The Old Testament view of God's Eternal Decree

In the Old Testament presentation, the planning and ordaining work of God is very much tied up with the covenant which the Lord made with his people. As we read of all that God id in choosing and taking personal care of his people, two truths about him stand out. On one hand, God is supremely powerful, the creator and sustainer of all that is. On the other hand is the loving, caring, personal nature of the Lord. He is not mere abstract power, but is thought as a loving person.

For the Old Testament writers, it was virtually inconceivable that anything could happen independently of the will and working of God. As evidence of this, consider that a common impersonal expressions like "It rained" are not found in the Old Testament. For the Hebrews, rain did not simply happen; God sent the rain. They saw him as the all powerful determiner of everything that occurs. Not only is he active in everything that occurs, but he has planned it. What is happening now was planned long ago. God himself comments, for example, concerning the destruction wreaked by the king of Assyria:

• "Have you never heard that I planned all this long ago? And now I have carried it out. I gave you the power to turn fortified cities into piles of rubble." Isaiah 37:26 (GNB)
  

Even something as seemingly trivial as the building of reservoirs is described as having been planned long before (Isa. 22:11). There is a sense that every day has been designed and ordered by the Lord. Thus the psalmist writes,

• "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." Pss. 139:16 (KJV)

A similar thought is expressed by Job (14:5). There is in God's plan a concern for the welfare of the nation of Israel, and of every one of God's children (Pss. 27:10-11; 37; 64:3; 91; 121; 139:16; Dan. 12:1; Jonah 3:5). We find in Psalms 91 and 121 a confidence in the goodness, provision, and protection of God that in many ways remind us of Jesus' teaching about the birds and the flowers (Matt. 6:25-29).

The Old Testament also enunciates belief in the efficaciousness of God's plan. What is now coming to pass is doing so because it is (and has always been) prat of God's purpose. He will most assuredly bring to actual occurrence everything in his plan. What he has promised, he will do. Isaiah 46:10-11 puts it this way:

• "[I am God, and no other is God, even none like Me], declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past things which were not done, saying, My purpose shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure; calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my purpose from a far country. Yes, I have spoken, I will also cause it to come; I have formed; yes, I will do it." Isaiah 46:10-11 (MKJV)

Similar statements are found in Isaiah 14:24-27. Here we read not only of God's faithfulness to his avowed purpose, but also of the futility of opposing it:

• "For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" Isaiah 14:27 (RV); cf. Job 42:2; Jer. 23:20; Zech. 1:6.

It is particularly in the wisdom literature and the prophets that the idea of an all-inclusive divine purpose is most prominent. God has from the beginning, from all eternity, had an inclusive plan encompassing the whole of reality and extending even to the minor details of life.

• "The LORD has made everything for His own purposes, even the wicked for a day of disaster." Prov. 16:4 (NLT); cf. 3:19-21; Job 38, especially v. 4; Isa. 40:12; Jer 10:12-13.

Even what is ordinarily thought of as an occurrence of chance, such as the casting of lots, is represented as the Lord's doing (Prov. 16:33). Nothing can deter or frustrate the accomplishment of his purpose. Proverbs 19:21 says,

• "Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails." Prov. 19:21 (NIV); cf. 21:30-31; Jer 10:23-24.

We humans may not always understand as God works our his purpose in our lives. This was the experience of Job throughout the book that bears his name; it is articulated particularly in 42:3,

• "Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know." Job 42:3 (NIV)

Thus, in the view of the Old Testament believer, God had created the world, he was directing history, and all this was but the unfolding of a plan prepared in eternity and related to his intentions of fellowship with his people. Creation in its vast extent and the details of individual lives were included in this plan and would surely come to pass as God designed. As a result, the prophets could speak of coming events with certainty. Future events could be prophesied because God had planned them, and his plan would surely come to pas.

What is Reformed Theology?

The Historical Development of the Doctrine of "Predestination" (by Dr. Millard Erickson)

Saint Augustine (Bishop) of Hippo (354 - 430),
One of the greatest Doctors of Theology in the early Christianity.

Because there has been a considerable amount of controversy over predestination, and because the different formulations of the doctrine are related to other developments within both theology and culture in general, it will be helpful to introduce the doctrine with a survey of its elaboration through the centuries of the church to the point where the classic formulations were enunciated. As so often is the case with theological matters, the doctrine of predestination was held in somewhat undeveloped form until serious disagreement arose regarding it. In the early years of the church, no exact formulation was devised.

There was, particularly in the West, a growing conviction of the sinfulness of humans and of the consequent need for divine transforming grace [1]. In general, however, the logical implications of this conviction were not worked out until Augustine. His personal experience of God's grace enabled him to see more clearly than did others the teaching of the Scripture on these matters. We must not think that his experience determined what he found in Scripture. Rather, his experience sensitized him, enabling him to identify with what he found there, and thus to understand it better.

Even before encountering the thought of Pelagius, Augustine had to a considerable extent developed his view of the human situation. He stressed that Adam had begun life truly free [2]. The only limitations upon his will and actions were the inherent limitations imposed by the very nature of humanity. Thus there was, for example, the possibility of change, which included the possibility of turning away from the good [3]. When Adam sinned, he became tainted in nature. Now inclined toward doing evil, he transmitted this propensity for sin to his descendants. As a result, the freedom to abstain from evil and do good has been lost. This is not to say that freedom of will in general is gone, but rather that we now invariably use that freedom in ways contrary to God's intention for us [4]. Without divine assistance we are unable to choose and do the good.

The views of Pelagius sharpened Augustine's thinking, forcing him to extend it beyond its previous bounds. Pelagius, a British monk, had relocated to Rome and had become a fashionable teacher there [5]. He was primarily a moralist rather than a theologian per se. Concerned that people live as virtuously as possible, he considered Augustine's emphasis upon the extreme corruption of human nature and its corollary, human inability, to be both demoralizing to any genuine effort at righteous living and insulting to God as well [6]. God made humans different from all of the rest of creation. Man has freedom of choice. This gift of God ought to be used to fulfill God's purposes [7].

From the basic principle Pelagius developed his system. The first of its tenets is that each person enters the world with a will that has no bias in favor of evil. The fall of Adam has no direct effect upon each human's ability to do the right and the good, for every individual is directly created by God, and therefore does not inherit from Adam either evil or a tendency to evil [8]. Surely the God who forgives each person his or her own sin would not hold any of us responsible for the act of someone else. The only effect of Adam's sin upon his descendants, then, is that of a bad example. We do not inherit his corruption and guilt. There is no inherent spiritual and moral flaw in us from birth [9].

Further, Pelagius held that God does not exert any special force upon anyone to choose the good. Such influence as he exerts is through external aids. There is no internal work of God upon the soul [10]. In particular, he makes no special choice of certain persons to holiness. Grace is available equally to all persons. It consists of free will, apprehension of God through reason, and the law of Moses and the example of Christ. Each person has equal opportunity to benefit from there tokens of grace. God is impartial. Progress in holiness is made by merit alone, and God's predestinating of persons is based entirely upon his foreseeing the quality of their lives [11]. One might conclude that it is possible to live without sinning. And Pelagius did indeed draw that conclusion. Would God have commanded, "You shall be holy; for I the LORD your God am holy" (Lev. 19:2), and "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). if sinlessness were not a possibilitu for human beings [12]?

In response to this position, Augustine developed his view of predestination. He emphasized the seriousness of Adam's sin and pinned the blame solely on Adam's own act of will. But that sin was not merely Adam's. All of us were one with him and thus participated in his sin. Since the human soul is derived from one's parents through generative process, we were present in Adam and sinned in and with him [13]. This means that all human beings begin life in a seriously marred condition. Augustine does not hold that the image of God has been completely destroyed, but he does maintain that we have lost the ability not to sin, a liberty which Adam had [14]. Without God's grace, we are unable to avoid sin, and to do the good requires an even greater grace. This is not to say that man is not free. Man has options, but those options are all sinful in nature. He is free to choose, but merely to engage in one sin rather than another [15]. God's grace restores complete freedom; it returns to us the option of not sinning and of ding good. This grace, while irresistible, does not work against, but in concert with our wills. God so works in relationship to our wills that we freely choose good. God, being omniscient, knows precisely under what conditions we will freely choose what he wills, and works in such a way as to bring about those conditions. Without this special working of God, man cannot choose or do good. While man always has free will, he is free to choose and do good only if and when God grants him that freedom [16].

This line of arguments brings Augustine to predestination. For if we do good only if God chooses to so work in relationship to our will, and if we will infallibly do good if God so wills, our choosing or doing good seems to be entirely a consequence of what God has already willed to do. It is a matter, then, of God's choosing to give to some and not to others. God has made this choice from all eternity, and has chosen exactly the number needed to replace the fallen angels [17]. This choice of certain people in no way depends upon his advance awareness of what they will do, for any good deeds of theirs depends instead upon his giving his grace to them [18]. There really is no answer to the question of how God decides who will receive his grace and who will be left in their sinful condition. He simply chooses as he pleases. There is, however, no injustice in this, for justice would result in God's condemning of all ("for all have sinned" Rom. 3:23). It is only by an act of great compassion that he saves anyone. The condemned receive just what they deserve. The elect receive more than they deserve.

The outspoken attacks of Augustine led to the condemnation of Pelagianism by the Council of Ephesus in 431, one year after Augustine's death. What prevailed afterwards, however, was not really a pure Augustinanism, but semi-Pelagianism. Despite the acceptance of many of Augustine's terms, the doctrine of synergism, which holds that God and man together accomplish what must be done in order for man to be saved, tended to predominate. This position was considered and condemned by the Synod of Orange in 529. The synod spoke in strong terms of the inability of man and the necessity of divine grace, but did not insist on the absolute predestination (i.e., the doctrine that God by an unalterable eternal decree has determined who is to be saved; being totally of God's grace, salvation in no way depends upon man or what he does) and irresistible grace [19].

This milder form of Augustinianism prevailed for several centuries. In the 9th-century, Gottschalk defended the doctrine of double predestination--predestination applies equally to the elect and the lost. Gottschalk's view were condemned in the synod of bishops at Mainz 848. Controversy ensued. One of the most interesting positions was that taken by Johannes Scotus Erigena. While charging Gottschalk with heresy, Erigena agreed with him in rejecting the idea that God's predestination is based upon his foreknowledge of what men will do. That had been a rather common way of dealing with the apparent inconsistency between divine predestination and human freedom. It had been advanced particularly by Origen as a solution to the problem. Now, however, Erigena contended that since God is eternal, he sees things as neither past nor future. He sees all of us and sees us all at once [20]. Because God stands outside time, the concept of foreknowledge is alien to him.

In the 11th-century through the 13th-centuries, several outstanding theologians advocated the Augustinian position. Anselm reconciled this position with freedom of the will by insisting that the person who can do only right is freer than one who can do wrong [21]. The latter is actually a slave to sin. Peter Lombard held a similar view. Thomas Aquinas followed the Augustinian position on these matters, maintaining that God wills that some men be saved and others not. He drew a distinction between God's general (passive) will that all be saved and his special (decreed) will in electing some and rejecting others: "God wills all men to be saved by His antecedent will, which is to apply not simply but relatively; and not by His consequent will, which is to will simply." [22]

From this time until the Reformation, the predominant trend within Catholic theology was a drift toward Pelegianism. There were some notable exceptions, such as John Wycliffe and Thomas Bradwardine, but for the most part Duns Scotus's emphasis upon God's foreknowledge of individual worthiness reflected the position of the church. When Martin Luther made his conspicuous appearance, this was one of the major points against which he contended.

So much emphasis has been given in the popular mind to John Calvin's view of predestination that it is scarcely realized how strongly Luther held and taught a similar view. His "spiritual father," Johann von Staupitz was an Augustinian monk who promoted Augustine's ideas, so much so that the University of Wittenberg, where Staupitz was dean of the theology faculty, became decidedly Augustinian in orientation. When Luther began wrestling with the subject of predestination, he followed the approach of the Ockhamists: predestination is based upon God's foreknowledge of what men will do. As he studied the Scriptures and also the writings of Augustine, however, his views began to change. His Commentary on Romans, which consists of notes for lectures given between November 3, 1515, and September 7, 1615, indicates a form commitment to the Augustinian position. In connection with Romans 8:28, for example, Luther points to God's absolute sovereignty with respect to humans in the Old Testament, particularly his election of Issac and rejection of Ishmael, and his election of Jacob and rejection of Esau (see Rom. 9:6-18). Luther insists that all objections to the Augustinian position derive from the wisdom of the flesh, which is human reason. His comments on Romans 9 underscore his firm commitment to Augustinianism. Erasmus was urged by the pope to use his rhetorical powers to refute Luther. The result was The Freedom of The Will, published in 1524. Luther replied in the following year with The Bondage of the Will, a lengthy treatise on the subject.

John Calvin (1509-64),
An influential French theologian and pastor
during the Protestant Reformation.

It was John Calvin, however, who made the definite statement on the subject. Indeed, the doctrine of predestination is closely associated with his name to this day. Calvin makes clear that the study of predestination is not merely an academic exercise, but has practical significance as well. He warns against delving to deeply into the subject [23]. While disagreeing with Ulrich Zwingli's contention that sin was necessary in order that the glory of God might be properly set forth, Calvin does not insist that God has sovereignly and freely chosen to save some and reject others. God is wholly just and blameless in all of this [24].

Calvin insists that the doctrine of predestination does not lead to carelessness in morality, to a cavalier attitude that we can continue in sin since our election is sure. Rather, knowledge of our election leads us to pursue a holy life. The way in which a believer can be sure of election is to see the Word of God transforming his or her life [25].

Calvin established a university in Geneva to which candidates for the ministry came to study. He himself occupied the chair in theology. An especially large number came from the Low Countries; as a result, Calvinism became particularly strong there. His successor, Theodore Beza, not only maintained Calvin's teaching of double predestination, but extended it at some points. Not only did he hold that God has decided to send some to hell, he did not hesitate to say that God causes men to sin. Further, he believed that, despite the absence of any specific biblical statements, the logical order of God's decrees can be determined [26]. He believed that the decree to save some and damn others is logically prior to the decision to create. The conlusion is that God creates some persons in order to damn them. This belief--supralapsarianism--in time came to be widely regarded as the official position of Calvinism.

There were at various times disagreements with and departures from this interpretation of the decrees. Probably the mos serious occurred in the Netherlands in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. An educated layman named Theodor Koornhert, objecting to Beza's supralapsarianism, observed that if God causes men to sin, then he is actually the author of sin. The Bible, argued Koornher, does not teach such a monstrous thing. Because no one came forward to refute Koornhert's teachings, James Arminius, a popular pastor in Armsterdam and a brilliant expository preacher, was commissioned to do so.

Arminius began his task with zeal, concentrating upon Romans 9. The more he studied the Bible and the history of the church, however, the less certain he became of double predestination and particularly of Beza's supralapsarianism. Installed as a professor of theology at the university of Leyden, he was accused of being a semi-Pelagian and even a Catholic! the dissension at the university became so severe that the government stepped in. Attempts to reconciliation were ended with the death of Arminius in 1609.

The views of Arminius are quite clear and can be readily summarized. God's first absolute decree regarding salvation was not the assignment of certain individuals to eternal life and others to damnation, but the appointment of his Son, Jesus Christ, to be the Savior of the human race. Second, God decreed that all who repent and believe shall be saved. In addition, God has granted to all persons sufficient grace to enable them to believe. They freely believe or disbelieve on their own. God does not believe for us or compel us to believe. Finally, God predestines those who he foreknows will believe [27].

In the 18th-century, John Wesley popularized Arminanism. In fact, for many years he edited a magazine called The Arminian. While holding to the freedom of the will, Wesley went beyond Arminius by emphasizing the idea of prevenient or universal grace. This grace, which God grants to all men, is the basis of any human good which is found in the world. This prevenient grace also makes possible for any person to accept the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ [28].

________

[1] E.g., Tertullian On the Soul 39.
[2] Augustine On the Rebuke and Grace 33.
[3] Augustine The City of God 14. 12.
[4] Augustine On Man's Perfection in Righteousness 9.
[5] Altough there is some question as to whether Pelagius was actually a monk, he was referred to as a monachus. See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), p. 357.
[6] Pelagius Letter to Demetrias 16-17
[7] Ibid., 16.
[8] Pelagius Exposition of Romans 5:15
[9] Pelagius Demetrias 8 17.
[10] Augustine On the Grace of Christ and on Original Sin 1. 2, 8, 36
[11] Pelagius Exposition of Romans 9-10; see also 8:29-30
[12] Pelagius On the Possibility of Not Sinning 2.
[13] Augustine On the Marriage and Concupiscence 2. 15.
[14] Augustine City of God 22. 24. 2; 13. 3, 14.
[15] Augustine Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1. 5; 3. 24.
[16] Augustine To Simplician--On Various Questions 1. 2. 13.
[17] Augustine City of God 22. 1. 2.
[18] Augustine On the Gift of Perseverance 35, 47-48; On the Predestination of the Saints 19.
[19] Harry Buis, Historic Protestantism and Predestination (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958), p. 15.
[20] Ibid., p. 17.
[21] Anselm On Freedom of Choice 1.
[22] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, part I, question 23, article 4.
[23] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 3, chapter 21, section 1.
[24] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of paul the Apostle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), pp. 364-66 (Rom 9:20-21)
[25] Calvin, Institutes, book III, chapter 23, section 12.
[26] Theodore Beza, Tractationes, 1. 171-77.
[27] James Arminius, The Writings of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977 reprint), vol. 1, pp. 247-48
[28] John Wesley, "On Working Out Our Own Salvation," in The Works of John Wesley, 3rd ed. (Kamsas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 1979).

God's Sovereignty Vs. Man's Free Will??

-Jon Irenicus

In this article we will try to answer the question of whether God can create genuinely free beings and yet [sovereignly] render certain all things that are to come to pass, including the free decisions and actions of those beings.

The key to unlocking the problem is the distinction between rendering something certain and rendering it necessary. The former is a matter of God's decision that something will happen; the latter is a matter of his decreeing that something must occur. In the former case, the human being will not act in a way contrary to the course of action which God has chosen; in the latter case, the human being cannot act in a way contrary to what God has chosen. What we are saying is that God renders it certain that a person who could act (or could have acted) differently does in fact act in a particular way (the way that God wills).

What does it mean to say that I am "free"?

What does it mean to say that I am "free"? It means that I am not under constraint. Thus, I am free to do whatever pleases me. But am I free with respect to what pleases me and what does not? To put it differently, I may choose one action over another because it holds more appeal for me. But I am not fully in control of the appeal which each of those actions holds me. That is quite a different matter. I make all my decisions, but those decisions are in large measure influenced by certain characteristics of mine which I am not capable of altering by my own choice.

If, for example, I am offered for a dinner a choice between liver and steak, I am quite free to take the liver, but I do not desire to do so. I have no conscious control over my dislike of liver. That is a given that goes with my being the person I am. In that respect my freedom is limited. I do not know whether it is my genes or environmental conditioning which has caused my dislike of liver, but it is apparent that I cannot by mere force of will alter this characteristic of mine.

There are, then, limitations upon who I am and what I desire and will. I certainly did not choose the genes that I have; I did not select my parents not the exact geographical location and cultural setting of my birth. My freedom, therefore, is within these limitations. And here arises the question: Who set up these factors? The theistic answer is, "The Sovereign God did."

The Potter's hand

I am free to choose among various options. But my choice will be influenced by who I am. Therefore, my freedom must be understood as my ability to choose among options in light of who I am. And who I am (as a pot) is a result of God's decision and activity (as the Potter). God is in control of all circumstances that bear upon my situation in life. He may bring to bear (or permit to be brought to bear) factors which will make a particular option appealing, even powerfully appealing, to me. Through all the factors that have come into my experience in time past he has influenced the type of person I now am. Indeed, he has affected what has come to pass by willing that it was I who was brought into being.

At this point we may conclude that there is actually no contradiction between God's sovereignty and the free will of man. It is God, the Sovereign Potter, who formed us in accordance to his own purpose and will. Our will, therefore, can never go beyond nor contradict what God has already planned from eternity past.

Consider these fantastic Biblical verses describing the sovereignty of God:

• "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.... what I have planned, that I will do." Isaiah 46:10-11 (NIV)
  

• "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand." Proverbs 19:21 (ESV)
  

• "There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD." Proverbs 21:30 (NIV)

• "The LORD works out everything for his own ends— even the wicked for a day of disaster." Proverbs 16:4 (NIV)

• "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,.." Ephesians 1:11 (NIV)

Mother of God??

There is no question whether Blessed Mary played a great role in Christian history or not. She was chosen by God to conceive the incarnate Word in the flesh. She was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, and through her the glory and power of God was manifested as it is foretold by God through his prophets in the Old Testament:

• "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isa 7:14

With this prophecy fulfilled in Mary, Catholics, who pay great devotion to Mary, argue that if it's true that Mary gave birth to Jesus (who is God himself), then it logically follows that Mary is the Mother of God. This argument is officially supported by the Catholic Church (whether Roman or Orthodox).

Sad to say, but this argument of them is flawed and is against to what is taught in the Bible. God has no mother! According to the Bible, God exists from everlasting to everlasting to everlasting [Mic 5:2; Jn 1:1]. The truth of God's eternal existence leaves no room for the concept of Theotokos (Mother of God).


Christ's dual nature

We may recall at this point that Christ has two natures; He is truly God and at the same time, truly man [Col 2:9]. This is made possible through incarnation [Jn 1:14]. Long before he was born in the flesh, he pre-existed as the eternal Logos of God from everlasting to everlasting [Mic 5:2]. He was present in the days of Creation, and as a matter of fact, he made all things by his [own] power, and without him was not any thing made that was made [Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10].

Christ as God, therefore, has no mother. We must put in mind all the time that a mother is a mother [only] of what originates in her womb. It was Christ's humanity (flesh) that originated in Mary's womb, not his Divinity (spirit). The same argument is true with us humans. It is our flesh that originated in our mother's womb, not our spirit [Ecc 12:7]. Thus we read in Hebrews 12:9,

• "Moreover, we have all had human parents who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!" Heb 12:9
  

This verse provides us the idea that we have two kinds of parents: 1. earthly parents [or our parents in the flesh] 2. and a Spiritual parent [which is God]. Now, for the sake of argument, we must consider the same idea in application to the case of Jesus Christ: Mary is only Christ's earthly parent. [At this point we must not dare to think that Christ also has a spiritual parent in the sense that his spirit was made/created by a certain higher being. Christ calls God his "Father" not because his spirit was made by the Father, but rather because in his incarnate state he is subordinate to God's authority].

Therefore in his humanity, Christ had a mother. But in his Divinity (spirit), he is eternal. There is no such a thing as a "Mother of God."

Catholics praying to Mary, the Mother of God

This concept is not known to the Catholic majority until the Council of Ephesus on 431 AD. Also, in the Lateran Council in 469, Pope Martin declared: "If anyone does not confess in harmony with the holy Fathers that the holy and ever virgin Mary and immaculate Mary is really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she in the last times and without semen by the Holy Spirit conceived God the Word himself specially and truthfully, who was born from God the Father before all ages, and she bore him uncorrupted, and after his birth her virginity remaining indissoluble , let him be anathema."

This declaration is never supported by the Word of God (Bible). It is them who believe that God has a mother are the ones who are condemned for desperately distorting the Word of God in order to support their lies. If God has a mother, then we must also accept that God has a grandmother, grandfather, nephews, cousins.

This is ridiculous.

The Church Fathers on Sola Scriptura

"Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone." (Theodoret of Cyrus c. 393-466, Dial. I. Atrept.)

"Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture IV.17)

"It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and the like, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is what he means when he says 'we know his witness is true.', "If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!" The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John 21)

"Men of the world give many further rules about the way to speak, which I think we may pass over; as, for instance, the way jesting should be conducted. For though at times jests may be proper and pleasant, yet they are unsuited to the clerical life. For in the first place, how can we adopt things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" (St. Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy, Book I Ch. 23)

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book III Ch.1)

"But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." (St. Gregory of Nyssa c. 335-395, "On the Soul and the Resurrection")

Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

"Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book." (St. Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrines, Book II Ch. 9)

"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher." (St. Augustin of Hippo, De Bono Viduitatis.)

"If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life, to say nothing of ourselves, who are by no means to be compared with him who said, "Though we," at any rate, as he went on to say, 'if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.'" (Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6.)

"It is evidently a falling away from the faith, and a proof of great presumption, to neglect any part of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not written [in the Holy Writ]." (St. Basil c. 329-379, bishop of Caesarea, de Vera Fide)

"But we are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." (St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Ch. 7)

"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." (St. Basil the Geat, The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC)

'The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject what is foreign' (St. Basil the Great, Moralia 72:1)

"They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (St. Basil the Great, Letters 189.3)

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things;" (St. Athanasius, De Synodis, I.6)

"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth." (St. Athanasius, Against the Heathen, I:3)

'Everything in the divine Scriptures is clear and straightforward; they inform us about all that is necessary' (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2nd Thess 3,4)

"When we receive money, we do not trust to those who give it to us; we wish to count it ourselves: and when there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures." (St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor.)

"`Tis from ignorance of Scripture that all our evils arise; hence the plague of so many heresies, hence our careless lives, our fruitless labors. They err who look not to the bright rays of the divine Scriptures, because they walk in darkness." (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Romans)

"But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written." (St. Jerome, Helvidium juxta finem, 21)

"But perhaps being refuted as touching the term Unoriginate also, they will say according to their evil nature, 'It behoved, as regards our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ also, to state from the Scriptures what is there written of Him, and not to introduce non-scriptural expressions.' Yes, it behoved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources." (St. Athanasius, De Decretis, 32)

____________

Is God's election Unconditional? (Part II)

[This article is a continuation of my previous article, Is God's election Unconditional? (Part I)]
___________

The Arminian version of election states that from eternity God elected those whom He foresaw will believe in his Son and persevere to the end by faith. This is perhaps the most popular Arminian view on election which is also called CONDITIONAL ELECTION. It says that God knew in advance those who will choose him, and on that basis he chose them.

Here is an excerpt from Brian Schwertley's Chosen of God in refutation to the Arminian concept of Conditional Election:

...How do Arminians justify their version of election (Conditional Election)? They do so with a peculiar interpretation of Romans 8:29.

• For those whom He HE HAS KNOWN BEFOREHAND He has also pre-destined to bear the likeness of His Son, that He might be the Eldest in a vast family of brothers; and those whom He has pre-destined He also has called; and those whom He has called He has also declared free from guilt (justified); and those whom He has declared free from guilt (justified) He has also crowned with glory. Romans 8:29-30 (Weymouth)

The word “foreknew” in this passage is said to simply mean that God knew something in advance. He knew before the foundation of the world who would believe and repent and on the basis of their actions God chose them. There are a number of reasons why the common “evangelical” (i.e. Arminian) understanding of Romans 8:29 is unscriptural and impossible.

The first reason is that the word “foreknow” or "to know beforehand" (pregno, aorist active indicative of proginosko) does not simply mean to have an intellectual knowledge of something before it happens. The word is an active verb, therefore, is not something done at just one point , but something God is doing.

The Ariminian idea that God looked down through time to see who would choose Him and then elected such persons implicitly denies the omnipotence and providence of God. If a human (a finite mortal) could look down the corridors of time he would have the ability to choose people on the basis of their faith or something they did. But God who controls and sustains every aspect of creation (even subatomic particles, bacteria, viruses and insects) is not an impartial observer. He both knows and controls. If He sees a man believe, He gave that man the gift of faith and preordained his salvation. Calvin writes:

“Peter doth teach that God did not only foresee that which befell Christ, but it was decreed by him. And hence must be gathered a general doctrine; because God doth no less show his providence in governing the whole world, than in appointing the death of Christ. Therefore, it belongeth to God not only to know before things to come, but of his own will to determine what he will have done.” [John Calvin, Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 1:97.]

Further, the word “foreknow” when used of God’s elect does not refer to a simple intellectual foresight or a knowing something cognitively before it happens, but rather refers to a selective knowledge which regards a person with favor and makes that person an object of love. In other words, in Romans 8:29 Paul uses “foreknow” in the Old Testament/Hebraistic sense of to love beforehand. John Murray writes:

Although the term “foreknow” is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word “know” in the usage of Scripture; “foreknow” merely adds the thought of “beforehand” to the word “know.” Many times in Scripture “know” has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with “love,” to set regard upon, to know with particular interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen. 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt. 7:23; 1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 john 3:1)….It means “whom he set regard upon” or “whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight” and is virtually equivalent to “whom he foreloved.” [John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 317.]

Saint Luke also used the word "know" equivalent to "be intimately related with" as we read in Luke 1:34,

• Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34 (KJV)

Does the word "know" in the verse literally mean "to have knowledge of"? Obviously not! When the angel confronted Mary he already knew Joseph (Luke 1:27). The same is true with Romans 8:29. Those God "knew" (loved intimately) beforehand, he did predestinate. God therefore "foreknew" the persons, not anything they would do.

God’s electing love originates from Himself and not out of foreseen faith or repentance. Therefore, when the Bible discusses individual election, it always grounds it in God and not sinful, depraved humanity. Election is “according to His good pleasure” (Eph. 1:9). It is “after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11).

This interpretation of “foreknow” in Romans 8:29 is supported by the simple fact that if we accept the Arminian interpretation that God predestinated men whose future history He foreknew, then the term would prove something totally unbiblical. Why? Because God foreknows the history of every man, woman and child who ever did or will ever live. Thus, the text would teach universalism. No Arminian believes that everyone including Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin will go to heaven. It is obvious that Pol Pot, Al Capone and Heinrich Himler have not been predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ.

The Arminian will object to the observation above by stating, “You are misrepresenting my position. I believe that only those people that God foreknew would choose Jesus are the ones He predestined to life.” To this objection we ask one simple question. Where in the text of Scripture does it say this? One can read the Bible very carefully, cover to cover, and this statement or any like it cannot be found. “Where are the words you have added, ‘Whom he did foreknow to repent, to believe, and to persevere in grace’? I do not find them either in the English version or in the Greek original.” Sadly, Arminian theologians and interpreters are guilty of reading their own prejudices, presuppositions and humanistic traditions into the text of Scripture.

While the Arminian interpretation is very popular and appeals to our fleshly egos and our human autonomy, we must reject it because it has no exegetical basis in Scripture. We must “bow to holy Scripture… not to glosses which theologians may choose to put upon it. Since the Arminian interpretation contradicts Scripture, is not found in the text at all and is absurd we will choose the biblical and logical alternative: that the word “know” in this passage refers to God’s saving love and favor.

The Arminian interpretation that the word “know” is purely intellectual is decisively refuted by the immediate context of Romans 8:29. The context of Romans 8:29 does not teach that God chooses on the basis of what man will do in the future. Paul does not say that man is ultimately sovereign in salvation. He says the exact opposite. In Romans 8:30ff the apostle teaches that God’s love is not a passive, helpless love, that sits by and waits to see what sinful, lost, hopeless men will do; but rather the passage sets forth a sovereign active love, a love that nothing can impede, stop or override. Paul writes:

• Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: ‘For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.’ Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. 8:30-39 (NKJV)
  

The interpretation that foreknowledge is merely the recognition that certain people will exercise faith some time in the future—a faith that is solely dependent on man and that can fail at any time—simply contradicts Paul’s emphasis on God’s determinative action in salvation. Paul presents a chain of events, all of which are dependent solely upon God. Paul is teaching a monergistic doctrine of salvation. That salvation depends solely upon divine choice and action. Paul emphasizes that God is the one who predestinates, calls, justifies, and then glorifies. Furthermore, it is Christ who achieved an objective, perfect redemption; who intercedes at the right hand of God for His people (v. 34). The three actions (called, justified, and glorified) which inevitably flow from God’s eternal counsel cannot be separated. “The future glorification of the believer is designated by the aorist, as his justification, calling, predestination, and election have been; because all these divine acts are eternal, and therefore simultaneous for the divine mind. All are equally certain" (William G. T. Shedd, Romans, 266). Paul emphasizes that salvation is certain for the elect because “God is for us” (v. 31).

Salvation is guaranteed by God’s electing love and predestinating power. Such a doctrine is totally incompatible with the idea that everything boils down to the “free” choice of people who are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), who could lose their faith and salvation at any moment. Since it is God alone who saves, Paul can affirm that nothing created can separate the elect from God’s love (v. 39). Nothing created—not even man’s will—has the power over the elect’s final salvation. “He has shown how the present pilgrimage of the people of God falls into its place in that determinate and undefeatable plan of God that is bounded by two foci, the sovereign love of God in his eternal counsel and glorification with Christ in the age to come" (John Murray, Romans, 321). Girardeau writes:

“Whatsoever, then, may be, according to the Arminian view, the love of God towards his saints, it is a love which does not secure their salvation: it is not a saving love. It is not equal to the love which a mother cherishes for her child. She would save him if she could. This reputed divine love may be called a special love, but it is not the love for his saints which the Scriptures assign to God. The idea of it was not born of inspiration: God never claimed such love as his own... What God is assuring his children in Romans 8:29 is not that He has foreseen our favourable response to his call when the time comes and has therefore decided that we shall duly be conformed to the image of his Son. It is rather that he loved us in anticipation and determined, for reasons entirely hidden from us, that we should be conformed to the image of his Son by an act of his sovereign grace.”

Therefore, Christians can be “confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).

The Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29 contradicts the biblical teaching that salvation is by the pure grace of God. If (as modern evangelicals assert) God’s predestination of the elect is based on something that men do such as faith and repentance, then ultimately conversion is not entirely a work of God’s grace. Faith and repentance are no longer gifts of God’s grace but are autonomous, self-generated acts of the human will. Men are no longer saved by or through faith (Rom. 3:22, 25, 28, 30; 5:1; Eph. 2:8) but rather because of faith. According to the Arminian interpretation “it is not God and God alone who works salvation…the actual enjoyment of salvation hangs at a decisive point upon something in man, or something done by man.”

Martin Luther repudiates the idea that God cannot save man unless man allows Him to dispense His grace. In his exposition of 1 Peter 1:2 he writes:

V. 2a. According to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Peter says, they are elected. How? Not by themselves, but according to the order or purpose of God. For we will not be able to raise ourselves to heaven nor create faith in ourselves. God will not permit all persons to enter heaven; he will very definitely identify his own. Here the human doctrine of free will and or our own ability avails nothing any longer. It does not depend upon our will but upon the will and election of God.

This means that you are chosen, you have not obtained it through your own strength, work or merit, for the treasure is too great, and all the holiness and righteousness of mankind far too worthless to obtain it; moreover you were heathen, knew nothing of God, had no hope and served dumb idols. Therefore, without any assistance on your part, out of pure grace you have come to such inexpressible glory, namely, only in the way that God the Father appointed you to it from eternity. Thus he presents the foreknowledge of God in a very beautiful and comfortable light, as it he should have said: You are chosen and you will indeed remain so, for God who foreknew you is sufficiently strong and certain that his foreknowledge cannot fail him, nevertheless so far as you believe his promise and esteem him as the true God.

From this we can in brief draw the teaching that this foreknowledge does not rest upon our worthiness and merit, as the sophists hold, for then Satan could every moment make it doubtful and overthrow it; but it rests in the hand of God, and is founded upon his mercy, which is unchangeable and eternal; consequently it is called the foreknowledge of God, and therefore it is certain and cannot fail. [Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1982), 10-11.]

Further, Romans 9:11-18 makes it abundantly clear that election has nothing to do with what we do and everything to do with God’s calling. As Paul concludes, “So then it is not of him who wills [i.e., election is not a result of men exercising their free will or choosing God], nor of him who runs [i.e. it has nothing to do with human exertion or works], but of God who shows mercy” (Rom. 9:16). As Augustine so beautifully states in his Confessions:

“By your gift I had come totally not to will what I had willed but to will what you willed” Saint Augustine of Hippo

...Interestingly, one of Paul’s proofs that the gospel is the power of God is that “the world through wisdom did not know God” (1 Cor. 1:21).

• “[T]he weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called….God has chosen, the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence….as it is written, ‘He who glories, let him glory in the LORD’” (1 Cor. 1:25, 28, 29, 31).

Reformer Martin Luther understood that attributing our salvation to a human choice (i.e. “free will’) ultimately destroys the grace of God. He writes:

Granted that your friends assign to “free will as little as possible”, nonetheless they teach us that by that little we can attain righteousness and grace; and they solve the problem as to why God justifies one and abandons another simply by presupposing “free-will”, and saying: “the one endeavoured and the other did not; and God regards the one for his endeavour and despises the other; and He would be unjust were He to do anything else!...They [the guardians of “free will”] do not believe that He intercedes before God and obtains grace for them by His blood, and “grace” (as is here said) “for grace”. And as they believe, so it is unto them. Christ is in truth an inexorable judge to them, and deservedly so; for they abandon Him in His office as a Mediator and kindest Saviour, and account His blood and grace as of less worth than the efforts and endeavors of “free-will”! [Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, Translated by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnson (Cambridge: Jones Clark, 1957), 292, 305.]

The apostle Paul says that the biblical doctrine of salvation completely excludes human boasting (Rom. 3:27). Yet, if Arminianism is true and some people have the wisdom and moral perception to choose Christ while others do not, then do they not have a reason to boast? If some men on the basis of their own intrinsic power and faith have caused God to choose them over others (who were unwilling), then do they not have a reason to brag? Of course they do!

Therefore, Arminianism cannot be true for it repeatedly contradicts Paul’s teaching. But, if men are dead in trespasses and sins and totally unable by their own will or power to respond to Christ until He raises them from the dead through regeneration, then there is no reason to boast. The biblical gospel preserves the doctrines of grace of which divine election is so integral a part.

The Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29 explicitly contradicts the doctrine of original sin or man’s state after the fall (e.g. total depravity and spiritual inability). If God’s choice is contingent on fallen man’s prior choice, then no one would be elect for Paul says, “There is none who understands…who seeks God…who does good, no not one” (Rom. 3:11, 12). The Bible teaches that unsaved, unregenerate men hate both Christ and the truth (Jn. 3:19-21). Unregenerate fallen man: dwells in darkness (Jn. 1:4-5); is dead spiritually (Eph. 2:1-5); has a heart of stone which is unable to respond to divine truth (Ezek. 11:19); is helpless (Ezek. 16:4-6); is unable to repent (Jer. 13:23); is enslaved to Satan (Ac. 26:17-18); and is unable to see or comprehend divine truth (1 Cor. 2:14).

Unconditional election is the logical corollary to total depravity. Thus Jesus Christ taught: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.... No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father” (Jn.. 6:44, 65). An unregenerate man can no more choose Christ as Savior than can a rotting corpse raise itself.

Since the Bible teaches that the fall has rendered man incapable of believing in Christ and repenting, the idea that God looked through time and chose those who first chose him is absurd and impossible. That is why the Bible teaches that faith and repentance are gifts from God (cf. Jn. 3:3-8; 6:44-45, 65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2 Pet. 1:2, 3). “For unless God by sovereign, operative grace had turned our enmity to love and our disbelief to faith we would never yield the response of faith and love.” Furthermore, the biblical passages which teach unconditional election are clear and abundant.

The Arminian doctrine of a conditional election is an implicit denial of the sovereignty of God. “Evangelicals” who emphatically reject the doctrine of unconditional election, foreknowledge (biblically defined) and predestination do so because they believe that God’s prior sovereign choice and predestination infringes on human freedom. Consequently the Arminian’s concept of free will or human freedom becomes the presuppositional axis of their whole theological system. It completely alters their concept of God and their doctrine of salvation.

For example, the Arminian is well aware that the Bible teaches that God is sovereign (read 1 Chron, 29:11-14; 2 Chron. 20:6; Job 12:10-23; 36:32; 42:2; Gen. 45:7; 50:20; Ex. 2:1-10; 4:11, 21; 7:3, 13; 8:15; 9:12, 35; Deut. 2:30; Prov. 21:1, 30; 19:21; 20:24; Isa. 40:15-23; 14:24, 27; 46:10, 11; 45:7; Am. 3:6; Dan. 4:31-32; Jn. 6:44, 45, 67; 17:2, 6, 9, 12; 12:37-40; 15:16; Ac. 2:23; 4:28; 13:48; 16:14; 18:27; Rom. 9; Eph. 1:1ff, Ja. 1:17-18; etc).

But in order to preserve his philosophical concept of human freedom he proposes the idea of a self-limiting God. In other words, God voluntarily limited His absolute sovereign power so that He would not intrude upon man’s free will. This humanistic presupposition is foundational to the idea that man allows God to elect him. (In other words, in the sphere of salvation man is sovereign over God). But this self-limiting concept raises a few pertinent questions. Is it possible for God to suppress, negate or alter one of His essential attributes? Can God somehow voluntarily cease to be absolutely sovereign over certain aspects of His creation? The biblical answer to this question is absolutely not. God, the Bible tells us, cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). He can no more cease to be sovereign than could He lie, for to do so would be to deny Himself.

The idea that God can create an area of pure contingency outside of His control is just as unbiblical and absurd as teaching that God could create some part of creation that could exist without God’s sustaining power. It is simply impossible. In his zeal to protect his humanistic concept of human freedom, the Arminian must posit a God who can cease to be God.

Further, if man is to be truly free from all outside influences and forces as Arminian theology requires, then man would have to be a self-created, truly autonomous, self-sustaining being. But, that is obviously not the case. Robert L. Reymond writes:

There simply is no such thing as a will which is detached from and totally independent of the person making the choice—suspended, so to speak, in midair and enjoying some “extra-personal vantage point” from which to determine itself. The will is the “mind choosing” (Edwards). Men choose the things they do because of the complex, finite persons that they are. They cannot will to walk on water or to flap their arms and fly. Their choices in such matters are restricted by their physical capabilities. Similarly, their moral choices are also determined by the total complexion of who they are. And the Bible informs us that men are not only finite but are now also sinners, who by nature cannot bring forth good fruit (Matt. 7:18), by nature cannot hear Christ’s word that they might have life (John 8:43), by nature cannot be subject to the law of God (Rom. 8:7), by nature cannot discern truths of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14), by nature cannot confess from the heart Jesus as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3), by nature cannot control the tongue (James 3:8), and by nature cannot come to Christ (John 6:44, 65). In order to do any of these things, they must receive powerful aid coming to them ab extra. So there simply is no such thing as a free will which can always choose the right. [Robert Reymond, 353-354.]

__________

A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration

-Dr. James White

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed...but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect." So wrote the Apostle Peter to the early Christians (1 Peter 1:18-19). He, as all the other Apostles, believed that we are redeemed, cleansed, forgiven, in the blood of Jesus Christ. Yet, there are many today who would replace the blood of Christ with the water of a baptistery. They teach that we are regenerated, made alive, cleansed, by water baptism. Some insist that it must be baptism by immersion; others say that sprinkling accomplishes the same thing. In either case, the work of Jesus Christ on the cross cannot be said to be finished and efficacious until man does something--in this case, adds his work of baptism to the work of God in Christ. Baptism is said to be the means of salvation, the method by which Christ's work at Calvary is taken from the merely theoretical to the actual.

It is not our intention to engage in a lengthy discussion of the topic of baptismal regeneration in this article. Such would require far more space than we have available at this time! Instead, we wish to point out a basic, foundational error of the position taken by such groups as the Church of Christ and the Mormon Church--both have some doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Then, we will briefly respond to a couple of the more often used proof-texts provided by proponents of baptismal regeneration. We realize that there is a whole area of discussion that we are leaving to the side by taking this approach, that being the sacramental concept of regeneration in infant baptism. This view is found in Roman Catholicism (indeed, baptism is the original means of justification in Roman theology) and in various of the sacramentally-oriented Protestant churches.

Underlying the idea that man, by an action such as baptism, can bring about his own regeneration, is the rejection of the Biblical teaching of sin, and most especially, the truth that sin enslaves man, debilitates man, brings spiritual death to man. The Lord Jesus spoke clearly of this truth:

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:31-34).

Man in sin must be freed from slavery to sin. He cannot free Himself, but must be freed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. This is an offensive truth to the unregenerate man, as the response from these would-be self-made disciples indicates (8:41, 48). Men do not like to hear that they are, in fact, totally dependent upon God's grace for salvation--they do not want to know that they are incapable of saving themselves, or even of coming unto Christ for salvation, outside of God's gracious drawing (John 6:44). But as the Lord Himself said, we are slaves to sin. Slaves must be freed.

Paul describes the lost man's condition with the graphic language of death. "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" he tells the Ephesians (2:1). How can a dead man be made alive? Only by the work of God, just as he told the Colossians, "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ" (Colossians 2:13). This deadness has tremendous results according to the inspired Apostle. First, it means that there is no man who, in and of himself, seeks after God: "There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God" (Romans 3:11). Likewise, there is no man who understands the things of God unless he is first changed from being "natural" or "carnal" to "spiritual": "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). Paul says that when men are alienated from God, they are His enemies in their minds (Colossians 1:21). These are strong words, and they well describe the hatred and enmity that exists in the heart of the man who continues to live in his rebellion against God. What is even more striking is Paul's absolute belief that this condition cannot be changed by man--not only is it not the natural man's desire to be at peace with the Holy One, but it is beyond his capacity to do so, even if he were so inclined. Note Paul's words in Romans 8:5-8:

"For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Those who hold to baptismal regeneration would have us to believe that one passes from being a "natural man" to a "spiritual man" through baptism; yet, from whence does this desire to be baptized come? Is God not pleased when we are baptized? Of course. Yet, Paul said that the one who is still fleshly cannot please God. If such a person is the enemy of God, enslaved to sin, how is it that he is able to do such a spiritual and pleasing thing as to desire to be baptized? Obviously, this is impossible. Baptism signifies our death to the old way of life and our resurrection to new life in Christ, as Paul uses it in Romans 6:1-4. Unless we have died to sin, and been raised with Christ in reality prior to our baptism, the symbol becomes meaningless. So we see that the position that posits baptism as the means of regeneration and forgiveness ignores the most basic teachings of Scripture regarding man's inability. In taking the position they do, the baptismal regenerationists not only make man capable of things he is not, but they reduce God's grace to a mere aid, and make the death of Christ a theory that is dependent upon man's act of obedience, rather than the finished and effective work that the Bible teaches it to be (Hebrews 10:10-14).

When we keep in mind the foundational truth that man is unable to save himself, but that salvation is the work of God, we are able to understand why it is said that we are justified by God's grace (Titus 3:7), justified by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9), and justified by faith. Grace, and the blood of Christ, are both things that are beyond man's ability to manipulate; and faith, if it is true, saving faith, is the gift of God as well. Hence, we are justified by God's action, not by any action of our own. Never is it said that we are justified by baptism.

In light of the fact that any review of the central passages of the New Testament that directly deal with how a man is made right with God will lead us to recognize our own inability and the great ability of our God to save, what is to be said concerning those passages, drawn from one context or another, that seem to indicate that we are saved or forgiven by baptism? First, we must point out that it is common for some to confuse the *importance* of baptism with the idea of the *necessity* of baptism. Indeed, often the fact that the New Testament takes for granted that all believers will be baptized as a profession of their faith is taken to mean that baptism is *how* they became believers in the first place! We confess baptism to be vitally important--the Scriptures are clear in this. That Paul can use baptism is a sign and symbol of our spiritual union with Christ (Romans 6:1-4) shows that it is his assumption that all believers will be obedient in baptism. We do not, by asserting the proper understanding of baptism, in any way denigrate it as an ordinance given by Christ to His Church. But just as the holy Law of God was misused by the Pharisees in Jerusalem, and the Judaizers in Galatia, so baptism has been misused by modern proponents of the works-oriented system of baptismal regeneration. Therefore, just as Paul often asserted his great respect for and love of the law of God while asserting its true nature and purpose, so we, too, assert our great respect for Christian baptism while asserting its proper place in God's work of salvation and sanctification. We shall center our attention on three passages of Scripture that are often placed before us as "clear testimony" to the concept of baptismal regeneration. These passages are Acts 2:38, 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21.

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:38-39, NIV).

This is probably the most oft-quoted passage in the great baptism debate. Yet, when we read verse 39, we hear again the same concept that we saw above, which Peter himself will assert at a later date (1 Peter 1:2), and that will reappear in the Acts narrative, too (Acts 13:48)--salvation comes through the work of God's elective choice, not the actions or plans of men. Baptism does nothing for those who are not called of God. But, one might say, what if one is called of God? Does this passage then not say that baptism is for the remission of sins?

A tremendously large number of interpretations have been set forth on this passage over the years. We believe the simplest and most consistent manner of approach is to ask a question that is frequently not asked at all: we here have a short snippet of what was obviously a longer sermon by Peter. Does Peter elsewhere tell us, in plain language, how our sins are remitted, how we are cleansed from our burden of guilt? Certainly! We began our article with the quotation of 1 Peter 1:18-19, where Peter directly teaches that we are cleansed by the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Do we then have sufficient basis to identify the waters of baptism with the blood of Christ? Surely not. Sins are remitted through our participation in the death of Jesus Christ--it is by the "one time offering" of Jesus Christ that we are made whole (Hebrews 10:10-14). What of baptism then? It is the symbol, the outward representation before men of what the Spirit of God has done in our hearts (Titus 3:5-7). Unless we have first had our sins remitted in the blood of Christ, the symbol of baptism is meaningless. But doesn't this passage say that baptism is for the remission of sins? Yes, but what does "for" mean? We feel that Dr. A. T. Robertson's comments from earlier this century are very meaningful:

This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36).

The point being that one can (and we believe should, if one believes in the consistency of Scripture as a whole) understand Peter to be speaking of baptism on the grounds of the remission of sins that comes through belief in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:43). But, someone will surely object, Peter himself said that "baptism saves us" in 1 Peter 3:21. Let's look at the passage in context:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who were disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

This is one of the more difficult passages in Scripture, due to the reference to Christ's preaching to the "spirits in prison." It is not our purpose to enter into the controversy over this particular aspect of this passage at this time (one might find Dr. Kenneth Wuest's comments enlightening; see Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament II:92-109). Instead, we point out that foremost in Peter's mind, again, is the death of Christ as the sacrifice for sin. Men are brought to God, not by what they do, but what God has done in Christ Jesus (v. 18). Upon the heels of this he mentions God's act of judgment in the days of Noah. At that time eight souls were saved through water. Peter then says that this water "symbolizes" baptism (as the NIV translates the Greek term antitupon, literally, "antitype"). Baptism now saves us, Peter says--just as the water "saved" Noah and his family. But, of course, we know that Peter was not asserting that there was some salvific aspect to the flood waters themselves--God shut up the ark, and God saved Noah and his family. But the water is a symbol, Peter says, a symbol seen now in baptism. But is Peter dropping the symbolization so as to make baptism the means of salvation? Certainly not. Dr. Wuest has commented so well that we give his words at length:

Water baptism is clearly in the apostle's mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word "counterpart." So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer's inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh." Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words "the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," in that he believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.

What, then, of Acts 22:16? Here, Ananias, having confronted the blinded Saul, says, in context:

Then he said: "The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."

We again see the common theme of the calling and sovereignty of God in the context of this passage as well ("God...has chosen you"). Verse 16 presents us with a significant construction in the original language. The terms "arise" and "call" (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist participles; "be baptized" and "be cleansed" (baptisai and apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms form two sets--the first, "arise and be baptized," the second, "wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," or more literally, "wash away your sins, having called upon the name of the Lord." The remission of sins is effected by calling upon the name of the Lord in this passage--it is represented, as elsewhere, by baptism. One thing is for certain: given what we have seen previously of Paul's own theology of justification, he certainly did not interpret Ananias to be teaching any form of baptismal regeneration!

In conclusion, we must again insist that the Scriptures must be taken as a whole--when we find in the direct, clear statements of Scripture truths that are contradictory to assumptions based upon passing comments, we must take the clear statements over the assumptions. In the issue of salvation, we must take the clear statements of Scripture regarding the work of the Spirit of God in regenerating lost sinners seriously. By teaching baptismal regeneration, people do despite not only to the sovereignty of God and the finished work of Christ, but to the real purpose and meaning of baptism as well. While some like to refer to the evangelical doctrine of baptism as a "mere symbol," we respond by pointing out that an ordinance, given by Christ to His Church, in which the great and marvelous work of God in salvation is pictured for all to see is not properly described by the term "mere." Instead, Christian baptism must be understood as representing a true and inner reality--one that is brought about by the grace of God in a person's life. When we properly present baptism as it is presented in Scripture, we glorify God's grace and magnify His work of salvation in Jesus Christ.

Source: http://vintage.aomin.org/ReformedIndex.html