But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. (Matthew 6:33-34)
As I write this, the clock rapidly ticks away the seconds to wind down the year 2024 and zoom into the new year, 2025. When I think of the passage of time, I often contemplate the illusiveness of “the present.” Think about it. Everything we do, every thought we think is instantly in the past the moment we act or think about it. Then, our next move is in the immediate future, which soon becomes our past. The actual “present” is but a nanosecond as we travel through time. We are constantly moving toward the future. What we do in the present, however brief that may be, ultimately affects the future.
Our ultimate future lies in eternity. We have no idea how time will work in eternity. We know God is eternal, without beginning and without end. He is not confined by time. To God, all time is present. However, we, His creation, were created in time, “In the beginning …” (Genesis 1:1), and we exist in time. Will we experience time in eternity as we do here on earth? I do not know. When my mother went to be with the Lord 22 years ago, one of the last things I said to her was, “Mom, don’t worry. When you get to heaven, you will look back and see that we are right behind you.” I do not know for certain, but it seems to me that time, even though for us it will still exist, will somehow be irrelevant; it will all be “now.”
Meanwhile, here we are. The present is determined by how we prepared for the future in the past, however recent or long ago the past was. Jesus offered good advice for preparing for the future. In the negative, He said, “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? … Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?” (Matthew 6:25, 31). We cannot control what the future will bring. It certainly makes sense to prepare for the unknown, but even then, the future often brings the unexpected. Therefore, Jesus encourages us not to fret over those things. More important than the immediate future is what lies beyond – eternity. Rather than worry about things over which we have no control, Jesus encourages us to “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” – i.e., those things which are eternal value. Then He promises, “all these things” – i.e., food, clothing, housing, etc. – will be added unto you, “for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things” (Matthew 6:32). God will provide for your needs if you will trust Him.
The year 2024, arguably, has not been a good year. The new year, 2025, promises to be better, or we may look back and remember the good ol’ days of 2024. Donald J. Trump promises to “Make America Great Again.” However, Trump’s enemies want to do all that is in their power to thwart all of his efforts. Will they succeed or will Trump achieve his goals? The world is in turmoil. Russia and Ukraine are at war. The Middle East is a seething caldron of unrest; the puzzle pieces of the prophesied war of Ezekiel 38-39 seem to be falling into place. China boasts that it will take Taiwan and no one can stop it. Violence and rioting plague all of Europe and other places around the world. Will Trump’s presidency make the difference that will bring peace to the world? I have my doubts, but we can hope. The future is unknown except to God, and He ultimately controls the outcome. Therefore, Jesus said, “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” (Matthew 6:34). Whatever 2025 brings, those who trust in the Lord will enjoy peace and security in Him. “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes” (Psalm 118:8-9).
The best resolution for 2025 is to prepare for eternity. If you feel insecure about what the future has in store, I would encourage you to place your trust in Christ. Read my page on “Securing Eternal Life.”
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. (1 Peter 2:13-16)
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. (Matthew 5:13)
I try to focus this blog on biblical and theological topics, but sometimes, it is necessary to call attention to current topics of an urgent nature. As you can see by the title of this article, I want to address Christians in this matter of exercising our right to vote in America, while we still have the freedom to do so. I particularly want to address those Christians who, in frustration with politics, have decided not to vote.
Christians should understand the concept of “stewardship.” However, most Christians think stewardship only refers to money and giving to the church. That is certainly part of it, however, it involves more than that. The Christian must understand that nothing in his control really belongs to him. It all belongs to God and He has put it under the individual’s control to “manage” – that’s what stewardship is – “management.”
So, what does that have to do with voting? Simple, God has placed you in a nation that is governed, not by a king or despot. We live in a “republic” governed by a written document – the Constitution – that gives “we the people” the right to rule over our own affairs through elected representatives. As Christians, then, it is our duty and responsibility to exercise that right as stewards of the nation God has given us.
Jesus called us to be salt and light in our world. Salt flavors and preserves. Light dispels darkness. As Christians, we are to make a difference in our world. Do what is right and trust the results to God. You will get no argument from me; both sides have their flaws. However, there is one side that is completely godless and opposed to everything God calls good. I do not need to name that party; you should know it well if you have paid attention. That party has removed God from its platform. It mocks Christians and Christian values. It supports the murder of the unborn. It worships nature rather than worshiping the Creator. It embraces and exalts deviant sexual lifestyles and encourages others to do the same (Romans 1:32). Any thoughtful, God-fearing, Christian steward of God should avoid at all costs voting for anyone running for any office that represents you in any way that displays a “D” after their name.
Christian, you need to vote. If you do not vote for the alternative just because you do not like his personality, you are in effect voting for the godless one with a “D” after their name. At the same time, you are neglecting the stewardship that God has given you.
Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. (1 Corinthians 4:1-2)
As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. (1 Peter 4:10)
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 