Introduction to Systematic Theology: Sunday School Lesson for Dec. 28, 2014

What Is Theology?

Ryrie breaks down theology according to its etymology to show that, “The word ‘theology,’ from θεός (theos), meaning God and λογός (logos) meaning rational expression, means the rational interpretation of religious faith.”1 Therefore, theology, in a broad sense, is anything dealing with a system of religious belief. This definition would include everyone’s belief systems, even that of an atheist. However for our purposes, theology has a much more narrow definition. Theology is anything that is said about God and His work from Scripture. Reasons for this will be explained as we study the Bibliology section.

The Woman Caught in Adultery

This Sermon was preached from John 7:53-8:11

Many probably noticed that I skipped this passage this morning. This is because this section of Scripture requires some special attention with a longer than usual preface. Therefore, I thought it would be best to reserve this discussion for the evening service. 

John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original text. John the apostle did not write this little narrative. In order to explain this, I have to introduce you to what is known as textual criticism. Textual criticism is not looking at the Bible to decide if we like it or not but it is a science that examines handwritten copies of the Bible to determine the words the author originally wrote. Remember, the original words that were written were inspired (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). No where in Scripture does it say that God re-inspires the copies nor does He move the scribes. He providentially preserves His Word (Ps. 12:6-7). We do this because we do not have the original manuscript, or autograph, that the author wrote. We do not have the original letter that was sent to the Philippians and was penned by Paul. We instead have copies of that letter. Textual criticism finds the original words by comparing and contrasting copies of manuscripts. Some manuscripts carry more weight than others because they are thought to be closer to the original. Some factors that would allow a manuscript to be more authoritative would be percentage of agreement with other manuscripts, the date it was written, the location from which it came, the extent of text, and the weight of authority of the manuscript that it was copied from. I say all of this to help you understand why I say that the story of the woman caught in adultery is not a part of the Bible. This narrative is not found in the oldest and most trusted manuscripts. The text in most manuscripts jumps from 7:52 to 8:12. Hart explains the textual evidence as follows.

The external manuscript evidence is strongly in favor of the omission of the episode. Virtually all Alexandrian manuscripts, considered by the majority of scholars to be the oldest and least corrupt manuscripts, omit it, and virtually all Byzantine manuscripts, viewed by the majority of scholars as much later and generally more corrupt, include it. But even when they include it, the episode “floats around” in various locations in the various manuscripts. This indicates great doubt about its inclusion even among the manuscripts that include it. 1

D. A. Carson and Moo give more details.

These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek minuscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian, and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church fathers omit this narrative; in commenting on John they pass from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli (†), indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it at 7:53-8:11, some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and others variously after John 7:44, or 7:36, or 21:25. The diversity of placement confirms (though it cannot establish) the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the substance of the narrative is authentic––a position plausible enough––it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: it includes numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John but are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular. 2

All of the commentaries that I own in print are in agreement with the quotations above. Two of the commentaries even move the exposition to an appendix. A good Bible will have notations about this discussion in the margin. 

Another evidence that confirms that the narrative was not part of the original include the immediate context. The Gospel of John flows very smoothly in continuing the thought of the author if the reader were to skip these verses. Some may object by saying that Jesus casting no stone was a way of leading into the discussion about how Jesus did not come to judge (John 8:15) and that verse 7:53 indicates that the feast was over because they left their makeshift homes. It was tradition during the feast to dwell in booths. The continuing theme in this section of John has been Jesus defending His identity as the Son of God and Messiah. This episode is similar to the test scenes found in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mat. 19:3). 

Unfortunately there is no definite answer for how these verses made it into the Bible. “Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story it authentic.” 3 Perhaps the story was kept alive due to oral tradition and was inserted into the Bible at its present location because it was a good fit. There is nothing conclusive on the matter. 

Commentary

Although the story is most likely not original to the text, there is something that can be learned. Hence, it is worthwhile to examine the story.

7:53. As mentioned previously, it was tradition to stay in booths for the weak of the Feast of Tabernacles, hence the reason for the name. This was to help Israel remember the 40 years Israel spent in the wilderness. The indication from the verse would be that they left the booths and went home. 

8:1-2. It was customary for Jesus to spend the night outside the city. Luke 21:37 talks about Him going the mount of the Olives to stay the night. Also as was His custom, He returns to the temple to teach. 

3-5. The Pharisees brought a woman and set her before a crowd. The reason for doing this was because the woman was an adulterous. However, she was not being accused of being an adulterous, but she was caught in the very act of adultery. Something should set off warning bells though. It takes two to tango and there is only a woman being charged with adultery. Where is the man? Like the Pharisees said, according to the Old Testament Law, an adulteress is supposed to be sentenced to death. But it is supposed to be both the male and the female that are supposed to be sentenced to death (Lev. 20:10). Also, if the Pharisees caught the woman in the act of adultery, there would be no need to bring the woman before Jesus. They would already have sufficient evidence to pronounce judgement upon the man and the woman. The implications of the scenario is that the woman is most definitely guilty of adultery.

It is also unusual that the Pharisees are even bothering with such a transgression. Adultery was common enough that carrying out the death penalty for each case would have been difficult. It was more of a common practice for the husband to divorce the erring wife. 4

6. Now their intentions are made clear. They did these in order to trap Jesus. The Pharisees presented a question to Jesus where there was supposed to be no right answer. He could not say no, or set her free, because the Old Testament Law was very clear on the matter. Yet if Jesus were to say that the woman should be stoned then He would have circumvented the authority of the Roman government. Only the Roman government was allowed to pass the death penalty for crime but events of stoning were something out the Roman government’s control; they were seen as riots. 

No one knows what it was that Jesus wrote in the dirt. There are many theories. “Some suggested that He wrote the sins of the accusers. Others propose that He wrote the words of Exodus 23:1, ‘Do not be a false witness.’” 5 Another theory is that Jesus first wrote down what He was going to say. This was customary of a Roman judge. He would write down the sentence first and read aloud the official record. 6

7. The Pharisees pressed the issue further. They were sure that they had Jesus in a no-win situation. Jesus’ answer is very direct as well. The answer given so to avoid the wrong answer. He decided to instead address the fact that none of these men were without sin. Of course, though, this places Jesus as the only person qualified to cast a stone upon this woman. 

Something that seems strange to me is that if the Pharisees were witnesses of the woman committing adultery, then they would have been the first ones to cast a stone (Deut. 17:6-7). Perhaps this is because the punishment for adultery is death but Leviticus 20:10 does not make clear the method. The whole point though is to try to get Jesus to say the wrong answer. 

8. Jesus then after giving His answer continues to write something in the dirt.

9-10. The men left while Jesus was writing on the ground. The men realized that this situation was not going to work out well for anyone. Even if Jesus did say that she should be stoned, the men would have to put an end to a woman’s life. The men started to be convicted about starting the whole scene. The eldest men probably left first because they were the wisest and realized how grotesque the scene really was. Soon all the men left and only Jesus and the woman was left. Them being left alone carried the connotation of them being abandoned. The men realized it was better to abandon the case. 

Perhaps the woman’s answer to Jesus’ question confirms that the whole scene was a set up. No one really condemned her. 

11. Jesus does not condone her sin by that He does not condemn her. This is cleared up by the fact that Jesus tells her to go and sin no more. One would certainly hope that this woman would understand the amount of grace that she just received if truly was caught as an adulteress.

Endnotes

1. John F. Hart, “John,” in The Moody Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary on the Whole Bible by the Faculty of Moody Bible Institute, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1630.

2. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, eds., An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 273-4.

3. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1971), 883.

4. Ibid, 887n19. 

5. Edwin A. Blum, “John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, vol. 2, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 1983), 347.

6. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 888n22.

I Am the Light of the World

This sermon was preached from John 8:12-30.



John 8:12 comes on the heels of 7:52. The setting is same as it was for the previous chapter. Therefore, Jesus is still speaking to the Pharisees during the last day of the feast of tabernacles. He is still confronting the same people as He was in the previous chapter.

A lot of the themes that will be seen in this section should feel familiar to us. Back in John 5:18-47 there repetitions of the words judge, judgment, and witness. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus. The scene played out very much like a court room. The Pharisees and Sadducees were trying to determine if they should have Jesus executed for committing claims of blasphemy. This chapter will play out in much the same way.

Let us not forget either why this gospel was written, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31). This discourse is recorded to help reinforce this idea.

12. Jesus’ claim of equivalency to light is a claim to deity. This is another one of the famous “I am” statements in the Gospel of John. The first was seen in John 4:26 (in the Greek) and the second one was seen in John 6:35 (“I am the bread of life”). There multiple times in this sermon and the of the chapter that we will see the “I am” reference again, though, sometimes only in the Greek. This claim of being the light should also be familiar to the reader because it was also mentioned in the prologue (John 1:9). Light is typically used to metaphorically illustrate God’s holiness and righteousness (cf. John 3:19-21).

Jesus could also be using one of the daily ritual practices used during the feast of tabernacles. He did this before in 7:37 when the priest would have been pouring out the water into the basin.

A major feature of the Feast of Tabernacles was the lighting of giant lamps in the women’s court in the temple. The wicks were made from the priests’ worn-out garments. The light illuminated the temple area and the people gather to sing praises and dance. The light reminded the Jewish people of how God was with them in their wanderings in the wilderness in a pillar of cloud which turned to fire at night (Num. 9:15-23). 1 

Thus when the people were in the one of the most crowded courts of the temple and the lamp stand was there, Jesus used the lamps to illustrate who He is.

Jesus makes the promise that all that follow Him will not walk/live in darkness. They will no longer stumble. They will be able to see the correct place to set their feet. This is a metaphor to explain that those who believe in Jesus will understand the ways of righteousness and will make the effort to avoid sin. No one like to be in the darkness. You can not see where you are going in the dark. You’re afraid that you will stumble, fall into a pit or be attacked by a robber. Jesus equates unbelief to walking in darkness. You will eventually hurt yourself because you cannot see even though you don’t want to get hurt. No one enjoys stubbing their toe. Sin is no different. We may think that we are ok but really we only stubbing our toe or falling into a pit.

13. This is where we start to see a court room scene again. The Pharisees decide to challenge Jesus’ claim that He is the light of the world. Jesus stands alone in His claim, at least that is what the Pharisees think. In a court of law if only one individual claims that something happened but everyone else denies the event and the evidence correlates with the majority, then everyone accuse the lone person’s testimony to be false. This would make the lone witness a liar.

14. Jesus clarifies His claim. Just because He is the only one that is making these claims does not make His testimony false. There is no valid witness that contradicts what Jesus is saying. Not only this, Jesus makes it very clear that His testimony is true – that what He is saying is the truth. There is an emphasis going on in the Greek between that of Jesus’ “myself” and “ye.” Jesus is trying to point out that do not know Him. They can not point out that what Jesus is saying is false because they have no grounds to do so. Just like so many teens say when they are deflecting criticism, “You don’t know me.”

15-16. These two verses seem a little confusing. Jesus was pointing out that these men were only judging Him according to what they see, not according to what Jesus is saying.

The second half of this verse seems to contradict what Jesus said back in John 5:22 and 30. Jesus is talking about the reason as to why He is was on the earth during the first advent. When Jesus does judge, it will be at the last day. Jesus even points out that the judgement will be according to the ways of God, as opposed to the ways of man. God’s judgement is far more superior because of His omniscience and His holiness. This means that all deeds, whether hidden or open, will be brought into judgement. This is something that should scare everyone.

17-18. Jesus points to the law to remind the Pharisees that there needs to be two witnesses before any can come to a verdict to decide a matter (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). One witness could be stating a case that a person is guilty and should receive the death penalty. However, if one witness was good enough to convict, then there would be numerous false witnesses that accuse someone of a false crime in order to be rid of their enemy. Two or three witnesses were necessary in order to find out the truth of a matter.

I feel that it might be possible that Jesus was also pointing out a Rabbinic law. I say this because Jesus says, “your law,” instead of “the law.” 2 Perhaps He was talking about their oral tradition of interpretation concerning the law. This would be interesting if this is the case because Jesus is appealing to Rabbinic tradition rather than the law. Perhaps this could be seen as a parallel to the same kind of appeal that He made concerning circumcision on the sabbath (John 7:22-23).
Jesus points to two witnesses – Himself and His Father. Again, like He has done so many times before, Jesus states that the Father sent Him. We see an “I am,” in the Greek. It is the same construction that we have seen in the previous “I am” statements. The Greek literally reads, “I am the witnesses for/concerning Myself.” 3

19. Because Jesus appealed to His Father, the Pharisees think that they should be able to hear the testimony that His Father would give. The Pharisees were probably thinking that Jesus would start to talk about a normal person. Instead they received a very unexpected statement from Jesus. Jesus tells them that do not know Him or His Father. Which is why these Pharisees were really not able to speak as a judge in the matter. This of course would have upset the Pharisees a lot if they understood Jesus correctly. Jesus points out that they would have known the Father if they had known Him. This is true because of the unity within the Godhead. If they had believed Jesus’ message they would have known the Father that sent Him.

20. The author gives a location as to where this whole discussion was taking place, “in the treasury.”

It is most unlikely that Jesus taught in the actual treasure chamber, so the expression will mean that part of the Temple precincts into which people came to cast their offerings into the chests (cf. Mark 12:41, 43; Luke 21:1). This was part of the of the court of women. There were thirteen trumpets-shaped collection boxes there, each with its inscription showing the use to which its contents would be put (the inscriptions are quoted in the Mishnah, Shek. 6:5). 4 

This allows us very easily to imagine Jesus standing in the temple court and pointing to the candle lights and saying, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Both the light stands and the treasury boxes would be located in the court of women.

As mentioned before, no one was able to seize Jesus because His time was not yet come (cf. John 7:8, 30, 32, 44). Remember, they were looking to take hold of Jesus because they were looking to kill Him (John 7:1, 25).

21. From this point forward, you will see Jesus try to emphasize the difference between Himself and the Pharisees. He very much trying to point out just how deep the divide is between them. Jesus will talk about the contrasts between Himself and the Pharisees.

This verse is very reminiscent of John 7:33-36. This time, though, He points out that they will die in their sins. They will want a messiah at the worst of times to deliver them from Roman rule but they will instead die in their sins because they missed the Messiah that saved them from their sins.

22. This time, the Pharisees understood that Jesus was talking about death. But they were thinking that He would kill Himself; which is something to be looked down upon with extreme hostility. 5 The assumed answer to the question was “no.”

23. The difference between Jesus and the Pharisees could not have been made any more clear. Their origins are from completely different locations. The pharisees are from the earth and are temporal. Jesus is not from the world but from heaven and is eternal. Jesus could be using the word “world” in two senses. He could mean a physical world or earth, or He could mean from the human race. The point is simple. Jesus is not like the Pharisees.

24. Jesus explains why He said previously, “Ye shall seek me, and die in your sins.” The reason why this would happen is because they do not believe that, “I am.” This is the same construction in the Greek that we saw previously in verses 12 and 18, “ἐγώ εἰμι” (“he” is not there in the Greek). However, this claim is a little different. Hart explains this further.

The phrase ἐγώ εἰμι is probably not a reference to Exodus 3:14 because the LXX translates the phrase “I am has sent me” with the Greek ὁ ὤν rather than using ἐγώ εἰμι. More likely it is taken from the LXX’s consistent usage of ἐγώ εἰμι as the translation of ani hu (“I am He”), a phrase used for God’s self disclosure in Isaiah (cf. Isa. 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12). For example in Isaiah 43:10, the Lord says, “So that you may known and believe Me, and understand that I am He (ani hu).” Jesus applied the words of the God’s self identification in the Old Testament to Himself. 6

Jesus is clearly identifying Himself as God and that failing to believe in Him as such will result in one dying in his sins.

25. Unfortunately, the Pharisees do not understand the claims that Jesus is making concerning His identity. They still only think Him to be a normal person.

The verse is rather difficult to translate. Overall, Jesus is saying that He has been telling them the same message all along. It’s not clear whether He is referring to the beginning of this conversation or from the beginning of His ministry. The latter is more likely considering this was discussed in John 5:24.

26-27. Jesus continues with His message. There could have been a lot more that He could have said and judged about the Pharisees. However, Jesus at this time was more concerned with with the will of the Father. He had a specific message that He needed to give to the world and that message came from the Father.

The ironic thing about this is that the Pharisees think that they are acting as a judge but they do not realize that they are standing before the Ultimate Judge. Jesus will judge these men at the last day.

28-29. Jesus did not come down on His first advent so that He could become popular. Yes, He did accept worship as God from those who believed on Him but overall, Jesus’ goal was to have the Father be glorified. Every action and word of Jesus was to glorify God. All of it was ordained by God. Even the most agonizing hours that Jesus would experience was ordained by God.

“Lifted up,” is a reference to His crucifixion (cf. John 3:14). It will be when He is “lifted up” that He will glorify God the most. This will be something something that will please God the Father, not because He takes joy in seeing His Son suffer, but because it allow to redeem His elect. By the Son’s sacrifice, God will be glorified. It will display His righteousness (Rom. 3:25-26).

30. This is the choice for every person. You must believe so that you will not die.

Endnotes

1. Edwin A. Blum, “John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, vol. 2, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 1983), 303.

2. Blum, “John,” 304.

3. ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ; cf. Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς (John 6:35).

4. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1971), 444.

5. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 446n34. “Thus Josephus says, ‘But as for those who have laid mad hands upon themselves, the darker regions of the nether world receive their souls’ (Bell. iii, 375).”

6. John F. Hart, “John,” in The Moody Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary on the Whole Bible by the Faculty of Moody Bible Institute, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1632.

If Any Man Thirst

This sermon was preached from John 7:31-52 on October 5, 2014 for the evening service.

My Hour Is Not Yet Come

This sermon was preached from John 7:1-30 on October 5, 2014 for the morning service.

The Doctrines of Grace

Just so that you are aware, the footnotes are not working properly. Do not click on the footnote. Scroll down to see the corresponding note.

Introduction

The “Doctrines of Grace,” also known as the “Five Points of Calvinism,” is easily remembered using the acrostic T.U.L.I.P. These five points are concerning the matter of soteriology, that is the study of salvation. All of the five points listed on the right represent the “Calvinistic” position concerning the “Doctrines of Grace.” The opposite of Calvinism would be Arminianism. One does not need to hold to all or none of these points. Many believers are in agreement with only three or four of these points.

The majority of the argument is based upon the disagreement of how much an individual is able to influence his own personal salvation in light of the sovereignty of God. Both sides agree that God is sovereign and that man has a free will. The question becomes, what part(s) of salvation is controlled by God and what part(s) is man allowed to bring about? A believer in agreement with all five of the points (a five point Calvinist) would state that God was in control of every part of a man’s salvation, from beginning to end, without any participation or work from the individual. An Arminian would claim that he had some work or influence that allowed him to receive his salvation. Both the Calvinist and the Arminian would say that salvation comes only by God’s grace

History

John Calvin (1509-1564)¹ never presented or taught the T.U.L.I.P. acrostic in his teaching. The T.U.L.I.P acrostic represents only a small portion of what John Calvin taught. The majority of the doctrines that he defended were written in a book titled, Institutes of the Christian Religion. The book was originally written in 1536 as an apology for protestantism to Francis I, the king of France, who called Protestants anarchists having them jailed and executed.² Calvin published his final revision of Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1559.³

Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) was a pastor in Amsterdam and later became a professor of theology at the University of Leyden in 1603.⁴ He began to disagree with the general consensus concerning matters of predestination, which was under the influence of John Calvin’s teachings, when he was told refute Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert and his teaching of infralapsarianism.⁵ Jacob Arminius then attempted to reform Calvinism. Jacob Arminius died before his teachings were fully developed.

Students of Arminius presented their creed in Five Articles under the name Remonstrance in 1610. The response to the Five Articles came from the Synod of Dort which convened from November 13, 1618 to May 9, 1619 with the Canons of Dort⁶ which contain the five points of Calvinism.⁷ 

Total Depravity

The belief of Total Depravity can summarized as the belief that every individual, from conception, is completely and entirely devoid, incapable and unwilling to perform any thought, emotion or deed that would bring glory to God. Total Depravity is that every man was conceived with a sinful nature that came from Adam which causes the body and soul to be corrupt, perform corrupt acts, think corrupt thoughts, to reject all that is holy, and to take pleasure in this corruption.

Sin is any thought (Matt. 5:27-28) or deed that is contrary to God's nature (Rom. 3:23) or His commandments (I John 3:4) even if the thought or deed is done unintentionally (Lev. 4:2-3). Sin is also a failure to act upon an opportunity for righteousness (James 4:17). In short, it is anything that is not done in faith or glory for God (Rom. 14:23; 1 Cor. 10:31).

Without exception, every person has sinned. The Bible makes this clear numerous times (Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10; 1 Kings 8:46).

"In Adam, All Die"

We sin because we are sinful in our nature. This is what Paul meant when he referred to “the flesh” (Rom. 7:18; 13:14; Gal. 5:17, 19). We are conceived with this corruption of our nature; it is not learned (Ps. 51:5; 58:3; Eph. 2:2-3). 

Jesus spoke of man being corrupt in his being as well when He said that, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man” (Matt. 15:11) and that, “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12: 34). 
This is further emphasized by what Jeremiah said when he wrote that, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9).

Adam’s transgression caused every person to be conceived to inherit a corrupt nature. This is why Paul said that, “For since by man came death… for as in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:21-22). He also said that, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into to the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon on all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12, 19). This is repeated when Paul called man, “By nature the children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3).

Scripture makes it clear that every part of man is corrupt and defiled (Rom. 7:18). The mind and conscience is corrupt (Tit. 1:15). The body is also corrupt (1 Cor. 15:21-22). Every part of man is so corrupt that it must not just be repaired but replaced (Eph. 4:22-23; Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 15:45-53).

None Seek God

Because mankind is corrupt in his very being, no man willfully seeks God. The psalmist makes this clear, “There is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Ps. 14:1-3; cf. Ps. 53:1-3). Paul reaffirms this when he quotes the same passage in Romans 3:10-12.

There may be some men that seek justice, truth and something of the divine, but they only seek it for their own benefit. They do not seek God for the sake of giving glory to God. 

Perpetually Sinful

This corruption of mankind breeds forth sin. Paul spoke of the fruits of following in the lusts of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21) and said that these fruits are “against the Spirit” (Gal. 5:17). Paul talked about the continual sinful actions of man again when he said that “Destruction and misery are in their ways” (Rom. 3:12-18). Sin is a continual manner of life for every individual that is without Christ.

Every Action is Sinful

Without Christ, no man is able to perform any action that would be considered righteous before God. “They that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7-8). And also it said that, “Without faith it is impossible to please Him” (Heb. 11:6).

Even the apparent righteous actions of a man without Christ are sinful because they do not bring glory to God. Isaiah mentioned this when he wrote, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6).

Exchanged the Truth for a Lie

Mankind loves its sinful ways so much that mankind chooses to believe in lies in order to keep its sinful ways. Paul explained this in Romans 1:18-32. There is a progression in the text: 1) Man has revealed the truth, 2) Man created their own beliefs and gods, 3) Man takes pleasure in unrighteousness.

What is even worse an open rejection of God is to be completely against God. Paul mentions this in several places (Rom. 8:7; Gal. 5:17; Eph. 4:17-19). Every time man sins it is an act of rebellion against the laws of God and against His nature (James 4:17; Rom. 3:23).

Wages of Sin

Mankind’s state of total corruption will lead to death (Rom. 6:23). Death came from sin even in the beginning (Gen. 2:17; 3:19; 5:5-31; Rom. 5:12). Death happens both in a physical sense and in a spiritual sense (Matt 25:30, 41-46; Rev. 20:11-15).

Unconditional Election

Election, when dealing with the doctrine of salvation, is “an act of God before creation in which He chooses some people to be saved” (Eph. 1:4).⁸ It may be said that election is grace foreordained. 

The negative side of election is reprobation. Reprobation is “the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest His justice” (Ezek. 33:11; Rom. 11:7; Rev. 13:8; 17:8).⁹ Reprobation does not promote a “double predestination,” but shows that God will be glorified through His display of justice. The wicked were always condemned. The wicked stay will stay condemned without God’s intervening grace. 

Unconditional election means that grace was foreordained without any base of merit or favor from the recipient. God chose whomever He chose only because He wanted to choose them. 

Scope of Argument

Neither the Calvinist nor the Arminian will deny that the doctrine of election is taught in the Bible. If a person denies the doctrine of election, then he is reading the Bible with his hands over his eyes and is misplacing the glory due to God for our salvation upon himself. 

The disagreement between an Arminian and a Calvinist is concerning the basis that God used in deciding who will receive His grace when He made His decision in eternity past. The Calvinist will argue that God only used His will and grace in deciding who will receive salvation. An Arminian will argue that God elected those whom He foreknew would practice faith when they received an invitation to salvation. 

Argument for Election Based upon God’s Will

One of the principle passages that demonstrates that election was based upon God’s will is Ephesians 1:4-14. The key verse being verse 5, “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.” There are two more times that it mentions “His will,” in this passage (e.g. 9 and 11). Verse 9 is discussing the revealing of God’s will to use Jesus Christ to bring about salvation. Verse 11 states that our inheritance was predestined. However, all of this was done according to “His will,” not by our efforts. 

Many are uncomfortable with election because they feel election makes God out to be a bully. However, notice also that these things were done “for His glory” (vv. 6, 12, 14). 

The chief principle passage for understanding unconditional election is Romans 9:1-24. 

Some would object that this passage refers to election of individuals for salvation. However, Paul makes clear that he is concerned with the salvation of his jewish brethren (9:2-3). He even continues to say in verse 6, “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” So some of the Israelites are believing while others are not. Therefore this is discussing election of individuals not an entire nation. Individuals received the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal. 3:6-9). The nation received the Mosaic Covenant. 

Paul picks the perfect example to illustrate that election is based only upon His will. In 9:11 Paul wrote, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” The main reason why Paul points this out is because the reader should know about this story from Genesis 25:23. He points out that the election of the younger by God happened before the twins were born. The reason why this is stressed is to prove the point that neither Jacob nor Esau were even able to make any kind of effort to influence God’s decision of who should be chosen. The whole purpose for why God chose Jacob and not Esau was so “that the purpose of God according to election might stand.” If one remembers, Jacob was not one that deserved a greater blessing than Esau. Jacob was a deceiver through and through. Jacob’s actions or faith did not influence God decision to choose him. God made that decision so that His purpose would stand.

Paul deals with one that finds this hard to accept when he wrote, “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid” (9:14). Paul answers this question with illustrations that show that God will always act according to His will. Overall, Paul reminds us that this is an act of mercy (9:18). Paul continues to answer the question by the illustration of the Potter and the clay (9:20-24). The clay is not able to ask, “Why hast thou made me thus” (9:20)?

One last verse to demonstrate that God has chosen people for salvation based only upon His will is found in 2 Timothy 1:9. Paul wrote, “[God] hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” 

Argument for Election Based upon Foreseen Faith

A supporter of this view explained that, “Through his foreknowledge God sees who will believe upon Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and become united with him Christian baptism; then even before the creation of the world he predestines these believes to share the glory of the risen Christ.”¹⁰ One can clearly see that the man believes that God “reacted” to a person’s future faith. For this reason, the Arminian believes that God chose certain individuals based upon a man’s faith.

The main thrust for this argument comes from Romans 8:29-30. The belief hinges on the words, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.” The Arminian would argue that God foreknew our faith and then choose to us to be conformed to the Image of His Son. 

This is known as the prescience view. “The idea is that from all eternity god looks down the tunnel of time and knows in advance who will respond to the gospel positively and who will not. On the basis of prior knowledge, God chooses some. He elects them because he knows they will have faith. He knows who will meet the conditions for election and on that basis elects them.”¹¹ 

Another passage an Arminian would point is 1 Peter 1:2. The Arminian would point to the word “foreknowledge” stating that it is basis by which God chose who to redeem. 

Refutation against Arminian Position

The Romans 8:29-30 passage does not state that God predestinated certain individuals based upon His foreknowledge. The passage simply states that God called all the people that He foreknew. Also in 8:28 we read, “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.” If our calling is according to His purpose, then our election must be according to His purpose.

What is also significant about this passage is that all whom God calls, God justifies. In order to hold to a conditional election, one must also believe that he is able to reject the inward call for salvation. This will be explained more later under Irresistible Grace. 

The 1 Peter 1:2, again, does not state that God is foreseeing our faith in order for us to elect. The passage only states that He foreknew those He would elect. Foreknowledge is talking about a person’s identity and character, not their actions. 

John Piper wrote that, “[Election] is unconditional in that there is no condition man must meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins. So there is no condition he can meet before God chooses to save hime from his deadness. Faith is not a condition for election. Just the reverse. Election is a condition for faith.”¹² He goes on to cite Acts 13:48 and John 10:26 to demonstrate this point.

What Election means Practically

People who have a difficult time believing in election will state that believing in election creates an excuse for people to not do evangelism. This could not be further from the truth. Election means that there are individuals that are elect but are not yet saved because God intends to use us to preach the gospel. This is why Paul said, “I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, they they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10). We do not know which individuals are elect, only that there are elect people out there. Therefore, we know that God will bless the preaching of His Word by bearing fruits of repentance. 

We should also be even more grateful of our salvation when we properly understand that God elect only according to His grace. If we were responsible to influence God to become elect, we would be in a heap of trouble. We loved our sin more than we loved the truth (Rom. 1:32). This is why Paul said, “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:5-6).

Limited Atonement

The  term “limited atonement” is a poor choice of words to describe the debate. “Limited atonement” gives a false connotation that the atoning work of Jesus Christ was only powerful enough for some. Proponents on both sides of the debate will disagree with that statement. From this point forward, the doctrine of “limited atonement” will be referred to as “particular redemption” or “definite atonement.”

Proponents of particular redemption will state that Christ died only for the elect, individuals that God the Father predestined to receive salvation in eternity past. Christ’s death on the cross was an effectual work in that it affected the the elect to have faith and repentance. 

Those who disagree with particular redemption advocate a view called general redemption. General redemption states that Christ died for everyone’s sins of the entire world. The death of Christ was a provision that allowed for every person to become a believer and thereby allowed the elect to receive salvation. 

Just as a note, a lot of this debate will be very logical in nature. A lot of the Scripture passages cited and referenced will infer to give ground to either side of the debate. Often times conclusions are drawn from the Scripture rather than having the Scriptures explicitly state the answer to the debate. Nowhere is the answer specifically given to the question, “for whom did Christ die?”

Some points of agreement between the two sides of the debate need to be stated before moving on. However, this will not stop one side from hurling accusations what is stated below against the other.

• Not every person in the world will be saved.
• A free offer of the gospel can be rightly made to every person.
• Christ’s death on the cross, because He is the infinite Son of God, has infinite merit and is in itself sufficient to pay the penalty of the sins of as many or as few as the Father and the Son decreed.¹³

Defense of Particular Redemption

To understand particular redemption one must start by asking, “Did the atoning work of Jesus Christ affect every person in the world in the same way to create the same effect?” The answer of course would be no. Not every person believes that Jesus Christ died to save them from their sin. There will be people who will be condemned because they sin but never believe. Therefore one must say that the atoning work of Jesus Christ made an effect that was different for believers than it was for unbelievers. 

The proponents for particular redemption will also state is that Christ’s death on the cross was an effectual work for the elect in that it “purchased/secured” the means necessary for salvation (e.g. repentance, regeneration, and faith) Piper wrote that, 

The new birth is blood-bought. The effectual call is blood-bought. The gift of repentance is blood-bought. None of these are deserved. They cam to us because Christ secured them by his blood and righteousness. But that means, he did not secure them for all in the same way. Otherwise all would be born again, and all would be effectual called, and all would receive the gift of repentance.¹⁴ 

These works (e.g. repentance, regeneration and faith) could not have come to the believer if it were not for Christ’s work done on the cross. God’s wrath against sin needs to satisfied in order for these acts to happen because of His holiness (Rom. 4:24-26). God cannot look upon sin. 

Jesus makes it clear when He said “I lay down my life for my sheep” (John 10:11, 15). He continues the thought further in the next verse by saying that, “And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice” (10:16). This was a reference to elect that were not yet believers. It for these that Christ died. He did not say I lay my life down for everyone. This is illustrated even further later in the narrative when Jesus said, “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep” (10:26). 

When Jesus prayed the night He was to be betrayed, He prayed for the disciples those who would believe in Him through the Word (John 17:20). Jesus makes a clear distinction in His prayer between those who are believers and the world (17:9). It is the ones that God has given the Son that will be glorified in Him (17:10). Jesus cannot be glorified by unbelievers. Exclusivity becomes more clear when Jesus asks to “Sanctify them through thy truth” (17:17). Christ is not able to sanctify unbelievers. He did not come to sanctify unbelievers but the elect which can only be done by the power of the cross. 

Jesus also said that, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out… all which He hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (John 6:37, 39). In order to be raised by Jesus on the last day, in order to receive the works of salvation, in order to not be lost by Jesus, one must first be given to Jesus by the Father. The non-elect will never receive the effectual work of Jesus Christ. 

When Paul is speaking to the pastors in Ephesus he said, “The Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to fee the church of God, which He hath bought with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). God did not purchase the world. He purchased the church. 

Paul wrote that, “Christ died for us,” referring to believers (Rom. 5:8). We know that “us” is referring to believers because Paul later states, “We shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Rom. 5:9-10).

Paul also wrote that, “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). We know Paul is saying that God did not spare His Son for the elect because he continued and wrote, “Who shall bring anything against the elect” (8:33)? No one can bring anything against the elect because God delivered His Son for the elect. A charge can be brought to the non-elect because Christ was not delivered for them.

“For he hath made Him [Jesus Christ] to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21). One can say that Jesus was made sin for the elect. One cannot say that He was made to be sin for non-elect because they never will be made the righteousness of God in Him. Galatians 3:13 goes along on a similar train of thought. 

The most commonly quoted passage to defend particular redemption is Ephesian 5:25, “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it.” One cannot say that Christ gave Himself up for anyone outside of the church because of the next verses, “That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:26-27). The unbeliever will never be presented as holy because he was never purchased by Christ at the cross. To say that Christ died for everyone would ruin the wedding analogy as well. The bride, the church, is set apart and sanctified. To suggest anything else with this analogy would be to suggest the idea of polygamy. Christ sanctifies only the church, not His bride and another group. 

Criticisms of Particular Redemption

Perhaps the most simple criticism given against particular redemption come from the commands to preach to all people (Matt 28:19). The proponent for general redemption will say, “How can the evangelist say, ‘Christ died for you,’ when Christ died only for the elect (cf. Acts 17:30)?” Therefore the atoning work of Jesus Christ must be a propitiation for every person in the world and it is a provision for every person. Christ’s death and resurrection made salvation possible.

The greatest criticism of particular redemption comes from all the passages that Jesus died for the world rather than stating the elect/church. These passages are listed below under the heading, “Defense of General Redemption.” A proponent for general redemption does not feel the need to harmonize verses that state that Christ died for the elect (i.e. John 10:11; Eph. 5:25). The elect would be included within those who Christ died when He died for the world. These passages do not state the word “only” in reference to the elect. 

Response to Critics of Particular Redemption

The response given to the first criticism of particular redemption is the same as thinking along the lines of election. We do not know who God elected to receive salvation. Therefore we do not know God died for. We only know this after a person makes a display of faith. Therefore we need to preach unto all people. Besides, we are commanded to preach unto all people. There is no contradiction between the two ideas: Christ died for the elect; we preach to all people.

I personally will not be able to take the time to deal with every single “world” passage that is listed below. We must first start by understanding that the “world” is not always used in the same sense. For example, John the Baptist claimed that Jesus is “the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). John the Baptist did not mean that every person would be saved form their sin that would be universalism. Salvation is presented to the world (John 3:16) but the entire will not be saved. These passages largely are dealing with the fact that Jesus “redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Rev. 5:9). This is opposed to the idea that salvation from the Messiah is only for the Jews. Peter finally understood this when he said, “I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34).

When it comes to dealing with the critique that the passages concerning a particular redemption do not have the word “only” in them; three answers are given. First, just because the word “only” or “alone” does not appear in text referring to Christ’s death for a particular people, that does not in itself mean that his death therefore also had reference to those outside the particular group that is mentioned. Secondly, if Paul wanted to be unambiguous regarding the universality of the atonement, he had the mechanism to do so through the use of the absolute negative (i.e. not even one). Paul could have stressed that there was not one for whom Christ did not die, but he never did. Third, arguably the onus lies with proponents of a general atonement to explain why Paul wold employ limited or definite language, if there really was no limitation in the intended object of the atonement. A. A. Hodges wrote,

Particular and definite expression must limit the interpretation for the general one, rather than the reverse. It is plainly far easier to assign plausible reasons why if Christ died particularly for his elect, they being as yet scattered among all nation and generation, and undistinguishable by us from the mass of fallen humanity to whom the gospel is indiscriminately offered, he should be said in certain connections to have died for the world or for all, than it can be to assign any plausible reason why, if he died to make the salvation of all possible, he should nevertheless be said in any connection to have died for the purpose of certainly saving his elect.¹⁵

In the 2 Peter 2:1 passage, the word “Lord” is referring to God the Father not Christ the Son. This verse is not talking about Christ’s atoning work. Peter is mentioning that the false teachers were purchased as a reference to the forefathers of Israel. Israel was purchased by God when they were brought out of the land of Egypt. These false teachers were Jews. Therefore they were purchased by God just like how all of the Israelites were purchased by God.

Defense of General Redemption

Arguably the strongest verse to support general redemption is 1 John 2:2, “And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Our would refer to those that are elect and the whole world would include those that are not elect. In order to come to this understanding, the proponent of general redemption treats the atonement differently in its nature. The atonement was a provision that made salvation possible for everyone but only the elect will believe. 

Another popular passage to quote is 2 Peter 2:1, specifically referring to false teachers that are “denying the Lord that bought them.” These false teachers cannot be believers because they “bring upon themselves swift destruction.” It would appear that God bought the false teachers and the elect. 

Paul wrote that, “God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Tim. 4:10). How can God be the Savior of all men if he only died for the elect? 

The one verse that everyone knows, John 3:16, is often quoted to defend general atonement. If “God so loved the world,” how can Jesus die for only the elect? Jesus must have made a provision so that, “whosoever believeth in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.”

Criticisms of General Redemption

Proponents of particular redemption state that general redemption purports a disunity between the Persons of the Trinity. Both sides agree that God the Father did not choose every person on earth to receive salvation (John 10:26) and that the Holy Spirit seals every believer (Rom. 8:9-11). The Calvinist claims that the general atonement, must therefore, cause disunity because Christ’s work on the cross was a provision made by the Son of God for every person in the entire world only to have the Father step in and say that only the elect will receive the benefits of salvation. The work on the cross must be done in harmony with the other Persons of the Trinity. Therefore Christ must have only died for the elect. 

Another criticism of general redemption is the “double payment” argument. If Christ’s work on the cross was indeed a propitiation for every person in the world then every person’s sins were paid for. However, because not all will believe, some will pay for their sin again by suffering in eternal damnation. It does not make sense that Christ would pay for everyone’s sins and then have people in hell pay again. There would be, therefore, two payments be made for unbelievers. 

Proponents for particular redemption claim that it is really general redemption that limits the atonement of Christ. They say this because the doctrine of particular redemption states that the atonement changes the elect when they called so deeply that they become eternally secured and become children of God. General redemption, they claim, only makes this be a possibility; it does not change the elect. The elect receive the provision made. The atonement becomes limited to only a possibility for everyone. 

Response to Critics of General Redemption

Charles Ryrie gave a response to the “double payment” critique by using an illustration.

In one school where I have taught, the student was handled in this way. People made gifts to the student aid fund. Needy student applied for help from that fund. A committee decided who would receive aid and how much. but when the actual money was distributed, it was done biassing a check to the student, who then was expected to endorse it back to the school, which would then place the credit on his account. The money was not moved directly from the aid fund to the individual student’s account. The student had to receive it personally and place it on his account. Let us suppose you gave a gift to cover one student’s tuition for one year. You could properly say that his tuition was fully paid. But until the selection is made by the committee, and until the student receives the gift and places it on his account, his tuition is not paid. If he fails to endorse the check, it will never be paid even though it had been paid… The death of Christ is like some benefactor paying the tuitions of all students everywhere.¹⁶

What Definite Atonement Means Practically

Overall we need to understand that definite atonement means that Christ’s death on the cross was a work that allowed for grace to come to God’s elect. Christ’s work made sure that grace affected us so that we would become the children of God. I think Piper explains it best, “God does not mean for the bride of His Son to only feel loved with general, world-embracing love. He means for her to feel ravished with specificity of His affection that He set on her before the world existed. He means for us to feel a focused; ‘I chose you. And I sent My Son to die for you.’”¹⁷

Irresistible Grace

The doctrine of Irresistible Grace would be better titled the “Effectual Call.” It is the doctrine that when the Holy Spirit makes an inward call to repentance, that is, it convicts of sin and shows God’s grace displayed at the cross, that the person will be irresistibly and sovereignly drawn to salvation.

An effectual call must be differentiated against what would be called a “General Call.” A general call is a call that is made unto all people to repent of their sins. This is typically done through preaching. Sometimes this is done through a personal witness sharing Christ. 

A general call does not always guarantee a repentance of a person. However, the effectual call will always result in a person repenting and then start exercising faith. A general call is done by people. The effectual call is done by God. See: John 6:44; Acts 2:39; 16:14; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 9; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 1 Peter 2:9; 5:10; 2 Peter 1:3; 

The effectual call and the general call however do not work separately. They work in conjunction with each other. God commands us to preach repentance unto everyone (Mark 16:15). God then uses the preaching of His Word to convict the elect unto repentance (Rom. 10:13-14, 17 cf. 2 Thess. 2:14). 

Ordo Salutis

In order to get a better understanding of this, we need to examine what is called the “Ordo Salutis,” or the order of salvation. 

Paul gave an Ordo Salutis when he wrote, “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30). There is an easy chain to see here in this verse. It starts with predestination, then to calling, then to justification, then to glorification. The point that is being inferred in this verse is that everyone who is called is justified. This is the effectual calling that I am referring to. The calling results in an effectual change (regeneration). The calling results in the person being justified. This cannot be said about a person’s preaching. Not every person who hears the preaching of God’s word will be justified. 

This is why many explain that regeneration must precede faith. If we were to make a more detailed order of salvation it would be: predestination / election (before time began) » general call » effectual call / regeneration » faith / repentance » justification (all at the moment of salvation) » continual sanctification (rest of life) » glorification / resurrection (end of life). The part that happens at the moment of salvation (e.g. regeneration, repentance and justification) is instantaneous. 

It seems odd at first to say that regeneration happens before faith. However, it is logically necessary because we were “dead in our trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). A dead person is not able to respond. A dead person is not alive. A dead person is not able to exercise faith and it is impossible to please God without faith (Heb. 11:6). Paul explains that, “you hath He quickened,” and “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved” (Eph. 2:5). This “quickening” is the regeneration that allows us to practice faith. This regeneration is done by the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5). 

Regeneration preceding faith is also seen in: Ephesians 2:4-5; Colossians 2:13; 1 John 5:1.

One can easily see that an effectual call and regeneration is also logically necessary because of man’s complete inability to please God and the flesh’s hostility to God (Rom. 8:7-8). A man without Christ will always say no to another man’s gospel invitation (that is the general call) because he is dead in his trespasses. It will require the Holy Spirit to regenerate the man so that the man can be quickened out of his trespasses. At regeneration, man finally sees the great depths of grace that atones for sin and then automatically replies with a broken and contrite heart. The “Canons of Dort” actually defended “Total Depravity” and “Irresistible Grace” under the same article. 

Objections

There are two primary objections that opponents would make against the doctrine of an effectual call. 

The first objection is that God calls all men to repent; God invites all to receive forgiveness (John 12:32; Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9).

The second objection is that men are able to resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). 

Response to Objections

The response to the first objection is that the opponent fails to see the difference between a general call and an effectual call of the Holy Spirit. Scripture even teaches that both calls work together (1 Cor. 1:23-24).

The response to the second objection is that every man without Christ will always resist the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:7-8; 1:32).

Perseverance of the Saints

“The perseverance of the saints means that all those who are truly born again will be kept by God’s power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives, and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly been born again.”¹⁸ The emphasis in this belief is that true regenerate Christians will make the honest effort to chase after righteousness and will do so until their death. This doctrine is also known as eternal security. It be can be summarized by the phrase, “Once saved, always saved.”

Often times the idea of perseverance of the saints gets confused with assurance of salvation. Just because a person goes to church every Sunday, “walks the walk” and “talks the talk,” does not mean that he is a true Christian (Matt. 7:21-23; cf. John 6:70; 1 John 2:3-6; 19). One may begin to question if he is truly saved if he is constantly committing acts of sin and rightly so. A true Christian is not characterized by a life of sin but by a life of righteousness (Eph. 5:1-9; Gal. 5:17-26). If a person is doubting his salvation then he needs to take the time to get the matter straight (2 Pet. 1:10-12). One would need to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). 

However, the focus of this lesson is to answer the question, “Can a true Christian lose his salvation?” Answering the question, “How do I know that I am saved?” requires a different answer altogether. 

Scripture to Support Perseverance of the Saints

In my mind, one of the primary references for supporting eternal security is the unbroken chain we saw earlier when we discussed an “Ordo Salutis” from Romans 8:30. Everyone that God predestined, called and justified will be glorified. This “glorification” is something that will happen when we either meet Jesus in the air or when we enter into heaven (1 Cor. 15:51-55). 

Paul then continues to say that no charge can be brought against the elect because they have been forgiven by God, the ultimate Judge (Rom. 8:33). Paul then asks, “What shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom. 8:35). The question is answered, “For I am persuaded, that neither death, no life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38-39). In short, the answer is nothing is powerful enough to separate a believer from the love of Christ. 

Eternal Security it also seen when Jesus said, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (John 6:39). Everyone who believes in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ will be raised up on the last day. Everyone who believes will receive a resurrection unto life. 

This is repeated again when Jesus is talking about His sheep, He says, “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all: and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28-29). When we receive salvation we become God’s possession. No man is able to steal believers away from God. Jesus even appeals to God’s power in this. God the Father is greater than all. Therefore, no man is even able to steal a believer away.

I must also point out from John 6:40 and 10:28 that a believer receives eternal life. Eternal means “a period of unending duration or without end.”¹⁹ If a true believer were able to lose his salvation then we would not be able to say that a believer receiver eternal life upon salvation. 

Also to say that a true believer is able to lose his salvation would invalidate the sealing done by the Holy Spirit. “Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:13-14). The sealing of the Holy Spirit is guarantee that the believer will see receive the inheritance from salvation.

God Causes Us to Persevere

The idea seems a little strange that only the true believers will persevere until the end. Yet, it should be understand that this perseverance is God working in us to desire righteousness. It is God that “keeps you from falling” (Jude 24). I it is God that works in us so that we will do His will (Heb. 13:20-21). Paul mentions that God will continues to work in us until the last day when he wrote, “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). 

Problem Passages

Hebrews 6:4-6 is a passage that may be difficult for some individuals to understand in light of this discussion of perseverance of the saints.

For it is impossible for this who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 

The overall conclusion of this passage is that the people being described are not able to come to repentance. There are two possible understandings of this Hebrews passage that will lead to this conclusion. The first is that the people that is being described are not actually Christians. The people have heard the truth, they have seen God work, they understand the Bible and they act morally but they do not believe in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for means of salvation. If that be the case, these individuals have had their hearts hardened past the point of repentance. The second possible understanding is that this is an argument based upon a reductio ad absurdum, a reduction to the absurd. The author is assuming a false premise and follows the line of thinking to a point of absurdity to demonstrate that the premise was false. Paul used a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate that either there is a resurrection or Christianity is mere superstition (1 Cor. 15:12-19). Therefore, the author is presenting an idea that would be absurd to help understand the premise is wrong. The whole point being that a person cannot lose his salvation and then come back to Christ again. If he could, he would have to crucify Jesus again a second time because the first crucifixion was only good enough for the first time he repented. He would, in fact, be stating that the crucifixion was not good enough the first time. This, of course, is absurd. I would be in favor of the second understanding of Hebrews 6:4-6. 

The other passage that has caused some difficulty in understanding is John 15:1-6.

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Some propose that in this illustration of the vine and the branches that every branch is a true believer. Yet Jesus said that a branch cannot produce fruit on its own. The branch must abide in the vine in order to produce fruit. Therefore not every branch in this illustration is not abiding in the vine. The emphasis in this illustration is abiding. The branches that do not produce fruit are not in the vine. They look like they belong there but there is no fruit being produced. The end result of a branch that does not abide in the vine, they do not depend on Jesus Christ for salvation, is that they will be cast into the fire. They are cast not because they lost their salvation but because they were never abiding in the vine.

---

1 “Preface to the Hendrickson Edition,” in Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2012), XI. ^↩

2 Ibid, XII. ^↩

3 Ibid, XV. ^↩

4 John Piper, Five Points Towards a Deeper Experience of God’s Grace (Ross-Shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2013), 11. ^↩

5 “Jacobus Arminius,” Wikipedia, last modified May 23, 2014, accessed August 6, 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobus_Arminius. ^↩

6 To see a complete list of the Canons of Dort, see http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort, accessed August 6, 2014. ^↩

7 Piper, Five Points, 12. ^↩

8 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 670. ^↩

9 Ibid, 684. ^↩

10 Jack W. Cottrell, “Conditional Election,” in Grace Unlimited, 62. Quoted in Grudem, Systematic Theology, 676. ^↩

11 R. C. Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology?: Understanding the Basics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 144. This is not the view of R. C. Sproul. He is explaining the position of one who believes in conditional election. ^↩

12 Piper, Five Points, 53. ^↩

13 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 597. ^↩

14 Piper, Five Points, 39. We know that Christ purchased the acts of repentance, regeneration and faith because Jesus said, “This cup is the new testament/covenant in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25; cf. Heb. 8:6-13; 9:14-15). The New Covenant removed any and all actions of the beneficiaries so that it would be an unfailing covenant. God instilled faith to make it certain (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; 32:38-41). ^↩

15 A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (1867; repr., London: Evangelical Press, 1974), 425. Quoted by Jonathan Gibson, “For Whom Did Christ Die? Particularism and Universalism in the Pauline Epistles,” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, eds. David Gibson & Jonathan Gibson (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 292-4. ^↩

16 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 373. ^↩

17 Piper, Five Points, 52. ^↩

18 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 788. ^↩

19 Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 33. To see αἰώνιος being used in the same sense see also Matt. 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mark 10:17, 30; Luke 10:25; 18:18, 30; John 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2f; Acts 13:46, 48; Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f; Gal. 6:8; 1 Tim. 1:16; 6:12; Tit. 1:2; 3:7; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jude 21. ^↩