Monthly Archives: July 2013

God’s foreknowledge and predestination/election to salvation

(images courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

Within the evangelical Christian community, there are two prominent views on how human beings are elected by God to salvation. They are the views of Calvinism and Arminianism. See examples of these views:

Arminianism: Roger Olson, ‘Election is for everyone‘;

Calvinism: J I Packer, ‘Election: God chooses his own’;

In a discussion on God’s predestination/election and foreknowledge on a Christian Forum, this was stated:

It can’t be “both”, it’s either one or the other. One is the cart, the other is the horse. Either God’s grace is the driving engine behind a man’s salvation, or the man is. Either Christians in heaven will be saying “the reason I’m here is because God chose me” or they will be saving “The reason God chose me is because I decided to be here.[1]

My response was:

(image courtesy Bethany House)

Salvation that involves the omniscience of God and the free choices of human beings is God-centred. That’s how God has revealed this situation in Scripture and Geisler has attempted to demonstrate this – Chosen but Free.[2] They are understood as based on God’s omniscience. It is a very God-centred doctrine of salvation, straight from the authoritative God of Scripture.

I would not be supporting such a view if it were not what is found in Scripture. I’m committed to the inerrancy of Scripture in the autographa [the original documents of Old and New Testaments).

It seems that it is your Calvinistic interpretation that wants to place any view other than yours as the creation over the Creator. This is clearly not the case with Geisler (1999) and it is not my view.The choices of human beings are ‘free’ in the sense that God has extended to all human beings common grace (see Titus 2:11).

Your example of your son is not adequate for the discussion we are having because with your son you are dealing with how to set parameters for discipline, because you love him. With the eternal God, he is revealing how his love for the whole world makes salvation available to all. As I understand them, unconditional election and irresistible grace involve forced love. Geisler has labelled this as ‘divine rape’ – not nice terminology, but it does try to get to the essence of forced love for salvation.

I support your view of ‘the wise and immutable choices of God’, but it is the basis on which those immutable choices are made about which we disagree. Are you promoting an immutable decree in predestination? I’m promoting predestination/election, based on the foreknowledge of God and that involves freedom of individuals to voluntarily love or reject God’s offer of salvation when the Gospel is shared or preached.

Mine is a God-centred theology of salvation that incorporates the Gospel, God’s omniscience in foreknowledge, election that includes human beings freely choosing to respond favourably to the Gospel. It is genuine free will that God has given to all.[3]

How would Apologetic_Warrior, a Presbyterian and Reformed believer, respond? Before looking at his response to my post on foreknowledge, it is important to note his emphasis in a previous post,

Sorry but election by “free” choices of men is “man centered” doctrine if there ever were such a thing. Of course Geisler does not come right out and speak in those terms, he is blind to the fact, cannot see the forest for the trees. So let me rephrase, Geisler does not intentionally place the creation over the Creator, but he does so unintentionally based on his philosophical presuppositions.

If Geisler and yourself believe in original sin and total depravity, in what sense can man’s choices be said to be “free”? Free of what to what?[4]

Now to his response about foreknowledge in Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2. It was fairly predictable. It is a common response I receive from the Reformed who don’t believe that salvation and God’s foreknowledge are associated with election/predestination. He wrote:

Neither of those verses support what you would like for them to support.

If we interpret “those whom he foreknew” in the sense you suggest, let me ask you this, are we therefore to interpret that as God foreknowing some but not others? No, God foreknows everyone’s destiny in the knowledge sense of the term. Because the phrase limits the number of persons (those), I believe a more accurate rendering would be “those whom he foreLoved”, as we already know of instances in Scripture where to “know” someone (“Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived”) is to love intimately.

Neither of the verses give the cause or basis of election, and neither is it contradiction for the Calvinist to agree that there is a tie between election and foreknowledge….and predestination and sovereignty. What you read into foreknowledge is the “choices of men”, where we Calvinists read the free choices of God on the basis of His love and mercy, according to His will and His purpose, for His glory.[5]

Here was my response:[6]

‘For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified’ (Romans 8:29-30; emphasis added).

‘He foreknew’ is the Greek proegnw, aorist, active indicative of proginwskw, which means ‘know beforehand, in advance, have foreknowledge of something… Choose beforehand someone’ (Arndt & Gingrich p. 710). Therefore, your statement, ‘I believe a more accurate rendering would be “those whom he foreLoved”‘, is your own opinion and is not based on the etymology of the word.

Proginwsko means to foreknow, to know in advance. The preposition pro that begins this verb does not change the meaning of ginwsko (I know), but simply dates it, the same preposition is associated with proorizo, I predestine in advance in Rom 8:29. This divine action reaches back to eternity.

We need to note that the verb for knowing is ginwsko and not oida, to know about someone, intellectual apprehension. Proginwsko refers to a knowing relationship that is a personal relationship between the knower and the person known. So it becomes plain that when God foreknew, in his omniscience He foreknew in personal relationship. This does not refer to what you want it to mean, ‘foreloved’, but to know personally in relationship through foreknowledge.
Therefore, when Jesus said concerning the unbelievers and judgment, ‘I never knew you’, Jesus did not know the wicked with the affection of a personal relationship.

Romans 8:29 most definitely refers to foreknowledge of God, a personal relationship of knowing by God with believers. I am not imposing my meaning on the text. I’m exegeting the text, based on etymology of foreknowledge.

So one of the fundamentals in understanding God’s election of a person to receive salvation, is God’s foreknowledge according to Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:1-2.

Works consulted

Geisler, N 1999. Chosen but free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Lenski, R C H 1936. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. This commentary was originally published by the Lutheran Book Concern in 1936. The Hendrickson Publishers’ edition was printed in 2001.

The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to…

(image courtesy LibraryThing)

Notes:

[1] Apologetic_Warrior #388, Christian Forums, Soteriology, ‘Is rejecting Christ a sin?’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-39/ (Accessed 8 July 2013).

[2] 1999. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

[3] Ibid., OzSpen #386.

[4] Ibid., Apologetic_Warrior #385.

[5] Ibid., Apologetic_Warrior #401.

[6] Ibid., OzSpen #405, with some guidance from R C H Lenski (1936:556-557).

Conversations with a Calvinist on apostasy

Spencer D Gear

Courtesy ShareFaith

By Spencer D Gear

If you want to see some heat generated in theological discussions, just raise the issue of the possibility of apostasy with Calvinists who believe in perseverance of the saints. These folks who believe in once saved, always saved (OSAS) – which is not good terminology – do not want to come close to believing that it is possible for a genuine Christian to be lost again and to be lost eternally with no further opportunity for repentance.

What, then, is apostasy? Apostasy refers to

defection from the faith, an act of unpardonable rebellion against God and his truth. The sin of apostasy results in the abandonment of Christian doctrine and conduct. With respect to the covenant relationship established through prior profession of faith (passive profession in the case of baptized infants), apostates place themselves under the curse and wrath of God as covenant breakers, having entered into a state of final and irrevocable condemnation. Those who apostatize are thus numbered among the reprobate. Since the resurrection of Christ, there is no distinction between blasphemy against Christ and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt 12:31-32; Heb 6:4-6 ; 10:26-29 ; 1 John 5:16-17) [Karlberg 1996].[1]

I made the post to a Christian forum in which I dealt with Hebrews 10:26-27, which states, ‘For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷but a fearful expectation of judgement, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries (ESV).

Courtesy ChristArt

In response to another person, I wrote:

They should cause us all to be concerned about our continuing to ‘go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth’ (Heb. 10:26). This verse, along with Heb 6:4-8, confirm that apostasy is a genuine possibility for some who have been Christian but choose to sin deliberately and reject the Lord.

These verses and the others you quoted cannot be excluded when continuation or loss of salvation is considered.[2]

A Calvinist responded, ‘We all sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth’.[3] How should I reply?

Therefore, this is what we can expect from God if that is what we :

26 Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins. 27 There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies (Heb 10:26-27 NLT).

The NLT has gotten the essence of the Greek present tense with ‘continue sinning’ and this is deliberately. This is deliberate sinning that continues on and on.[4]

The same Calvinist responded:

The passage isn’t talking about losing salvation. It’s sad that you think the Great Shepherd could lose His sheep.
The writer is talking to Jews. If they reject Christ, their sacrificial system will not benefit them. That’s why there remains no more sacrifice for sins.
But hey, only have conversations with those who agree with you. That way you’ll never be challenged.
(Oh, and the 1 Tim passage says nothing about them losing their salvation.)[5]

My response was:[6] The passage is doing more than talking about losing salvation. It is talking about the believer who commits apostasy (repudiates the Christian faith), for whom ‘there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins’. That’s the apostasy from which there is no return, as Heb. 6:4-8 confirms.
It’s sad that you think the Great Shepherd is not telling us the truth when he writes about committing apostasy in Heb 6:4-8 and Heb 10:26-27 for which there is no return to repentance.

Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg, Courtesy Wikipedia

The context of Hebrew 10:26-27, no matter how much you want it to refer to Jews, tells us that the writer to the Hebrews is writing to Christians. We know this from these verses in Ch. 10:

Hebrews 10:10, “By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (ESV)

Heb 10:15, “And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us….”

Heb 10:19, “Therefore, brothers and sisters since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,”

Heb 10:22, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith….”

Heb 10:23, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering….”

Heb 10:24, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works.”

Heb 10:25, “Not neglecting to meet together as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another.…”

Heb 10:26, ‘“For if we go on sinning deliberately….”

This Calvinist did nto seem to like the challenges that I to his view on apostasy, which was that no Christian can commit apostasy as once they are saved they will persevere in the faith and not lose salvation. However, that is not a consistent view maintained in Scripture.

Mark Karlberg’s (1996) article on apostasy continued:

G. C. Berkouwer[7] comments: “We must underscore the deep seriousness of the biblical warning against apostasy after enlightenment’ and after the knowledge of the truth.’ This is the apostasy which reviles the Spirit of grace and despises the Son of God and crucifies the Man of Sorrows anew” (p. 343). Berkouwer is correct to refute the idea that this sin against the Holy Spirit is a mysterium iniquitatis (“a mystery of sin”), a sin difficult, if at all possible, to define precisely in the Bible.

Apostatizing from God’s redemptive covenant is an act of unpardonable transgression and rebellion. All other sins are forgiven on true repentance and faith. Those who fall out of fellowship with the saints are restored to full communion through confession of sin and reaffirmation of faith in Jesus Christ. Excommunication, as a final step in the process of ecclesiastical discipline, is undertaken in the hope of restoring the wayward sinner who has fallen into grievous sin ( 1 Co 5:1-5).

Israel of old repeatedly broke covenant with God. By impugning the name and works of Yahweh, Israel despised her calling and proved to be a stubborn and disobedient nation. Pentateuchal law identifies covenantal faithlessness as apostasy (see, e.g., the curses of the covenant pronounced on Mount Ebal by the Israelites in Deut 27:9-26). With respect to temporal blessing in the land of promise, restoration of Israel to divine favor after covenant breaking was always a consequence of divine grace and mercy, not because of meritorious works on Israel’s part.

In biblical prophecy apostasy is an eschatological sign of the impending day of the Lord, a precursor of the final day of judgment. Ancient Israel’s experience of divine wrath and displeasure served as typological foreshadowings of that latter day. The increase in apostasy in these last days of the church’s wilderness experience is associated with the appearance of the “man of lawlessness” ( 2 Th 2:1-3).

For a detailed examination of the possibility of a Christian committing apostasy and being lost forever with no opportunity for repentance, see my exposition of Hebrews 6:4-8, ‘Once saved, always saved or once saved, lost again’.

I recommend the article by Roger E Olson, ‘What’s wrong with Calvinism?‘ (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Works consulted

Karlberg, M W 1996. Apostasy, in W A Elwell (ed), Baker’s evangelical dictionary of biblical theology. Available at BibleStudyTools.com, http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/apostasy.html (Accessed 8 July 2013).

Notes:

[1] Karlberg (1996).

[2] Christian Forums, Congregation, Christian Communities, Baptists, Heb 6:4-6, OzSpen #13, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755725-2/ (Accessed 6 July 2013).

[3] Ibid., Hammster #14.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen #15.

[5] Ibid., Hammster #30.

[6]Ibid., OzSpen #34.

[7] Karlberg stated that this referred to the book by G. C. Berkouwer, Sin.

How were the New Testament documents transmitted in the first century AD?

Folio 41v from Codex Alexandrinus contains the Gospel of Luke with decorative tailpiece (courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to get this kind of theory propounded. Here it was on a large Christian forum on the Internet:

It’s blatantly obvious that there is a question to be answered: the three Synoptics have a lot of the same material – often word-for-word identical. How did that happen?
However much you bluster, any theory of authorship that fails to explain that overlap – in all its detail – is not satisfactory.[1]

The conversation continued by the same person (with interaction from others):

That would work [memorising a Rabbi or teacher’s words, word-for-word] if oral sources worked quite like that and if the overlaps between the gospels consisted of only context free words of Jesus.

But oral sources don’t work like that, and the overlaps include narration.
“Q”, if it ever existed , would appear to be a collection of sayings – which is the biggest problem with any hypothetical Q as a reconstructable stand-alone document.
but the overlaps between Matthew and mark, say, include narrative.[2]

This poster continued her scepticism towards the Gospel material:

It doesn’t matter how clearly “Matthew” and Peter remember the same events – their narration of those events won’t be word similar or remotely close to it unless one is copying the other. You can’t have “Matthew” and Peter independently writing accounts and have the similarities we have – it just would not happen. One has to have access to the other and be copying from it. Or they both have to be copying from a shared source.[3]

My response was as follows:[4]

Courtesy Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

I suggest that you read a Swedish scholar (former professor of exegetical theology, Lund University, Sweden) who challenges your view. He is Birger Gerhardsson and has published his investigations in Memory & Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity and Tradition & Transmission in Early Christianity. I have these two volumes in one publication published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, Michigan). Mine is a 1998 edition but they were originally published by Gerhardsson in 1961 and 1964. I have referenced them below as 1998a and 1998b.[5]

Gerhardsson searched for a model to demonstrate how oral formulations and oral tradition could have taken place. His aim was to find knowledge of possible techniques (1998a:xxxi). He set out to answer what he considered were three crucial questions:

‘To what extent did the Pharisaic teachers apply the Rabbinic principles of pedagogics during the first century A. D.’?
‘To what extent are we justified in regarding the pedagogics we find among the Pharisaic teachers as representative of the normal practices of the Jesus milieu as a whole, i. e. even outside the bounds of Pharisaism proper?’
‘To what extent did the teaching and transmission of Jesus and the early Church follow the principles of practical pedagogics which were common in their milieu, and to what extend did they create new forms?’ (Gerhardsson 1998b:12)

One of his conclusions from a long and extensive study is:

It is one thing to state that traditions have been marked by the milieu through which they passed; another to claim that they simply were created in this secondary milieu [a hypothesis of the form critics]. The evidence suggests that memories of Jesus were so clear, and the traditions with which they were connected so firmly based that there can have been relatively little scope for alteration (Gerhardsson 1998b:43; emphasis in original).

So Gerhardsson’s extensive research comes to rather different conclusions to yours. May I suggest a careful read of Gerhardsson’s seminal material that has been radically criticised by Morton Smith and Gerhardsson (1998b) has addressed Smith’s critique.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Apologetics, ‘Which gospel was first’, ebia #56, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7753487-6/ (Accessed 4 July 2013).

[2] Ibid., ebia #62.

[3] Ibid., ebia #65.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen #70.

[5] Some of this material is made available online by Google Books HERE. Birger Gerhardsson has also written a smaller version, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (2001. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers).
Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.