The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. (Genesis 49:10)
My daily Bible readings brought me to the Book of Joshua this week. Joshua is the first of the “historical” books of the Bible. It records the entry of the Israelites into the Promised Land and the conquest of the lands promised to them by God.[1] Once the Israelites conquered most of the land – because they never completely conquered all of the land God promised them – they permanently set up the Tabernacle – the portable dwelling place of God – in Shiloh.[2]
The name, Shiloh, rang a bell. I remembered that the first mention of the name appeared back in Genesis where Jacob (Israel) blessed his sons. To Judah, he said, “Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee. Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” (Genesis 49:8-10, emphasis mine). Here we understand that “Shiloh” is a person, specifically the coming Messiah – “and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” “Shiloh” (שִׁילֹה), Strong’s H7886, is defined as “he whose it is, that which belongs to him, tranquillity [sic].”[3]
However, Shiloh in the Book of Joshua, is a place, not a person. Here, Strong’s assigns a different number and definition. “Shiloh” (שִׁילֹה), Strong’s H7887, is defined as “a place of rest.” Notice that both Hebrew spellings are exactly the same. So, why the difference in definitions?
The third definition in H7886 is “tranquility,” and the first definition in H7887 is “a place of rest.” It seems clear to me that “tranquility” and “rest” ultimately define the word.
In Genesis, Shiloh is He to Whom it belongs, unto Whom the gathering of the people shall be – the Messiah, Jesus the Christ. The Prophet Isaiah predicted, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this” (Isaiah 9:6-7, emphasis mine).
Prince of Peace fits the idea of “tranquility” and “a place of rest” – Shiloh. Those of us who have placed our faith in the finished work of Christ (a.k.a. Messiah) find our “peace” and “rest” in the assurance that soon, either by death or by Rapture, we will enter that eternal place of rest in His presence forever. I am ready. Are you?
Reader, if you want to know that kind of peace, I encourage you to read my page on “Securing Eternal Life.”
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: (Exodus 34:14)
Once again I have taken up the challenge to read through the entire Bible. I am using a chronological reading plan on a new, unmarked Bible. I like the chronological system because it helps me keep the historical events (especially through the historical books) in logical order.
My reading, so far, has taken me into the books of Exodus and Leviticus. The first twenty chapters of Exodus are interesting because they detail how God delivered the children of Israel out of Egyptian captivity with His awesome power demonstrated through miraculous plagues specifically aimed at all the Egyptian gods. The tenth and final plague was the death of the firstborn of all the Egyptians both children and cattle. However, the children of Israel were saved by the faith-act of painting their door frames with the blood of a sacrificial lamb.[1] After that, the Egyptians were more than happy to let God’s people go, and they even sent them away with treasures. By the time the children arrived at the Red Sea, Pharaoh changed his mind and he assembled his army to go after them. Trapped between the sea and Egypt’s army, God parted the waters of the Red Sea for the Israelites to cross over on dry land, while placing Himself as a pillar of fire between the Egyptian army and the children of Israel. Once the Israelites were across, God removed Himself so that Pharaoh’s troops could follow in pursuit. When the Egyptians were all in the middle of the Red Sea, God closed the waters in on them and drowned the entire army.[2]
God provided food and water for His people until they arrived at Mount Sinai. There God gave the Ten Commandments in the hearing of all the people. God’s voice terrified the people, and they begged Moses not to let God speak to them but that he intercede for them.[3] They promised they would do everything that God commanded. Not long after that, Moses went up into the mountain to receive the rest of God’s instructions and commandments. He was up on the mountain for forty days and forty nights, and when he descended, he found the people partying in “worship” to a golden calf they had made.[4]
While Moses was up on the mountain, God gave him very specific commandments besides the initial ten. Besides the laws and commandments, God gave very detailed instructions on the construction of the Tabernacle and all implements and furnishings for use in the Tabernacle. These included the golden menorah, the altar of incense, the table of showbread, the Ark of the Covenant, the altar of burnt offering, etc. God specified the materials to be used in making the curtains inside the Tabernacle and the materials to be used in the construction of the outer court, down to how many rings were needed to hang the outer curtain. God gave the dimensions of every single item; no detail is omitted. Then God gave directions for the proper attire for the high priest and the other assistant priests.
The reading becomes very tedious at this point, and it continues on to Leviticus. One might wonder why God includes such minutia in the pages of Scripture. For those of us who are under grace, such detail has little meaning. We have no Tabernacle or Temple as described in which to worship. We do not offer animal sacrifices for every infraction we might commit. Our once-for-all sacrifice was that of Jesus on the cross.[5] We have no need for priests dressed in special apparel to offer sacrifices on our behalf or pray for the forgiveness of our sins. Jesus intercedes for us to the Father in heaven.[6] So, why should God include all those dry details for us to read? I could be wrong, but if you are like me, when you come to these pages, you skip right over them in order to get to the good stuff.
Well, I have not skipped these pages, and I have concluded that the reason God gave us all these minute details is precisely so that we understand that He takes the way we worship very seriously. As a matter of fact, at the end of Leviticus 9 and the beginning of Leviticus 10, He proves just how seriously He takes the way we worship. At this time, the Tabernacle had just been erected, and Aaron and his sons were consecrated as priests to minister before the LORD. They had done everything exactly as God had directed. “And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people. And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces” (Leviticus 9:23-24, emphasis mine). This was God’s way of saying, “Good job!”
That was good, but what came next was shocking. “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD” (Leviticus 10:1-2, emphasis mine). What! After God gives them an “atta boy,” He kills them for offering “strange fire.” What is all that about?
God had given very specific instructions on the making of the incense which was to be burned on the altar of incense that stood before the holy of holies inside the Tabernacle. That special incense was not to be used for any other purpose. Duplicating the formula for personal use incurred capital punishment. The continuous burning of the incense before the holy of holies (where God’s presence resided) represented the prayers of the people going before the Lord. Furthermore, the incense could only be ignited by coals from the altar of burnt sacrifices that stood outside of the tabernacle. In this case, God had just ignited the burnt offering with His own fire from above.
These two clowns did not think it was such a big deal to get fire from somewhere else. After all, fire is just fire. Right? It was a big deal for God, and He struck them dead on the spot. This is really not much different than Cain’s offering.[7] Cain brought an offering that was not what God required, and God “had not respect” for Cain’s offering.
God takes the way we worship Him seriously. On this side of the cross, we are not obligated to follow any set of rigid “religious” rituals in order to come into the presence of God. However, too often we take our worship of God much too casually. It’s just something we do. It becomes habit; we do it without giving it a second thought. Mostly when we think about “worship,” we think about attending a “worship service” inside a church building. We sing worship songs and listen to a sermon, and then go home to watch a game on TV or go out for lunch.
Actually, worship is so much more than that. The Apostle Paul exhorts us, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:1-2, emphasis mine). The way we conduct our lives from day to day, moment by moment is our “reasonable service” (i.e., “logical worship”). How casually do you conduct your life without giving a second thought to how you are presenting your life to God? God may not strike you dead like Nadab and Abihu, but He does take it seriously.
So, how can we be a pleasing sacrifice to God? Well, for the Christian, that is easy because you have a big advantage. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16). You have the Spirit of God in you. So, each morning, when you awake, thank the Lord for a new day, and dedicate the day to Him and all that you do, do for His honor and glory. I promise you will falter and stumble, but you will instantly recognize your fault, you will ask forgiveness, and you will continue on. Paul says, “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17). Well, if you are down on your knees constantly praying, you would never get anything done! That is not what Paul is intending. What he means is that you need to be in a constant attitude of prayer. Talk to God about everything you are doing or plan on doing. He, because His dwelling place is in you, is your best and constant friend. But don’t take that for granted. He is God and you should never forget that. He takes your worship seriously and so should you.
Reader, if this made little sense to you, it is because, while you may know “about” God, you really do not know God. If you would like to know Him, I would encourage you to read my page on “Securing Eternal Life.”
For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. (Ezekiel 18:32)
I could say that I have been a Baptist all of my life having been born on a Sunday morning at 10:00 AM, just in time for Sunday School. However, being a Baptist does not equate to eternal salvation; that happened to me six years later when I listened to and internalized the message that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). That being the case, I understood that if my little six-year-old self were to die, I was bound for hell. I also understood that while “the wages of sin is death” (i.e., hell), “the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). The only requirement to receive the “gift” was to “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus” and “believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9). I was assured that “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13). I was a “whosoever,” and I had a choice to make. I could confess, believe, and call the name of the Lord and be saved, or continue on in my six-year-old ways and not believe. The choice was mine.
I thank God that His Holy Spirit convicted me of my need to call out to Him to be saved. I did not know then nor since that I was destined from before creation for salvation. That idea has always been foreign to me. I have witnessed to many and led some (I’m sure) to the Lord. In my testimony, I always assured my listener, that the choice was theirs alone.
As I said, I have been a Baptist (of the Southern Baptist variety) all of my life, and a born-again Christian for 68 of those years. In all of that time, the concept of “election” applied to those who were born-again by placing their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I knew of the concept of election, i.e., “predestination” as taught by denominations with Calvinist leanings (like Presbyterians) and some “reformed” denominations, but not Baptists. All Baptists I’ve ever known – and here I am referring to pastors or Bible and theology professors – claimed to be either two or three-point Calvinists, which, when distilled, equate to 4-point Armenian with the exclusion of the possibility of “falling from grace.”
As I noted in my last article, “Chose or Chosen? (Rev. 1),” some Christian brothers believe and teach the concept of election/predestination as taught by Calvinists. They believe that God, before Creation, determined those who would be saved. While they will deny that God has predestined those that remain – the unelected ones – to hell, the outcome is the same, i.e., God predestines some to salvation and others to damnation. Not only is that on its face repugnant in light of a loving God who is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9), but it has no basis in Scripture.
In my article, I listed more than 80 New Testament verses supporting our free will in choosing to accept God’s free gift of salvation and only 15 verses that seem to support predestination. Of those 15 verses, half of them were speaking of the predestined purpose of those who were elect, i.e., to be conformed to the image of Christ.
The difference in view prompted me to seek answers in my systematic theology textbook.[1]There it became obvious that the early church fathers did not hold the doctrine of election in the sense of predestination. Polycarp and Ignatius, who were disciples of the last Apostle, John, and Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, did not hold the doctrine of election. They taught that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, however, only those who confess Jesus as Lord and Savior can be saved. Many of the later church fathers held the same view. It was not until a thousand years later (1509), when John Calvin came on the scene, that this doctrine of election/predestination took root. It seems to me that those in closer proximity to the apostles would have the best understanding of the atoning work of Christ than someone coming along a thousand years after.
The answer is clear to me; the Calvinist doctrine is flawed. I would not say these brothers are lost. They still teach that one must confess Jesus as Lord and Savior in order to be saved, and that belief is essential for salvation. They just have the curious idea that they were selected for salvation before time began.
I follow the teachings of a man on YouTube by the name of Ken Johnson, Th.D. He also has a website: BibleFacts.org. Ken has done extensive research on the Dead Sea Scrolls having translated many of them into English. His books are available on his website. Anyhow, as I listened in on one of his teachings dealing with the Essenes, a sect of Judaism that existed at the time of Christ, Ken talked about a group of Egyptian Essenes from which the gnostic doctrine of predestination sprang. Ken wrote a book on the topic, The Gnostic Origins of Calvinism.[2]
I wasted no time ordering and reading through the book (just over 100 pages). I learned that at the time of Jesus, there were actually two groups of Essenes: those who lived in the Qumran and who gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a different group that lived in Egypt. The exact place where this second sect existed is not known for certain, however, it is thought to be at Canopus in Egypt.[3] “These Egyptian Essenes mixed many of the rites of magic and paganism into a Jewish context. Like most who deny the resurrection of the physical body, these Egyptian Essenes ended up believing in reincarnation, evolution, and predestination based on the doctrine of emanations” (emphasis mine).[4] Ken points out that Simon Magus – the Simon of Acts 8:9-24 who wanted to purchase the power of giving the Holy Spirit – according to Irenaeus, was the father of the Gnostic cults.
The Gnostics had many strange beliefs, but among them was the idea of predestination. “Gnosticism taught that there are thirty aeons (gods) that exist in the Pleroma, outside time and space.[5] Sophia, created the demiurge, a creator angel (the God of the Old Testament) who was a tyrant; and being unaware of the aeons, thought he was the only God. He created man; but Sophia gave man a spirit[6] … Gnostics have spirits that are emanations from Sophia. This makes them predestined to be saved. It is imposable [sic] for them to lose their salvation. It does not matter if their behavior is good or evil.”[7]
“The father of church history, Eusebius, mentions John Mark came to Alexandria, Egypt,[8] and established the first church there. As it began to grow, persecutions came and Mark was killed by pagans. Shortly thereafter, some of the Egyptian Essenes mixed strict Christan doctrine with their Jewish/pagan rites. These Gnostics called themselves the Therapeute.”[9] This doctrine of predestination has been around since the founding of the Church, but it was totally rejected by the early church fathers.
Fast forwarding to John Calvin (get Ken Johnson’s book to fill in the blanks), he “used his skill in law to find historical documents that might legally weaken Rome’s hold on the [Catholic] people. He found nothing until he went all the way back to the writings of Augustine. He understood that if he could remove the unpalatable Gnostic doctrines from the writings of Augustine, the Manicheans, and the Valentinian Gnostics, and just use their idea of predestination, it would destroy the Pope’s hold on the people. The Pope of Rome could not send anyone to hell or insure [sic] their salvation if they were already predestined for heaven or hell, especially if that predestination could never be changed. Calvin published his first edition of The Institutes of the Christian Religion in AD 1536.”[10]
Here are just some quotations from the early church fathers cited by Ken Johnson:
God only blinds the minds of those who chose not to believe and have already rejected Him. In Romans [Chapter 1], those who would not retain God in their knowledge He gave over to a reprobate mine. In 2 Thessalonians [Chapter 2], to those who did not receive the love of the truth, strong delusion is sent to believe the lie. God knows the number of those who will not believe, since He foreknows all things, has given them over to unbelief. – Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.29 (emphasis mine)
Man has the ability to distinguish good from evil. He has the power by his own free will to perform God’s commandments. This is taught in Romans [Chapter 2]. God does not compel people to salvation, so those who have apostatized have done so through their own fault. God allows them to blind themselves. – Irenaeus, against heresies 4.29 (emphasis mine)
The ability to freely choose salvation is a gift given by God. True faith produces repentance. – Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 2.4
Paul [Romans 3:10-18] refers to those Jews and Gentiles who blind themselves. No one is born this way. – Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.19 (emphasis mine)
The church is being predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. – Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.37 (emphasis mine)
God made man a free agent from the beginning. This is the ancient law of human liberty, for there is no coercion with God. In man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice. The Gnostic teaching that some men are born good and others are born bad is wrong. Everyone has the power to reject the gospel. God has free will and we do, too, because we are made in His image. God preserved the will of man free and under his own control. We will be brought to perfection in the resurrection. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.37 (emphasis mine)
Johnson lists many more citations, but these, I think, should suffice to make the point – the early church fathers did not agree with the Calvinist (Gnostic) view of predestination and held to the doctrine that human beings have a free will to choose or reject God’s free gift of salvation. They also taught that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind – past, present, and future – and that His sacrifice is sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe.
As I said in the beginning, I have been a (Southern) Baptist all of my life. Ken pointed something out that may be the reason I am faced with this conflict between election and free will. “The Southern Baptist Convention was originally Calvinist. However, toward the beginning of the twentieth century it became Arminian (not Pelagian) in theology. There is a growing movement inside of the Southern Baptist Convention, however, pushing it to go back to Hyper-Calvinism.”[11] This is probably an overreaction to the growing liberalism within the Convention. Of course, most overreactions to correct one wrong usually move too far in the opposite direction and create a wrong in the other direction. As the old adage says, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Let me reiterate, those who hold this skewed view of election are not lost themselves. They are not heretics. They are my brothers in Christ. John Calvin was a good, godly man who was battling the heresies of the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. He was a Reformer. However, neither he nor any other man who followed in his footsteps was or is infallible. Only the Word of God is infallible. As we study the works of any good, godly man, we need to carefully line up their words against the words of Scripture.
In his book, Dr. Ken Johnson provided a short list of high-profile Bible teachers who teach Calvinist doctrine: Alistair Begg, Al Mohler, C.J. Mahaney, J.I. Packer, John MacArthur, Jr., Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, R.C. Sproul, Sr., Robert Schuller, Wayne Grudem.[12] I would not discourage anyone from reading the teachings of these men. I would only make you aware of their Calvinist leanings and encourage you to measure their teachings by the plumbline of God’s Holy Word.
Notes:
[1] Gorden R. Lewis and Bruce A Demarest, Integrative Theology, Volume Two, (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1990), pp. 371-382.
[2] Ken Johnson, Th.D., The Gnostic Origins of Calvinism, available on Amazon.
[4] Johnson, p. 9. Ken’s note on “emanations” – This is the idea that a little piece of God is in each human being. It is found in the Kabbalah but denied by orthodox Jews and Christians.
[5] Johnson, p. 14, citing Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.1-3
[8] Alexandria, Egypt is one of the places from which the “older and better” Greek texts from which all modern Bibles are translated. These were Gnostic texts that the early church rejected. They are “older and better” because they were better preserved for their lack of use.
For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)
Some Christian brothers have strong Calvinist leanings. I accept most of the five points of Calvinism to some degree – Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints (T.U.L.I.P.) – but I cannot fully embrace U, L, and I. I completely agree with T and P – the Total Depravity of man, and the Perseverance of the Saints, i.e., “once saved, always saved.”
As already noted, the points that give me the most grief are U and L. Unconditional Election says that God predetermined from the beginning of time who would be saved, and by default, who would be damned for eternity. The argument is that God is sovereign, and He can do exactly as He pleases (no argument there). A favorite verse used to make this point is Romans 9:15 “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Here Paul referred to the time when Moses wanted to “see” God’s glory and God responded, “And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy” (Exodus 33:19, emphasis mine). Clearly, God was not speaking in soteriological terms. Indeed, neither was Paul in making the reference to Moses. When taken in context, Paul was referring to God’s sovereignty in determining the course of salvation in general, not in particular.
Limited Atonement builds on Unconditional Election. Limited Atonement says that Jesus died only for those who were unconditionally elected for salvation. That eliminates all the “whosoever” verses beginning with John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (emphasis mine). Since the Bible is always true and does not contradict itself in any way, this verse alone should serve to debunk Limited Atonement.
To a limited degree, I also disagree with Irresistible Grace. That teaches that when the Holy Spirit, Who convicts the individual’s heart of sin (John 16:8) and convinces him of his need for the Savior, calls on the individual’s heart, that call cannot be rejected. The “call” is ubiquitous (Romans 1:20), however, it is felt more strongly in some than it is in others. Thus, it can indeed be resisted, and more resist the call than respond to it (Matthew 7:13-14).
The Bible speaks to both man’s freedom in choosing and God’s work of “election.” I maintain that the answer is “Somewhere in the Middle,” and neither side of the argument can hold his view dogmatically.
The debate continues. I have made my case and the other side made their case. Neither side convinced the other, which is usually the case. However, since this debate keeps coming up, I determined to “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). I looked in the New Testament for all the verses I could find related to salvation for the individual. I divided my findings into three categories: (1) Choice/Free Will, (2) Predestination/Election, and (3) verses that can apply to both sides. Here is what I found: for Category 1, there were more than 80 verses; for Category 2, there were 15 verses. Of those, seven, when read in context, suggest that the “predestination” is of “purpose” not of salvation; for Category 3 there were 17. Rather than argue one side or the other, I think it best to allow the Bible to speak for itself, and the reader can decide for himself.
Verses for Category 2: Luke 10:22; John 6:37, 44, 65; 17:24; Romans 8:33;* Ephesians 1:5, 11; 2:10;* Colossians 3:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 2:10;* Titus 1:1;* 1 Peter 1:2;* 2 John 1:1, 13. The passages marked with an asterisk (*) speak of predestination, but when examined closely, the predestination is a “Predestination of Purpose” not predestination for salvation. In other words, it is the predetermined plan God has for those who are “justified” having placed their faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross. As I read these passages my conclusion is that those who are “elect” are “elected” by virtue of their faith in Christ for salvation and their “predestination” is to be conformed to the image of Christ.
The message of the Gospel is simple. The Lord Jesus Christ left His place in Glory, took on human flesh (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11), took the penalty of our sins upon Himself, and shed His own blood on the cross to pay our sin debt. He was buried in a borrowed tomb and rose again on the third day, conquering death and the grave on our behalf to win our salvation (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). He did that for “whosoever” will accept His free, “grace” gift of salvation by faith in His finished work. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). “Whosoever” accepts His offer by “believing in Him” is “elected” for “everlasting life.” This is the whole message of Christmas.
When one reads the Bible’s plain teaching on the topic of salvation (soteriology), the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the truth that the individual has a choice – to accept or reject – God’s free gift of salvation. So, from where does this doctrine of “election” – that God predetermines who will be saved – come? It does not come from Scripture if one truly believes in “Sola Scriptura.” The question prompted me to blow the dust off of my systematic theology textbook and review the section on soteriology. The authors of my textbook ask, “For whom did Christ die? Did the Father send his [SIC] Son into the world to die for all persons or only for the elect?”[1]
In my reading, I learned that the early church fathers, by and large, did not hold to the doctrine of election, at least not in the way proposed by John Calvin. “The apostolic fathers advanced no single theory of the atonement, but articulated a number of biblical motifs.”[2]
“Irenaeus interpreted Christ’s death as a victory over sin, death and the Devil … Christ conquered Satan, thereby freeing believing (emphasis mine) sinners from his power and giving them eternal life.”[3] Given that believing is a prerequisite for salvation, it makes sense that Jesus died for believers; however, that does not imply election. “Athanasius taught that in order to solve the problem posed by human sin and condemnation God sent the divine Word into the world. In his [SIC] body the Son bore the penalty and paid the debt that sinners owed to God. Thus Christ offered ‘the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering his own temple [body] to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression’” (emphasis mine).[4]
“Concerning the intent or purpose of the atonement, most patristic authorities held that Christ died for the sins of the world. Athanasius maintained that in the divine scheme of things ‘death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid.’ Cyril of Jerusalem affirmed that ‘Jesus truly suffered for all men.’ While not speaking clearly on the issue, Augustine seemed to suggest that Christ died for the world, although the cross is effectual only for those who believe[5] (emphasis mine).
Later, Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) said that “adequate satisfaction [for sin] must come from one who is divine, that is, from God himself [SIC]. On the other hand, satisfaction must be paid by one who genuinely represents humanity … the sinless Jesus Christ voluntarily suffered and died, thereby accruing more merit than needed to pay the debt humanity owed. God accepted the surplus of Christ’s passion, credited it to the account of the sinful race, and thus is disposed to restore fellowship all who trust Christ’s saving provision”[6] (emphasis mine). “The English Reformer John Wycliffe also followed the main lines of the Anselmic satisfaction motif.”[7] That further supports the idea that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was sufficient for all mankind, but efficient only for those who believe. “Luther taught that Christ in his [SIC] life and death bore the sin, guilt, and punishment of a condemned race … As a result of his [SIC] propitiatory sacrifice, Christ frees trusting souls from the curse of the law; reconciles God and sinners; imparts perfect righteousness; and conquers sin, death and the Devil” (emphasis mine).[8]
Later came Arminius and Calvin who developed their differing views on the atonement. In opposition to the Calvinist view of Limited Atonement, “Arminian theologians consistently uphold a universal atonement: Christ died for the purpose of providing salvation for the entire world. Thus Arminius succinctly affirmed: ‘Christ died for all men and for every individual.’… The Arminians press their position by asking how persons could be held guilty for refusing to believe what was not intended for them.”[9] In this regard, Arminians hold a more correct view of Christ’s work of atonement in my opinion.
The authors of my text note that “As for John Calvin, several recent scholars believe that although Calvin held to double predestination he also taught a doctrine of unlimited atonement. In his Institutes Calvin wrote, ‘It is certain that the Lord offers us mercy and the pledge of his [SIC] grace both in his [SIC] Sacred Word and his [SIC] sacraments. But it is understood only by those who take Word and sacraments with sure faith, just as Christ is offered and held forth by the Father to all unto salvation, yet not all acknowledge and receive him.’ [SIC] In his later commentaries, Calvin more clearly postulates an unlimited atonement. With regard to Galatians 5:12 Calvin affirms: ‘God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world’” (emphasis mine).[10] Apparently, John Calvin was not all that “Calvinistic.”
“Scholastic Calvinism, however, narrowed the intent of the atonement and claimed that Christ died solely for the purpose of saving the elect, the exact number of whom are actually brought to salvation. Thus proponents argue that the design of the cross was not merely to provide salvation but to secure the salvation of those persons the Father gave to the Son. Christ allegedly died for all who were related to him [SIC], just as Adam sinned for all who were related to him … God purposed to save some persons and to condemn others, the high Calvinist claims that Christ died solely for those predestined to life”[11]
John Owen, a Puritan held in high regard by many who hold to this view of election, presents what to me is a ridiculous argument for the limited atonement of election. “If Christ dies for all and all are not saved, then Christ died ineffectively, which cannot be. If God loves all and not all are saved, then God loves ineffectually, which also cannot be. Thus Christ did not die for all, and God does not love all people. Says Owen: ‘We deny that all mankind are the object of that love of God which moved him [SIC] to send his [SIC] Son to die.’ God’s love is reflected in his [SIC] will to save the elect the heirs of the covenant of grace, for whose sins Christ made satisfaction on the cross. Owen concludes that if the death of Christ accomplishes all that the Father intended, ‘then died he only for those that are in the event sanctified, purged, redeemed, justified, freed from wrath and death, quickened, saved, etc.’ but that all are not thus sanctified, freed, etc., is most apparent: and, therefore they cannot be said to be the proper object of the death of Christ.’”[12] Owen’s conclusion, I believe, comes not from Scripture, but from his own feeble attempt at logic.
Against Scholastic Calvinism, Moses Amyraut, French theologian, proposed the theory of “hypothetical universalism.” “Amyraut insisted that God willed the salvation of all persons on the condition that they believe … Christ died for all persons sufficiently, but for the elect efficiently. Amyraut’s position was championed by later scholars such as Cameron of the Saumar Academy, Richard Baxter, John Bunyon, Samuel Hipkins, and Heinrich Heppe”[13] (emphasis mine).
I contend that the position of the “hyper-Calvinists” are the ideas of men – albeit well-meaning, godly men – and not necessarily the plain teaching of the Bible. Such a narrow soteriological position cannot be supported by “Sola Scriptura” as I attempted to demonstrate above with my list of biblical references in three categories. I encourage the reader to scrutinize those passages laying aside any preconceived ideas that you have been taught in the past. Allow the Bible to speak for itself without the aid of commentators or scholars of the past. The Word of God is perspicuous and perfectly able to speak for itself without outside influence.
Notes:
[1] Gordon R Lewis and Bruce A Demarest, Integrative Theology, Volume Two, (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1990), p. 372.
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, (Luke 24:6)
Christmas and Easter (I prefer “Resurrection Day”) are the two most important days on the Christian calendar with Resurrection Day being, arguably, the most important of the two. One might argue that we could not have the Resurrection without the Birth, but the Birth without the Resurrection would render both insignificant.
Jesus’ birth came like the birth of any other baby. The Gospel writer Luke records the event taking place in a humble animal shelter visited only by lowly shepherds. However, Luke points out an important fact that is summarily overlooked by most readers. Luke says that, “while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered” (Luke 2:6, emphasis mine). So, apparently, Joseph and Mary had been in Bethlehem a few days before the time of her delivery. Luke does not say, but it seems reasonable that in Bethlehem there were ladies who, seeing a young woman ready to give birth, would have offered their services as midwives. That is the way they did it in those days. Regardless, the birth was no different than any other. The conception nine months prior was the “miracle.” At that time, God planted His seed in Mary’s womb without human aid.
So Jesus came into the world and “dwelt among us”[1] and “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52). He grew up like any other Jewish boy and probably learned carpentry from His earthly father, Joseph. At the age of 30,[2] the age at which priests enter service,[3] Jesus started His three-year earthly ministry. We know from the four Gospel accounts that His ministry ended with His death on the cross. He was buried in a borrowed tomb and rose on the third day.
But what if the resurrection never happened? Paul put it quite succinctly when he said, “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). If Jesus did not rise from the grave, His death for our sins is of no avail. We have no hope of eternal life, and, worse, our destiny is in hell. That explains why unbelievers live for this life alone because, for them, this life is all there is. They reject the concept of hell and prefer the idea that death ends it all, or that it begins a new cycle through reincarnation.
Many arguments against the resurrection of Jesus exist that have a long history from the very beginning. Some say that Jesus did not die on the cross but only “swooned” and revived in the cool dampness of the tomb, rolled the two-ton stone away, and walked out. That is a silly theory when one considers the beating, torture, and flogging Jesus received before being nailed to the cross. Also, the Roman soldiers who crucified Him were expert executioners and were familiar with death. Had they suspected that He “swooned,” they would have broken His legs like they did with the other two victims.[4] These were professionals; they knew death. Then, to ensure His death, one of the soldiers ran his spear into his side and punctured the pericardium.[5]
Let us say, for argument’s sake, that this one they failed to recognize and Jesus did indeed pass out. Even if He did revive in the cool tomb, the loss of blood from the beatings and flogging, not to mention the puncturing of his heart sac, would have left Him too weak to roll away the heavy stone – one that took several men to move – by Himself.
Another argument suggests that Jesus’ disciples overpowered the Roman guard posted at the tomb.[6] This too is a silly argument. All four Gospels record how the disciples went into hiding at Jesus’ arrest. They feared for their lives. It seems unlikely that these frightened men, most of them fishermen, and at least one un-calloused tax collector, would dare to take on battle-hardened professional Roman soldiers. However, this fabrication spread from the very beginning. Matthew records that an angel came to roll back the stone and the soldiers on watch were scared stiff.[7] The soldiers, knowing the consequence (death) for failing in their responsibility to keep the tomb secure, went to the chief priests, rather than their leaders, hoping to get a sympathetic hearing about the empty tomb. They made a good choice as the Jewish religious leaders paid them off and covered for them as long as they would spread the lie that the disciples had stolen the body.[8]
Still another argument insists that the women who went to the tomb on Sunday morning were so grief-stricken that they failed to recognize Jesus’ tomb and went to the wrong sepulcher which was empty. This argument simply rejects what Scripture clearly reports. Three of the four Gospels record that the women witnessed the tomb where Jesus was laid.[9] John, who was present at the crucifixion along with Jesus’ mother and the other women, does not say, but it stands to reason that he would have accompanied them to the tomb.
Jesus rose from the dead. If that were not true, the Jews, because of their hatred for Him, only needed to exhume the body and present it to the world, but they had no body. Men have tried and failed to show Jesus’ remains, but they cannot.
Jesus rose from the dead. He conquered death, and because He conquered death, we have the assurance that our sins are covered and we have eternal life with him. “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept [died]. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:19-22, emphasis mine). “For if by one man’s [Adam] offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [Jesus] the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s [Adam] disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [Jesus] shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:17-19, emphasis mine).
Because Jesus conquered death, we can have the assurance of eternal life with Him. That is why the resurrection matters. If you are not sure where you stand before Jesus, please read my page on “Securing Eternal Life.”
Ernie's Musings 