During the hustle and bustle of Christmas time, it’s easy to become inundated with the numerous cultural trappings of this over-commercialized holiday. Most Christians spend tremendous time and energy honoring their family and friends during this season of the year, yet we exert meager effort to honor the incarnate Christ whose earthly arrival we’re supposedly celebrating. With Christmas trees, lights and decorations galore invading our eyes at every turn of the head, the symbolism behind them easily fades from our conscious thoughts.
Remembering Christ this Christmas, let the next festive lights you see remind you to praise God for sending the Light of the World to shed light on our darkened souls. May every angelic image wisp you away to lonely pasture land where the multitude of heavenly hosts glorified God, proclaiming the coming of Christ the Messiah to the lowly shepherds. Every time you gaze upon a gift, think not only of the magi’s gifts to the Christ child, but of the greatest gift, Christ the incarnate Deity. And, may the piles of presents remind you that every good and perfect gift comes from above.
Make your Christmas tree’s significance more than ornaments, decorations and presents. Fall on your knees in gratitude to God that the baby born in the manger became a man who suffered and died on a tree in your place. Each savory red and white striped candy cane should recall the blood of Christ shed for the forgiveness of your sins and the righteous white garments in which he clothes you. And finally, allow the sound of the Salvation Army trumpeter excite your soul, knowing that one day a trumpet will sound for all to hear. The One called Faithful and True, whom only a few saw when he was born in a little town called Bethlehem, will return victoriously for all to see. Riding a white horse as King of kings and Lord of lords, he will come to make all things new!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Salvation - Sustained by God’s Mighty Hand
The glorious truth contained in John 10:28-29 is that God graciously gives eternal life that will never perish, for no one is able to snatch us from God’s hand. Paul elaborates near the end of Romans 8 that nothing, be it trials, temptations, government oppression, absence of material needs, threat of harm or death, the Devil himself – nothing in all of creation can separate his people from the love of Christ. In the 90s, Max Lucado wrote a book titled, In the Grip of Grace. That brief title provides a powerful picture of God’s control over our salvation.
Having relatively new experiences of being a father, this imagery makes me think of playing with my daughter Annie. She has an obsession with anything round and bouncy. She’s one-and-a-half, and her favorite word, bar da-da (just kidding, Christine, I know it’s ma-ma), is ball. To her, every round, quasi-round or even two dimensional circular object in God’s created order is a ball, so we hear this word no less than 120 times every day. It’s the first thing on her mind in the morning when she gets up, storming through the house with her wild, curly hair bouncing back-and-forth to secure the location of every ball in the house. I like to occasionally tease Annie by holding her little bouncy ball tightly in my hand as she tries to pry it away. She thinks it’s really funny at first until the laughter suddenly turns to frustration, so I promptly give it to her, realizing I’m on the cusp of “provoking my child to anger” as Paul warns fathers not to do.
If I truly desired to prevent Annie from getting her bouncy ball, no matter how hard she tried or what tactics she employed, that ball is not coming out of my hand. So if little Annie can’t pry her ball from the grip of my hand, how immeasurably less capable is any of God’s creation to snatch his chosen from the mighty hand of the all-powerful Creator! To understand God’s sovereign protection over our salvation, even from ourselves, the differing views of salvation we’ve considered the past few weeks are relevant. If the decisive factor in man’s salvation is God’s sovereign grace, then it goes without question that he, too, sovereignly secures and preserves it. Otherwise, only two options remain. The first is most consistent. If man’s choice (free will) decisively secures salvation, then salvation can be lost. Second, many Christians uphold both man’s decisive choice and God’s preservation of salvation. This view begs the following question, “Is it consistent that God overrides man’s free will post-salvation?”
Perhaps the most common western (and possibly the world) Christian view contends for both man’s free will with a “once saved, always saved” understanding of salvation. Several often overlapping influences incline people to adopt this viewpoint. From the initial salvation side, insisting on man’s libertarian free will shields God from claims of injustice within and outside of the church. Additionally, the individualistic culture in which we live makes it difficult to accept salvation being ultimately independent from our will. From the God preserves salvation side, biblical texts affirming this truth largely outweigh texts that may seem to indicate otherwise. In addition to the passage in John 10 mentioned above, numerous other verses clearly indicate God’s role in preserving salvation (1 Cor 1:8-9, Phil1:6, 1 Thes 5:23-24, 1 Pet 1:5, Jude 24-25). But, via the following musing below, consider in more depth the logical inconsistencies imposed by this view:
A common philosophical charge against Christians upholding sovereign grace is often presented in this (or similar) rhetorical question: “Did God create people with real choices or did He create robots?” However, it seems logically inconsistent to argue that on one hand people can’t truly love and choose God if he’s decisively responsible for their choice, but on the other hand, post-salvation they have no choice to deny him! This simply flips the order of supposed “robot” status and also interjects an understanding of love that does not find its source in scripture. Granted, much of God’s ways are indeed a mystery, and both sides are known to present philosophical arguments, but the whole counsel of scripture must be the litmus test for rightly understanding both God’s role and man’s role in salvation.
Two common mistakes are made by many people when standing at the crossroads of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. First, based on human logic and philosophical possibilities, some believe that man’s choices are invalid or less than legitimate if God is completely sovereign over all things. Second, downplaying clear biblical commands to preach the gospel, repent, believe, pray, obey, and the like, some assume (if not consensually, often functionally) God brings forth his will apart from real human choice and their associated actions. But, there is another alternative termed “compatibility” that affirms both are true – God has complete sovereignty over everything including salvation, and people are fully responsible for their real, effective choices.
Many of the topics concerning salvation we’ve addressed over the past few weeks come together in the following summary (for additional textual references please see previous posts):
No man deserves salvation, or even the choice of such; we all deserve hell. The free will of man will always reject God’s plan of salvation unless God intervenes by rescuing his elect. When the Holy Spirit acts in regeneration, man’s free will chooses the only rational thing a person with crystal clear sight would – repenting and trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ for their salvation. Once this has occurred, God holds our salvation securely in his hand, and he brings about evidences of salvation in our lives. Simultaneously, God calls us to make real choices to obey, abide in Christ, and “work out our own salvation,” all the while knowing that “it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (both quotes from Phil 2:12-13).
Having relatively new experiences of being a father, this imagery makes me think of playing with my daughter Annie. She has an obsession with anything round and bouncy. She’s one-and-a-half, and her favorite word, bar da-da (just kidding, Christine, I know it’s ma-ma), is ball. To her, every round, quasi-round or even two dimensional circular object in God’s created order is a ball, so we hear this word no less than 120 times every day. It’s the first thing on her mind in the morning when she gets up, storming through the house with her wild, curly hair bouncing back-and-forth to secure the location of every ball in the house. I like to occasionally tease Annie by holding her little bouncy ball tightly in my hand as she tries to pry it away. She thinks it’s really funny at first until the laughter suddenly turns to frustration, so I promptly give it to her, realizing I’m on the cusp of “provoking my child to anger” as Paul warns fathers not to do.
If I truly desired to prevent Annie from getting her bouncy ball, no matter how hard she tried or what tactics she employed, that ball is not coming out of my hand. So if little Annie can’t pry her ball from the grip of my hand, how immeasurably less capable is any of God’s creation to snatch his chosen from the mighty hand of the all-powerful Creator! To understand God’s sovereign protection over our salvation, even from ourselves, the differing views of salvation we’ve considered the past few weeks are relevant. If the decisive factor in man’s salvation is God’s sovereign grace, then it goes without question that he, too, sovereignly secures and preserves it. Otherwise, only two options remain. The first is most consistent. If man’s choice (free will) decisively secures salvation, then salvation can be lost. Second, many Christians uphold both man’s decisive choice and God’s preservation of salvation. This view begs the following question, “Is it consistent that God overrides man’s free will post-salvation?”
Perhaps the most common western (and possibly the world) Christian view contends for both man’s free will with a “once saved, always saved” understanding of salvation. Several often overlapping influences incline people to adopt this viewpoint. From the initial salvation side, insisting on man’s libertarian free will shields God from claims of injustice within and outside of the church. Additionally, the individualistic culture in which we live makes it difficult to accept salvation being ultimately independent from our will. From the God preserves salvation side, biblical texts affirming this truth largely outweigh texts that may seem to indicate otherwise. In addition to the passage in John 10 mentioned above, numerous other verses clearly indicate God’s role in preserving salvation (1 Cor 1:8-9, Phil1:6, 1 Thes 5:23-24, 1 Pet 1:5, Jude 24-25). But, via the following musing below, consider in more depth the logical inconsistencies imposed by this view:
In order for God to be truly fair and just, as not to bring charges against His character, all men must have the same opportunity to accept or reject Christ. God can’t interfere with respect to one person’s choice in a way He would not with another. If God ultimately elects people according to His sovereign will, people aren’t truly expressing genuine love. However, upon man’s choice to place their faith in Christ, which causes the new birth (according to this view), God must necessarily override their former free will in order to sustain and preserve the salvation that they chose.Must not this scenario be the case? Otherwise, at some point the Christian could exercise his free will to deny Christ with their mouth and/or through an unrepentant life of sin. Many scriptures either warn of apostasy or an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (Rom 8:13, Gal 5:19-22, Gal 6:7-8, 1 Jn 2:19,1 Jn 3:2-4,8, 1 Jn 5:18), revealing a person wasn’t truly saved, and other texts affirm that true believers will persevere until death (Mk 13:13, Lk 8:15, Jn 8:31, 1 Cor 15:1-2, Col 1:22-23, 2 Tim 2:11-12, 2 Pet 1:10, Rev 2:25-26, Rev 3:5). Certainly God must both prevent and cause these conditions.
A common philosophical charge against Christians upholding sovereign grace is often presented in this (or similar) rhetorical question: “Did God create people with real choices or did He create robots?” However, it seems logically inconsistent to argue that on one hand people can’t truly love and choose God if he’s decisively responsible for their choice, but on the other hand, post-salvation they have no choice to deny him! This simply flips the order of supposed “robot” status and also interjects an understanding of love that does not find its source in scripture. Granted, much of God’s ways are indeed a mystery, and both sides are known to present philosophical arguments, but the whole counsel of scripture must be the litmus test for rightly understanding both God’s role and man’s role in salvation.
Two common mistakes are made by many people when standing at the crossroads of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. First, based on human logic and philosophical possibilities, some believe that man’s choices are invalid or less than legitimate if God is completely sovereign over all things. Second, downplaying clear biblical commands to preach the gospel, repent, believe, pray, obey, and the like, some assume (if not consensually, often functionally) God brings forth his will apart from real human choice and their associated actions. But, there is another alternative termed “compatibility” that affirms both are true – God has complete sovereignty over everything including salvation, and people are fully responsible for their real, effective choices.
Many of the topics concerning salvation we’ve addressed over the past few weeks come together in the following summary (for additional textual references please see previous posts):
No man deserves salvation, or even the choice of such; we all deserve hell. The free will of man will always reject God’s plan of salvation unless God intervenes by rescuing his elect. When the Holy Spirit acts in regeneration, man’s free will chooses the only rational thing a person with crystal clear sight would – repenting and trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ for their salvation. Once this has occurred, God holds our salvation securely in his hand, and he brings about evidences of salvation in our lives. Simultaneously, God calls us to make real choices to obey, abide in Christ, and “work out our own salvation,” all the while knowing that “it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (both quotes from Phil 2:12-13).
Friday, December 11, 2009
Atonement at the Cross
Before covering to whom the efficacy of Christ’s atoning death applies, it will be beneficial to broadly define what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Orthodox Christian understanding of the atonement can be summarized in the term penal substitutionary atonement. Atonement describes the reconciliatory nature of Christ’s death that provides a right standing with God (1 Pet 3:18). Penal indicates Jesus’ death was necessary in order to pay the penalty for sins. God’s just character cannot allow sin to go unpunished for there can be no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22).
Jesus Christ died a substitutionary death for us – he died in our place. He lived the perfect, sinless life that we could not. At the cross, the Son became sin on our behalf (2 Cor 5:21). He endured the punishment for our sins – the very wrath of God. Our righteousness is very literally found in Christ, not just because of Christ! Romans 3:23-26 addresses penal substitution as follows, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
Describing what the atonement entails, however, does not settle whom it benefits. Historically, the libertarian free will side has termed their understanding as unlimited atonement, and the sovereign grace side as limited atonement. There is a comparatively small group of Christians who contend for unlimited, limited atonement. Despite the intriguing oxymoronic term, we won’t venture into their neck of the woods in this brief synopsis. Linguistically speaking, the “unlimited” and “limited” descriptors can blur the unavoidable fact that both viewpoints limit the atonement. Unlimited atonement limits the depth; limited atonement limits the breadth. This brings us back to the question of whether or not Christ died for the sin of unbelief.
Unlimited atonement contends that Christ’s death atoned for all of humanity in the same way for each person. The basis for this view comes from verses describing God’s provision of Christ for the world (such as Jn 3:16, Rom 8:32) and more specifically point to 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." According to their understanding of God’s justice nature, He must provide every person with the same unbiased opportunity to exercise their choice to accept or reject Christ. Therefore, the atonement provides a broad opportunity for everyone to receive it. Salvation is ultimately dependent upon man exercising libertarian free will to repent and respond in faith, not solely by God’s gracious provisions. Unbelief can’t be part of unlimited atonement; otherwise, according to this view the atonement would be universal, saving all people.
Limited atonement holds that Christ’s death atoned specifically for the elect, including the sin of unbelief. Accordingly, 1 John 2:2 (listed in the above paragraph) is properly understood only in concert with verses such as John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad", and also Revelation 5:9, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Both the context of 1 John 2:2 and clarifications provided by John 11:52-51 and Revelation 5:9 reveal that John has in mind the provision of Christ’s atonement to all peoples of the world, not just the Jews.
Additionally, verses such as Mark 10:45 (also Matt 26:28, Jn 10:15, Heb 9:28, Eph 5:25-27, Tit 2:14) indicate a restrictive nature as to the atonement, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” From John chapter 17 Jesus describes his ministry being especially for those whom God gave him out of the world. He says in verse 9, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours,” and in verse 19, “And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.”
Contrary to ill-informed critics, limited atonement (properly understood) does not limit the universal call for all men to believe in the gospel. Many biblical passages clearly teach this unrestricted call to repentance and faith. Rather, it’s proper understanding reveals both a universal call and a specific call (Rom 8:30) from God. Affirming God’s sovereign grace in salvation, including the nature of the atonement, should be viewed as a peek behind the curtain through scriptural lens as to why some believe and some don’t. But scripture provides no insight into who will believe! No mere man knows the will of God concerning the elect. The Good News must be urgently preached to all people, everywhere! The elect will respond in saving faith.
Jesus Christ died a substitutionary death for us – he died in our place. He lived the perfect, sinless life that we could not. At the cross, the Son became sin on our behalf (2 Cor 5:21). He endured the punishment for our sins – the very wrath of God. Our righteousness is very literally found in Christ, not just because of Christ! Romans 3:23-26 addresses penal substitution as follows, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
Describing what the atonement entails, however, does not settle whom it benefits. Historically, the libertarian free will side has termed their understanding as unlimited atonement, and the sovereign grace side as limited atonement. There is a comparatively small group of Christians who contend for unlimited, limited atonement. Despite the intriguing oxymoronic term, we won’t venture into their neck of the woods in this brief synopsis. Linguistically speaking, the “unlimited” and “limited” descriptors can blur the unavoidable fact that both viewpoints limit the atonement. Unlimited atonement limits the depth; limited atonement limits the breadth. This brings us back to the question of whether or not Christ died for the sin of unbelief.
Unlimited atonement contends that Christ’s death atoned for all of humanity in the same way for each person. The basis for this view comes from verses describing God’s provision of Christ for the world (such as Jn 3:16, Rom 8:32) and more specifically point to 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." According to their understanding of God’s justice nature, He must provide every person with the same unbiased opportunity to exercise their choice to accept or reject Christ. Therefore, the atonement provides a broad opportunity for everyone to receive it. Salvation is ultimately dependent upon man exercising libertarian free will to repent and respond in faith, not solely by God’s gracious provisions. Unbelief can’t be part of unlimited atonement; otherwise, according to this view the atonement would be universal, saving all people.
Limited atonement holds that Christ’s death atoned specifically for the elect, including the sin of unbelief. Accordingly, 1 John 2:2 (listed in the above paragraph) is properly understood only in concert with verses such as John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad", and also Revelation 5:9, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Both the context of 1 John 2:2 and clarifications provided by John 11:52-51 and Revelation 5:9 reveal that John has in mind the provision of Christ’s atonement to all peoples of the world, not just the Jews.
Additionally, verses such as Mark 10:45 (also Matt 26:28, Jn 10:15, Heb 9:28, Eph 5:25-27, Tit 2:14) indicate a restrictive nature as to the atonement, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” From John chapter 17 Jesus describes his ministry being especially for those whom God gave him out of the world. He says in verse 9, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours,” and in verse 19, “And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.”
Contrary to ill-informed critics, limited atonement (properly understood) does not limit the universal call for all men to believe in the gospel. Many biblical passages clearly teach this unrestricted call to repentance and faith. Rather, it’s proper understanding reveals both a universal call and a specific call (Rom 8:30) from God. Affirming God’s sovereign grace in salvation, including the nature of the atonement, should be viewed as a peek behind the curtain through scriptural lens as to why some believe and some don’t. But scripture provides no insight into who will believe! No mere man knows the will of God concerning the elect. The Good News must be urgently preached to all people, everywhere! The elect will respond in saving faith.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
What Is God’s Foreknowledge?
One of the common counter-arguments to God’s sovereignty in salvation is related to the term “foreknowledge.” The libertarian free will side believes that this word, in all of its biblical contexts, strictly refers to God knowing all things past, present and future. Therefore, in the context of its use in Romans 8:29 and 11:2, as well as 1 Peter 1:2, foreknowledge should be understood as God knowing beforehand (from eternity past) who will and will not trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord. On this basis God elected (or chose) His children.
Sovereign grace advocates affirm that God is indeed omniscient but believe that this explanation contextually misses the understanding of how God ‘knows’ his people in Scripture. The Bible provides many examples of God knowing his people in a specially chosen and/or beloved way. For instance, God says in Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." Another example is found in Amos 3:2, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” In Matthew 7:23 Jesus issues a warning to those unknown by Him, “And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'” There are many other Old and New Testament verses that use the word know in a similar fashion, including Ex 33:17, Deut 9:24, Hos 8:4, Jn 10:14, 1 Cor 8:3, and 2 Tim 2:19.
This understanding of the word “know” in our modern context is likewise similar. For example, consider the following statement: “I know the ABCs very well, and I know Christine very well.” The first half of this sentence simply indicates my solid grasp on all the letters, A through Z. It denotes knowledge of facts or information. I mean something dramatically different by the second half of the sentence. Christine is my wife. I know her very well in the sense that I’m in a covenant relationship with her. I love her very deeply with an unconditional love. I admire her personality, talents and beauty; and, I enjoy spending time with her. Thus, our understanding of “knowing” someone can indicate a tremendous depth of love and emotions. In light of the scripture references to God choosing us according to His will and salvation not being a result of human will (Eph 1:4-5,11; Jn 1:12-13; Rom 9:15-16), why would it not be most likely that God foreknowing us indicates His special love for us?
For those still unconvinced that “foreknowledge” in the previously identified Romans and 1 Peter texts points to those whom God relationally knows and loves, Dr. Wayne Grudem provides the following logical consideration for foreknowledge understood only as the advance knowledge of future choices:
"If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which evangelicals all agree upon), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way their lives could turn out any differently than this. Therefore it is fair to say that their destinies are still determined, for they could not be otherwise. But by what are their destinies determined? If they are determined by God himself, then we no longer have election based ultimately on foreknowledge of faith, but rather on God's sovereign will. But if these destinies are not determined by God, then who or what determines them? Certainly no Christian would say that there is some powerful being other than God controlling people's destinies. Therefore the only possible alternative is to say they are determined by some impersonal force, some kind of fate, operative in the universe, making things turn out as they do. But what kind of benefit is this? We have then sacrificed election in love by a personal God for a kind of determinism by an impersonal force and God is no longer to be given the ultimate credit for our salvation" (Systematic Theology, p. 679).
After reading Wayne Grudem’s logical progression you may still respond that it’s a person’s choice that ultimately controls their destiny. However, does this answer not come with its own set of problematic baggage? For instance, even if this situation is not a reality to you, imagine that two of your beloved family members are not professing Christians. One dies rejecting Christ until the very end of their life, but the other ends up trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation. Assuming both heard the true Gospel, what caused one to reject it and the other to accept it? Was one smarter, more enlightened, more moral or more deserving than the other? Consider that Ephesians 2:8-9 is one of numerous passages that clearly states by grace we are saved – not of ourselves and not of works.
Additionally, if faith by our own choice is understood as something that saves us and not as the result of God’s grace alone, did or did not Christ die for the sin of unbelief on the cross? This can be confusing, so let me quote all of Ephesians 2:8-10:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Theological debate abounds concerning to what “this is not your own doing” refers, which is unquestionably linked to the phrase immediately following, “it is the gift of God.” In the Greek, “this” is a neuter pronoun while both grace and faith are feminine nouns. If Paul was intending to refer to only “faith” or “grace,” he would have used a feminine form of “this.” By using the neuter form, it seems to most naturally indicate that Paul is referring to the entirety of salvation as God’s gift, which obviously includes both grace and faith. It’s notable that even if this interpretation is not correct and only grace is intended, the preceding verses in Ephesians 2:4-5 say, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved.” Salvation here is attributed only to grace without mention of faith, and is singularly attributed to God’s action. Of course, we must respond in faith if God’s grace has truly reached us, but it is not described as possible apart from God’s initiating grace alone.
Faith divorced from God’s initiating grace becomes something originating from us – a work. The term “works” in verse 9 does not contextually refer to satisfying the Mosaic Law such as in Romans or Galatians. This usage indicates all conceivable efforts to obligate God for our ultimate benefit. Considering, if faith is not seen as part of this “gift of God,” then how can it be anything but “our own doing?”
Pardon the brief excursus – this brings us back to the question of whether or not Christ died for the sin of unbelief. If not, is the atonement truly complete? In what sense did Jesus mean, “it is finished,” before he died on the cross? If Jesus indeed died for the sin of unbelief, was it for every man’s unbelief? If so, why are not all men saved? This becomes a circular argument unless the atonement is further discussed, which we’ll contend with next week! Let’s wrap-up this week’s question.
If foreknowledge is understood as God’s special love for His children, Romans 8:28-30 provides comforting assurance of our eternal salvation:
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 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. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
Sovereign grace advocates affirm that God is indeed omniscient but believe that this explanation contextually misses the understanding of how God ‘knows’ his people in Scripture. The Bible provides many examples of God knowing his people in a specially chosen and/or beloved way. For instance, God says in Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." Another example is found in Amos 3:2, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” In Matthew 7:23 Jesus issues a warning to those unknown by Him, “And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'” There are many other Old and New Testament verses that use the word know in a similar fashion, including Ex 33:17, Deut 9:24, Hos 8:4, Jn 10:14, 1 Cor 8:3, and 2 Tim 2:19.
This understanding of the word “know” in our modern context is likewise similar. For example, consider the following statement: “I know the ABCs very well, and I know Christine very well.” The first half of this sentence simply indicates my solid grasp on all the letters, A through Z. It denotes knowledge of facts or information. I mean something dramatically different by the second half of the sentence. Christine is my wife. I know her very well in the sense that I’m in a covenant relationship with her. I love her very deeply with an unconditional love. I admire her personality, talents and beauty; and, I enjoy spending time with her. Thus, our understanding of “knowing” someone can indicate a tremendous depth of love and emotions. In light of the scripture references to God choosing us according to His will and salvation not being a result of human will (Eph 1:4-5,11; Jn 1:12-13; Rom 9:15-16), why would it not be most likely that God foreknowing us indicates His special love for us?
For those still unconvinced that “foreknowledge” in the previously identified Romans and 1 Peter texts points to those whom God relationally knows and loves, Dr. Wayne Grudem provides the following logical consideration for foreknowledge understood only as the advance knowledge of future choices:
"If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which evangelicals all agree upon), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way their lives could turn out any differently than this. Therefore it is fair to say that their destinies are still determined, for they could not be otherwise. But by what are their destinies determined? If they are determined by God himself, then we no longer have election based ultimately on foreknowledge of faith, but rather on God's sovereign will. But if these destinies are not determined by God, then who or what determines them? Certainly no Christian would say that there is some powerful being other than God controlling people's destinies. Therefore the only possible alternative is to say they are determined by some impersonal force, some kind of fate, operative in the universe, making things turn out as they do. But what kind of benefit is this? We have then sacrificed election in love by a personal God for a kind of determinism by an impersonal force and God is no longer to be given the ultimate credit for our salvation" (Systematic Theology, p. 679).
After reading Wayne Grudem’s logical progression you may still respond that it’s a person’s choice that ultimately controls their destiny. However, does this answer not come with its own set of problematic baggage? For instance, even if this situation is not a reality to you, imagine that two of your beloved family members are not professing Christians. One dies rejecting Christ until the very end of their life, but the other ends up trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation. Assuming both heard the true Gospel, what caused one to reject it and the other to accept it? Was one smarter, more enlightened, more moral or more deserving than the other? Consider that Ephesians 2:8-9 is one of numerous passages that clearly states by grace we are saved – not of ourselves and not of works.
Additionally, if faith by our own choice is understood as something that saves us and not as the result of God’s grace alone, did or did not Christ die for the sin of unbelief on the cross? This can be confusing, so let me quote all of Ephesians 2:8-10:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Theological debate abounds concerning to what “this is not your own doing” refers, which is unquestionably linked to the phrase immediately following, “it is the gift of God.” In the Greek, “this” is a neuter pronoun while both grace and faith are feminine nouns. If Paul was intending to refer to only “faith” or “grace,” he would have used a feminine form of “this.” By using the neuter form, it seems to most naturally indicate that Paul is referring to the entirety of salvation as God’s gift, which obviously includes both grace and faith. It’s notable that even if this interpretation is not correct and only grace is intended, the preceding verses in Ephesians 2:4-5 say, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved.” Salvation here is attributed only to grace without mention of faith, and is singularly attributed to God’s action. Of course, we must respond in faith if God’s grace has truly reached us, but it is not described as possible apart from God’s initiating grace alone.
Faith divorced from God’s initiating grace becomes something originating from us – a work. The term “works” in verse 9 does not contextually refer to satisfying the Mosaic Law such as in Romans or Galatians. This usage indicates all conceivable efforts to obligate God for our ultimate benefit. Considering, if faith is not seen as part of this “gift of God,” then how can it be anything but “our own doing?”
Pardon the brief excursus – this brings us back to the question of whether or not Christ died for the sin of unbelief. If not, is the atonement truly complete? In what sense did Jesus mean, “it is finished,” before he died on the cross? If Jesus indeed died for the sin of unbelief, was it for every man’s unbelief? If so, why are not all men saved? This becomes a circular argument unless the atonement is further discussed, which we’ll contend with next week! Let’s wrap-up this week’s question.
If foreknowledge is understood as God’s special love for His children, Romans 8:28-30 provides comforting assurance of our eternal salvation:
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 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. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
