cannot be resisted because the real offer of salvation from God always results in regeneration. This is a disquieting reality. An example of my point is, in what sense can a person be said to be offered a job if it is impossible for him to accept it, and not only is there no intent to actually give it to him, but in reality there was a predetermined unalterable decision by the CEO not to give it to him; this is in spite of the personnel manager’s sincerity in offering the job. The answer seems obvious, NONE!

Let me elucidate this further. Calvinists seek to emphasize the positive of irresistible grace, e.g., God saves some unworthy sinners who otherwise would perish in hell. But the dark side of irresistible grace is that although the “good faith offer” of a Calvinist seems to exonerate him from being guilty of making an artificial offer of salvation (as long as he is careful not to say specifically to someone things like “God loves you or God cares about you or God wants you to go to heaven”) to sinners who cannot, according to Calvinism, really repent, believe, and be saved, because the Calvinist can never be sure who God has selected to regenerate. However, even if the Calvinist is vindicated, it does not exonerate God from using language, commands, parables, etc., which clearly picture God as wanting all to be saved even though, according to Calvinism, He is the sole determiner and only reason they cannot be saved. Therefore, Calvinism’s irresistible grace makes God the sole determiner of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell because He could have saved everyone. This truth is dramatically contrary to the picture of God and His offer of salvation as drawn in Scripture, a disquieting reality.

We all seek to emphasize what we deem to be the positives of our message or position. However, it is morally incumbent upon every messenger to quest for full disclosure and to shun any appearance of obscuring the negative or harsher teachings of our position. The Calvinist emphasis that irresistible grace assures salvation for some, while minimizing the truth that irresistible grace just as assuredly and irrevocably destines some to eternal torment in hell, reminds me of the Darwinist obsession with the beauty of natural selection’s determination that the strong and healthy survive, while they seldom with the same clarity and enthusiasm speak of the dark side of natural selection that requires the brutal and merciless elimination of the weak.

Consequently, the insurmountable obstacle to irresistible grace determining who receives eternal salvation—besides the fact that it is not taught in Scripture—is that it puts God the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the position of appearing to offer deliverance from the wrath to come to all who cry for mercy while, actually, God has no intention of doing so. For, according to Calvinism, He predetermined, contrary to what the gospel and the Scriptures say, to offer salvation to only a few. In other words, it makes God the CEO who allows, yea commands, and says He wants all to be hired, but He has in reality predetermined long ago that they cannot ever be hired even though his personnel managers continue to offer jobs to them. This is a disquieting reality. In order to sustain the idea of irresistible grace, it appears that we must turn common language upon its head, take the obvious and simple meaning of language as seen in Scripture and used in everyday life, and subject it to biblically unnecessary restrictions and meanings, which is one of the pervasive problems in Calvinism. This is a disquieting reality.

For example, Christ felt love for the rich young ruler and out of that love told him how to receive salvation, but the young man refused; after which Jesus noted how difficult it was for a rich person to “enter the kingdom of heaven.” The passage clearly indicates that the young man could have been saved if he had chosen to follow Christ, and part of the reason that he chose not to follow Christ was that he was rich (Mark 10:21-23). From the standpoint of Calvinism, whether he was rich or poor had no bearing on whether he would come or not because the draw is irresistible. Christ’s encounter with this young man also demonstrates that Christ loves the lost and loves them enough to tell them how to have eternal life. By every normal meaning, those words meant he could have received salvation at that time had he chosen to believe. The idea of a “good faith offer” may relieve the human Calvinist of malicious deception, but it cannot be so of Jesus or the Trinity. The statement that “all things are possible with God” is exactly my point and in no way proves Calvinism true, but is actually contrary to their system. This is a disquieting reality. Therefore, I absolutely disaffirm that the Scripture teaches or logic demands that God’s sovereignty is undermined or minimized when He grants the opportunity to resist His genuine offer of salvation because He sovereignly chose to grant that choice.

Finally, I disaffirm that the doctrine of irresistible grace applied to some in salvation is what the Scriptures teach, or that it is consistent with what God reveals about Himself. The truth is that God revealed Himself in Scripture as actually loving the world—human race—so much that He sent His own Son to die for them (John 3:16), thereby providing for their salvation. And any human can receive this salvation if he will obey God’s command and repent and believe, which he can do by God’s grace. I do not believe that God offers what cannot be accepted or what He has no intention of providing. Nor do I believe that God condemns people for rejecting what He predetermined that they could not accept.

NOTES

  1. John Piper, “Irresistible Grace” in What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism, copyright Desiring God.org, revised March 1998.
  2. J. Piper and the Bethlehem Baptist Church staff, “What We Believe About the
    Five Points of Calvinism,” #Grace

FAULTY DOCTRINE (Hippity Hoppity) Faith Distorted

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally posted April of 2013, UPDATED (1/15/2026) with Calvinist distortions.
JUMP TO UPDATE

I am including this here because in my now closing in on a year of studies, I clearly saw this “faith distortion” a few months ago. So I am including this video with my Facebook description here:

This was awesome to hear — listened to today (1-14-2026). I made this point in my small group, which was: having been raised in the Word Faith/”name it and claim it” type Christianity, I noticed that Calvinist’s adopt a view of faith that is the same, when describing their opponents. That is, “Faith in your faith”, to wit:

  • Many of the WOFM’s doctrines are linked directly to the mistaken concept that faith is a literal substance, “a power force … a tangible force … a conductive force.”

— According to Kenneth E. Hagin, faith in one’s own faith is the secret to getting every desire of the heart.

This delapitated/false view of faith is what Calvinists think all non-Calvinists express. And that is a wrong supposition, or view of what faith is. It is a straw man. I was happy to hear that connection I thought of from Doc Flowers.

SOTO 101’s full episode

Originally posted April of 2013, UPDATED (2/8/2024) with the NET Bible and commentary at the end.

Here is a quick 101 on the history of the Word Faith via GOT QUESTIONS:

The Word of Faith movement grew out of the Pentecostal movement in the late 20th century. Its founder was E. W. Kenyon, who studied the metaphysical New Thought teachings of Phineas Quimby. Mind science (where “name it and claim it” originated) was combined with Pentecostalism, resulting in a peculiar mix of orthodox Christianity and mysticism. Kenneth Hagin, in turn, studied under E. W. Kenyon and made the Word of Faith movement what it is today. Although individual teachings range from completely heretical to completely ridiculous, what follows is the basic theology most Word of Faith teachers align themselves with.

At the heart of the Word of Faith movement is the belief in the “force of faith.” It is believed words can be used to manipulate the faith-force, and thus actually create what they believe Scripture promises (health and wealth). Laws supposedly governing the faith-force are said to operate independently of God’s sovereign will and that God Himself is subject to these laws. This is nothing short of idolatry, turning our faith—and by extension ourselves—into god.

From here, its theology just strays further and further from Scripture: it claims that God created human beings in His literal, physical image as little gods. Before the fall, humans had the potential to call things into existence by using the faith-force. After the fall, humans took on Satan’s nature and lost the ability to call things into existence. In order to correct this situation, Jesus Christ gave up His divinity and became a man, died spiritually, took Satan’s nature upon Himself, went to hell, was born again, and rose from the dead with God’s nature. After this, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to replicate the Incarnation in believers so they could become little gods as God had originally intended.

Following the natural progression of these teachings, as little gods we again have the ability to manipulate the faith-force and become prosperous in all areas of life. Illness, sin, and failure are the result of a lack of faith, and are remedied by confession—claiming God’s promises for oneself into existence. Simply put, the Word of Faith movement exalts man to god-status and reduces God to man-status. Needless to say, this is a false representation of what Christianity is all about. Obviously, Word of Faith teaching does not take into account what is found in Scripture. Personal revelation, not Scripture, is highly relied upon in order to come up with such absurd beliefs, which is just one more proof of its heretical nature.

[….]

The Word of Faith movement is deceiving countless people, causing them to grasp after a way of life and faith that is not biblical. At its core is the same lie Satan has been telling since the Garden: “You shall be as God” (Genesis 3:5). Sadly, those who buy into the Word of Faith movement are still listening to him. Our hope is in the Lord, not in our own words, not even in our own faith (Psalm 33:20-22). Our faith comes from God in the first place (Ephesians 2:8; Hebrews 12:2) and is not something we create for ourselves. So, be wary of the Word of Faith movement and any church that aligns itself with Word of Faith teachings.

Here is an example of one verse striped of context via the Word Faith movement:

Geisler & Rhodes opine:

JOSHUA 1:8—Is this verse a key to financial prosperity, as Word-Faith teachers suggest?

MISINTERPRETATION: Joshua 1:8 says, “This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have suc­cess” (NASB). Word-Faith teachers say this verse is a key to financial pros­perity.

CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: Word-Faith teach­ers are reading a meaning into this verse that is not there. The context of this verse is military, not financial. In fact, finances are nowhere in sight in this entire chapter of Joshua.

In the conquest of the Promised Land, God promised Joshua that his military efforts would prosper if he maintained his commitment to meditate upon and obey God’s Word. The prospering also no doubt includes the full outworking of the land promises that were given uncon­ditionally by God in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3). Later, just before his death, Joshua urged the people to continue living in sub­mission to the Scriptures (Josh. 23:6).

What a healthy view of this Joshua verse is this:

… Sometimes we misunderstand what it means, ‘to succeed’ or ‘to prosper’ which has given rise to a prosperity teaching which places the emphasis on temporal, worldly prosperity rather than eternal spiritual wealth. God may choose to bestow worldly wealth on His children or He may permit the alternative, but the goods and chattel of this world are passing away, and like Paul we need to be content in all things.

What is important, is to know the Word of God, to trust the Word of God, and to apply the Word of God in every circumstance of life, knowing that to do so will lead to success in the Christian life; for all things work together for good to those that love the Lord and trust His Word.

We should read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the Word of the Lord. We should study God’s Book of instruction, particularly those passages that relate specifically to the Church, and we should continually feed on His Word in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving.

We should meditate on His Word, memorize His Word, trust His Word, and love His Word, and we should be sure to obey His Word and apply His Word in our daily lives, for in so doing we will certainly prosper and succeed in all we do, to His praise and glory….

Or s the NET BIBLE rewords a bit:

1:8 This law scroll must not leave your lips! You must memorize it day and night so you can carefully obey all that is written in it. Then you will prosper and be successful.

1:9 I repeat, be strong and brave! Don’t be afraid and don’t panic, for I, the LORD your God, am with you in all you do.”

Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Jos 1:7–9.

A decent extended commentary can be found here to help separate the wheat from the Chaff, as competing theologies fight over interpreting verses:

1:6–9. The second half of God’s speech also begins with two imperatives (“Be strong and courageous”), though these two are effectively synonyms. These imperatives follow logically from the promise of verse 5—if no one could resist Joshua, then there was no basis for fear. Instead, as leader he was to distribute the land that God had sworn to give to their ancestors (adapting phrasing found five times in Deuteronomy). The land is thus simultaneously God’s gift and something to be claimed and allotted. Verse 7 provides a more specific focus for Joshua: He was to be strong and very courageous in carefully observing all the instruction (תּוֹרָה) that God had given through Moses. This was not simply a set of facts to be known but rather a life that was to be lived—and living this life would take effort. Drawing on the common metaphor of life as a journey, the idea is that Joshua should stay on the path that this instruction provides rather than take alternative routes, for this is the means by which he would succeed. This success is related to the task that God had given Joshua, so walking faithfully in the Mosaic instruction was the means by which Joshua could lead the people into the land that God had promised.

Joshua was to meditate (הָגָה) on this instruction. The verb, with a similar promise of success, also occurs in Ps 1:2 and means something like “growl” or “mutter.” This verbal element is more apparent in Ps 2:1, where it is translated “plot.” It is difficult to match this word to a single English verb since “meditate” is often thought of as a silent activity. That the instruction was to be in Joshua’s “mouth” is an idiom that goes naturally with the verb. Thus, he would continue reflecting on its meaning, with such reflection being verbal. This relates to the fact that reading in the ancient world meant reading aloud. In the same way, reflection on it was verbal. But what matters in particular is that Joshua’s life was to be shaped by faithfulness to God’s instruction. At this stage in the book we might think of this as unproblematic, but as the ensuing chapters unfold it becomes clear that Joshua would need to wrestle with the intent of the instruction in order to determine how it was to be applied in a range of circumstances. This would require seeing the instruction as guidance for situations that would be faced rather than as a comprehensive set of rules that could simply be applied. Joshua would need a deep knowledge of God’s instruction, which meant both knowing its content and reflecting on how it could be applied. Therefore, it could not depart from his mouth, because only by continued recitation/meditation could he both know it and understand how to apply it. Psalm 1 then broadens out this possibility for all believers.

God’s speech then concludes with a reminder of the command to be strong and courageous so that Joshua would understand there is no place for fear because Yahweh would go with him. Joshua could succeed and lead his people to success when he understood that his role as a leader was to journey with God, know God’s instruction, and shape his life by it. Success here does not mean something financial but to receive the things that God is giving. We might perhaps think of “success” as flourishing in the life God has prepared—which is the way it is developed in Psalm 1. Here, that flourishing would be military, as Israel received the land God gave.

David G. Firth, JOSHUA, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 72–74.

This from CROSS WISE (2011) explaining a bit about the above:

In light of another Calvary Chapel pastor making an appearance on TBN’s Praise-the-Lord program, I thought it apropos to share a tape in my collection of how a Bible believer should behave when invited onto TBN or any of the other errant “Christian” networks. What sort of message is communicated when a solid Bible teacher shares the platform with heretics and does not bring reproof? Certainly it gives the impression that the guest endorses the teaching of the hosts and /or founder of the Christian network.

Some argue that if they can’t go on TBN due to its corruption, then they couldn’t show up on ABC, NBC or CBS either. They don’t understand the distinction between being salt and light to the unsaved world and practicing biblical separation from so-called Christians who are spreading false teaching against Jesus Christ. To the unsaved, we can use their media to spread the Gospel, but to the errant brother we are to bring correction and divide if they do not stop their false teaching. For a proof-text consider 1 Corinthians 5:11:

But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called a brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or ban idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. (NASB)

When Calvary Chapel Albuquerque’s pastor Skip Heitzig went on TBN last week acting like he and his host Phil Munsey were old friends, it was a shame to the spirit of that passage. Phil Munsey and his brother Steve Munsey are two of the most infamous extortioners in the field of Christian television. Munsey has used new age ideas of paradigm shifts and panentheism to spread his unbiblical dominionist views.

In contrast to the compromisers, the late Walter Martin tried to bring correction the last time he made an appearance on TBN. This video tape has never circulated and has not been available anywhere until now that I have posted it to YouTube.

Back in 1985 my younger sister was Martin’s secretary. She and my older sister and I all regularly attended his weekly Bible study. I used to share my research with him and also with my friend author Dave Hunt. Walter and Dave disagreed on many things regarding their styles of apologetics and discernment. Whenever there was a difference of opinion between the two of them, I usually agreed with Dave.

I had had some discussion with Dr. Martin over Dave’s book, The Seduction of Christianity. Walter had been critical about it on the radio having never read it but based his criticisms upon what his personal editor had told him.

One day my older sister was watching Praise-the-Lord when Hal Lindsey was a guest. He was her pastor at that time. Back then Hal used to challenge the teaching of other TBN regulars and Paul Crouch put up with it. However, that got old with the Crouches and when Hal wouldn’t stop criticizing the Kingdom Now doctrine, he was put on the shelf until he learned to kow-tow to them. When my sister heard Hal bring up Walter’s name in the show, Paul and Jan agreed that he was a brilliant man and Hal said you should have him on some time. They both responded – oh sure we will.

So she informed our little sister who told Walter and Walter told her to call TBN and arrange it which she did. However, the Crouches wouldn’t host him so they got prophecy teacher Doug Clark to do so. My younger sister called me on the day of the taping saying that Walter wanted me to go through Dave Hunt’s book, The Seduction of Christianity and highlight things he would be in agreement with. I was happy to do so for him. He used that information to challenge TBN’s blackballing of Dave Hunt and other whistle-blowers.

I stayed home to work the VCR I didn’t know how to program, while my two sisters attended, one in the green room and one in the audience we had stacked with many friends. Walter gave it to them with both barrels. Not only was the program not replayed at its regular slot, but the tapes were not available when people followed up to request one. Back in those days any Praise-the-Lord program could be bought on audio cassette for a small fee. And both Walter Martin and Doug Clark were never invited back. We had heard years later from Doug Clark that during the interview he kept receiving notes from the stage manager telling him to “shut that guy up” and other nasty notes….

Dr. Flowers Reads from Pastor Mitchell’s Book: Rediscovering Romans 9

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dr. Flowers welcomes Pastor Scott Mitchell, of Calvary Chapel in Boston, who has authored a new book titled, “Rediscovering Romans 9: How Calvinism Distorts the Nature & Character of God” (FULL VIDEO EMBEDDED BELOW)

Leighton read this section from Pastor Scott’s book:

REDISCOVERING RESPECT

Disrespect through misrepresentation is nothing new; it happens among people all the time. I cannot count the number of times I have had people misrepresent me, or put words in my mouth that I never said. I have had people tell me what I believe, when in fact I do not. Even when I attempt to correct their claim, many refuse to listen and continue to tell me what I believe. The point here is, if I am disrespected because someone misrepresents me, though frustrating, it is not necessarily going to affect me and I typically do not take it personally. What others claim I believe does not actually change me, it just makes me aware of their opinion. People are always going to have their opinions and I cannot correct everyone’s perspective of what they think I believe. I have taught enough Bible studies over the past 30 plus years so people can know what I believe and why I believe it. There will always be detractors; as they say, it goes with the territory.

Sometimes disrespectful statements can hurt those beyond the one targeted. If someone makes a disrespectful or inaccurate statement about me and it results in hurt to others, then you have my attention. Affecting others causes the stakes of the case to rise. Moreover, if the claim is against my character and it results in a damaged relationship with someone dear to me (including those God has placed under my care as a pastor) this requires my undivided attention. Not because of how I feel about the personal disrespect, but because of how it affects others who are innocent victims and vulnerable to unnecessary hurt. This issue corresponds to the intention of this book. I believe that Calvinism misrepresents God’s character. Though I do not believe Calvinists do this intentionally, the resulting effect is still the same.

When any Christian misrepresents God, it can result in hurt or confusion to believers and effect the presentation of the gospel to unbelievers. Calvinism has a particular problem in this area since their doctrines are notoriously controversial. When a neophyte Calvinist begins to realize the incongruity of the “doctrines of grace” with the clear teachings of Scripture, it can certainly result in confusion. The real problem in this case can be a distrust in the Bible instead of the Calvinistic teachings, since there may not be enough previous Bible education for a fair comparison to take place.

Calvinists typically reject any presentation of the gospel to large groups or crusades because they believe it is deceptive to offer the gospel to those in the crowd who are not the elect. Their actions in rejection of these events spans from refusing involvement to outright picketing as unbelievers enter these events. What does that say to unbelievers? Any concern Calvinists have with the gospel preached to the “non-elect” (in their minds) is a result of their own theological bias and is both unbiblical and illogical. First, in the Bible Jesus and the apostles preach the gospel to groups. We are told that some or many believed, implying naturally that not all believed, or that others rejected. Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is a classic example along with the multiple cities Paul visited on his missionary journeys. His efforts involved crowds of people he preached to, not to mention his visit to Jerusalem (Acts 22). Second, it is illogical to hold the gospel back from anyone through concern they are not one of the elect. Whether it is one or one hundred thousand to whom the gospel is shared, no one knows who will respond positively until after the presentation is made. Moreover, an initial positive response may not be genuine faith; this is only discoverable over time no matter whether it is one or more. There is never a biblical or logical reason to prevent sharing the gospel with anyone when the opportunity presents itself. No one knows or can assume a person will receive or reject the truth.

God has big shoulders and can certainly handle people who do not accurately understand Him because they do not know Him. But, when false or misleading statements made about Him are by those who know Him, this presents a different picture. This can affect the relationship between God and His people, and when this occurs, I think you will have His attention. There is a particular responsibility assigned to pastors, Bible teachers, and Christian leaders to represent Him reverently and biblically. All Christians have the responsibility to engage in “casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the [accurate} knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5), but those whom God has specifically tasked with overseeing and caring for His flock (1 Peter 5:2-3; Titus 1:9-11) must pay particular attention for the sake of His flock. “The flock of God” (1 Peter 5:2) are His blood-bought people!

False statements and claims about God can easily result in unbelievers rejecting Christ. This however is also a problem in the church among God’s people. If there is a place people should be able to go and get a clear understanding of God’s self-revelation through His word, it is the church, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). His word accurately represents His nature and character; thus, a poor exposition of His word can easily result in misrepresenting Him in the congregation. Paul was well-aware of this problem and spent much of the New Testament (NT) instructing about God and correcting misrepresentations or misunderstandings related to Him. Therefore, this issue requires our utmost attention. Misrepresenting God kept Moses from entering the Promised Land (Num. 20:7-13) after a life of faithful service (Heb. 3:5)—it is a serious matter with God for sure.

Pages 5-7 of Scott Mitchell’s book, Rediscovering Romans 9: How Calvinism Distorts The Nature And Character Of God

Discussing Pharoah’s Heart | by His Will, Or God’s? Split the Horns

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here’s the full study on this topic from my verse by verse teaching through Romans: Why God Hardens Hearts: Romans 9:17-24 This is my best understanding of this topic and I think that it fits really well with a wide variety of Scripture that speaks to the issue. For a fuller defense of my own view please see the video I have linked above. My website https://BibleThinker.org

In a good conversation about Pharoah’s hardened heart, although not in alignment with what I was asking at “SOTO 101” Discussion thread, I got a response to this by MARK H. Here is the convo thus far:

MARK H. Pharaoh stiffened his heart first?

Nope, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart first…Exodus 7:3.

Pharaoh only ‘repented’ because of the plagues God sent upon him and Egypt, God raised Pharaoh up for one reason and one reason only, to show His power and to make His name to be declared throughout the world.

RELIGIO-POLITICAL TALK (RPT): “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart” Future tense… A strict Calvinist would say God was looking down the corridors of time [a bit of sarcasm there] and seeing the after FX of Pharaohs choices and God allowing and hardening that resolve.

MARK H. Religio-Political Talk (RPT) I believe God hardened Pharaohs heart first. This is what Paul’s argument is in Romans. God could have shown him mercy by softening his heart but He sovereignly chose to harden him so He could display His power and wrath by destroying Egypt. Potter and the clay.

RELIGIO-POLITICAL TALK (RPT):  LONG COMMENT

POTTER & CLAY

Also, don’t forget what was said of Israel a few verses later to be able to choose… 𝐼𝑁 𝑂𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑅 𝑊𝑂𝑅𝐷𝑆, keep reading for Scripture to explain Scripture:

“This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel” (Jer. 18:1–6).

[CALVINISTS STOP AT VERSE 6]

“If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. “Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, ‘This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.’ But they will reply, ‘It’s no use. We will continue with our own plans; we will all follow the stubbornness of our evil hearts’” (Jer. 18:7–12).

To Wit, SOTO 101: Who are you, O man?

[….]

Some Calvinistic scholars attempt to disassociate this text with Paul’s use of the analogy in Romans. For instance, James White writes, “Where is there a discussion of vessels of honor and dishonor in Jeremiah 18? Where is there a discussion of vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy? There is none.”[1] Only someone set on dismissing human responsibility would be unwilling to acknowledge the clear connection. Richard Coords explains:

The vessels of honor can be seen in God’s fashioning to “bless” (v. 10), “build,” and “plant” (v. 9), while the vessels of dishonor can be seen in the fashioning to “uproot,” “pull down” and “destroy” (v.7) including “fashioning calamity” and “devising a plan against” (v. 11), which is also consistent with the Jewish hardening described in Romans chapter 9 and at Romans 11:25.[2]

Paul is not oblivious to the need of the clay to respond to the expressed will of the Potter, as Paul draws upon this analogy again in his letter to Timothy:

“Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor.  Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work” (2 Tim. 2:20–21).

Clearly, the biblical authors speak of the clay as if it is able to respond (and thus be held responsible) to the will of the Potter. The vessel must “cleanse himself” so as to be “useful to the Master,” which clearly illustrates that Paul does not necessarily intend to remove man’s part in the process by way of this kind of analogy.

God, a patient and trustworthy Potter who genuinely loves the hardened clay (Rom. 9:1–2; 10:1, 21), has remade some of it to be used for “noble purposes,” such as proclaiming the inspired truth to the lost world. The rest of the lump, still genuinely loved by the Potter despite their turning to other gods (Hos. 3:1), is used to bring about the ignoble purpose of crucifixion and the grafting in of other vessels for redemption (Rom. 11:25). All the while, the Potter is holding out hope for the spoiled lump to turn from its evil and be cleansed through repentance and faith (Rom. 11:11–23).

[1] James White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000), 225.

[2] Richard Coords, “Jeremiah 18:6,” Examining Calvinism, web page; accessed 08 June 2015.

Take note that PAUL would have been familiar with Isaiah 29:16-19, which as I see it, was a “Messianic prophecy” fulfilled in Jesus and Paul’s discussion of Israel’s true believing remnant:

You have turned things around, as if the potter were the same as the clay. How can what is made say about its maker, “He didn’t make me”? How can what is formed say about the one who formed it, “He doesn’t understand what he’s doing”? Isn’t it true that in just a little while Lebanon will become an orchard, and the orchard will seem like a forest? On that day the deaf will hear the words of a document, and out of a deep darkness the eyes of the blind will see. The humble will have joy after joy in the LORD, and the poor people will rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah 29:16–19, CSB)

THAT BEING SAID, if you come at Scripture with a systematic, I can understand your viewpoint … if you believe in the T, the U, and the I… then every one’s “hard heart” is ultimately by God’s design. Unless He unconditionally through irresistible grace changed your heart by a miracle — against your will. [I add that last part is because of Ronnie W. Rogers. Because of “total depravity “, any good response to God is impossible… our will would not allow for it, so it must be “disallowed” to be saved. Not by the Gospel message, but through the work of God long before you were born… nothing you “responded to.”]

IN OTHER WORDS, if you believe all that…. then yes, each time his heart was hardened, by God or himself, it was God anyways.

However, I enjoyed this Jewish commentary, and, my favorite part is this: “However, as Luzzatto implies, the situation is never permanent” (excerpted below). As Romans agrees and emphasizes… which Calvinism struggles with acknowledging – without breaking apart the smooth flow of 9-11.

… a resource break

… continuing

EXCERPT

… A number of classical sources deal with this question, including the Rabbinic commentary Exodus Rabbah, which observes a critical detail: Exodus 9:12 is the first time that the Torah tells us that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but we see evidence of Pharaoh impacting his own heart five times earlier in this portion. Twice (Exodus 7:13 and Exodus 22) in response to Moses’ challenges and requests, the Torah tells us, his heart “hardened.” And three times after that (Exodus 8:11, Exodus 15 and Exodus 28), we’re told that Pharaoh “made his heart heavy.”

Five times Pharaoh turned away from Moses’ call and the suffering of the Israelites. Five times he made his own heart less and less supple and soft. As such, Rabbi Simon ben Lakish claims in Exodus Rabbah, a collection of Midrash compiled in the 10th or 11th century (scholars are unsure of the exact date), “Since God sent [the opportunity for repentance and doing the right thing] five times to him and he sent no notice, God then said, ‘You have stiffened your neck and hardened your heart on your own…. So it was that the heart of Pharaoh did not receive the words of God.’”

In other words, Pharaoh sealed his own fate, for himself and his relationship with God.

As the 18th-century Italian philosopher Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto wrote, “Our external actions have an effect on our inner feelings. We have more control over our actions than our emotions, and if we utilize what is in our power, we will eventually acquire what is not as much in our power.”

This is true in both directions. When we make the choice to turn away from suffering, when we engage in the action of walking away from others’ pain, we impact our inner life — our own heart is hardened, we become estranged from the divine and from our own holiest self. True, it’s scary to look that pain in the eyes, and then to grapple with the feelings of responsibility it might engender in us. But there’s a cost to that turning away.

However, as Luzzatto implies, the situation is never permanent. Even when you’ve turned away from others and toward your own self-interest to the point that you can no longer hear the still small voice whispering in your direction. Even then, the gates to the divine — and to ourselves — are always open. As the Talmud (Brachot 32b) teaches in the name of Rabbi Elezar, “From the day on which the Temple was destroyed, the gates of prayer have been closed… But though the gates of prayer are closed, the gates of weeping are not closed.”

We can do the work of goodness in the world. It will change us. And when we’re finally ready to let our heart break open, the gates will be there, ready to receive us.

(MY JEWISH LEARNING)

Dr. Brown opens up the Hebrew Bible in order to understand what really happened with the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus.

 

Another Gospel Drenched [1981] Sermon by Johnny Mac

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Video Description from YouTube) Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Personal Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, responds to some critics of Billy Graham’s views on Inclusivism and some unfounded accusations leveled against his own perspective as it is very similar to that of John MacArthur in a 1981 sermon, in which he said,

  • ““Creation, conduct, conscience, contemplation, what they do, how they deal with the good and bad in their own life and how they deal with it in the lives of others indicates that they know the law of God as written in them. Now, here is the most important thing I’ve said yet. The sum of it is this: If they live up to that much light, and they accept that much light, God will reveal to them the full light of Jesus Christ. I believe that with all my heart. You see, that’s what it says in Acts 17, ‘He is not far from us if we would feel after Him.’ You see? If they would just take what they have and accept that. John 7:17 – mark it down. ‘If any man wills to do My Father’s Will, he shall know of the teaching.’ If the willing heart is there, he’ll know. ” – John MacArthur

SOTERIOLOGY 101 has an excellent post encapsulating this presentation as well.

Matt Slick’s Boastful Calvinism

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the original short clip of Matt Slick saying God saw what his “good works” were and chose him based on his study habits, I guess? Apparently through the corridor of time?

On a SOTERIOLOGY 101 discussion board, TROY M. said this:

  • It is really important that we correctly represent Calvinists when we are arguing with them. You have incorrectly represented Matt Slick. He is NOT talking about God saving him because of his good works. He is talking about God giving him specific skills and tasks because he knew what his plan for Matt Slick was. This much of the problem with using short snippets to refute people. Use their entire context to be sure that you are actually on topic. Slick is not speaking soteriologically here, and so this is a fallacy called a strawman.

I responded with this extended clip of the debate between Matt Slick and Leighton Flowers, as well as a transcript:

The “I freely chose…” is immediately mitigated with his Calvinist doctrine of election, BTW.

TROY M. Thank you. I wasn’t tracking with that. I will give it a listen again [….] Okay, the best route is to say maybe Matt Slick, upon further reflection would say he misspoke. But here is what I am hearing, and it was all about soteriology — but please, give me a time-stamp and I will revisit (emphasis added – time stamped to my clip):

MATT SLICK

(00:00:00) Responsibility. OK, you said give us the ability to relate via faith, not signs and wonders. The signs and wonders were done to demonstrate who Jesus was, but you’re basically implying he wants relationship over salvation. The question is if God wants every individual to be saved, all he has to do, you would agree all he’s got to do is just let his kind of presence shine.

(00:00:20) I know this now. (00:00:21) I’m not trying to be unfair. You can’t execute my experience and I’m not trying to use in that way. Now. See, you prove me wrong. It’s not fair thing for me to do it. I’m not trying to be unfair in that. (00:00:31) I’m just saying that I know of this and it reflects in, excuse me, Act 9:15 when Paul was riding along, this is what happened to Paul the Apostle, the whole Jesus himself, bam, knocked him off his horse knocked, knocked him down. I understand what that means. Not to the extent I’m sure that it happened there because you heard an audible voice.

(00:00:51) I didn’t, but I’m telling you, I know what it means to be in the presence of incredible holiness, and the only thing you can do is put your face to the ground and weep because you are in the presence of, of, of, of purity, and you’re a Sinner. I freely chose to believe in him right there at that moment when I was 17.

(00:01:10) Why doesn’t God do that? Calvinist would say, because God Sovereignly chooses not to do that.  I believe the reason he gave that to me was because he knew what I’d be doing for a living. [Thru the corridors of time?] He had to have something very powerful, very strong, to keep me strong through all the cult crap I gotta study – and everything for hours and years and years. That’s what, that’s what my opinion [is], but whatever. (00:01:22) The thing is, all he’s got to do. (00:01:30) Is do the same kind of (00:01:31) thing he did to Paul the (00:01:32) Apostle, he can just sit there and go Wham! (00:01:37) He’s a chosen vessel of mine. Why is it good to everybody? I have an answer cause God chooses not to. You don’t.

[….]

LEIGHTON FLOWERS

(00:01:37) So your answer… (00:01:42) OK, so your your answer is God’s decree. Did you know? That’s my answer to. Yeah. (00:01:47) I believe that God sovereignly decrees not which choice will make, but that will be free to make a choice that is his choice, which he chooses to grant you responsibility and the choice. Yeah. And acts. Paul actually says that he could resist it. The, the the call upon his heart. And so….

Exegetical Study of Romans 8:28-39 (Dr. Flowers & Dr. Lennox)

Published by Papa Giorgio

See also : “Pastor Gary Hamrick Preaches Through Romans 9-11“

Study of Romans 8:28 Thru 8:39

Pages 81-98. The Potter’s Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology 

Due to the overwhelming popularity of this passage when it comes to the defense of Calvinistic soteriology, I feel it is necessary to provide a verse by verse exegetical commentary from a traditional non-Calvinistic perspective.

Romans 8:28

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.

The Greek verb oida (“we know”) is a perfect active indicative form of the verb, which may simply refer to knowledge gained by observance or remembrance of the past. This is paralleled earlier in verse 22 (using the same Greek verb tense of oida) when speaking about their observation of creation “groaning as in the pains of child birth right up to the present time.”

Paul seems to be saying “we have observed” and “therefore we know.” The context and grammar appear to indicate a reference not to an intuitive knowledge of Paul’s readers, but to that which comes from observation of the past, or a remembrance.[73]

Paul means that believers know, from observation of God’s past dealings with those who love Him, that he has a mysterious way of working things out for the greatest good. By observing the stories of the saints of old —those called to accomplish His redemptive purposes—believers can rest in knowledge of this truth. God can take whatever evil may come our way and redeem it for good. Believers can know this because God has been doing it for generations.

Paul does not say that his readers should intuitively know how God works things out for those who love Him in the present. He is saying believers know what is true of God by observing what He has done in the past for those who have loved Him. The New Testament saints have a great cloud of witnesses that have gone before them (Heb. 12:1), giving evidence of God’s trustworthiness toward all who enter into a covenant with Him.

A simple survey of the verses leading up to this point reveals that Paul is reflecting on the problem of the evil and suffering in our world since the beginning:

Rom. 8:20-22: “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.”

N.T. Wright comments on Rom. 8:28–30, saying in part:

  • “[This passage] is a sharp, close-up, compressed telling of the story of Israel, as the chosen people, whose identity and destiny is then brought into sharp focus on Jesus. Jesus, in a sense, is the one ‘chosen One.’ But, then that identity is shared with all of those who are ‘in Christ.’ And he [Paul] is not talking primarily there about salvation. He is talking primarily about the way God is healing the whole creation. There is a danger here. What has happened in so many theological circles over the years is that people have come to the text assuming that it is really saying how we are to get to heaven, and what is the mechanism and how does that work. And if you do that, interestingly, many exegetes will more or less skip over Romans 8:18–27, which is about the renewing of creation.”[74]

In verses 28 and 29 the focus shifts to providing comfort for those in suffering by reminding them to observe God’s dealings with others who loved God throughout history. Notice that this truth is not applicable to everyone. The passage is specifically an observation of those who “love God,” or as Wright notes, “those who are in Christ.”

The point is not that God causes everything for a good purpose, but that God redeems occurrences of evil for a good purpose in the lives of those who love Him. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to use this passage to support the concept of divine meticulous determinism of all things.[75] Again, God does not cause occurrences of evil for His purposes; instead, He redeems moral evil for a good purpose. Traditionalists would typically agree with what John MacArthur, a Calvinistic pastor, wrote on this point:

  • “But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things—including all the fruits of all the evil of all time—work together for a greater good.”[76]

The focus of the apostle’s observation is on the saints of old, those from the elect nation of Israel who were called to fulfill God’s plan to redeem His creation from its groans and sufferings. This passage does not mean that the truth being revealed is not applicable to those of other nations. Rather, it means that what is proven to be true of God by observing His dealings with those called out from Israel throughout history must also be true of anyone who comes to follow and love the God of Israel.

Consider this analogy: Suppose a new pastor is called to a church. The staff members are nervous about his leadership style and how they might be treated, but a letter of reference which reflects on his past relationships might ease their fears. The pastor’s reference might say something like, I have observed this pastor’s dealings with the staff members he knew before, and he has always worked to lovingly support anyone who gets behind the vision and direction of the church. By reflecting on the pastor’s history, the new staff can know what to expect in their future dealings with him. So too, Paul gives a divine reference by reflecting on the trustworthiness of God in His dealings with the saints of old so as to ensure his readers of what they may expect of Him.

Romans 8:29

For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

Here the apostle reveals his focus on the saints of old, “those God foreknew.” Paul seeks to provide evidence of his claim in verse 28 by reflecting on God’s faithfulness to His chosen nation, those beloved who were known before. Paul provides a reference of sorts to ease the fears of those who are now coming to faith. This point continues to be the apostle’s focus for the next three chapters.

Much debate centers on the meaning of the word proginōskō (“to know beforehand”).[77] Many popular authors fail to recognize all the available options for consideration. For example, John Piper lists only two options for interpreting this verse:

Option #1: God foresaw our self-determined faith. We remain the decisive cause of our salvation. God responds to our decision to believe.

Option #2: God chose us—not on the basis of foreseen faith, but on the basis of nothing in us. He called us, and the call itself creates the faith for which it calls.[78]

Piper overlooks the most basic meaning of this word, which is “to know beforehand” or to have known in the past. The same Greek word is used by Peter and Paul in the following passages,

2 Pet. 3:17: “Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.”

Acts 26:4–5: “The Jewish people all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that I conformed to the strictest sect of our religion, living as a Pharisee.”

Clearly, this word can be understood simply as knowing someone or something in the past, as in those known previously (i.e. the saints of old). Non-Calvinistic scholars, Roger Forster and Paul Marston, convincingly argue,

  • “God ‘foreknew them’ or ‘knew them of old’ thus it does not mean that God entered in some former time into a relationship with the Israelites of today, it means that he entered a (two-way) relationship with the Israel that existed in early Old Testament times, and he regards the present Israelites as integral with it.”[79]

If Paul intended to use the word proginōskō in this sense, then he meant simply that because we have seen how God worked all things to the good for those whom He knew before, we know that He will do the same for those who love and are called by Him now.

Some Calvinists contend that the word foreknew is equivalent to fore-loved. That use of the word generally fits this interpretation since the Israelites of the past who loved God certainly would have been loved by God before (i.e. fore-loved). Of course, the Calvinistic interpretation differs because they insist this passage is about God unconditionally setting His “effectual” salvific love upon certain individuals before the foundation of the world. Calvinists go to great lengths to show that God did not merely foresee the behavior and choices of the elect by looking down the corridors of time. Rather, God knew them intimately and set His effectual love on them before the foundation of the world.[80]

This argument might address the classical Arminian approach (Piper’s first option),[81] but it fails to rebut the approach being advocated here. Fore-loved is a viable and even likely meaning of the term proginōskō, yet it does not clarify who might be the intended target of that divine love.

Was Paul intending to introduce for the first time in this epistle a particular group of people out of the mass of humanity who were unconditionally elected to be effectually saved before the world began? Or, was he simply referencing those from the past whom God had known and faithfully cared for throughout the generations?

Romans 8:29b states “He (God) also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son.” Who was “predestined” and to what ends were they predestined, according to this passage? Remember the point of the apostle leading up to this verse. He began speaking about the futility and suffering that has come into this world due to the fall of humanity into sin (vv. 20–22). In verse 28-29a, Paul provides comfort to lovers of God in his audience by reminding them of God’s trustworthiness for those who have loved Him throughout the generations.

Paul reminds his readers that God will redeem the suffering and evil for a good purpose in their lives just as he has done in the lives of those known before and loved throughout the previous generations. It is these whom God previously knew (Israelites whom loved God in the past) who were predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ so as to make the way for His coming.

God planned to accomplish salvation for those who were previously known and loved (i.e. Abraham, Moses, David, etc) by conforming them into the image of the One who would come to purchase their redemption. This is the ultimate example of God causing “all things to work for the good” of those saints of old who loved God. Paul is saying that God brings about the redemption of their souls and He will do the same for whoever loves Him. N. T. Wright states,

  • “Here is the note of hope which has been sounded by implication so often since it was introduced in 5:2: hope for the renewal of all creation, in a great act of liberation for which the exodus from Egypt was simply an early type. As a result, all that Israel hoped for, all that it based its hope on, is true of those who are in Christ.”[82]

Romans 8:29c states “that He (the Son) might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” Consider the fact that he is speaking about what Christ might be, which strongly implies that Paul still has the saints of old in focus here. Why would Paul speak of future generations being conformed to the image of Christ so that He “might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” if He were already the firstborn prior to this discourse?

  • The term prōtotokos (“firstborn”) can simply refer to the one who is first to be born in a family, which carries much significance in the Jewish culture (Luke 2:7). Typically, the birthright given to the firstborn son signified a place of preeminence, by which he would receive the father’s inheritance and blessing. For instance, Psalm 89:20, 27 states, “I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him. . . And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.” David, who was the last one born in his family, was called by God the firstborn. David was given a place of preeminence.[83]

The term firstborn also speaks of Christ’s preexistence as the eternal Creator.[84] God created the world through Christ and redeemed the world through Christ (John 1:3, 10; Heb. 1:2–4). The former speaks of His eternal nature and the latter of His temporal role as the redeemer of the world.

Yet, even when speaking of our preexistent Lord, the biblical authors addressed Him as “becoming” or “fulfilling” His role as our Messiah within the temporal world. For example, the Psalmist writes, “And I will appoint Him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27). For the Old Testament saints, the firstborn Savior was the expected One that was yet to come. From their view, the long-awaited Messiah was the future hope, not a past and completed reality.

In contrast to the Old Testament saints, a modern-day preacher would not teach that we are being conformed to Christ’s image so that Jesus might be the firstborn among many brethren, because we know Him to already be the firstborn of many brethren. Our being conformed into Christ’s image today has nothing to do with the future coming of Christ’s birth, whereas the saints of old were part of His very lineage. It is through the life of men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and many other saints of old that Christ is brought into this world “that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters (Rom. 8:29c).”

Paul is reflecting on God’s redemptive purpose being accomplished through those who loved God in former generations. That redemptive purpose included bringing the Messiah into this world through Israel (Rom. 9:4-5), or those Israelites set apart for that noble purpose (Rom. 9:21). This was God’s predestined plan of redemption, which was brought to pass through those who loved God and were called according to His purpose. Tim Warner describes this purpose,

“Paul was not referring to some prior knowledge in the mind of God before creation. Nor was He speaking about predetermining their fate. He was referring to those whom God knew personally and intimately, men like Abraham and David.

The term ‘foreknew’ does not mean to have knowledge of someone before they were conceived. The verb προεγνω is the word for ‘know’ (in an intimate sense) with the preposition προ (before) prefixed to it. It refers to having an intimate relationship with someone in the past… Literally, we could render Rom. 8:29 as follows: ‘For those God formerly knew intimately, He previously determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.’

The individual saints of old, with whom God had a personal relationship, were predestined by Him to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is, God predetermined to bring their salvation to completion by the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf.” [85]

Likewise, William R. Newell, a colleague of D.L. Moody and a notable teacher at the Bible Moody College, explained that God “had acquaintanceship” with the Israelites of the past. So, it was not “mere Divine pre-knowledge” of certain individuals, but a real intimate “pre-acquaintanceship.”[86]

Romans 8:30

And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.

Notice the apostle’s use of the past tense in this verse. If Paul intended to speak about the future salvation of every elect individual, then why would he use these past tense verbs? When writing these words, Paul and his readers had not yet been glorified, so there is no explicit reason to use the past tense. Thus, there is no reason to assume Paul has in mind the future glorification of all believers.

The past tense suggests that Paul is referring to former generations of those who have loved God and were called to fulfill His redemptive purpose. They were known in the past generations and predestined by God to be made in the very image of the One to come, “the firstborn among many brothers and sisters,” which is something already completed in the past through the working of God in former generations. These are the individuals whom God called, justified, and who now, even as Paul was writing these words, are already glorified in the presence of God.

If indeed Paul was referencing the saints formerly known and loved by God, he would have communicated the certainty of their being justified, sanctified and finally glorified in a way that some might describe as a “golden chain of redemption.”[87] To presume, however, that Paul’s unbroken chain of past tense verbs is not in reference to people of the past is a linguistic stretch. [88]

Calvinists must explain away the use of the past tense verbs in order to maintain their interpretation of Paul’s intent. For instance, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, a Calvinistic source, provides this explanation, “Glorified is in the past tense because this final step is so certain that in God’s eyes it is as good as done.”[89] 

Calvinists must interpret Paul’s use of the past tense (aorist indicative) as meaning “it is as good as done” because it was predestined. But this is a very rare usage in the original language and the immediate context does not clearly support a Calvinistic rendering.

We must take into account Paul’s usage of the same term earlier in the chapter as a future hope for believers. Romans 8:17:

“Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in His sufferings in order that we may also share in His glory” (emphasis added).

Paul does not speak of glorification as a past and completed action in reference to the believers in his day. Rather, he seems to qualify their being glorified upon the condition that they persevere through the suffering that is to come. If it is “as good as done” due to God’s predetermination, then why would Paul make such a qualification and use the future tense of the same verb? Further, Paul speaks of the eager expectation of the glorification that is to come in verses 22–25:

“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently” (emphasis added).

Is the reader to believe that Paul shifts from speaking of glorification as a future hope for those who persevere, to speaking of it as a past and already-completed act for those who have not yet been glorified? Or, could it simply be that Paul has the Old Testament saints in view as he makes his case for the trustworthiness of God throughout all generations? The latter seems to be the most basic understanding of the apostle’s words in their context.

This interpretation may seem foreign to some Western readers because of the philosophical and theological baggage that has been attached to the concept of divine foreknowledge over the years, but to the first century reader the simple concept of proginōskō, understood as “previously known,” would have been far more likely. In fact, if one can objectively back away from their presuppositions and approach this passage with fresh eyes, I believe they will discover the utter simplicity and clarity of this perspective.

Instead of introducing a complex concept of divine prescience, unconditional election, and effectual salvation never once clearly expounded upon in the Scriptures, could it be that Paul may intend simply to communicate that those who were previously loved and known by God were also predestined to be conformed to the image of the One to come? Paul seems to be giving a brief history lesson of what God had done in former generations as a reference for God’s trustworthiness for all who come to Him in faith. Wright explains it this way:

  • “The creation is not god, but it is designed to be flooded with God: The Spirit will liberate the whole creation. Underneath all this, of course, remains Christology: the purpose was that the Messiah ‘might be the firstborn among many siblings’ (8.29). Paul is careful not to say, or imply, that the privileges of Israel are simply ‘transferred to the church,’ even though, for him, the church means Jews-and-gentiles-together in Christ. Rather, the destiny of Israel has devolved, entirely appropriately within the Jewish scheme, upon the Messiah. All that the new family inherit, they inherit in Him.”[90]  

Those who object to the suggestion that Paul’s use of the term proginōskō is limited to the beloved of Israel’s past should consider the apostle’s use of the same word just three chapters later, Rom. 10:21-11:2a:

“But concerning Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ I ask then: Did God reject His people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject His people, whom he foreknew” (emphasis added).

Notice that Paul uses the term proginōskō in reference to God’s intimate relationship with the faithful Israelites of old. Paul continues to make his case, Rom. 11:2b-4:

“Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me?’ And what was God’s answer to him? ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’”

Elijah and those who refused to bow a knee were among the ones who were previously known (foreknown/fore-loved) by God. To foreknow refers to God’s intimate relationship with people who loved Him in the past (like Abraham in Rom. 4:22–5:5). Nothing in this or any other text supports the concept of God in eternity past preselecting certain individuals out of the mass of humanity for effectual salvation. It would be difficult to substantiate this meaning of the term foreknow in reference to the Israelites who were in covenant with God. It is best interpreted in reference to those known by God in former times. William Lane Craig explains,

  • “In certain cases, proginōskō and prooraō mean simply that one has known or seen (someone or something) previously. For example, in Acts 26:5 Paul states that the Jews had previously known for a long time the strictness of his life a Pharisee, and in Acts 21:29 Luke mentions that the Jews had previously seen (prooraō) Trophimus in Paul’s company. This sense is probably operative in Romans 11:2 as well, where Paul states of apostate Israel that ‘God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew [proginōskō],’ that is, whom He had previously known in an intimate way.”[91]  

Romans 8:31–39

Returning to the analogy above, the pastor had former staff members whom he intimately knew and loved. The new staff would be comforted to know of the pastor’s prior relationships. Likewise, those being grafted into covenant with the God of Israel for the first time (i.e. the Gentiles) would be thrilled to learn of God’s faithfulness to those He formerly knew and loved (i.e. men like Abraham and David, etc.). What can the readers say in response to these teachings of Paul about God’s faithfulness toward the saints of old?

That is the very question the apostle poses in Rom. 8:31a as he transitions to the application of His message,

“What, then, shall we say in response to these things?”

This interpretation is consistent with the view that present-day saints who love God and are called according to His purposes (vs. 28) have nothing to fear, for…

“If God is for us, who can be against us?” (vs. 31b).

God, who gave up His Son, justifies, intercedes, and places His undying love upon all who love Him and are called according to His purposes (vv. 32–39).

The objector in Paul’s mind asks: Paul, you have made a good case regarding God’s faithfulness to the Israelites in the past, but what about the Israelites today? Have God’s promises for Israel failed? Why are the Israelites today refusing to accept their own Messiah? The apostle attempts to answer these questions in Romans 9 and following.

NOTES:

[73] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 29.6.

[74] N.T. Wright in a question and answer session at Oklahoma Christian University on April 1, 2014. Samuel Selvin, “Dr. N. T. Wright on predestination,”

[75] This is also true of Eph. 1:11, which is often misapplied to support the idea of meticulous determinism.

[76] John MacArthur, “Is God Responsible for Evil?” Grace To You Ministries web page. Quote taken from: http://www.gty.org/ resources /articles/A189/is-god-responsible-for-evil; [date accessed: 5/19/15]

[76] The definition of progin-osk-o is from The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2011), 30.100.

[77] John Piper, Sermon: “Foreknown by God,”

[78] Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1973), 179–90.

[79] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Volume I (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1959), 316-318.

[80] Frederic Godet’s commentary on Romans 8:29, inquires: “In what respect did God thus foreknow them?” and answers that they were “foreknown as sure to fulfill the conditions of salvation, viz. faith; so: foreknown as His by faith.” The word “foreknew” is thus understood by Godet, a classical Arminian, to mean that God knew beforehand which sinners would believe, and on the basis of this knowledge He predestined them unto salvation. Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Messrs Clark, 1880), 325.

[81] N.T. Wright, Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 30–67.

[82] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 38a (Dallas: Word, 1988), 1: 484.

[83] Theologian Bernard Ramm noted that “It has been standard teaching in historic Christology that the Logos, the Son, existed before the incarnation. That the Son so existed before the incarnation has been called the pre-existence of Christ.” Bernard Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 1993) 47.

[84] Tim Warner, PFRS Commentary on Romans, Pristine Faith Restoration Society. 

[85] William R. Newell, “Romans Verse-by-Verse,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library,” 1938.

[86] Some Calvinistic scholars describe this as the unbreakable “golden chain of redemption” meant to communicate the unchangeable plan of God to irrevocably justify, sanctify and glorify those He elected before the world began.

[87] Greek scholars teach that while the aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed, this usage is “not at all common.” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1997) 564.

[88] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds. The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Dallas: Victor Books, 1983), 474.

[89] “And all this is viewed as past; because, starting from the past decree of ‘predestination to be conformed to the image of God’s Son’ of which the other steps are but the successive unfoldings—all is beheld as one entire, eternally completed salvation.” Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, “Romans 8.”

[90] Wright, Pauline Theology, 20.

[91] William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 31–32.

Leighton Flowers, The Potter’s Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology (Trinity Academic Press, 2017), 81-98.

Here are some thoughts via John Lennox’s wonderful book,  “Determined to Believe? The Sovereignty of God, Freedom, Faith, and Human Responsibility,”

God is the Creator – there would not be a universe or human beings without him. God is the sovereign upholder of the universe – none of its history is outside his control. Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer – apart from him there would be no salvation.

Furthermore, we have seen that God’s initiative is expressed in Scripture in terms like election, foreknowledge, predestination, and calling, all of which occur together at the climax of one of the major sections of the letter to the Romans in chapter 8. By this stage Paul has already argued universal human guilt and the consequent need of salvation. He has explained that salvation is by faith in Christ and not of works. He has developed the theme of human responsibility to live a holy life in the power of God’s Holy Spirit. He has described the inner battle against our human nature (the flesh) that we all experience as we seek to walk after the Spirit.

The inner battle is not the only battle, however. Paul himself was no stranger to suffering – he had lived with persecution for many years. And so in Romans 8 Paul addresses suffering directly. He describes the provision that God has made for him and his fellow believers to remain firm in their faith when the winds of adversity blow. Here is the wonderful passage in full:

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all – how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

(Romans 8:18–39.)

In all of Scripture this is one of the most magnificent statements of the love of God in taking the initiative to provide salvation in all of its aspects, so that nothing whatsoever can separate us from his love for us in Christ Jesus – not even death itself. I have emphasised the passage that is relevant to our discussion. In the context of suffering, weakness, and uncertainty, we are to know that God is working in all things for the good of those who love him. Paul describes them as those who have been called according to his purpose. What that grand purpose is, he is about to explain. But not before he gives another description of believers as those whom God foreknew, which (as we have seen) does not imply that God caused or forced them to do anything in advance. It is a great encouragement to believers under pressure to know that they have experienced the call of God; God has known them, and knows all about them – and he has a purpose for them. What is that purpose? He has predestined them to be conformed to the image of his Son.

Under the pressure of an assumed paradigm it is all too easy to read into this that Paul is saying that God has predestined them to be believers, and then using this statement to buttress theistic determinism. However, Paul is saying something completely different: that God has predestined those who are believers to be conformed to the image of his Son. That is, he plans to confer unimaginable dignity upon believers. As creatures of God they were made in the image of God. But now that they have put their faith in Christ and received his salvation, a destiny of almost indescribable glory awaits them. In his love for them God has determined that they should be like his Son. The sheer wonder of this purpose now defines the illimitable nature of God’s grace and glory. In one sense, God could have predestined us to anything glorious that he willed, but he has chosen this ultimate accolade. The objective is that the Lord Jesus should be the firstborn (first to be glorified and also first in rank) among many brothers.

This is God’s staggeringly gracious goal. Achieving it involves all of God’s provision in the gospel that Paul has been expounding up to this point – calling, justification by faith, and glorification. It is the sheer glory of the achievement that calls forth Paul’s triumphant and confident conclusion – If God is for us, who can be against us?

Arising directly from these glorious thoughts, however, there comes a question that deeply disturbs and concerns the apostle. In light of such a magnificent and gracious message, how is it that his fellow Israelites, Paul’s own kith and kin, mainly reject such a wonderfully gracious message and deny that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God? Paul’s pain is palpable as he explains:

I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit – I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised! Amen.

(Romans 9:1–5.)

Paul faces an apparent contradiction. His nation of Israel by and large rejected Christ, who was also their own flesh and blood, even though as a nation they were uniquely privileged. God had adopted them as his people – as his sons, even, those who inherit the family assets; he had visited them in his glory at Sinai, and in the tabernacle, given them the covenants, the law, and the worship programme of the temple; he had lavished his promises on them. Not only that, it was God who had given them the patriarchs, from whom the ancestry of the Messiah would be traced – the Messiah who is none less than God himself. And they don’t believe in him!

This was no new issue for Paul. He faced it many times as he sought to persuade men and women of the truth of the Christian message. For instance, he held lectures in the synagogue at Thessalonica on three sabbath days:

As his custom was, Paul went in to the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he said.

(Acts 17:2–3.)

One can easily imagine some intelligent Jew saying, “That was a very interesting talk, Paul, and I find it impressive that a rabbi with your undoubtedly high qualifications, having studied under Gamaliel, is prepared to argue in this way. However, what bothers me is that you seem to be on your own in this. Or am I mistaken? Can you tell me of any other senior rabbis who believe that your interpretations are correct?”

And Paul might reply, “Well there’s Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea, both on the Sanhedrin Council in Jerusalem.”

“Is that all? If what you say is true – and I admit I was moved by it – surely one might expect the majority of the Jewish thinkers to accept it? After all, on the basis of our Scriptures you are claiming that Jesus is the Messiah expected by our nation, yet the experts in the interpretation of those Scriptures don’t agree with you. Surely you can see why I am puzzled!”

Paul could see it, and it affected him deeply. He got the same question from Gentiles as well. “If something is really authentically Jewish, the Jews should be the first to accept it. And yet most of them reject it. How can that be?”

Paul was heartbroken about the situation and desperately wanted to do something about it. It threatened to become a serious stumbling block in the way of people taking the gospel seriously. As he writes in chapter 8, how can he believe that nothing shall separate us from the love of God, when it appears to many that something has separated Israel from God? How can Israel have lost her way so dramatically?

So Paul writes Romans 9–11 in order to show that, far from being an objection to the Christian message, what has happened historically with Israel, in their rejection of the Lord Jesus, in fact confirms the truth of it.

At this point some interpreters of Scripture argue that the ultimate answer to this question is given by Paul in his letter to the Galatians. There he abolishes all distinctions between Jews and non-Jews in his famous statement, that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek… (Galatians 3:28). Surely this means (it is argued) that all the promises given to Israel in the Old Testament are now to be understood as fulfilled in the church. Hence God has not cast off his people, since “his people” now equates to “the church” which is alive and thriving.

However, Paul’s statement in Galatians is not relevant to his problem in Romans. In Galatians 3:21–29 Paul is discussing the basis of salvation, and he stresses that it is the same for everyone, whatever their ethnicity, social status, or gender – Jew, Greek, slave, free, man, woman. That common basis is faith in Christ alone. Paul is not talking there about the question of roles in history or in the world, which for obvious reasons might well be different for each of these groups. To deduce from these verses that, now that Christ has come, there is absolutely no difference between the roles of Jews and Gentiles, would be as absurd as saying that, since Christ has come, there is absolutely no difference between the roles of slave and free or between the roles of male and female. Their roles can remain the same without prejudice to their status in Christ.

By contrast Paul’s concern in Romans 9–11 is not the basis of the gospel but why it is that the very nation that was privileged by God to be the vehicle of his revelation to the world now mainly rejects the gospel of the Messiah. That is the problem he has to address, and it is so complex that he takes three chapters to do it.

The first main argument is based on the fact that not all ethnic Israelites are the genuine people of God. His discussion involves considering the sovereignty of God in history regarding the role of different individuals and the nations descended from them.

The second main argument is that Israel’s unbelief is culpable. God has made every provision for them. Paul goes through every excuse that might be raised to let Israel off the hook and concludes in each case that they are responsible for their unbelief.

The third main argument concentrates on the fact that there are some Israelites, like Paul, who do believe in Jesus. Indeed, all through history there has been a “remnant” of true believers within Israel, whose number has at times been underestimated. Paul then discusses the historical roles that Israel and then the Gentiles have had in witnessing for God in the world, and concludes with the glorious hope for his nation that one day “all Israel will be saved”. Paul is in no doubt that there remains a role for his nation in the future, but not until they come to faith in Jesus as Messiah.

“For He says to Moses” | Biblical Mercy

Published by Papa Giorgio

For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

Dr. Leighton Flowers confronts Dr. James White’s faulty critique of Dr. William Lane Craig (and other non-Calvinists).

This is a condensed critique. To see the longer video going through each of Dr. White’s points go here: • What about those who never hear about Jesus?

Often we hear the objection that God is not obligated to have mercy on anyone. That’s true. However, the fact that God is not obligated to be merciful towards all people is what makes the display of His mercy to all people so amazingly gracious and abundantly glorious. That God does what He is not obligated to do for no other reason than He desires to be merciful to all is glorious.

Anyone suggesting this display of mercy isn’t genuine (or that’s it’s just an outward/external “prescriptive” will of God, but that His real secret desire is only to show mercy to a preselected few) is diminishing the abundance of His mercy and the glory of His grace extended to every person.

Also, I think sometimes there is an assumption that mercy is weakness. But that could not be further from the truth. Mercy can only be handed down by someone in a place of judgement over another. If it is not within my power to pass condemnation on someone, then it is also not within my power to have mercy on them. Mercy is an expression of power, not of weakness.

“The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.” -Ps 145:8-9

“For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” -Rom 11:32

Some more from SOTO 101:

V.  WHY GOD IS JUST IN SHOWING MERCY TO UNFAITHFUL ISRAELITES TO ACCOMPLISH HIS PROMISE IN BRINGING THE WORD (14-16)

  • Does God’s choosing to bless one descendant over another descendant make God unrighteous? What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

The descendants of Abraham in Paul’s day had two false perceptions:

Every descendant deserves the benefit of bringing God’s Word. However, the truth is that God has only selected a remnant through whom to bring His Word.

Every descendant deserves eternal life on the basis of their being of Israel. However, no one is saved based on nationality but only upon grace through faith. Those nations, and the individuals therein, who oppose God’s Word remain under the curse (hatred), as illustrated by Edom (direct descendants of Isaac himself).

There is no unrighteousness with God for choosing some descendants for a noble cause and not others, nor is it unjust to condemn a descendant of Abraham who stands in opposition to the Word of God.

  • For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

Paul’s reference to Moses’ encounter with God in Exodus 32-33 gives a perfect historical example of when God was merciful to Israel when they deserved to be destroyed for their unfaithfulness (worshipping a golden calf).

This example also parallels Moses’ self-sacrificial Christ-like love for Israel as reflected by Paul in the opening verses of this chapter… “forgive their sin—and if not blot me out…” (Ex. 32:31-32).

Certainly God may choose to save whosoever He is pleased to save (scripture teaches He chooses to save those who humble themselves and repent in faith – 1 Pt. 5:5-6), but this passage is in reference to God showing mercy to unfaithful Israel so as to fulfill His original promise through them even though they deserve condemnation.

  • So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

“It” refers to the fulfillment of God’s promise to bring His Word despite Israel’s unfaithfulness (Rom. 3:3-4).

The promise depends on our merciful God, not on the faithfulness (“willing and running”) of Abraham or his descendants.

Abraham “willed and ran” in the flesh to produce a son through Hagar (who Paul used symbolically to represent the covenant of law and works, Gal. 4:24).

God, by his mercy, provided Isaac through the free woman, Sarah (who Paul used symbolically to represent the covenant of grace by faith in the call of God, Gal. 4:21-26).

VI.  WHY GOD IS JUST TO HARDEN UNFAITHFUL ISRAELITES TO ACCOMPLISH HIS PROMISE IN BRINGING THE WORD (17-18)

  • For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”

In the same way God hardened the already rebellious will of Pharaoh in order to accomplish the first Passover, so too God hardened the already rebellious wills of Israelites to accomplish the real Passover.

God’s power and goodness was displayed in mercy-ing unfaithful Israelites in the day of Moses and in hardening the unfaithful Israelites in the day of the Messiah.

  • Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

Sometimes God will fulfill His promises by showing Israelites mercy, but His Word will never fail.

Sometimes God will fulfill His promises by hardening Israelites, but His Word will never fail.

Note: Those judicially hardened or cut off are not born in this condition, but have “grown hardened” over years of rebellion (Acts 28:27), they are cut off for unbelief (11:20) and the hope of the apostle is that they may be grafted back in and saved (11:11-32).

VII.  IF THE ISRAELITES’ UNRIGHTEOUSNESS ACCOMPLISHES GOD’S PROMISE TO BRING HIS WORD, WHY ARE THEY TO BLAME? (19-21)

  • “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will? But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?”

You (an Israelite hardened to accomplish God’s promise) will say to me (an Israelite shown mercy to accomplish God’s promise), why are we to blame if God’s will is being fulfilled?

As the apostle already indicated in 3:5, this is a man-made argument that reveals a heart that has become calloused in its rebellion, otherwise they might see, hear, understand and repent (Acts 17:30; 28:27).

  • “Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?”

The lump of hardened clay represents Israel who is had grown calloused in rebellion (Acts 28:27) and who are now being remolded into two kinds of vessels:

Those unfaithful Israelites remolded, by means of signs from the incarnate Messiah Himself, to bring the Word.

Those unfaithful Israelites remolded, by means of judicially hardening, to accomplish the ignoble purpose of bringing redemption on the cross and the grafting in of the Gentiles (yet they still may be saved, Rom. 11:11-32).

Romans 9 explained. This video is very relevant in today’s world as we see believers departing from the faith while only the chosen ones will be able to stand by God and God will also provide and have mercey on them. God is able to raise leaders and kings so His Name is exalted among the nations. just like He did with the Pharaoh.

Romans 9:21-23 says, “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory…”

RC Sproul, a notable Calvinist, interprets this to mean that God creates some people for salvation and the rest for damnation, but is that what the Apostle Paul really had in mind? Let’s explore!

~ R.C. SPROUL PLAYLIST ~

 

Augustinian Determinism VS. The Early Church (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I updated this post with some more early church father “stuff.” Feel free to jump to the excerpt/graph and additional info. Jump to my other posts so far on the topic of Calvinism:

To go to all my posts on Calvinism and related issues, click the graphic to the right.

Enjoy the rest

Ken Wilson Rebuts James White

Description from the above video on SOTERIOLOGY 101’s YouTube:

Dr. Leighton Flowers welcomes back Dr. Ken Wilson to defend his Oxford Thesis from over 15 hours of mostly fallacious and unfounded attacks by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

The Common Misconceptions in this Debate So Far:

  1. Wilson’s argument rests on Manicheanism and Augustinianism being the same worldview: This is untrue. It is not at all unreasonable to suggest that just one aspect of Manicheanism (i.e. its adherence to theistic determinism) might have influenced Augustine’s interpretation of the scripture.
  2. Wilson is saying Augustinianism is untrue because of its similarities with Manicheanism: This is inaccurate. It is possible for false worldviews to adhere to some aspects of truth, therefore proving that Calvinism has some link to Manicheanism doesn’t prove Calvinism is false. Wilson is saying Augustinianism is not rooted or founded in the early church writings therefore it most likely originated from other gnostic, neoplatonic and Manichean roots, which brings into question its validity as the correct interpretive grid.
  3. Wilson is arguing Augustinianism imports Manicheanism into Christianity because it uses similar words: This is also untrue. Just because Mani spoke of “the elect” and Calvinists also emphasize “the elect” does not mean they are necessarily linked, or even have the same definitions. Wilson is not attempting to argue that all aspects or jargon of the Manichean worldview are linked to the all aspects or jargon within the Calvinistic worldview. Wilson is only looking at the one common point of connection, namely deterministic philosophy, which was first introduced by Augustine, a former Manichean.
  4. James White’s criticism has accurately portrayed Wilson’s arguments and showed Wilson’s bias: This is demonstrably untrue as will be shown in this video and in many of the articles posted at www.soteriology101.com.
  5. If it can be proven that Wilson held to preconception of the ECFs and Augustine’s beliefs before doing his research, then his subsequent research is invalid: Again this is false. Even if it could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Wilson firmly believed the ECFs denied TULIP theology and that Augustine was the first to introduce it, this does not make his findings invalid. One would still need to demonstrate that Wilson’s bias lead to poor research.

Here are quotes from Reformed historians who validate the foundational claims of Wilson’s work:

Herman Bavinck:

  • In the early church, at a time when it had to contend with pagan fatalism and gnostic naturalism, its representatives focused exclusively on the moral nature, freedom, and responsibility of humans and could not do justice, therefore, to the teaching of Scripture concerning the counsel of God. Though humans had been more or less corrupted by sin, they remained free and were able to accept the proffered grace of God. The church’s teaching did not include a doctrine of absolute predestination and irresistible grace.

Loraine Boettner:

  • “It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century….They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination… They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free … this cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine…“

Robert Peterson and Michael Williams of Covenant Theological Seminary:

  • “The Semi-Pelagians were convinced that Augustine’s monergistic emphasis upon salvation by grace alone represented a significant departure from the traditional teaching of the church. And a survey of the thought of the apostolic father’s shows that the argument is valid… In comparison to Augustine’s monergistic doctrine of grace, the teachings of the apostolic fathers tended toward a synergistic view of redemption” (36).

Louis Berkhof [in The History of Christian Doctrines]:

  • “Their representations are naturally rather indefinite, imperfect, and incomplete, and sometimes even erroneous and self-contradictory. Says Kahnis: “It stands as an assured fact, a fact knowing no exceptions, and acknowledged by all well versed in the matter, that all of the pre-Augustinian Fathers taught that in the appropriation of salvation there is a co-working of freedom and grace.”

Berkhof goes on to admit that “they do not hold to an entire corruption of the human will, and consequently adhere to the synergistic theory of regeneration…” (130).

In other words, despite White’s assertions to the contrary, there were no “monergists” before Augustine.

An additional — fuller quote of Loraine Boettner from above:

  • “It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the Gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God’s absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect.” — from Loraine Boettner’s “Calvinism in History”

Here is chapter two from Ken Wilson’s book, “The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism” (PDF as well)

Here is a good review of the book via the South African Theological Seminary.

See also my first post commenting on this issue.

Chapter 2

Early Christian Authors 95–400 CE

Early Christian authors unanimously taught relational divine eternal predetermination. God elected persons to salvation based upon foreknowledge of their faith (predestination). These Christians vigorously opposed the unilateral determinism of Stoic Providence, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism.[48] So early Christians taught predestination,[49] but refuted Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies (unilateral determinism). This unilateral determinism can be identified in ancient Iranian religion, then chronologically in the Qumranites, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism. “Christian” heretics such as Basilides who taught God unilaterally bestowed the gift of faith to only some persons (and withheld that salvific gift to others) were condemned. Of the eighty-four pre-Augustinian authors studied from 95–430 CE, over fifty addressed this topic. All of these early Christian authors championed traditional free choice and relational predestination against pagan and heretical Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies.[50]

This can only be understood and appreciated by reading comprehensively through the sizeable number of works by these authors. Some persons triumphantly cite ancient Christian authors claiming they believe Augustine’s deterministic interpretations of scripture, but without reading the entire context or without understanding the way in which words were being used.[51] I am not aware of any Patristics (early church fathers) scholar who would or could make a claim that even one Christian author prior to Augustine taught Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies (DUPIED, i.e., non-relational determinism unrelated to foreknowledge of human choices).

I. Apostolic Fathers and Apologists 95–180 CE

Most of these works do not directly address God’s sovereignty or free will.[52] The Epistle of Barnabas (100–120 CE) admits the corruption of human nature (Barn.16.7) but only physical death (not spiritual) results from Adam’s fall. Personal sins cause a wicked heart (Barn.12.5). Divine foreknowledge of human choices allowed the Jews to make choices and remain within God’s plan, resulting in their own self-determination (Barn.3.6). God’s justice is connected with human responsibility (Barn.5.4). Therefore, God’s foreknowledge of human choices should affect God’s actions regarding salvation.

In The Epistle of Diognetus (120–170 CE) God does not compel anyone. Instead, God foreknows choices by which he correspondingly chooses his responses to humans. Meecham writes of Diogn.10.1–11.8, “Free-will is implied in his capacity to become ‘a new man’ (ii,I), and in God’s attitude of appeal rather than compulsion (vii, 4).”[53] Aristides (ca.125–170 CE) taught newborns enter the world without sin or guilt: only personal sin incurs punishment.[54]

II. Justin Martyr and Tatian

The first author to write more specifically on divine sovereignty and human free will is Justin Martyr (ca.155 CE). Erwin Goodenough explained:

Justin everywhere is positive in his assertion that the results of the struggle are fairly to be imputed to the blame of each individual. The Stoic determinism he indignantly rejects. Unless man is himself responsible for his ethical conduct, the entire ethical scheme of the universe collapses, and with it the very existence of God himself.[55]

Commenting on Dial.140.4 and 141.2, Barnard concurred, saying God “foreknows everything—not because events are necessary, nor because he has decreed that men shall act as they do or be what they are; but foreseeing all events he ordains reward or punishment accordingly.”[56] After considering 1 Apol.28 and 43, Chadwick also agreed. “Justin’s insistence on freedom and responsibility as God’s gift to man and his criticism of Stoic fatalism and of all moral relativism are so frequently repeated that it is safe to assume that here he saw a distinctively Christian emphasis requiring special stress.”[57] Similarly, Barnard wrote: “Justin, in spite of his failure to grasp the corporate nature of sin, was no Pelagian blindly believing in man’s innate power to elevate himself. All was due, he says, to the Incarnation of the Son of God.”[58]

Tatian (ca.165) taught that free choice for good was available to every person. “Since all men have free will, all men therefore have the potential to turn to God to achieve salvation.”[59] This remains true even though Adam’s fall enslaved humans to sin (Or.11.2). The fall is reversed through a personal choice to receive God’s gift in Christ (Or.15.4). Free choice was the basis of God’s rewards and punishments for both angels and humans (Or.7.1–2).

II. Theophilus, Athenagoras, and Melito

Theophilus (ca.180), all creation sinned in Adam and received the punishment of physical decay, not eternal death or total inability (Autol.2.17). Theophilus’ insistence upon a free choice response to God (Autol.2.27) occurs following his longer discussion of the primeval state in the Garden and subsequent fall of Adam. Christianity’s gracious God provides even fallen Adam with opportunity for repentance and confession (Autol.2.26). Theophilus exhorts Christians to overcome sin through their residual free choice (Autol.1.2, 1.7).

Athenagoras (ca.170 CE) believed infants were innocent and therefore could not be judged and used them as a proof for a bodily resurrection prior to judgment (De resurr.14). For God’s punishment to be just, free choice stands paramount. Why?—because God created both angels and persons with free choice for the purpose of assuming responsibility for their own actions (De resurr.24.4–5)[60] Humans and angels can live virtuously or viciously: “This, says Athenagoras, is a matter of free choice, a free will given the creature by the creator.”[61] Without free choice, the punishment or rewarding of both humans and angels would be unjust.

In Peri Pascha 326–388, Melito (ca.175 CE) possibly surpassed any extant Christian author in an extended description depicting the devastation of Adam’s fall.[62] The scholar Lynn Cohick explained: “The homilist leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that humans have degenerated from a pristine state in the garden of Eden, where they were morally innocent, to a level of complete and utter perversion.”[63] Despite this profound depravity, all persons remain capable of believing in Christ through their own God-given free choice. No special grace is needed. A cause and effect relationship exists between human free choice and God’s response (P.P.739–744). “There is no suggestion that sinfulness is itself communicated to Adam’s progeny as in later Augustinian teaching.”[64]

B. Christian Authors 180–250 CE

I. Irenaeus of Lyons

Irenaeus of Lyons (ca.185) wrote primarily against Gnostic deterministic salvation in his famous work Adversus Haereses. “One position fundamental to Irenaeus is that man should come to moral good by the action of his own moral will, and not spontaneously and by nature.”[65] Physical death for the human race from Adam’s sin was not so much a punishment as God’s gracious gift to prevent humans from living eternally in a perpetual state of struggling with sin (Adv. haer.3.35.2).

Irenaeus championed humanity’s free will for four reasons: (1) to refute Gnostic Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies, (2) because humanity’s persisting imago Dei (image of God within humans) demands a persisting free will, (3) scriptural commands demand free will for legitimacy, and (4) God’s justice becomes impugned without free will (genuine, not Stoic “non-free free will”). These were non-negotiable “apostolic doctrines.” Scholars Wingren and Donovan both identify Irenaeus’ conception of the imago Dei as freedom of choice itself. As Donovan relates: “This strong affirmation of human liberty is at the same time a clear rejection of the Gnostic notion of predetermined natures.”[66]

Andia clarified that God’s justice requires free choice since Irenaeus believed God’s providence created all persons equally.[67] In refuting Gnostic determinism (Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies), Irenaeus argues that God determines persons’ eternal destinies through foreknowledge of the free choices of persons (Adv. haer.2.29.1; 4.37.2–5; 4.29.1–2; 3.12.2,5,11; 3.32.1; 4.14, 4.34.1, 4.61.2). Irenaeus attacked both Stoicism and Gnostic heresies because DUPIED made salvation by faith superfluous, and made Christ’s incarnation unnecessary.[68] Irenaeus taught God’s predestination. This was based on God’s foreknowledge of human choices without God constraining the human will as in Gnostic determinism.[69]

Irenaeus denied that any event could ever occur outside of God’s sovereignty (Adv. haer.2.5.4), but simultaneously emphasized residual human free choice to receive God’s gift, which only then results in regeneration. “The essential principle in the concept of freedom appears first in Christ’s status as the sovereign Lord, because for Irenaeus man’s freedom is, strangely enough, a direct expression of God’s omnipotence, so direct in fact, that a diminution of man’s freedom automatically involves a corresponding diminution of God’s omnipotence.”[70] Although he exalted God’s sovereignty, it was not (erroneously) defined as God receiving everything he desires.[71] The scholar Denis Minns correctly states, “Irenaeus would insist as vigorously as Augustine that nothing could be achieved without grace. But he would have been appalled at the thought that God would offer grace to some and withhold it from others.”[72]

II. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian

Clement of Alexandria (ca.190) strongly defends a residual human free choice after Adam (Strom.1.1; cf. 4.24, 5.14). Divine foreknowledge determines divine election (Strom.1.18; 6.14). Clement understood that God calls all (lläv1ωv iοίvuv àvOρdrnωv)—every human, not a few of every kind of human —whereas, “the called” are those who respond. He believed that if God exercised Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies (as the Marcionites and Gnostics believed), then he would not be the just and good Christian God but the heretical God of Marcion (Strom.5.1).

Clement refuted the followers of the Gnostic Marcion who believed initial faith was God’s gift. Why?—it robbed humans of free choice (Strom.2.3–4; cf. Strom.4.11, Quis dives Salvetur 10). Yet Clement does not believe free choice saves persons as a human work (cf. John 1:13). He teaches God must first draw and call every human to himself, since all have the greatest need for the power of divine grace (Strom.5.1). God does not initiate a mystical (i.e., Neoplatonic) inward draw to each of his elect. Instead, the Father previously revealed himself and drew every human through Old Testament scripture, but now reveals himself and draws all humanity equally to himself through Christ and the New Testament (cf. John 12:32; Strom.7.1–2).[73]

Tertullian (ca.205) wrote that despite a corrupted nature, humans possess a residual capacity to accept God’s gift based upon the good divine image (the “proper nature”) still resident within every human (De anima 22). Every person retains the capacity to believe. He refuted Gnosticism’s discriminatory deterministic salvation (Val.29). God remains sovereign while he permits good and evil, because he foreknows what will occur by human free choice (Cult. fem.2.10). Humans can and should respond to God by using their God-given innate imago Dei free choice. Therefore, Tertullian did not approve of an “innocent” infant being baptized before responding personally to God’s gift of grace through hearing and believing the gospel (De baptismo 18). He believed that children should await baptism until they are old enough to personally believe in Christ.

III. Origen of Alexandria

Origen (ca.185–254) advances scriptural arguments for free choice that fill the third book of De principiis (P. Arch.3.1.6). “This also is definite in the teaching of the Church, every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition” that can choose the good (Princ., Pref.5). God does not coerce humans or directly influence individuals but instead only invites. Why?—because God desires willing lovers. Just as Paul asked Philemon to voluntarily (κατὰ Eκοuσιοv) act in goodness (Phlm. 1.14), so God desires uncoerced lovers (Hom. Jer.20.2). Origen explains how God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. God sends divine signs/events that Pharaoh rejects and hardens his own heart. God’s hardening is indirect. “Now these passages are sufficient of themselves to trouble the multitude, as if man were not possessed of free will, but as if it were God who saves and destroys whom he will” (Princ. 3.1.7). Origen distinguishes between God’s temporal blessings and eternal destinies in Romans 9–11, rejecting the Gnostic eternal salvation view from these chapters.

Initial faith is human faith, not a divine gift. “The apostles, once understanding that faith which is only human cannot be perfected unless that which comes from God should be added to it, they say to the Savior, ‘Increase our faith.'” (Com.Rom.4.5.3). God desires to give the inheritance of the promises not as something due from debt but through grace. Origen says that the inheritance from God is granted to those who believe, not as the debt of a wage but as a gift of [human] faith (Com.Rom.4.5.1).[74]

Election is based upon divine foreknowledge. “For the Creator makes vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor, not from the beginning according to His foreknowledge, since He does not pre-condemn or pre-justify according to it; but (He makes) those into vessels of honor who purged themselves, and those into vessels of dishonor who allowed themselves to remain unpurged” (P.Arch.3.1.21). Origen does not refute divine foreknowledge resulting in election but refutes the philosophical view of foreknowledge as necessarily causative, which Celsus taught:

Celsus imagines that an event, predicted through foreknowledge, comes to pass because it was predicted; but we do not grant this, maintaining that he who foretold it was not the cause of its happening, because he foretold it would happen; but the future event itself, which would have taken place though not predicted, afforded the occasion to him, who was endowed with foreknowledge, of foretelling its occurrence (C.Cels.2.20).

Origen explains the Christian interpretation of Rom 9:16.[75] The Gnostic and heretical deterministic interpretations render God’s words superfluous, and invalidate Paul’s chastisements and approbations to Christians. Nevertheless, the human desire/will is insufficient to accomplish salvation, so Christians must rely upon God’s grace (P. Arch.3.1.18). Origen does not minimize the innate human sin principle that incites persons to sin. Rather, he chastises immature Christians who blame their sins on the devil instead of their own passions (Princ.3.2.1–2; P. Arch.3.1.15).

IV. Cyprian and Novatian

Cyprian (d.254 CE) taught God stands sovereign (Treat.3.19; 5.56.8; 12.80). Yet, God rewards or punishes based upon his foreknowledge of human choices and responses (Treat.7.17, 19; Ep.59.2). Humans retain free choice despite Adam’s sin (Treat.7.17, 19).[76] “That the liberty of believing or of not believing is placed in freedom of choice” (Treat.12.52). Jesus utilized persuasion, not force (Treat.9.6). Obedience resulting in martyrdom should arise from free choice, not necessity (Treat. 7.18), especially since imitating Christ restores God’s likeness.

Novatian (ca.250 CE) teaches a personal responsibility for sin instead of guilt from Adam, because a person who is pre-determined due to (even fallen) nature cannot be held liable. Only a willful decision can incur guilt (De cib. Jud.3). Lactantius (ca.315 CE) taught Adam’s fall produced only physical death (not eternal death) through the loss of God’s perpetually gifted immortality (Inst.2.13), as Williams correctly identified.[77] Yet, mortality in a corrupted human body predisposed the human race to sin (Inst.6.13). God loves every person equally, offers immortality equally to each person, and every human is capable of responding to God’s offer—without divine intervention (Div.inst.5.15) “God, who is the guide of that way, denies immortality to no human being” but offers salvation equally to every person (Div.inst.6.3). Humanity must contend with its propensity to sin, but the corrupted nature provides no excuse since free choice persists (Inst.2.15; 4.24; 4.25; 5.1). He consistently teaches Christian free choice (Inst.5.10, 13, 14).

C. Christian Authors 250–400 CE

I. Hilary of Poitiers

Hilary (d.368 CE) referred to John 1:12–13 as God’s offer of salvation that is equally offered to everyone. “They who do receive Him by virtue of their faith advance to be sons of God, being born not of the embrace of the flesh nor of the conception of the blood nor of bodily desire, but of God […] the Divine gift is offered to all, it is no heredity inevitably imprinted but a prize awarded to willing choice” (Trin.1.10–11). Human nature has a propensity to evil (Trin.3.21; Hom. Psa.1.4) that is located in the physical body (Hom. Psa.1.13). Human free choice elicits the divine gift, yet the divine birth (through faith) belongs solely to God. A human ‘will’ cannot create the birth (Trin.12.56) yet that birth occurs through human faith.

II. The Cappadocians

Gregory of Nazianzus (ca.329–389 CE) writes frequently of the “fall of sin” from Adam (Or.1; 33.9; 40.7), including the evil consequence of that original sin (Or.45.12). “We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness” (Or.45.22). Salvation (not faith) is God’s gift. “We call it the Gift, because it is given to us in return for nothing on our part” (Or.40.4). “This, indeed, was the will of Supreme Goodness, to make the good even our own, not only because it was sown in our nature, but because cultivated by our own choice, and by the motions of our free will to act in either direction.” (Or.2.17). “Our soul is self-determining and independent, choosing as it will with sovereignty over itself that which is pleasing to it” (Ref.Conf. Eun.139). Children are born blameless (Ep.206). God is sovereign, and Christ died for all humankind, including the ‘non-elect.’ (Or.45.26; cf. Or.38.14). Nevertheless, in matters of personal salvation, God limits himself, allowing humans free choice (Or.32.25, 45.8).

Basil of Caesarea (ca.330–379 CE) believed humans do not inherit sin or evil, but choose to sin resulting in death. We control our own actions, proved by God’s payment and punishment (Hom. Hex.2.4). He promotes God’s sovereignty over human temporal (not eternal) destinies, including our time of death by “God who ordains our lots” (Ep.269) yet he refutes micromanaging Stoic Providence (Ep.151). God empowers human faith for great works because mere human effort cannot accomplish divine good (Ep.260.9). Basil allowed no place for either Chaldean astrological fatalism (Hom. Hex.6.5; Ep.236), or Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies. Righteous judgment resulting in reward and punishment demands Christian traditional free choice. In contrast, any concept of inevitable evil in humans necessarily destroys Christian hope (Hom. Hex.6.7) because all humans have an innate natural reason with the ability to do good and avoid evil (Hom. Hex.8.5; cf. Ep.260.7). Basil refuted a dozen heresies, but reserved his strongest denunciation for the one teaching determinism—”the detestable Manichaean heresy” (Hom. Hex.2.4).

Gregory of Nyssa (ca.335–395 CE) pervasively teaches a post-Adamic congenital weakness, inclined to evil and in slavery to sin but without guilt (C. Eun.1.1; 3.2–3; 3.8; De opificio hom.193; Cat. mag.6, 35; Ep.18; Ref. conf. Eun.; Dial. anim. et res., etc.). Each person’s alienation from God occurs through personal sin and vice, not Adam’s sin (C. Eun.3.10). Despite an inherited tendency to evil, the divine image within humans retains goodness, just as Tertullian and others had taught (Opif. hom.164; cf. Ep.3.17).[78] Humanity’s ruin and inability to achieve eternal life by self-effort demanded God initiate the rescue through Christ (Ref. conf. Eun.418–20). But Gregory refutes the idea of a human nature so corrupted that it would render an individual incapable of a genuine choice to receive God’s readily available gift of grace offered to everyone equally.

By appealing to the justice of God’s recompenses, Gregory refutes those [e.g., Manichaeans] who believe humans are born sinful and thus culpable (De anim.120). The choice for salvation belongs to humans, apart from God’s manipulation, coercion, or unilateral intervention (C. Eun.3.1.116–18; cf. Adv. Mac. spir. sancto 105–6; De virginitate 12.2–3). Gregory upholds Christian [not Stoic] divine sovereignty (Ref. conf. Eun. 169; cf. 126–27; Opif. hom.185).

III. Methodius, Theodore, and Ambrose

Methodius (d.312 CE) believed all humans retain genuine free will even after Adam’s fall since Christian free choice was necessary for God to be just in rewarding the good and punishing the wicked (Symp.8.16; P G 18:168d). He championed traditional Christian free choice in a major work against Gnostic determinism (Peri tou autexousiou, 73–77).[79] Cyril of Jerusalem (ca.348–386 CE) taught humans enter this world sinless (Cat.4.19) and God’s foreknowledge of human responses determines the divine choosing of them for service (Cat.1.3).

Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca.350–428 CE) defended traditional original sin against Manichaean damnable inherited guilt (Adv. def. orig. pecc.), so that, “Man’s freedom takes the first step, which is afterwards made effective by God … [with] the will of each man as being absolutely free and unbiased and able to choose either good or evil.”[80] Humans retain the ability to choose good and evil (Comm. Ioh.5.19).

Ambrose of Milan (d.397 CE) baptized Augustine in Milan on Easter in 387 CE. He taught traditional (not Augustinian) original sin (De fide 5.5, 8, 60; Exc. Satyri 2.6; cf. 1.4). Ambrose believed slavery to sin [the sin propensity] was inherited, but this was not literal sin that produced personal culpability and damnation (De Abrah.2.79). The scholar Paul Blowers noted, “Ambrosiaster (Rom.5:12ff) and Ambrose (Enar.in Ps.38.29) … both authors concluded that individuals were ultimately accountable only for their own sins.”[81]

Ambrose emphasized God predestined individuals based upon his foreknowledge of the future, concerning which God was omniscient (Ep.57; De fide 2.11, 97). God compels no one, but patiently waits for a human response in order that He may provide grace, preferring pity over punishment (Paen.1.5). He insisted upon residual free choice and views an increase in a person’s faith (not initial faith) as a divine gift given in response to faithfulness. (Paen.1.48; Ep.41.6).

D. Conclusion

Not even one early church father writing from 95–430 CE—despite abundant acknowledgement of inherited human depravity—considered Adam’s fall to have erased human free choice to independently respond to God’s gracious invitation.[82] God did not give initial faith as a gift. Humans could do nothing to save themselves—only God’s grace could save. Total inability to do God’s good works without God’s grace did not mean inability to believe in Christ and prepare for baptism. No Christian author embraced deterministic Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies (DUPIED): all who considered it rejected DUPIED as an erroneous pagan Stoic or Neoplatonic philosophy, or a Gnostic or Manichaean heresy, unbefitting Christianity’s gracious relational God. God’s gift was salvation by divine grace through human faith (cf. Eph. 2:8), not a unilateral initial faith gift, as the Gnostics and Manichaean heretics were claiming. Early Christian literature could be distinguished from Gnostic and Manichaean literature by this essential element.

In a seemingly rare theological unanimity over hundreds of years and throughout the entire Mediterranean world, a Christian regula fidei (rule of faith) of free choice (advocated by Origen as the rule of faith) combated the Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies espoused in Stoicism’s “non-free free will” and Gnosticism’s divine gift of infused initial faith into a “dead will.” The loving Christian God allowed humans to exercise their God-given free will.

Graph
Click To Enlarge

Footnotes
Abbreviations from Ken Wilsons Augustine Book (PDF)

[48] Sarah Stroumsa and Guy. G. Stroumsa, “Anti-Manichaean Polemics in Late Antiquity and under Early Islam,” HTR 81 (1988): 48.

[49] Wallace wrongly claims, “In spite of the numerous New Testament references to predestination, patristic writers, especially the Greek fathers, tended to ignore the theme before Augustine of Hippo. This was probably partly the result of the early church’s struggle with the fatalistic determinism of the Gnostics”; Dewey Wallace, Jr. “Free Will and Predestination: An Overview,” in Lindsay Jones, ed. The Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd edn., vol.5. (Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005), 3203. He obviously had not read Irenaeus and other early authors. For a cogent refutation of this absurd claim, see in the same volume C.T. McIntire (2005), “Free Will and Predestination: Christian Concepts,” vol.5, 3207.

[50] Wilson, Augustine’s Conversion, Appendix III, 307–309.

[51] Wilson, Augustine’s Conversion, 41–94, and see other comments in the work revealing how this occurs.

[52] For The Shepherd of Hermas and other works not covered here see Wilson, Augustine’s Conversion, 41–50.

[53] Henry Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus: The Greek Text (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1949), 29–30.

[54] Harold Forshey, “The doctrine of the fall and original sin in the second century,” Restoration Quarterly 3 (1959): 1122, “But in this instance the doctrinal presupposition shows through clearly—a child comes into the world with a tabula rasa.“

[55] Erwin Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr (Jena: Verlag Frommannsche Buchhandlung, 1923), 219.

[56] Leslie Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 78.

[57] Henry Chadwick, “Justin Martyr’s Defence of Christianity,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47.2 (1965): 284; cf., 291–292.

[58] Barnard (1967), 156.

[59] Emily Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century: The Case of Tatian (New York, NY: Routledge, 2003), 49.

[60] Bernard Pouderon, Athénagore d’Athênes, philosophie chrétien (Paris: Beauchesne, 1989), 177– 178. Pouderon highlighted this requisite for God’s law and justice: “La liberté humaine se tire de la notion de responsabilité: ‘L’homme est responsable (lllóöικοc) en tant qu’ensemble, de toutes ses actions’ (D.R.XVIII, 4).” “Human freedom results from the concept of responsibility: ‘Man is generally responsible (lllóöικοc) for all his actions.'” (my translation)

[61] David Rankin, Athenagoras: Philosopher and Theologian. Surrey: Ashgate, 2009), 180.

[62] Stuart Hall, Melito of Sardis: On Pascha and Fragments in Henry Chadwick, ed. Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), xvi, where The Petition To Antonius “is now universally regarded as inauthentic.”

[63] Lynn Cohick, The Peri Pascha Attributed to Melito of Sardis: Setting, Purpose, and Sources (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 115.

[64] Hall (1978), xlii.

[65] John Lawson, The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London: The Epworth Press, 1948), 203.

[66] Gustaf Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, trans. by Ross Mackenzie (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1947; repr., London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959), 36; Mary Ann Donovan, “Alive to the Glory of God: A Key Insight in St. Irenaeus,” TS 49 (1988): 291 citing Adv. haer.4.37.

[67] Ysabel de Andia, Homo vivens: incorruptibilité et divinisation de l’homme selon Irénée de Lyons (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1986), 131.

[68] E.P. Meijering, “Irenaeus’ relation to philosophy in the light of his concept of free will,” in E.P. Meijering, ed. God Being History: Studies in Patristic Philosophy (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing, 1975), 23.

[69] James Beaven, An Account of the Life and Times of S. Irenaeus (London: Gilbert and Rivington, 1841), 165–166; F. Montgomery Hitchcock, Irenaeus of Lugdunum: A Study of His Teaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 260; Wingren (1947; repr., 1959), 35–36.

[70] Wingren (1947; repr., 1959), 35–36.

[71] Explained later when discussing Augustine’s later specific sovereignty view.

[72] Denis Minns, Irenaeus (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994), 136.

[73] Modern commentaries on this gospel rarely connect God’s drawing as being through scripture and Christ (John 6:44–45; 5.38–47; 8.19, 31, 47; 12.32). Cf. 1 Pet. 2.2.

[74] This serves as an excellent example of a passage removed from its context by which some persons erroneously attempt to prove an early church father taught faith was God’s gift.

[75] Rom. 9:16, “So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.”

[76] For a refutation of Cyprian as teaching Augustine’s inherited guilt unto damnation see Wilson, Augustine’s Conversion, 77–82.

[77] Norman Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and Original Sin from the Bampton Lectures, Oxford University, 1924 (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1927), 297.

[78] C. Eunomium 24 (on the soul’s ability to see Christ) is probably post-baptismal.

[79] Patrologia orientalis 22:797–801. Cf. Roberta Franchi, Metodio di Olimpo: Il libero arbitrio (Milano: Paoline, 2015).

[80] Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies (London: Murray, 1911), “Theodore, III.B.f.” This suggests Macarius was incorrect when he assumed that this work by Theodore was anti-Augustinian. It is defending traditional freedom of choice versus eternal damnation by inherited sin from being born physically, a Manichaean doctrine. The quotation is from Reginald Moxon, The Doctrine of Sin (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1922), 40.

[81] Paul Blowers, “Original Sin,” in Everett Ferguson, ed. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. 2nd edn. (New York, NY: Routledge, 1999), 839–840.

In discussion with a friend who seemed like he did not watch the below video, I noted:

Calvinistic historian, Loraine Boettner, concedes that the concept of individual effectual election to salvation “was first clearly seen by Augustine” in the fifth century. John Calvin admits that his theology was first clearly seen in Augustine. Many reformers stood against many of these ideas… the scholar/Greek reader of the bunch, Phillipe Melanchthon, as well. Others were killed, like my homeboy Hubmaier.  

We know currently – not standing in heaven after we pass, by Scripture  –  that God has allowed His prevenient grace to work thru Scripture [sharper than any two-edged sword] to change minds.

For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

In the 5-point system God chooses wholly who believes and who does not. In other words, I do not believe God chose before creation who would be saved and who would not. It would be like the evil guy in the Incredibles – Omnidroid – who made the evil robots to destroy them in order to look like the good guy. When people realize the 5-points do this to the God of the Bible [Augustinianism], they understand how shallow the God of those points are.

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, gives a history lesson on the soteriological influence of Augustine and the Reformers in contrast to the Earlier church leaders and apologists. For more on Dr Ken Wilson’s work: Did the Early Church Fathers teach “Calvinism?”

There has been an attempt to respond to this, however, as you will see some misquoting is going on

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, is joined by Dr. Ken Wilson to discuss the history of Determinism in the church.

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, answers a listener submitted question about whether Calvinism is a form of Gnosticism.

UPDATED:

David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke (gen editors), Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 220-221, 225-226. From Kenneth Wilson’s chapter titled, “Calvinism is Augustinianism.”

  • Acronym below you need to know, DUPED: Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies (unconditional election)

Gnostics and Manichaeans Abused Christian
Scriptures to Prove Determinism

Gnostics and Manichaeans usurped Christian Scriptures to argue for their deterministic theologies. They were able to interpret certain passages through their own deterministic lenses and discover their own doctrines (eisegesis). Irenaeus (ca. AD 180) warned Christians about these heretical misuses of Scripture by Gnostics in his major book Against All Heresies.

Gnostics/Manichaeans had cited Rom 9:18–31 to prove DUPED (Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies | unconditional election) with humans having no choice (Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, 11.10–12 and Origen, Peri Archon, 3.1.21). Gnostics taught that divine foreknowledge proved pagan absolute determinism (Origen, Contra Celsum, 2.20; Philocalia, 23.7). They used Phil 2:13 to teach God gifted the “good will” only to the unilaterally chosen elect, resulting in salvation (Peri Archon, 3.1.20). The Valentinian Gnostics taught divine determinism without human free choice by using Romans 11 in a Stoic interpretation of sovereignty (Clement, Excerpta ex Theodoto, 56.3–27).[20]

The Manichaeans appealed to John 6:44–45 and 14:6. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (6:44) proved DUPED devoid of human choice/will (Contra litteras Petiliani, 2.185–186; Contra Fortunatum Manichaeum, 3; Ibid., 16–22). Manichaeans used Psalm 51:5 to prove all humans were damned at birth due to Adam’s sin (that Augustine refuted in Contra litteras Petiliani, 2.232). The 1 John 2:2 text had been used to argue Christ died only for the elect (Origen, Commentarii in evangelium Iohannis, 6.59; Commentarii Romanos, 3.8.13). Fortunatus the Manichaean cited Eph 2:3, 8–10 to support meticulous providence. Since spiritually dead persons cannot respond positively, God must unilaterally choose only the elect in rigid determinism by infusing faith (Contra Fortunatum Manichaeum, 14–21). Augustine, however, following the lead of all prior Christian authors, refuted the fatalistic determinism of Fortunatus and these Manichaean abuses of Scripture for twenty-five years. But, as we will now discover, he later reverted to his prior Manichaean deterministic interpretations [his later 18 years].

[….]

Thus, Augustine abandoned the unanimous consensus of the earlier Christian view and reverted to his Gnostic-Manichaean deterministic interpretations of Christian Scripture in AD 412. This can be best visualized by examining the following chart that compares the different interpretations of key Scripture passages by early Christians, Gnostic-Manichaeans, and Augustinian-Calvinists.

Gnostics and Manichaeans had used these same Christian Scriptures (listed above) for centuries to promote their unilateral determinism. Before Augustine, orthodox Christians had refuted heretical Gnostic and Manichaean DUPED and “interpreted proorizō [election] as depending upon proginoskō (foreknow)—those whom God foreknew would believe he decided upon beforehand to save. Their chief concern was to combat the concept of fatalism and affirm that humans are free to do what is righteous.”31

Augustine’s move toward DUPED was recognized by his peers, so he was accused of reverting to his prior Manichaean theology.32 But as a splendid rhetorician, Augustine defended himself brilliantly by creating a subtle distinction. He modified Gnostic/Manichaean “created human corrupt nature” (producing damnation) into a Christianized “fallen human corrupt nature” in Adam with inherited guilt (producing damnation; Nupt. et conc.2.16). Augustine’s novel nuanced “fallen” nature borrowed a key Gnostic/Manichaean and Neoplatonic doctrine: humans have total inability to respond to God until divinely awakened from spiritual death.

Furthermore, to avoid violating centuries of unanimous Christian teaching, Augustine had to redefine the Christian meaning of free will. He concluded God must micromanage and manipulate the circumstances that guarantee a person would “freely” respond to the invitation of God’s calling to eternal life.33 This should be compared to placing a mouse in a maze, then opening and closing doors so the mouse could “freely” reach the cheese. (In Christian theology that emphasized free will, all doors remained open for the maze traveler to choose his or her own path.) Augustine’s redefined free will was Stoic “non-free free will.” A millennium later, Calvinists would label this divine manipulation of the human free will by the term irresistible grace (God forcing a person to “love” him).

FOOTNOTES

[20] Jeffrey Bingham, “Irenaeus Reads Romans 8: Resurrection and Renovation,” in Early Patristic Readings of Romans, Romans Through History and Culture Series, ed. Kathy L. Gaca and L. L. Welborn (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 114–32.

[….]

[31] Carl Thomas McIntire, “Free Will and Predestination: Christian Concepts,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, 15 vols., ed. Lindsay Jones, 2nd ed. (Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005), 5:3206–9.

[32] C. Jul. imp.1.52. His ordination as a bishop was blocked and almost prevented due to his prior Manichaeism. See Jason D. BeDuhn, “Augustine Accused: Megalius, Manichaeism, and the Inception of the Confessions,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17, no. 1 (2009): 85–124; and Henry Chadwick, “Self-Justification in Augustine’s Confessions,” English Historical Review 178 (2003): 1168. As in the chart above, see Augustine’s Manichaean interpretations of Romans 9–11 (Pecc. merit.29–31, Spir. et litt.50, 60, 66; Nupt.2.31–32, C. du ep. Pelag.2.15, Enchir.98, C. Jul. 3.37,4.15, Corrept. 28); Eph 2:8–10 (Spir. et litt.56, C. du ep. Pelag., Enchir.31, Praed.12); John 14:6 and 6:44, 65 (C. du ep. Pelag.1.7, Grat.3–4,10); and Phil 2:13 (Spir. et litt.42, Grat. Chr.1.6, C. Jul.3.37, 4.15, Grat.32, 38).

[33] Patout Burns, “From Persuasion to Predestination: Augustine on Freedom in Rational Creatures,” in In Dominico Eloquio—In Lordly Eloquence: Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honour of Robert Louis Wilken, ed. Paul M. Blowers, Angela R. Christman, David G. Hunter, and Robin D. Young (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 307.

Balthasar Hubmaier: Baptist History in the Reformation (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) was an influential German Anabaptist leader and one of the most well-known and respected Anabaptist theologians of the Reformation.

Balthasar Hubmaier

It is important that we remember, not only those who were martyred for preaching the truth of salvation by faith in Christ alone, but also those within our Baptist heritage who were martyred for their convictions in Scripture as the final authority and believers’ baptism. Balthasar Hubmaier was one of these men. Learn more about his courageous stand for Christ in this short video.

While he was an early martyr by fellow Reformationists… the firsts were:

The Martyrdom of Felix Manz & George Blaurock

In the closing of his work entitled “Freedom of the Will” he laid out a very strong argument against theistic determinism and fatalism which are the undercurrent of Augustinian philosophy and Calvinist “Sovereignty”.

BAPTIST MARTYRS

This Baptist History is brought to you by Steve Brady at Fairhaven Baptist Church in Chesterton, Indiana. (Full playlist of 50 Baptists You Should Know here)

A little more history on Hubmaier…

Here, you can find more information about our online class program, and how you can earn your Associate in Bible degree online. Whether you are a pastor or a layman wanting to increase your Bible knowledge, a teacher desiring to refine your teaching methods, or someone who is curious about a certain course being offered, we encourage you to register today and begin working toward your degree, and more importantly, furthering your knowledge of the Bible. (Full playlist of Baptist History here)

One of Hubmaier’s best works was his “On The Sword,” sort of his “95-thesis” – so to speak. Here is some discussion of the history of his views on violence.

Shawn sits down with Drew from the Provisionist Perspective to discuss Balthasar Hubmaier’s two works on violence: On Heretics and Those Who Burn Them and On the Sword. This discussion covers how we should treat Christians who disagree with us (don’t burn them at the stake) and how we should relate to government (be a part of it if you can!).

Other worthwhile watches:

Many will simply dismiss people like this with labels, especially the modern movement of Provisionists/Baptist traditionalism.

LABELS

Let me say something to ppl who do not take the time to know what something is and dismiss with labels. Stalin called Lenin a fascist

In similar fashion, we find this “labeling” among the Reformers: See Leighton’e Full Interview of Professor Harwood

Which brings me to an excerpt from a book I have a PDF form of… so the pages and the footnotes will not be properly marked.

As I am going thru this book (pictured), I am rejecting more of my compatibilism and drilling down on a more solid foundation.

Note also how Paul wheels the argument of Romans 1—11 to a climactic conclusion: “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all” (Rom 11:32, emphasis added). Here the scope of God’s intention to have mercy matches the scope of human sinfulness, as indicated by the repeated all. If Paul has already established in Romans 1—3 that all human beings without exception have been consigned to disobedience, then the symmetry of Paul’s expression in Romans 11:32 strongly implies that God intends to have mercy in a similar scope: on all human beings without exception. Even if we allow that Paul may here be referring to Jews and Gentiles as people groups, we must not imagine that God’s desire to show mercy fails to apply to every individual within each group. After all, Paul establishes that all humans are under sin by arguing that both Gentiles (Rom 1:18-32) and Jews (Rom 2:1—3:20) as people groups are under sin. If we accept Paul’s strategy of indicting every individual through indictment of the group, then consistency requires that we allow the same extension to hold with regard to God’s mercy, as Romans 11:32 seems to say.

The Pastoral Epistles abound with passages pointing toward God’s universal saving intentions: “God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3-4); “Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:5-6); “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe” (1 Tim 4:10); “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all” (Tit 2:11). Given the unqualified use of all in these passages to identify those whom God desires to save, the burden of proving otherwise is on those who hold that biblical writers assumed a limitation on those who would be saved.1

Of course Calvinists have offered their own accountings of these passages. Some argue, for example, that the “world” loved by God in John 3:16 must refer only to “the elect within the world.”2 Similarly, they read the unqualified all in restricted senses (e.g., “all types of people” or “all the elect”). Accordingly, the scriptural claim that Jesus died not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world means that Jesus died not only for the sins of (some) Jews but also for the sins of (some) Gentiles. But D. A. Carson, certainly no Arminian sympathizer, considers such moves to be clever but unconvincing exegetical ploys that feebly attempt to overcome “simply too many texts on the other side of the issue.”3 These restrictive interpretations of all require such textual gymnastics that they condemn themselves as invalid.

[….]

…  compatibilism is a popular position among Calvinists, particularly among the philosophically informed, we want to stress that not all Calvinists embrace it. Some Reformed theologians have argued for another option. These writers do not agree with Feinberg that a Calvinist must either give up freedom altogether or accept compatibilism. To the contrary, they hold that we are required by Scripture to accept both God’s control of all things and human freedom, but they insist that it is not up to us to find a way to reconcile these truths. Popular evangelical author J. I. Packer is a proponent of this view. He endorses this position in his widely read book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.

As he notes, divine sovereignty and human responsibility are both clearly taught in Scripture. And he understands sovereignty in the Calvinistic sense that God unconditionally determines everything that happens. “Man is a responsible moral agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled, though he is also a responsible moral agent.”4 Packer identifies this pair of claims as an “antinomy” because he believes we cannot dispense with either one of them, nor can we understand how they are compatible. From the standpoint of finite human reason, it may seem contradictory to affirm both of these claims and therefore impossible to do so. Here is Packer’s advice for dealing with such antinomies.

Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real; put down the semblance of contradiction to the deficiency of your own understanding; think of the two principles as, not rival alternatives, but, in some way that at present you do not grasp, complementary to each other.5

Apparently Packer means to affirm that both determinism and freedom in the libertarian sense are true. It is the affirmation of both of these that produces antinomy. By contrast, the affirmation of determinism and the compatibilist account of freedom produces no such intellectual tension. The resolution of antinomy will need the perspective of eternity, but it is easy to see here and now how freedom and determinism can be held together if one accepts a compatibilist account of freedom.

[….]

Second, we believe that there are large stretches of Scripture that are hard to make sense of if humans aren’t free in the libertarian sense of the word. In chapter two we examined some of these, but now let us consider another one, namely, Jeremiah 7:1-29. In this passage God calls his people to repentance. God enumerates the sins of his people and reminds them that while they were doing such things, he spoke to them again and again (Jer 7:13). But instead of repenting, they persist in idolatry and other self-destructive behavior. God promises to punish them for their sin, but he again reiterates that he repeatedly sent his prophets to them to urge them to obedience (Jer 7:20-26).

This passage is hardly unusual. The book of Jeremiah contains several other similar passages, as do most of the Prophets as well as some other biblical texts. Now the question we want to raise is, what view of freedom is implied in such texts? Of course, as we have already noted, Scripture does not expressly define the nature of our freedom or draw philosophical distinctions for us. But it is still worth asking what sort of freedom is implied by various texts of Scripture.

  1. For a helpful treatment of such terms as all and every in the Pastoral Epistles, see I. Howard Marshall, “Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles,” in The Grace of God and the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1989), pp. 57-63.
  2. See D. A. Carson’s characterization of this point of view in The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2000), p. 17.
  3. Ibid., p. 75.
  4. John S. Feinberg, “God, Freedom and Evil in Calvinist Thinking,” in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995), 2:465.
  5. J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1961), p. 23. […] 21.

So there is wiggle room in orthodoxy – is my main point. Spurgeon is wrong:

And I have my own private opinion, that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism.  I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly.  It is a nickname to call it Calvinism.  Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

— Charles Spurgeon, Spurgeon’s Sermons, vol. I (Baker Books, reprinted 2007), 88-89.

And, I can disagree with Pink:

  • When we say that God is Sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody. — A.W. Pink