So Quickly Drifting To A Different Gospel

Paul told the Galatians, "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel" (Galatians 1:6). He expressed a similar sentiment to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:4).

If churches as early as these Pauline ones were in such danger and sometimes erred while under Paul's supervision, there's even more potential in some ways for later individuals and churches to err in that manner. My post earlier this week provides many examples of how that sort of thing happened a lot in later church history, regardless of which side of those later disputes you take. The disputes happened, and both sides (or more than two in some contexts) couldn't be right, given the nature of their claims.

I'm not suggesting that every or almost every post-apostolic source before the Reformation wasn't a Christian or anything like that. As I've argued in many previous posts and elsewhere, there was far more belief in justification through faith alone among the pre-Reformation sources than people often suggest. And I allow for the salvation of people who hold false soteriological views. People are often inconsistent, as we see with Peter and the Galatians, for example. In some ways, later individuals and groups who have contradicted Paul's soteriology have been better than the Judaizers. They've accepted the authority of the apostles, have often read documents like Paul's letters in their church services, etc. So, when Cyprian sees two sacraments (baptism and the laying on of hands) as a means of justification in John 3:5 or a medieval Roman Catholic believes that you have to obey the Pope in order to be saved, for example, I allow for the possibility or probability of their salvation. I make a judgment based on the totality of the evidence, including their access to the gospel and their affirmations of it in some places, even if they were inconsistent with it at times.

My main point here, though, is that departing from the gospel isn't as difficult as some people make it out to be. It was a prominent concern in Paul's day, and it sometimes happened even with people under the apostles' supervision. People often underestimate the soteriological inconsistencies we see in post-apostolic church history. Supposedly, none or few of the soteriological contradictions we see among the church fathers, medieval theologians, and other sources rise to the level of a false gospel. But it makes more sense to acknowledge that the soteriological errors are more significant than that and allow for the salvation of the individuals involved, despite their false soteriology.

The Practicality Of Theology And Justification In Particular

It's often suggested that matters like theology and apologetics don't have much practical value. What significance do they have in everyday life? They aren't pragmatic enough to deserve much time or attention. And the doctrine of justification is often singled out for that sort of commentary. Supposedly, arguments about justification, between Protestants and Catholics and in other contexts, don't matter much, are a waste of time, and so on.

Notice how the soteriological issues I addressed in my last post provide evidence to the contrary. For example, whether you're forgiven by God and have peace with him immediately (2 Corinthians 6:2), as soon as you come to faith, or when you're baptized six months later is significant. Similarly, the issue of the efficacy of deathbed repentance is of major importance. Much the same can be said of other soteriological issues.

Ironically, the sort of pragmatism advocated by the people I referred to in my opening paragraph is very unpragmatic. It causes a lot of significant problems in people's lives.

Extrabiblical, Pre-Reformation Support For Eternal Security

I wrote a post about the subject in 2007. Below are links to my recent series on the topic. I expect to add further links to this page in the future, as I write more material that's relevant.

Part 1: Preliminaries, Some Earlier Sources
Part 2: Augustine And His Opponents
Part 3: The Mercyists
Part 4: Some Other Sources

I later wrote about some medieval sources supporting eternal security.

And here's a post about some relevant comments made by Caesarius of Arles.

Go here for a discussion of support for eternal security in Jerome's Letter 119 and his commentary on Amos.

Another post discussed how pre-Reformation sources interpreted Biblical passages that have been cited in support of eternal security.

Extrabiblical, Pre-Reformation Support For Eternal Security (Part 1)

A documentary arguing against eternal security recently came out. It's mainly about the Biblical evidence, but it makes some comments about extrabiblical history along the way. Since it makes some misleading comments about the extrabiblical sources, and advocates of eternal security have handled those sources so poorly, I want to comment on the subject. It's not one of my primary areas of research, but I know enough about the topic to provide some information that significantly undermines the documentary's claims.

The Consistent Gospel Of The Gospels

A couple of years ago, I put together a collection of posts on agreements between the Synoptics and the gospel of John. I've updated it since then. One of the posts there is about the soteriology of the gospels. It's focused on the gospels, but also addresses, to a lesser extent, how consistent the gospels are with the rest of the New Testament.

O all ye who passe by, behold and see;
Man stole the fruit, but I must climbe the tree;
The tree of life to all, but onely me:
Was ever grief like mine?
(George Herbert, "The Sacrifice")

"O happy is that man that shutteth his eyes from all other sights, and will neither hear nor see any other thing than Jesus Christ crucified; in whom are laid up and bestowed all the treasures of God's wisdom and divine knowledge!" (The Benefit Of Christ's Death, 93)

A Good Discussion Of First Clement

James White recently had a good discussion with Stephen Boyce about First Clement. They talk about the letter's significance with regard to Trinitarianism, the canon of scripture, justification, church government, and other subjects.

Soteriology As Evidence For The Gospels

A neglected line of evidence for the harmony and historicity of the gospels is their agreement on soteriological issues. I'll cite several examples.

They all approach salvation from a first-century Jewish perspective, as a matter of needing to be reconciled to the God of Israel because of our sin. In all four gospels, Jesus doesn't just lead people to God the Father, but also calls them to himself to an extent unprecedented among the prophets, priests, kings, and other earlier leaders and later church leaders: come to him, believe in him, follow him, he forgives sins, etc. Salvation is framed in terms of being Abraham's children in a spiritual rather than physical sense (Matthew 3:9, Luke 19:9, John 8:39). The redeemed are referred to as children in a broader sense as well, without the connection to Abraham, and as young children in particular (Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:14, Luke 11:13, John 13:33). Salvation involves entrance into the kingdom of God (Matthew 5:20, Mark 10:15, Luke 18:24, John 3:5). All of the gospels portray Jesus' crucifixion as salvific, as illustrated by the Last Supper and Jesus' comments in John 6, for example. There's a common theme of Jesus as the shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (Matthew 26:31, Mark 14:27, Luke 15:4, John 10:11). All of the gospels agree on the freeness of salvation, in the sense that it's received through faith alone, as illustrated in my recent post on justification apart from baptism. All four gospels portray repentance as implied by faith, so that repentance will sometimes be mentioned alongside faith to emphasize it, whereas only one or the other will be mentioned on other occasions. They agree in having faith accompanied by regeneration and sanctification, so that saving faith is evidenced by improved behavior. Matthew 11:28-30 has Jesus offering rest and a yoke simultaneously. John 5:24 lays out justification through faith alone, then follows it with a reference to judgment according to works in 5:29. And the gospels agree about the general parameters of the connection between faith and works. Jesus demands perfection (Matthew 5:48, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 6:36, John 15:12), and there are comments about how "difficult", "impossible", etc. his demands are (Matthew 25:24-26, Mark 10:17-27, Luke 18:18-27, John 6:60), yet those demands are accompanied by his acceptance of individuals who fall well short of what he's demanding. Men like Peter and John are portrayed as redeemed individuals and different than the average person (having faith, associating closely with Jesus, etc.), but they still sin to a significant degree. There's also agreement that individuals like Judas were never saved to begin with. People often associate the thinking behind 1 John 2:19 with the fourth gospel, but some of the same concepts are found in Matthew 7:21-23.

To appreciate the importance of agreements like these, consider how easily the gospels could have disagreed, even disagreed radically, on these matters. Think of the wide variety of views of salvation of one sort or another found in Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc. To cite an example I discussed in another recent post, think about the role of baptism in the gospels. Given the tendency in Christian circles to make baptism more prominent in later centuries, it would have been easy for one or more of the gospels to have given baptism a much more prominent role if the gospels had been written later and were less historical.

Justification Apart From Baptism: Not Just The Thief On The Cross

I recently had an email exchange with somebody asking me for Biblical examples of justification apart from baptism. He had cited the thief on the cross in a discussion with somebody, and that person responded by dismissing the thief as an exception to the rule. So, he was interested in other Biblical passages to bring up.

Here's my response:

Here are some passages illustrating justification prior to or without baptism, aside from the thief on the cross:

Mark 2:5
Mark 5:34
Mark 10:52
Luke 7:50
Luke 17:19
Luke 18:10-14
Luke 19:9
Acts 10:44-48
Acts 19:2
Galatians 3:2
Ephesians 1:13-14

I can provide an explanation of why I've included each of those passages, if you need me to explain any of them.

Some of them can be shown to be in normative contexts, so they can't be dismissed as exceptions to a rule (e.g., what happened in Acts 10 is referred to as if it's normative in 11:17-18 and 15:7-11). The cumulative effect of the passages also suggests that what they're illustrating is normative. Why would so many people across so many contexts be justified in the same allegedly non-normative way while nobody is portrayed as being justified in the way that supposedly is normative? Nobody is referred to as not being justified until after baptism.

Galatians 3 probably is the best passage you can cite (the whole chapter, though the verse I've highlighted is central). The chapter provides a good combination of didactic material and historical illustrations. The Galatians and Abraham are referred to as being justified in contexts that can't involve baptism (the Galatians while hearing the gospel being proclaimed rather than during a baptismal ceremony; Abraham before baptism existed). And the didactic portions of the chapter exclude all systems of work as a means of justification, not just the Mosaic law or some other aspect of Judaism, as the references to "a law" and "a tutor" in verses 21-25 show. Furthermore, Galatians was written well after the time of Jesus' resurrection, so what the passage says can't be dismissed as only addressing an earlier timeframe before justification through baptism went into effect. People sometimes claim that the requirement for baptism didn't go into effect until after passages like the ones cited above in the gospels, such as after the resurrection. The evidence is against that claim, and it isn't even relevant to a passage like Galatians 3.

The passages discussed above aren't exhaustive. They're just examples. I've written more about passages like these elsewhere, such as here, here, and here. You can search the archives for many other relevant threads. The second and third ones just linked include discussions of an important passage in Josephus. For more about the patristic evidence, see here and here.

Clement Of Rome Wasn't Roman Catholic

There was a good discussion of the doctrine of justification in First Cement on one of James White's recent webcasts. If you do a Ctrl F search for "Clement" in the thread here, including in the comments section, you'll find a lot of additional information on the subject, such as responses to some popular counterarguments. But James White made some good points that didn't come up in the thread linked above, so listen to his webcast as well. And here's a collection of links to other material on inconsistencies between First Clement and Roman Catholicism.

An act of pure grace

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . (John 1:14)

There is a reason why works of Systematic Theology discuss “Theology proper” and “Christology” before they bring up soteriology. In the Scriptures, some concepts must be understood in the context of other concepts, before other concepts can be brought in.

In what follows, Billings discusses a topic of Christology – bringing up the topic of precisely how “the Word became flesh”. Reformed Christology relies on the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), which according to Robert Reymond “addressed every problem that had plagued the church [up to that point] with regard to the person of Christ” (Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, pg 608). In addition, he says, “In my opinion, as an apologetical, ecumenical, and clarifying statement regarding the person of Christ, the Definition of Chalcedon remains unsurpassed. No other human creed has ever been written that captures as well as it does the exact balance of Scripture and permits all that the Scripture says about God the Son incarnate to be given their just due”.

That’s not the end of the story by any means. But moving then to the concept of “Union with Christ” (a topic of “soteriology” rather than “Christology”), the following selection discussing how Augustine, relying upon the pre-Chalcedonian Christology of his day (he wrote vs Pelagius approximately in the years 412-415) ties together both the Christology and soteriology to come up with his understanding of Sovereign grace:

The Twinkie defense

I have a longer post in preparation with some thoughts on the theory of retributive punishment, but I wanted to share what I think is a helpful word picture (pun intended!) derived from St. Athanasius' classic On the Incarnation of the Word that can help understand why it was necessary for Jesus to suffer and die, without that suffering and death being penal, i.e. a punishment inflicted upon him.


According to Athanasius, the ultimate goal of the incarnation of the Word was to purge human nature of the corruption of sin and revive it. But human nature could not be cleansed of corruption from the outside: renewal had to take place from within. The only being with the kind of life which could renew the life of the human creature was the Word. Thus the Word took on a body and allowed that body to suffer all the consequences of sin, including death, so that the Life of the Word could then neutralize and destroy them entirely.

A helpful way to think about Athanasius' argument is in disease terms. Imagine a healthy person deliberately exposing himself to a deadly disease, knowing that he has the vitality and strength to neutralize it and thus produce an antidote. To do so the person has to actually suffer from the disease. It is painful for the body to go through the systems as the immune system furiously develops the antidote (it goes without saying this analogy should not be pressed too far!), but ultimately the disease is completely neutralized, the person springs back to health and can now 'infect' others with the antidote.

Jesus suffered death so that he could destroy it and infect us with life. He is truly the Great Physician.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/08/christ-antidote.html

I won’t comment on whether or not that’s a representative statement of Athanasius’ overall position on the atonement. I’m not a patrologist, and I’m more concerned with exegeting Bible writers than church fathers. By the same token, I won’t comment on whether or not this is an accurate illustration of his position.

Instead, I’ll just comment on JD’s illustration on its own terms:

i) To the extent that Scripture uses medical metaphors to depict the person and work of Christ, it casts Jesus in the role of the physician, not the patient. Jesus is not the one who is sick. Rather, he heals the sick.

So JD is subverting the Biblical symbolism.

ii) Yes, it’s possible to dream up a medical illustration in which a doctor is both a patient and a healer. However, that’s not developing a Biblical depiction of Christ. That’s at odds with the Biblical depiction.

iii) Even on its own terms, how does JD literally envision Christ infecting us? At the Incarnation, are all human beings plugged into Christ through plastic tubing, so that we receive antibodies through a dominical blood transfusion?

But if we drop the metaphor, what does that mean, exactly? If every human being is receiving the same transfusion, why are so of the patients deathly ill?

iii) JD is, in effect, reducing salvation to sanctification and glorification. To the merely subjective and manward aspects of salvation.

There’s nothing wrong with that as far as it goes. But as many have noted over the years, heresies tend to be half-truths.

iv) Consistent with his repudiation of penal substitution and retributive punishment, his illustration excises the whole forensic dimension of sin and salvation. Gone are guilt, righteousness, justice, and justification. Even if the labels are retained to keep up appearances, they’re radically redefined.

There’s no place in this framework for good and evil. Illness replaces evil. The Twinkies made me do it.

Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology

Peter Leithart's take.

Incarnational ecclesiology?

"Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox together: Is the church the extension of the incarnation?" by Mark Saucy.

Arminianism Unveiled

In response to my "all means all, except when it doesn't" post, the Arminians have been forced to lay their cards on the table.

Before it was so easy to say, "It's obvious unlimited atonement is true because it says Jesus died for all." Now, not so easy. Now, they are forced to admit that they plop the Bible on their Procustean bed and either stretch it in places or lop it off at the legs in places, depending on what makes it fit their predetermined (!) notions of what God must be like.

For example, we read this from Robert:

Logically there are only three possibilities regarding the “all verses” in the bible: (1) all never means all; (2) all always means all; or (3) all sometimes means all and sometimes does not mean all. We can easily dismiss possibility (1) as no one suggests that. We can also easily dismiss possibility (2) as we can all present verses where all does not mean all. That leaves only possibility (3) that sometimes all means all and sometimes all does not mean all in the bible verses. I believe careful consideration of the texts and contexts will show where all means all and where all does not mean all. The determinist will also grant that possibility (3) is the correct one. Their problem is that when they come to soteriological passages, where all in fact means all, because of their system and not proper interpretation of the biblical texts, they will argue that in those soteriological passages all does not mean all. So for the committed determinist it always comes down to allegiance to an erroneous system over proper interpretation of clear biblical texts. And if someone makes this move, there really is not much chance of dissuading them of their false interpretation. So due to their allegiance to the false deterministic system, they will then have to argue that in fact Jesus does not love all the children of the world. And that He does not want to save them all nor did He want to provide a provision of salvation for them all through the cross. And if they are candid about what they truly believe they have to claim that in fact Jesus planned from eternity to reprobate/damn most of the children of the world. If they wrote the song in accordance with their false theology it would be “Jesus hates most of the children of the world and he reprobated them before they were born for his ‘glory””.

Perhaps Robert can help out his pals like Victor Reppert who says things like:

"You see, every time I get into an exegetical argument about Calvinism I usually end up saying "All means all," and the Calvinist says "well, it means from all groups, not all persons." To people like us, Calvinists are saying "OK you signed onto following Jesus and you think He loves everybody. But read the fine print."

Oh, by the way, Robert lauded Reppert's defenses and understanding of Arminianism.

Anyway...so, my post demonstrated that Arminians can't appeal to the "But it says Jesus died for all" arguments anymore, Robert saw that, and tries to recover what's left for his fellow Arminians.

Now, notice that no "careful examination of the texts" is made. It is simply asserted that "all means all in the salvation texts, even though it may not elsewhere.

But, can an examination of the text demonstrate this? If so, let's see it.

Actually, what is really being said, as is clear above, is this:

"I have an allegiance to a specific system of what it means to say "God is love" and that must mean that Jesus would die for all men to give 'em a shot at heaven, because if he didn't, that would be unloving.

Now, can this view be exegeted from the text of Scripture? If so, let's see it.

I don't think so, though. Why not? Well, actually, the above a priori tradition is actually based on another a priori tradition that cannot be exegeted from Scripture. It looks like this:

"Well [say that pushing a lot of air out of your mouth and with a perplexed look on your face], it wouldn't be loving because, well, you know, God has to give everyone an equal shot and allow all to libertarianly choose him, 'cause that's real love. If a 'decision to accept Christ' is free, then God knows the sinner really loves God and wants to be in heaven."

Can this conception of libertarianism be exegeted from Scripture? No, it can't. Moreover, if the Arminian appeals to texts that say "God loves all" and they mean "God soterically loves all," why do they think that? It can't be because "all means all." That would be to massively beg the question. No, it's because this is an assumption they have.

So, the Arminian who takes the bait in my "all doesn't always mean all" post is forced to claim that context can determine the extent of "all" passages.

He must then (a) demonstrate that the context of soteric passages means all, but he does this by (b) resorting to raw emotion (we can't be robots, if you love something set it free, if it comes back it was meant to be, whoopee!) and extra biblical philosophical assumptions unable to be proved from Scripture.

Now, the Arminian may think that these assumptions brought to the text are true. That's fine. It's a free country. But, they should stop pretending that they have exegeted things like unlimited atonement from Scripture. They should do the honest thing and admit that they have certain philosophical assumptions, and so, with Wesley, they say, "I don't know what the text means, but I know it can mean that [where "that" means "Calvinism"].

As for me, I'm actually glad God determined that I would love him. Left to my own devices, I'd actually love my sin more than Him.

A world where God and fallen man have libertarian freedom, and man is totally depraved, is a world where God and fallen man are never reconciled. And if, per impossible, they could be reconciled, that world provides no guarantee that they will remain reconciled.

Just like Islam provides no eternal assurance, so does a world with libertarian free will for God and man. Funny how libertarianism ends at the same place as the hard-core conjunction of determinism and voluntarism presented in Islam.

Success Rates

I'd planned to take a year off blogging - but John Loftus provides some low hanging fruit from which it's good to make a wider point or points:

Loftus writes:

If God sent Jesus to save the world by dying on the cross for our sins (the greater deed) then he should at least be as passionate as Christians are to help people believe (the lesser deeds). Why would God do the greater deed and not also do the lesser deeds? This doesn't make sense of an omniscient, omnibenelovent, and omnipotent God. The excuses given for the paucity of evidence reveal that the Christian expects way too little from the God they believe in.

1. Note how John assumes what he needs to prove, namely that Jesus died for "our" sins - defined by his Arminian upbringing as "everybody without exception.

2. Neither does he address the concept of "divine silence."

3. And he doesn't bother with telling us if this is an internal or an external critique.

a. If internal, this might be effective against some Arminians, but it doesn't begin to touch Reformed theology.

b. If external, he's given us no reason to accept his standards of critique, whatever they may be.

4. Indeed, what divine omniscience has to do with this isn't even stated.

First let's look at what one thinks (as he doesn't give any specific texts) would be a standard text, John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, so that all the ones believing may not perish but have eternal life.

A. God loves the world. No problem. But love is not God's only attribute.
B. For whom did Jesus come to die? All the ones believing. John 3:16 is a marvelous text for particular redemption.

Indeed, this text is followed by John 3:17, which merely recapituates 3:16. The world is condemned already. Jesus did not come into it to condemn it. Rather, he came to save it.

This is all stated to explain the illustration of the serpent lifted up in the wilderness. It may help Arminians in general to read that narrative.. How many people for whom the serpent was lifted up actually died, according to that text? None. The people who died had already done so. So, what's the point? The point is simple: Jesus came to redeem the cosmos by being lifted up for the believing ones. Their salvation through Him is the means of cosmic redemption, the same way that God saved the nation of Israel through the serpent being lifted up. The believing ones looked to it, and the nation was saved.

So, what does this mean for John's post?

Well, for starters, the target group isn't "the world" defined as "everybody." The target group of people in the world is the elect. All the elect will be saved, and by this the world is saved. God isn't in heaven wringing His hands hoping that people will all come to Christ. Sure, He offers some people who ultimately reject Christ salvation, but that's for their inculpation, and the call is general because God doesn't write a big "E" across the forehead of the elect, who are scattered in geography and history. The force of a gospel presentation generally is to call the elect and inculpate the reprobate, and God need not present the gospel to everybody anyway:

1. Divine silence is a judgment for sin.
2. People are condemned already. The reprobate are already condemned. In a sense not hearing the gospel is a mercy, for "to whom much is given, much is required."

Likewise common grace itself is indexed to the Noahic covenant...for the purpose of maintaining the world until God's purposes of redemption are accomplished...and that very covenant was made with Noah and his familo, so it too is indexed, ultimately, to the elect.

So, God is "passionate" about calling the elect. His "omnibenevolence" extends to "everybody" insofar as God's ultimate purposes are concerned, is being fulfilled. Love is not God's only attribute, and God certainly knows all things, for He's foreordained them. The great redemptive purposes of God are not a failure. The success rate is 100 percent (something that can't be said of Arminianism, given general redemption), and "divine silence" is not a testament against the truth of the Bible or the Gospel. Rather, it is proof of it. God did the "greater deed," by sending Christ to die for the elect, and He does the "lesser" by making sure each and every one of them is saved.

If this is the best John Loftus can do these days, we welcome it, for this sort of namby pamby argumentation does Reformed theology a great favor.

Perseverance of the Saints (Howell)

There seems to be some confusion on certain skeptical (and Arminian) blogs with respect to apostasy and backsliding. Folks are acting as if a profession of faith or even the sustaining of certain experiences over time constitutes a valid conversion experience in the past. Likewise, they are acting as if, in the case of apostates, we, their critics, have stated that their experience was not "real" (to them). Neither propositions are true: This should clear it up (emphases mine):

Perseverance of the Saints

DELIVERED BY
R. B. C. HOWELL

---

The Privileges of Believers In Christ Include
Their Perseverance In Grace Unto the Attainment of Final, and
Complete Salvation

Philippians 1:6 "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."

To persevere in grace unto the attainment of final, and complete salvation, is another, and the last in the catalogue which I shall at present particularly consider, of the inestimable privileges growing out of the union of believers with Christ. I need not tell you that a result so glorious will not be achieved without a struggle. The utmost energies of minds renewed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, will be imperatively demanded. Battles are to be fought; victories are to be won; labors are to be endured; before the end is gained.

. . . Not for thee
Spreads the world her downy pillow;
On the rock thy couch must me,
While around thee chafes the billow."

But in every struggle, every conflict, Jehovah is your guide and support, and has promised that you shall be "more than conquerors," through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many excellent christians however, in opposition to the doctrine maintained by us, hold, to use the language of one of their most distinguished divines, that--"A believer may totally lose his faith, and regeneration, and may continue in apostasy, and so eternally perish."[1]

Either this proposition is not defensible, or that which asserts the final perseverance of the saints--in other words, the continuance of all believers "in a state of grace to a state of glory"--must be abandoned. Both cannot be true. To which shall we adhere? It is our interest, and our duty, to know the truth, on this, and all other topics; and thanks to our God, the means are accessible and at hand by which the whole inquiry may be fully and satisfactorily determined.

Before entering upon the argument however, whether in refutation of the opinion stated, or in defence of our own conclusion, it is necessary, if you would clearly comprehend the question to be examined, that several preliminary observations should be submitted..

In the first place, we predicate final perseverance in grace of those only who are "born again"--the saints of Christ Jesus--and not of mere professors of religion. Let this fact be kept constantly in memory. Professors of religion, members of the Churches, are not all, as a matter of course, the children of God, and followers of the Redeemer. Many, in every age, have assumed the outward forms of godliness, in whose hearts true piety had no dwelling place. In the estimation of enlightened christians of every class, such are expected to "fall away." Their relations to the Church are not congenial; their spiritual duties are burdensome; they soon become weary; and in going back to the world, they return to a course of life which their hearts always preferred. Their apostasy is a natural consequence, and always to be anticipated.

It is, secondly, necessary that you discriminate carefully, between backsliding, and apostasy. The former is the act of turning back from God; the latter is the forsaking, or the renouncing of the religion of Christ. Backsliding consists either in the relinquishment of evangelical doctrine; or in the loss of spirituality of mind; or in the gradual departure from correct morals. All these evils are embraced in apostasy. The backslider commits transgressions, but returns to his allegiance, and obtains forgiveness, and acceptance. The apostate continues; dies in his sins; and "so eternally perishes." We teach that none of the true children of God--he believing, the pardoned, the regenerated, the sanctified--become apostate, but to backsliding, of every character and degree, all, it is but too evident, even the best, and most devoted, are constantly, and painfully liable.

A third preliminary remark--Final perseverance in grace is never accomplished without the divinely appointed instrumentalities. The means, and the ends, are invariably associated. And will believers in Christ always employ those means? If they do, the result can never be doubtful. Messiah himself says they will. If a man love me he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."[2] "This is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous."[3] The saints of the Redeemer--

"Have proclaimed him King, and in their hearts
His title is engraven, with a pen
Dipt in the fountain of eternal love,"

With these considerations before you, we proceed to weigh carefully, and prayerfully, in the balances of divine truth, the principal objections to the conclusion that all believers in Christ will persevere in grace unto the attainment of final and complete salvation, never "totally losing their faith, and regeneration," but pressing onward till they reach, and wear, the crown of eternal life.

The first of these objections may be stated thus--Many of the angels apostatized; our first parents also, fell from their original state of holiness; why then, may not christians "lose their faith and regeneration," and so bring upon themselves eternal perdition?

We have here brought before us two classes of intelligent beings; angels in heaven; and men in their primal state of innocence. Let us consider them separately. Angels belong to another world. Of the cause, and nature, of their apostasy, I may be permitted to remark, we know very little. Upon this topic our Heavenly Father has not deemed our instruction necessary. Allusions to the subject in his word, are made only incidentally. No argument therefore, can be predicated upon the fall of angels, in support of the doctrine which teaches the apostasy of christians. Here we dismiss this part of the objection.

But our first parents also fell from their original state of holiness. If so, may not christians under similar influences, fall and be lost?

This proposition demands our serious investigation. I observe, that between their primitive condition, and that of truly regenerated men of subsequent ages, no such similarity exists, as will admit of conclusive reasoning from the one to the other. Let several facts, evincive of the truth of this statement, be considered. You will, in the first place, remember that the covenant of God with them was wholly different from that upon which you now stand. To Adam Jehovah said--"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not ear of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."[4]

The obligation of this covenant was a simple negative, upon a single point. How easy would have been compliance. The conditions were explicit--obey, and live; disobey, and die. The result need not be repeated.

With this, contrast the Gospel Covenant--"I will put my laws into their mind, (saith Jehovah) and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest; for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins, and their iniquities will I remember no more."[5]

Well may this be distinguished as "the covenant of grace!" How utterly unlike the Adamic. With our first parents all was unbending justice; with you all is favor, mercy, boundless forbearance. In the covenant with them, no provision was made for the pardon of sin; in the Gospel covenant, this is one of the strongest features. Besides all this, they were, until they sinned, utter strangers to pain, and sorrow, and wasting wretchedness. They had not experience of evil. You have known all its bitterness. And further, They disposed of their own life, and alas! incurred its dreadful forfeiture! "Ye are lead (to sin) and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also, appear with his in glory."[6]

Their condition was wholly different from yours. Almost its antipodes. The reasoning from analogy therefore--is here clearly out of place--it is not legitimate. Neither, as you now see, from the fall of angels nor of our first parents, from their original state of holiness, can any valid arguments be adduced, proving that regenerated men, once depraved and sinful, but now redeemed and sanctified, are liable to "loose their faith, and regeneration, or to continue in apostasy, and so eternally perish." The objection is without relevancy, or force.

The threatenings, cautions, and warnings, with which the word of God every where abounds, imply, it is alleged, if they do not aver, the probability that some true christians will apostatise, and forever perish. They are therefore presented as a second objection to the doctrine it is my purpose to establish.

That such threatenings and cautions, and warnings, are of constant recurrence in the divine word, and that they are in their character, appalling, is most true. The premises are therefore cheerfully conceded, but the conclusion from thence, does not appear to me, by any means natural, or a matter of course. The reasoning is illogical, as I shall presently fully demonstrate. Let two important facts be here fixed carefully in the mind. The Church of Christ is composed, not of the regenerate alone, but of the unregenerate also. This is the first fact. The second is, that all these threatenings, and cautions, and warnings, are addressed to the members of the Church as a body. Both these truths will, I suppose, be readily admitted by all.

But I would be fully understood, and therefore, will refer you to testimony. I do not admit that the unconverted have any right to a place in the Churches. The word of God, we very well know, does not approve their admission. On the contrary, it is strictly prohibited. But those who administer the affairs of the kingdom of Christ upon earth, are men. They are imperfect; their administration also must therefore be imperfect. Our best efforts may be exerted to preserve the body pure from unworthy members, but we cannot read men's hearts, and in despite of all our vigilance, very many find their way into the Church, who are strangers to repentance and faith; some probably, for some reasons, seeking to appear what they know they are not; and others candid, and sincere, but misled, and deceived. I state the simple fact that there are unconverted men in the Churches. So it has been in every age---in apostolic as well as in our own times. A Judas, and a Simon Magus, were then members of the Churches, and stood side by side, with a James, and a John. So now, the converted and the unconverted, the eminently holy, and the profoundly depraved, meet and mingle in the sanctuary, and at the very table of the Lord. Such, to a greater or less extent, are all the Churches. This we know to be true, by the institution in the word of God of disciplinary measures to exclude the unworthy when discovered, and by our own personal observation.

To the Churches as bodies, so composed, are all the fearful passages in question addressed. To the members of the Church at Rome for example, Paul said--"If ye live after the flesh ye shall die."[7]

To those of the Churches of Galatia, "Be not deceived God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap; for he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption."[8]

To the members of the old Jewish Church the prophet Ezekiel said--"When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he love? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned; in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sins that he hath sinned, in them shall he die."[9]

Does any one deny that these, and all similar threatenings, are, in fact, addressed to the members of the Churches. If they are not addressed to members of the Churches, they can have no influence upon the argument; they are directed to those who are not members, and whose claims to religion, since all truly religious men unite with the Churches, are at best, exceedingly questionable. They are in truth, however, addressed to the Churches, all of whose members are professedly righteous, and claim to be accepted of God through Christ. They are so regarded by their brethren, and by all others. For a season, they all act in accordance with their profession. No difference in zeal, and good works, can be perceived between the truly converted and unconverted. They all, whatever may be really the fact, bear the same character. They are known as christians--men of God.

Uniting with the Church however, important as this act may be, is any easy matter. It is but the beginning of the christian life. Next comes the period of trial. Will all who join the Churches, bear the test to which sooner or later, they will most surely be subjected. Remember also that the period which is to try the strength of their faith, patience, obedience, and fidelity, extends through their whole life upon earth. With these facts before you, survey the scene which I will now sketch, as it passes. For one, the seductions of sense, ere long, prove too mighty; he yields; lives after the flesh, and dies. Another, carried away by the fascinations of the world,--wealth, ambition, honor, pleasure--is found sowing to the flesh; he reaps corruption. Then the righteous man--he who had been eminent for zeal, and good works, foremost in the sacred ranks, is overthrown, turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and miserably perish! A succession of similar events continues. Their profession when tested, prove unequal to the trial! They have fallen; and are probably lost forever. Behold the picture. Is it imaginary? Alas! far from it. Do these facts, however, prove that the persons in question have "lost their faith, and regeneration?" Surely not. The facts all concur to demonstrate that they never possessed these high endowments. True they professed religion. But the indubitable evidence of a man's faith and regeneration" is, not alone that he has been excited, and experienced fears and sorrows, and confidence and raptures; nor that he does many righteous acts, and is lauded as eminently devoted; but it is that he sustains the tests to which he is subjected in the christian profession. The "refiners fire" consumes the dross only; the pure gold all remains, and is by the process, rendered but the finer, and the brighter. Can it be proved that these men who have fallen, although they previously maintained the character of great piety, were ever rally regenerated? Never. Such proof is impossible, as long as men can appear to be what they are not. Then their fall is very far from showing that the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints is not true.

Do not, however, the truly converted also, sometimes fall? We have seen that there are in the Churches two classes of persons. So, I beg you to observe, are there two classes of persons among the fallen. The one class, now free from the Church, seem to delight in sin; their hearts grow daily, more and more obdurate; their conscience appears but a feeble impulse; their sin against God has no restraint, except their desire to subserve their own personal and family reputation, and interest. The other class are, after a while at least, overtaken by remorse; repentance pursues them; and with self loathing and tears, they return, and assure us that, throughout all their wanderings, they were doing violence to their consciences, and their judgment, and were supremely miserable. The former were unregenerate apostates; and latter converted backsliders. If some like Hymeneus and Alexander make shipwreck of their professed faith and good conscience, and thus go down miserably to eternal death; others, like a David and Peter, return from their sins, and give themselves anew to the service of him who has graciously said--"I will heal their backslidings; I will love them freely."[10]

These general remarks apply to all the individual instances of apostasy recorded in the scriptures, and which are constantly occurring within the circle of our own observation. Prophecy foretells them and time witnesses the truth of the prediction. Many of Christ's own personal disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Men are still characterised by like conduct. Were such ever changed in heart? They have been, we have said, under spiritual influences; they have done many things religiously; but all the testimony accessible forbids the conclusion that they were ever renewed. Of those in the Philippian Church, and they may be safely assumed as examples of all others, Paul does not intimate the former regeneration, but says--"Many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction."[11]

Of what value then, we may be asked, are all these threatenings, and warnings, and cautions? They are, I answer, of infinite benefit to those who without having experienced any change of heart, have nevertheless professed religion. True, they have assumed a most dangerous position. Deception--

"--So potent is its spell,
That none, decoy'd into that fatal ring,
Unless by Heaven's peculiar grace, escape."

Still they are not beyond the boundaries of mercy. They may yet repent, believe, and be saved. But how are they to be reached? Threatenings, and cautions, and warnings, are addressed to the whole Church. Were they not, these graceless professors would never apply them to themselves. The appalling declarations of Jehovah of which we speak, may bring dismay, and trembling to the heart of the contrite; they at the same time however, apprise the unrenewed of their danger, and thus become the means of their salvation. They are promotive also of the highest interests of the true christian. What in fact, are they all, but so many expressions of love, by which their Father in heaven assures them to the inseparable connection which always subsists as well between sin and misery, as between holiness and salvation. They in all cases, imply the opposite promises; and do often, most effectually, the work of mercy. If we truly "have fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord," the fears they excite will serve to make us cleave to the truth with increased tenacity, and to walk before God with growing carefulness, and humility. By how much therefore the awakening and deliverance of the erring, and the carefulness, and security of these who love Christ, are valuable, by so much are the threatenings, cautions, and warnings of the word of God fraught with benevolence and grace.

Upon a careful examination of this whole topic you must now clearly see that the threatenings, the cautions, and the warnings, of the word of God, and all the individual instances of apostasy recorded in the scripture, and that occur in our own day, afford no proof that any true believer in Christ will ever "lose his faith, and regeneration," or will not persevere in grace unto the attainment of final and complete salvation.

Many, in the third place, object to our conclusion on this subject from the apprehension that the doctrine may inspire a dangerous security, and create a carelessness in the use of the means of salvation. They think its practical tendency injurious.

Such may be the effect of crude and erroneous notions of the doctrine. Ignorance and error, are always productive of evil. But no such consequences are attendant upon it when truly and fully comprehended. Does any one, professedly a christian, and properly instructed, deliberately, and intentionally, practice sin against God? This fact ought instantly to convince him that he is yet unrenewed in the spirit of his mind; and he may perhaps be moved thereby to seek as never before, and obtain, salvation. It is essential to the very nature of grace that it lead to holiness and obedience in this life, as well as to salvation in that which is to come. But it is said, men are free agents, and therefore, have the power to throw away their "faith and regeneration." Yes, men are free agents; but will they therefore act contrary to nature? Because you are a free agent will you leave the abodes of civilization, resort to the fields, and "eat straw like the ox." Never. You will not, because it is in opposition to your nature. The nature of the christian is renewed. His will is turned to God, and it determines him to serve God. Can you will in opposition to your will? His affections are holy. You love your Lord Jesus Christ.--Can you then love and follow sin? Can you have experience of its criminality, and ingratitude, and misery, and not instinctively reject it? Can you know Christ, and deliberately, and finally forsake him? Can you have faith in the Redeemer, and cherish an impure heart? Can confidence of your safety in Christ become the motive which impels you to rebel against him, and follow the life of a sinner? Surely not. Such things cannot be. Yet they must all occur before it can be rendered probable that the doctrine, which teaches the final perseverance of the saints, is of injurious practical tendency. But there is another, and a still plainer test, by which the strength of the objection may be tried. I appeal to facts. They are numerous, and at hand. Look around you, and tell me, are those who believe in the doctrine that christians "fall from grace, and eternally perish,"--and there are many such--more circumspect, spiritual, religious, or less likely to become apostates, than those who believe in the final perseverance of the saints? We know they are not. They are, to say the least, as frequently as men of any other class, overcome by the evils which so thickly beset the paths of the christian. All the testimony in the case disproves therefore, the injurious practical tendency alleged.

These I believe, are all the objections of any importance, to the doctrine which maintains the final perseverance of the saints--the fall of the angels, and of our first parents, from their original state of holiness; the threatenings of the word of God; the individual examples of apostasy recorded in the scriptures, and that occur in our own day; and the alleged injurious practical tendency of the doctrine. We have candidly and impartially considered them all, and have seen that they are without weight, and fall far short of disproving the proposition that all true believers will at last, gain the crown of eternal life.

We now turn to consider briefly, some of the leading arguments in favor of the doctrine.

Salvation, I remark, in the first place, is preeminently the work of God. This great truth constitutes a primary article in the faith of all evangelical christians. He has redeemed, regenerated, and sanctified his people, with a view to their salvation, and the glory of all his attributes demands that the end proposed shall be accomplished. His love to his people is unchangeable, and therefore they cannot be the objects of it at one time, and not at another. His faithfulness to them, and to his promises, is not founded upon their merits, but his own will and goodness; it cannot therefore be violated. His wisdom foresees every obstacle in the way, and is capable of removing it, and directing them into the right path. Has he chosen an end so glorious, and will he fail to choose the means necessary for its accomplishment? His power is absolute, and perpetually exerted for their preservation, and protection. And will he not save his people? To them all, the divine declaration is made--"To an inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you," ye "are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time."[12]

The nature of their connection with the Lord Jesus Christ, I observe secondly, justifies the assurance that all the truly regenerate will persevere in divine grace unto eternal life.

"We are bound to give thanks always to God, for you brethren, beloved of the Lord," says an apostle, "because God hath from the beginning, chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth; whereunto he hath called you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."[13]

Again. The atonement by Jesus Christ, God the Father has accepted for the forgiveness of your sins. Will he revoke his act of pardon; and will the law once satisfied by Messiah, again turn upon you, and demand at your hands a second satisfaction? Is not the law just, and holy? Again. By your adoption into the family of Jehovah, you are proclaimed from on high, "Heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ."[14]

Will this proclamation be reversed, and you disinherited? How can this be, since you receive all these blessings by the Will and Testament of our Lord himself, and to give full effect to his actions, the Testator is dead? And again, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."[15]

You believe, and therefore have everlasting life. Shall this life be extinguished? This cannot be, since it is impossible that that which is everlasting can after a few years cease to exist. Once more. Jesus Christ is our Advocate to plead our cause before the Father in heaven. Will he fail of success? Now if in Christ Jesus you were from the beginning chosen, to salvation, and to secure it you have been actually called, and endowed with faith, and sanctification; if through him you have been pardoned, and the claims of the law against you fully satisfied; if you are recognized, and proclaimed heirs with Christ of the heavenly inheritance; if you already have everlasting life; and have his glorious promise--"Because I live ye shall live also;"[16] what can we conclude but that your connection with Christ secures effectually, your final and complete salvation.

The perseverance of the saints in grace unto eternal life, is also evident, thirdly, from the work of the Holy Spirit.

"Now he," said Paul, "which establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."[17]

By this holy anointing the people of God are distinguished as already consecrated to be kings, and priests, on high; by the sealing they are received, recognized, and acknowledged, as his peculiar treasure; and by the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts--that is the giving of a part as a pledge of the future bestowment of the whole--he fully ratifies our title to eternal salvation. Further. Our regeneration, and sanctification constitute important parts of the process by which we are fitted and qualified for heaven, and give undoubted proof that it is the intention of the Holy Ghost to save us. Will he, after all this, fail of his design?

God--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--purpose the salvation of all believers. This truth is now placed beyond the reach of controversy. On this point there is, I must think, no question in the mind of any intelligent christian. No deficiency can exist on the part of Jehovah, nor of any of the persons in the adorable Trinity. If all believers are not saved, the failure cannot be chargeable to God.

Finally. The salvation of all believers is a result guaranteed by the influence of the new nature in the soul of the regenerate.

In every instance of true conversion to God, the will, the affections, the desires, the purposes--all the powers of the mind--are, as we have already said, turned from sin to holiness. The old unsanctified nature, followed worldly things; the new spiritual nature follows of choice, the things of God. This is now the ruling influence of the soul. Men, as a general rule, act always in accordance with the impulses of their nature. This every one knows to be true. To suppose that any one will do otherwise, long at a time, is both unphilosophical, and unscriptural. This principle is recognized by our Saviour himself. "The tree is know by its fruit." "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things."[18] Christians are, by inspiration, addressed as "Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling."[19] All men undoubtedly act in accordance with their nature; the nature of believers is holy; they will therefore pursue a course of holy action. Will they then, ever finally abandon themselves to a life of sin? If so they will act in opposition to their nature, to suppose which, we have seen, is against both philosophy and scripture. Into snares, and temptations, they, as has been shown, may, and do, often fall, and not unfrequently, go very far into worldliness, and transgression. But if their nature is renewed, grace will ultimately triumph. The enlightened conscience will not always remain silent. They return to the path of life. This is the doctrine of Paul, who asks--"How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"[20] The grace of the Father, the love of the Son, and the promptings of the Holy Ghost, combine with the desires and aspirations of the soul, and bear the believer onward, and upward, until he stands accepted, and glorified, in the midst of the shining hosts "who have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb!" If additional proofs of the correctness of this doctrine were needed, they are abundantly supplied by direct, and unequivocal declarations of God himself. I must of many, satisfy myself with one, or two. He says--"I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish."[21] Truly, he "shall confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless, in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."[22]

The perseverance in grace of all true believers, unto the attainment of eternal life, is, as we have now fully shown, guaranteed by the perfections of God the Father; by their relations with our Lord Jesus Christ the Son; by the work in their hearts of the Holy Spirit; by the character of the new nature with which they are endowed; and by the express declarations of the divine word of truth. With glowing spirits, therefore, and boundless gratitude and love, we too, may join in that apostolic exultation, which so gloriously delineates the privileges of all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ--"If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also, freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died; yea rather, that is risen again; who is even at the right hand of God; who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, 'for thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.' Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor 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."[23]

I have now brought in review before you, some of the most distinguished privileges of believers in Christ. How strong the emphasis with which they speak the infinite love and grace of our Heavenly Father! It is yours to enjoy the free and full pardon of sins; to receive from Jehovah entire justification; to be admitted, and approved, among the adopted children of the Most High, an heir of the kingdom of grace on earth, and of glory in heaven; to have conferred upon you all the blessings described in the promises of the divine word; to be animated and sustained by the power of hope; and to persevere in grace unto the attainment of final and complete salvation. How rich are these honors! Surprising unspeakably, is their magnitude! Their excellency, what mind can justly conceive! They clothe you with a dignity and glory, not inferior to those of the tallest of the angels in his presence. And by your side stands God himself, your Father, your Friend, your Deliverer and points you to exalted seats in that "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." There you will soon be received, perfect, glorified, immortal. Who can describe the rapture which will thrill your bosom, when Messiah shall say--

"Ye blessed of my Father come, ye just
Enter the joy eternal, of your Lord;
Receive your crowns, ascend and sit with me,
At God's right hand, in glory evermore."

---

[1] Limborch's Theol. v. cap. lxxx.

[2] John 14:13, 19

[3] 1 John 5:3

[4] Gen. 2:16, 17

[5] Heb. 8:10-13

[6] Col. 3:3, 4

[7] Rom. 8:13

[8] Gal. 6:7, 8

[9] Ezek. 18:24

[10] Hosea 14:4

[11] Phil. 3:18, 19

[12] 1 Pet. 1:4, 5

[13] 2 Thess. 2:13, 14

[14] Rom. 8:17

[15] John 3:36

[16] John 14:10, 20

[17] 2 Cor. 1:21, 22

[18] Matt. 12:33, 35

[19] Heb. 3:1

[20] Rom. 6:2

[21] John 10:28

[22] 1 Cor. 1:8

[23] Rom. 8:31-39

The Warrant To Believe

Martin said:

Actually, whilst it may not be readily apparent, every man relies on a warrant to believe - although since, no man fully grasps all the implications and nuances of the gospel when they first believe, the details of the warrant may vary from person to person. But every person who puts their faith in Christ, must have reason to believe that God would show them mercy else they wouldn't do it would they? So, it seems to me that the matter of a warrant to believe *is* important. If someone who is considering the gospel happens to have heard of election and predestination then thay may well have questions about how can they put their faith in Christ if they can't be sure that He died for them? To say, in effect, 'believe, then you'll find out' seems to me to be unsatisfactory because it would not be answering that person's question.

TF replied:

It is sufficient warrant that man is commanded both to repent and believe. In other words, a command from God is sufficient ground, even if we have no reason to suppose that God will justify those who do believe.

Furthermore, it is also a sufficient response to someone who protests, "What if I am not one of the elect?" to say

"While it is true that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, nevertheless seize hold by faith of the promise that those who come to him he will not cast out. Do not come to God demanding your share of Christ's blood, but begging God that you might be adopted as one of His sons, and share in the benefits procured by Christ."

Here! Here!

Martin, this confuses assurance with the warrant to believe. The question, as TF has plainly stated so well," is "What constitutes the warrant to believe?"

Put another way, "What impels the Gospel call?"

The scope or sufficiency of the atonement does not impel the Gospel - Amyraldians and Arminians frame it that way.

The ability of man does not frame the call - Arminians frame it that way.

Questions about their personal election and predestination do not impel the Gospel - hyperCalvinists frame it that way.

And notice the subjectivity of the way it is framed. If a man says, "If I am not able, I will not convert," he is substituting his autonomy as an excuse for his unbelief.

If he asks how he can know he is elect, he is saying he will believe, if God will subjectively reveal it to him that he is elect. That's an excuse not believe.

If he says, "I will only believe if I know a priori that Christ died for me," he's trying to excuse his unbelief by asking for a subjective warrant.

And all of these would ultimately amount to a violation of Sola Scriptura at some point, because God is being called upon to engage in continuing revelation, especially for the man who asks to know if he is elect before he believes. If he really wanted to convert, he would just do so. So the impertinence of that question inculpates him. Sure, he may have a real question, but the answer is not to look for assurances, the answer is to be found in simply doing what God says to do.

The command itself impels the call - the Bible frames it that way, period. And this - and only this - is truly objective. Questions about whether Jesus died for me, whether I am elect or not, or if I have the ability to comply are really irrelevant, for they are impertinent.

Why? It's like being presented with a "Tablet of Stone." God says, to wit, "Repent and believe,sinner, and you will be saved." That's a command - not just an "offer," a command, according to Acts and 1 John. He says in effect, "Trust me; trust my command, trust my promise to save you." God says this, and we have an objective warrant. That, Martin, is the warrant to believe that the Bible gives.

To all sinners who hear the call:

God does not say, "Believe because Jesus died for everybody."

God does not say, "Believe because you are elect."

God does not say, "Comply because you are all able."

He says, "Do this, and you will live."

It's very simple, and I think He does this to draw attention to the fact that if we start asking those questions, we are, at some level asking for personal, subjective assurances when we are still "children of wrath." God's children have every right to know these things - for they belong to our assurance, but assurance is given as a gift to us after we are converted, not before, for "children of wrath" have no such right. They have no "right" except condemnation. God gives this command, makes this "offer" indiscriminately, and He makes it equal for us all thereby. There are no special qualifications or rules for the elect vs. the reprobate. They are all, when confronted by the preaching of the Gospel, given the same command, presented with the same offer. It's man who tries to add these assurances, and that panders to the self-interest of sinners. This offer will call the elect; it will reveal the reprobate by inculpating them.

Speaking personally, I think saying this has done a lot of harm in Baptist churches in particular, for their pews are lined with unregenerate "members," yet they say they affirm regenerate, not mixed, membership. Presbyterians believe in mixed membership, yet in my personal experience these days, they do better with regenerate membership than us Baptists have in many years.

And it's perfectly logical. If we ask, "How can I know...?" We're asking an epistemological question. I can know, because God made a promise in His Word - Jesus said that He will not cast out the ones who come to Him, not because I have a subjective sense of assurance before I convert that tells me that Christ died for me or I am one of the elect or that I have the ability to do this (eg. Libertarian Freedom). I can know if I do what God says I should do,because that's the means that God has licensed. So, we are driven not to subjective assurances and feelings or attempts to divine God's secret decrees or figure out if we are truly able, but to God's Word itself, and thus to His promises, and to the centrality of Christ Himself.

I have frequently asked General Redemptionists and others to find me a single text of Scripture that says that we are appeal on the basis of "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you," or "Jesus died for you." To date, nobody has been able to demonstrate the offer. One Roman Catholic at Beggars All tried recently but found not a one. For all the farrago of words, he finally said, that it was the general drift of the New Testament. If that's true,then where's the actual argument? Where's the text that teaches it? It's merely an assertion.

We can simply say that God has made a single once for all time atonement for sin in Christ, and that the way to know if our sins are covered is to turn to Him and Him only. He will not turn such an one away, not ever.

By the way, at the level of logical argumentation to say that we are to frame the call as "Jesus died for you" is confusion. It confuses the nature of the atonement with the way a person knows if atonement has been made for his sins in particular. That confuses, for all intents and purposes ontology (the nature of a thing, in this case the atonement),thus the ontological question, with epistemology (the way a person knows a particular truth), thus the epistemological question. The way to know (the epistemological question) if Jesus died for you (the nature of the atonement for any person) is to repent and believe the Gospel. It's really simple.

I agree with Dr. Frame that logic is a reflection of God's mind, indeed one of His attributes. The Gospel call issued from the Reformed pulpit is quite logically framed. The Arminian call is confused at best.

So, if a person says,

"Am I able?" The answer is, "It is irrelevant, for if you do not believe, you will be damned."

"Did Jesus die for me?" The answer is, "It is irrelevant, for if you do not believe, you will be damned. The scope and sufficiency of the atonement will do nothing but inculpate you if you do not believe."

"Am I elect or reprobate?" The answer is "Knowing this beforehand is irrelevant to your obligation to do as God says, " for the answer will not matter if you do not comply with God's command.

The Gospel call is given such that all who comply with it will be saved, period. None will be turned away. God is faithful to keep His promises. So, the answers to these questions, if asked before one complies, are irrelevant to doing what God has said you must do. Comply with what God has said, and then we can talk about the answers. Your eternal soul does not hang on subjective assurances given before you comply with the Gospel call as it is given universally. It hangs on what you do when and where confronted.

So, if anybody comes here today and does not know Christ, this is the call to you:

God has said that we are all condemned at His judgment bar for the love of our own wickedness, for things we have done and left undone. Yet God has made a perfect atonement for sin for the ungodly in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, God the Son incarnated in human flesh, crucified, dead, buried, and resurrected on the third day according to the Scriptures. That is the Gospel. Your consequent responsibility is to cast yourself on the mercy of God to come to Christ with the empty hand of your faith, for He is now commanding all men everywhere to repent and turn to Christ. Repent of your wickedness, and place your faith in Christ and Christ only, not a Church, not a philosophy, not Calvinism, not Arminianism, not Catholicism, Orthodoxy, not Baptistery, not Presbyterianism, not Lutheranism, or any other visible organization, not your baptism, not your ecclesiology, not your congruent merits, not your prayers, not "Holy Tradition," nothing else but Christ only and His sole and sufficient merit. He will, as John 6 says plainly, in no wise cast you out. We'll talk theology afterwards. Do this, and you will live.

And for believers it is this:

To our Arminian friends with whom we so often disagree, I encourage you, of course, to take a closer look at how you frame the Gospel when you present it. That said, while these discussions between us and you all often get heated, my challenge to you, and to the Reformed folks as well, is to remember that unbelievers and apostates read our blogs too. Take time to engage them and confront them with the Gospel call from time to time. In the past several months, if you can't tell from comboxes here and there, this has been a particular conviction of mine - to do it myself and to call others to do so.

To my (Quasi)Amyradlian brothers, particularly those of you who have a habit of posting on the atonement, common grace, etc. and nothing but - your work in historical theology in particular, is duly noted, and I thank you for reminding us of the universality of the Gospel call. However, I ask you to remember, the scope and sufficiency of the atonement are no warrant that impels the Gospel call. My challenge to you is to practice what you preach and engage the apostates and unbelievers yourselves and confront them with the Gospel call that you remind us so well is universal. Yes, it is, and all men are required to obey it when they hear it. While these discussions are so often heated between us, remember that the answers to questions about the nature of the atonement as you see it or I see it are really irrelevant to the unregenerate, and there are many on the blogs. What's relevant is their need for Christ. I urge you to put your obvious gifts to better use if you are not already doing so, by engaging these folks with those of us who are doing so already. Not to do so is, I honestly think, particularly to get snippy about it when told this, not a good testimony for you. Practice what you preach to the rest of us. We would welcome your help. We need your help. Beat your swords into plowshares and sow with us a harvest. We can meet behind the barn occasionally - not continually- to discuss these issues about which you continue to devote so much time and attention.

To all believing bloggers across the board, preach the Gospel, in season and out, pray for those you regard as apostates and unbelievers, whether you are none other than Dr. Tom Ascol, Dr. Vern Poythress, Dr. James White, or a slug like myself. What we do here does make a difference. We are not here to talk to ourselves or win arguments or be liked (goodness knows we at Tblog aren't here to be liked). We are here,ultimately, to help each other and others grow and to preach the Gospel to the lost through our writing.

Captain Kangaroo

http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/examining-inconsistencies-in.html

Some Preliminaries

"I want to dig a little deeper and get into what I believe to be an inconsistency within Calvinistic monergism."

Okay, let's get out our shovels and dig.

"I want to dig a little deeper and get into what I believe to be an inconsistency within Calvinistic monergism. Before I do that I want to say that I don’t believe monergism vs. synergism is the proper way to frame the debate. These terms are too ambiguous, and often misunderstood (especially synergism), and I believe that Arminianism has both monergistic and synergistic elements so it is not proper to call Arminianism entirely synergistic. For me the debate is best described as a disagreement over whether or not salvation is conditional or unconditional."

He better disambiguate the term since one can't show a logical ‘inconsistency’ if his terms are ambiguous. We're not getting off to a good start. This isn't atypical with these guys; sorry to say.

Second, by ‘salvation being conditional’ does he only mean ‘If you believe, then you will be saved.’ As he says, that's just a quote from the Bible. So he just means we read statements that have the logical form of a conditional? Well, no Calvinist denies this. So is he saying there is no debate? His best way of describing the debate is to parse it out in terms the Calvinist doesn't debate.

Third, we'd have to bring in qualifiers. Sometimes 'salvation' is spoken of in terms of just regeneration, or just justification, or just sanctification (progressive or definitive), or just glorification, or the whole package. Or, another qualification: in what sense do we speak of ‘conditions?’ Are we speaking of conditions in any sense whatsoever? Well then why think the Reformed theologian believes any of the items in the ordo are not wrought with conditions attached? Election is a condition for regeneration. Jesus’ resurrection is a condition for ours. Etc.

Perhaps he just means ‘conditional’ on exercising faith?’ Well then, on this scheme, regeneration isn't 'conditional,' for example. On the other hand, ‘if you have faith, then God will justify you,’ comes in the form of a conditional. That is, in the form of an if-then statement. But it is not conditional in the sense of, say, Adam's conditions for remaining in the garden. The faith we have is in something outside of us. In someone who did all the work required. Thus the faith we express trusts and rests in the alien work of Christ. But we must express faith. Faith is the instrument of justification. This faith is also a gift, it is not wrought by our own power apart from God's Spirit in our lives. So, in this sense faith is instrumentally conditional.

Fourth, Calvinism has 'monergistic and synergistic' elements too it as well. For example, monergism with respects to regeneration and justification. But take progressive sanctification. Many protestants have called this synergistic in the sense that it is really we who battle our sin. I am an active participant in the fight. I actively partake of the means of grace. I don't 'let go and let God,' as it were. And of course none of this can be accomplished without the work of the Spirit in our lives.

Fifth, it is not necessary for final, complete salvation that one be progressively sanctified. God can regenerate a soul, justify that person, and strike them dead that minute. Thus a monergistic work is the only thing necessary for salvation (e.g., the thief on the cross might not have been progressively sanctified. If so, we can think of others who might die 1 second after justification, say).

Thus with his sloppy categorizing, nothing interesting follows from the above. Given the vague and ambiguous way he's using terms, a Calvinist might agree with everything he's said. Once wonders why all the hubbub. Since there is hubbub, we should cast a suspicious eye on the way he has framed the discussion so far. Many a disaster has started because of being unclear. I recall a the child's joke we had when the space shuttle Challenger exploded. It went like this: 'No, I meant I wanted a Bud light.' (For those that remember the old Bud light commercials.)

"When I say that Arminianism is both synergistic and monergistic I mean that the Arminian sees salvation as a work of God alone. God alone forgives. God alone regenerates. God alone sanctifies. We are not capable of removing our own sin or making atonement for ourselves. We are not capable of creating new life within us. We are not capable of making ourselves holy. All these are monergistic acts of God. When the Arminian says that one needs to believe in Christ to be saved we are just echoing the testimony of Scripture that says that faith is the condition that God requires be met before He will save."

When Scripture speaks of if you believe then you will be saved, it is speaking about justification. But this faith isn’t a 'working' it is a 'receiving.' No 'working together,' then. No 'synergism.' And, we are not saved by faith. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. And, of the above, God does not of it unless our Arminian first has faith. All of it, then, is conditioned on his faith. Thus it is incorrect to say that he only thinks justification is conditioned on his faith.

"God has sovereignly determined to make salvation conditioned on faith. He could have made salvation unconditional but He chose instead to make it conditional. That salvation is conditioned on faith does not mean faith is a work or a contribution to salvation. It is just the meeting of a condition and the nature of that condition disqualifies it from being something one can boast in before God."

Yes, the promises come in the form of a conditional, but Reformed theology teaches that Christ has met any and all conditions man must meet in order to have everlasting life--either by his work, or by securing for us what we need. So, in regards the former, Christ lived a perfect life in our place, he met that condition for us. In regards the latter, he did not have saving faith for us. But, he purchased, or acquired them for us. The Holy Spirit then applies this all to us. Thus Reformed theology can agree with the conditions of salvation, it's just that we see Christ fulfilling or acquiring them all for us. If it may be called a condition, it is not something we must do, it is something that has been done for us. Our faith is not the ground of our salvation, but is but an instrument for receiving all of Christ. Thus we are not saved by faith, at all. Since we are not, then this Arminian has failed to show any synergism in his only admission of synergism. In fact, the Bible nowhere says that we are saved by faith. So, yes, in history, in this historical administration by which we travel the road of the covenant of grace unto completion, we must exercise faith. Thus I would rather call faith the sole instrument in justification, rather than the 'condition' of justification. But, I can grant that in the Bible we see a hypothetical statement, technically called a 'conditional.' At any rate, we are not even justified by 'faith' qua 'faith' but, rather, faith in Christ. It's not that we have 'faith' it's who are faith is in. The problem with all of this is that the Arminian views faith as a prerequisite to all the rest. He performs a positive action, in turn God gives him the rest. This is much different that the Reformed conception of God's monergistic work being the prerequisite for faith. And even so, this faith is not a positive work on our end, but a passive reception. A naked and weak hand receiving all the benefits of Christ. It's not a head-on meeting of an condition, but rather a passive receiving of something. Our view is Christocentric, his is Anthropocentric.

"By faith we recognize our inability to save ourselves and cast ourselves on God’s mercy. Faith is surrender to God. It is giving up on ourselves. It is abandoning our own works and clinging to the work of God. If there is one element that is synergistic in salvation it is faith. God enables the depraved sinner to respond in faith, but the sinner must do the responding. God does not believe for us and God does not cause faith in us irresistibly. That is the only synergistic aspect of Arminianism. The rest is monergism. The synergism of faith is the only area where one could say that the sinner in a sense “saves himself”, but that is only in the context of re-positioning oneself in God’s favor through faith and repentance (Acts 2:40)."

None of this could be done if it were not for God's prior, and monergistic work of regeneration. A dead men doesn't "recognize our inability to save ourselves and cast ourselves on God’s mercy." But, yes, the Reformed would agree that men actually do the believing. We don't think God believes for us. And we agree that the normal operations are that if a man never places his faith in Christ, he will not be justified (I say normal operations to make room for the infants and the mentally disabled. There is some debate whether they exhibit faith or not. But mere exceptions don't refute). The main difference, again, is in the priority between faith and regeneration and the nature or character of faith. Is it a 'meeting' or a 'receiving?' This Arminian's conception is of a man who, without regeneration and thus a dead sinner, throws up his hands, declares that he can't do it on his own, and so lets God do his work. But he must allow God into his life in the first place. God waits for mans permission to work. And, as I pointed out above, since faith doesn't save, it's impossible for our Arminian to think he has shown any soteriological synergism!

"Yet, Calvinists still insist that faith is a work of merit if it is not irresistibly caused."

No, if it is something we must do in order to be saved. That is, if we are justified by having faith. In that sense it would be a work. And since you concede, you admit of a works based salvation. You 'meet' God halfway there. Justification couldn't be accomplished if it wasn't for your initiation. Your movement forward. Your 'meeting.'

"Some Calvinists will go so far as to say that Arminians believe that man has the capability to save themselves."

No, you have the capacity, as you admit, to 'meet' the lifeguard part way there. The Reformed view is that you are dead. Dead men don't 'meet' people anywhere. God must administer CPR. Without CPR you could not breath that first "thank you." If a man can even breathe a little, he needs no CPR. Our view isn't that an Arminian can't be consistent, it's that an Arminian can't be consistent if he wants to be faithful to all the teaching of the Bible. Given your assumptions, you may not have any problems. The only time a problem arises is when you try to say that your view is fully consistent with all the biblical witness.

"I have often heard Calvinists point to intercessory prayer as a problem for Arminianism. The argument says that in Arminianism prayer would be pointless since God will not irresistibly save the sinner. If our prayers cannot guarantee conversion, then they are pointless. As long as free will exists intercessory prayer cannot really be effective."

No, we just point out that if a man freely chooses to remain in his sins, then if God desires that he does not, God can't secure a salvation. On your view, man must meet God, and God cannot make sure man will do this. That is, the Calvinist can pray that if it is God's will, save so and so. And, God can answer this. The Arminian, on the other hand, cannot with confidence say that if God so wills, so and so will be saved. That is, if it is God's will he can actually answer our prayer. On the Arminian scheme, if is God's will then this isn't enough to secure a positive answer. So and so must take the first step; he must 'meet' God. So, we don't say that it is 'pointless' for the Arminian to pray, but we note that many times he prays as if he were a Calvinist. The Calvinist can pray knowing that God will answer his prayer, if he has so decreed that so and so believe. The Arminian cannot. We also at times see inconsistencies in your prayers. For example, Falwell said,

"He will not force you against your will to come to the cross."

and this,

"Do not let one person say ‘no’ to your precious will. Save the lost."

During the same prayer. What could it possibly mean, on an Arminian scheme, for God not to 'let' someone say 'no' who freely chooses to say 'no?' Take a person S. If S says no, that's it. God cannot make sure that S enters the kingdom. A Calvinist, on the other hand, can pray that God not let S say "no." If God has chosen to save S, he will not let S say 'no.' And so at the very least you must admit that you only have fellow Arminians to blame for these confusions. In other words, the saying: 'Clean up your own backyard,' is applicable here.

"It does not follow that if intercessory prayer cannot guarantee a result, then it is pointless. Arminians believe that God works persuasively on the human heart through the gospel to bring about a faith response. Prayer can have a profound effect on that process. The Arminian can pray for more opportunities to witness. He or she can pray that God will use circumstances to bring the sinner to a point of desperation. We can pray that God will continue to reveal Himself to the individual. We can pray that God will remove obstacles and barriers to unbelief. All of these things will increase the chance of conversion."

The Arminian prays for barriers to be removed so that it is easier for the lost to 'make that first move.' But the road can be clear of everything down to the last pebble, and if the lost decide to stay where they are at, all the prayer in the world will change nothing. On the Calvinist scheme, if God chooses to save the lost person, he will climb over all the barriers, and then administer life-giving serum to the dead sinner. This effects a new life and results in the completion, for what good work God begins in the man he will see it to the end. The Calvinist knows that no matter what barriers stand in the way, if God has so chosen, he will save the sinner.

The Alleged Inconsistency

"The underlying assumptions of Calvinist theology make a mess of intercessory prayer. Calvinism teaches that one is saved or lost on the sole basis of an eternal and irrevocable decree. Nothing can effectively change that decree. It is fixed. It is permanent. The decision was made for us before we were born. The decision was made before the universe was created. With this in mind the problems of intercession within Calvinist thought become quickly apparent."

Now we're at the meat of the post.

"The Arminian contends that intercessory prayer within a Calvinistic framework is pointless. Our prayers cannot have any effect on the eternal destiny of any individual. That destiny was fixed from eternity. No lack of prayer can prevent God from saving the elect and no amount of prayer can help the reprobate. Worse yet, the believer might waste countless hours praying for a reprobate who has no chance at heaven without realizing it."

Sure they can, as means. So, if God has decreed that S will be saved by means of X, then if X doesn't obtain, S wouldn't be saved. It is a package deal. Thus it is false to say what you say.

But you address this response below. So let's move on.

"The Calvinist objects on the basis that God decrees the “means” as well as the “ends” and intercessory prayer may well be the means that God uses to bring His elect to repentance. Let us then call on the Calvinist to define “means”. Do “means” have reference to the process by which God accomplishes something? If it does then the Calvinist must still admit that believers contribute to the salvation of the elect by way of intercessory prayer. Their prayer is part of the means and therefore a contribution. If that is the case, then salvation is not monergistic as Calvinism defines it. The only way that I can see to avoid such a conclusion is to deny that intercessory prayer is truly a means to an end (albeit God ordained). The moment that is admitted, we are right back to the problem of intercessory prayer serving no real purpose within Calvinist theology."

I would think the concept fairly simple to understand. If you want your friend to give you a bite of his tasty burger, you must communicate somehow. The end is the ingesting the burger, the communication of that desire was a means. Or, take when God parted the red sea. He used a strong east wind as a means to accomplish the end of allowing the Israelites to pass through the sea on dry ground.

Now the inconsistency is drawn out.

(1) If a believer's B prayer is a means to the end, a sinner's S salvation, then B is 'involved' in the salvation of S and thus the salvation of S isn't monergistic.

(1) rests on an assumption:

(1*) No one can be involved in salvation in any sense of the word 'involved,' no matter how broad, or else said salvation is not monergistic.

With rests on a broader assumption:

(1**) If anything is involved, no matter how broadly construed, in any operation, then that operation was done by two things and not one.

Having drawn out this assumptions, it will be child's play to show the errors in the argument. I'll list them off:

i) It should be stated first that Reformed theologians don't deny that other people are involved in a very broad sense of the word.

ii) Take the parting of the red sea. Since God used wind, it is no longer technically correct to say that God parted the red sea. Rather, God + wind parted the red sea. Or, take a violinist. Since the violin was 'involved' in a masterpiece performance, one cannot tell the violinist that she played beautifully. According to (1**), the masterpiece was done by two and not one.

iii) Notice that we are 'involved' (in a broad sense) in all of our salvation. Indeed, there must be a person to be saved. Without my involvement (broadly involved by the act of my existing) in glorification, there would be no glorification since no one would be there to be glorified. Similarly, if there is no party standing before the court then there is no one for God to declare righteous and thus justify. So, I am involved (in a broad sense) in my justification. Our Arminian friend must grant all of this, and so when he mentioned those parts of 'salvation' that were monergistic, he must retract according to his implicit assumption in (1*) and (1**). So, then, we 'contribute' to our justification by just being there. If we didn't 'contribute' in this way, there would be no justification since there would be no one to justify.

iv) Our prayers are not the ground of salvation, Christ's alien work is. His life and death is. So, it isn't even technically correct to attribute our prayers a soteriological synergism.

v) So, I haven't needed to deny the means answer, and I've shown that the argument against it is absurd and even turns against the very admissions of monergism the Arminian allows. Given his very broad conception of 'involved' or 'contribute' it would be hard to demarcate my instances of 'involvement' as relevantly different than his. Since my means answer is still in tact, then he cannot show any inconsistency, and so his entire argument, as stands, crumbles.