|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 5, 2010 2:00:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 19, 2010 18:12:10 GMT -5
MEN NEED DRAWING TO COME “No man can come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44
This passage must not be isolated or left alone because the following verse explains what it means. It is a sound principle of hermeneutics to allow the Bible to interpret itself. The context of a passage helps us to understand the passage itself. The following verse says, “It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” John 6:45
How then are men drawn by the Father? Are men drawn by a constitutional change or through an irresistible force? No. Men are drawn by moral means. Coming to Christ is a choice of the will, therefore the means used to bring about this choice are means which respect and regard the will of man. Coming to Christ is a choice of the will; therefore God brings men to Christ by influencing their will. God teaches men and this is what influences men to come to Jesus. The drawing of God is through spiritual revelation. This is no doubt how the Apostle Paul was converted (Acts 9:4), by a revelation of Jesus Christ. The Father draws men to His Son, by granting them a revelation of His Son and what He has done for us on the cross. “And if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32).
If verse 44 was talking about a constitutional change, it could not be brought about by teaching as verse 45 says. Teaching has no tendency or ability to change the constitution of man. But if the drawing is brought about by teaching, as verse 45 says, than the drawing in verse 44 must be an influence upon the will of man. Truth influences the will and therefore teaching the truth has the ability to change the will of man. Coming to Jesus is a choice of the will, which is brought about by the drawing of the Father’s teaching. This passage does not deny the choice of man’s will in salvation. It doesn’t say “no man can come” but “no man can come, except…” The choice to come to Jesus Christ is brought about by the enlightening influence of the Father. God does not draw us to Himself through some irresistible force, but through the influence of truth.
I was pleased to find out that Albert Barnes also interpreted this passage the same way that I do. He said, “In the conversion of the sinner God enlightens the mind John 6:45, he inclines the will Psalms 110:3, and he influences the soul by motives, by just views of his law, by his love, his commands, and his threatenings; by a desire of happiness, and a consciousness of danger; by the Holy Spirit applying truth to the mind, and urging him to yield himself to the Saviour. So that, while God inclines him, and will have all the glory, man yields without compulsion; the obstacles are removed, and he becomes a willing servant of God.”1 He goes on to say, “Shall be all taught of God - This explains the preceding verse. It is by the teaching of his Word and Spirit that men are drawn to God. This shows that it is not compulsory, and that there is no obstacle in the way but a strong voluntary ignorance and unwillingness.” 2
Regarding man’s natural ability, man is only able to obey the truth that he knows. If a man does not know about Jesus, he is not able to believe in Jesus or to follow Jesus. Natural ability is not the ability to obey truth that you do not know; natural ability is the ability to obey the truth that you do know. Natural ability is not the ability to do the impossible (obey what is not known) but it is the ability to do the possible (obey what is known). Natural ability is the ability to obey, or disobey, the light or revelation that has been revealed or given. This is clearly stated by the Apostle Paul, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14). This shows, not only the necessity of open air preaching, but also the necessity for the work of the Spirit who takes the truth preached and presses it powerful upon the minds of men to influence their will to believe and call upon the Lord.
The point is that those who have not heard cannot believe, which explains why those who have not been taught by the Father cannot come to the Son. This perfectly explains why no man can come to the Son, unless He is drawn by the Father. Unless the Father first teaches sinners about His Son, they are not capable of believing in, coming to, or following the Son. And unless the Father first convicts men of their sin, they will not see their need of coming to the Savior. Teaching must always come before obedience. Knowledge, or truth, is a precondition or requisite for obedience. The will of man can only obey, or disobey, the knowledge that the mind has. Does man have the natural ability to believe in Jesus, whether they know about Jesus or not? The answer is of course not. Natural ability cannot do the impossible. But does man have the natural ability to believe in Jesus, come to Jesus, and follow Jesus, once the truth about Jesus is revealed to them? The answer is yes.
I would also quickly add that the mind operates under the law of necessity, but the will operates under the law of liberty. That is, the mind must affirm truth when it is presented, but the will can obey or disobey the truth that is affirmed by the mind. We see this with the crowd that Stephen preached to. “And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” (Acts 6:10). Their minds, by necessity, affirmed the truth of what he preached. Their minds could not resist it. But it goes on to say, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit, as your Fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). Their will operated under liberty. Their will disobeyed and resisted the truth that their minds affirmed. The revelation that God grants is irresistible. Men cannot help but to know the truth, when God reveals it. But sinners reject and suppress the truth that they have (Romans 1:18). Yet, according to John 6:45, those who not only hear the truth, but actually learn from it, come to Jesus Christ. Those who do not learn from what they hear from the Father will not come to the Son. But those who hear from the Father, and choose to learn from it, will come to the Son. Men resist or yield to the drawing of God by choosing to learn from, or not learn from, the teaching that He gives them. Men need to be “drawn” by God and choose to “come” (Jn. 6:44), they must both “hear” and choose to “learn” (Jn. 6:45), so that both God and man have their active role.
SPEAKING BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD
“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” 1 Corinthians 12:3
The question with this passage is, what does “speaking by the Spirit of God” mean? Does it mean that the Holy Spirit gives us a constitutional enabling? Or does it mean that men can speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit? I would say the latter. When a man is under or submitted to the influence of the Holy Spirit they will not call Jesus accursed. If a man calls Jesus accursed, that is proof that they are not submitted to the influence of the Spirit of God. But if a man truly confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, this is done under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Without the influence of the Holy Spirit, revealing to man the truth about Jesus Christ, man would never and could never confess Him as Lord. Man could never because without the Spirit revealing Jesus as Lord, how can they confess Him to be Lord? The Spirit must first reveal to man that Jesus is the Lord, before man could be capable of confessing Him as such. And man would never because man, on his own or without the influence of God, would never submit to the truth but would continue on in deception. Man is unwilling to obey God and to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Therefore man needs an influence, outside of himself, to bring him to submission and obedience. That outside influence is the working of the Holy Spirit. When a man is brought to submission to the Lordship of Christ, it is because of the working and influence of the Holy Spirit in his life.
The Spirit, through influence, makes us willing to do what God has already made us capable of doing. The Holy Spirit makes us willing to obey God by presenting powerful truths to our minds. A creation, God made us constitutionally capable of obeying the truth that we know and receive, when He granted us a free will and made us in His image. At creation, God made us capable of obedience. At conversion, the Spirit makes us willing to obey.
TAMING THE TONGUE
“But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” James 3:8-9
James also told us, “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” (James 1:19). Therefore since those who are truly religious bridle their tongue, let’s take for granted that the expressed limitation in taming the tongue must refer to the unregenerate or unsaved. If that is the case, here are my thoughts.
First, it is very worthy noting that this passage describes “men” as being “made after the similitude of God”. The so called “inability” of man is typically credited to the sin of Adam, saying that when Adam sinned the image of God in man was lost. Since the image of God in man was lost, man no longer has a free will. This is the common argument. However it is clear from this verse that the image of God in man has not been lost. Therefore any free will that man had at the beginning, because he was made in God’s image, he still has now. There are other passages, after Genesis 1:26-27, which describe man as being in the image of God, such as Genesis 9:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:7. That is because it is God who is still our maker, who still forms each individual in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 95:6; 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3). We are born precisely the way God wants us to be born. God is responsible for the condition that we are born into (Exodus 4:11). Since God forms us in the womb, God still forms us in His image.
Consider how God spoke to Cain, after the fall of Adam, as one who had the power of choice between obedience and disobedience. “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Gen. 4:6-7). Whatever the results upon all of mankind are because of Adam’s sin, the loss of the image of God and the loss of free will certainly are not part of it.
Second, no man (no sinner) can tame the tongue unless he first changes his heart. “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matthew 12:34). The reason that they cannot speak good things, according to Jesus, is because they have evil hearts. Again, “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doeth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit… A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh” (Luke 6:43, 45). That is why Jesus commands us to change our hearts or “make the tree good” (Matt. 12:33). The roots must change before the fruit can change. It is impossible to change the fruit if you do not first change the root. A sinner cannot tame his tongue. He must first change his heart. As long as He remains a sinner, that is, as long as he remains sinful in his heart, he cannot tame his tongue. This is because the will or heart (tree) is the cause; the action (fruit) is the effect. The action is not self-existent. The action must have a cause. The cause is their heart (will). You cannot change the effect without first changing the cause. As long as the cause is the same, the effect will be the same. It is absolutely impossible to change the effect without first changing the cause. A sinner cannot speak differently, or act differently, until his heart is different. As long as their intention is selfish their life will necessarily be sinful.
A sinner may, for a time, seem to control his tongue. But the overflow of his evil heart will eventually come out. Words and actions are nothing more but the outflow of the heart. The heart is the problem. Therefore it is the inside that must change first. Jesus said, “cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also” (Matthew 23:26). That is why the Bible says, “Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die…” (Ezekiel 18:31). “Wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved” (Jeremiah 4:14). “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded” (James 4:8). The words are the outflow of the heart. Men have the ability to change their hearts. That is why every man will have to give an account even for every idle word that they speak (Matt.12:36).
THE CARNAL MIND CANNOT OBEY
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Romans 8:7
This passage would be completely without meaning or understanding if we do not define what the carnal mind is. Many have taken the liberty to define the carnal mind on their own but good hermeneutics says that we must allow the Bible to interpret itself, context gives us great insight. This verse is very commonly taken by itself when it was never meant to be. The two previous verses say: “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Romans 8:5-6
The word “mind” in verse 5 and 6 is “phroneo” and means “intensively to interest oneself in (with concern or obedience): - set the affection on.”1 The word “mind” is verse 7 is “phronema” and it means “to purpose”. 2 Therefore the carnal mind is when a person is choosing to interest themselves in carnality, to set their affections on their flesh, when they purpose to live for the gratification of themselves. It is when a sinner chooses to “mind the things of the flesh”, that is, when they choose to serve themselves and their own pleasures rather then serving God. The carnal mind is nothing more than a selfish state of mind.
The carnal mind is not a passive state but an active state. It is not a state that we are passively born into. It is a state that men choose to be in. The word “enmity” is “echthra” and means hostility or opposition.”3 Hostility or opposition is an active state. The carnal mind is a mind that is in active hostility or opposition to God. It is when an individual is purposely and intentionally minding the things of the flesh. That is, they are living to please themselves in stead of living to please God. Such a state of mind is intentional, voluntary, deliberate, or volitional.
Albert Barnes commented, “it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God”4. Charles Finney said, “The proper translation of this text is, the minding of the flesh is enmity against God. It is a voluntary state of mind. It is that state of supreme selfishness, in which all men are, previous to their conversion to God. It is a state of mind; in which, probably, they are not born, but into which they appear to fall, very early after their birth. The gratification of their appetites, is made by them, the supreme object of desire and pursuit, and becomes the law of their lives; or that law in their members, that wars against the law of their minds, which the apostle speaks. They conform their lives, and all of their actions to this rule of action, which they have established for themselves, which is nothing more nor less, than voluntary selfishness or a controlling and abiding preference of self-gratification, above the commandments, authority, and glory of God. It should be well understood, and always remembered, that the carnal mind, as used by the apostle, is not the mind itself but is a voluntary action of the mind. In other words, it is not any part of the mind, or body, but a choice or preference of the mind. It is a minding of the flesh. It is preferring self-gratification, before obedience to God.” 5
According to Thayer’s definitions, “carnal mind” or “echthra” means the “cause of opposition”6. In other words, the carnal mind is the cause of a sinner’s opposition to God. It is with the mind that choices are made. The will is a faculty of the mind. Because a sinner is choosing to serve his flesh, to “mind the things of the flesh”, he is in opposition to God, who commands him to deny himself (Matthew 16:24) and serve God (Exodus 20:3; 1 Corinthians 10:31). The cause of his enmity with God is his carnal mind, his choice to serve himself, his choice to be selfish. A sinner is in opposition to God and is in a state of hostility towards God’s law, because he is choosing to be selfish, he is minding the things of his flesh.
While a person is in this selfish state of mind, they cannot please God and they cannot obey the law. That is because God is not pleased with selfishness (Psalms 5:4) and the law requires benevolent motives, not selfish motives (Luke 10:27; Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:14). Therefore those who are carnally minded cannot please God and they cannot obey the law. As long as they are in this selfish state of mind, they cannot be pleasing to God, nor can they be in submission to the law.
It is impossible for a person, who has a carnal mind, to be pleasing to God or to be in submission to God, while they are in such a state of mind. They need to repent. Repent is “metanoeo” and it means to change your mind. To repent of your sin means that you change your mind about sinning, you make up your mind to obey the law of God. True repentance is when a person goes from being in a selfish state of mind (carnally minded) of choosing to serve him self (to live for self-gratification), to a loving state of mind of choosing to serve God supremely and love his neighbor equally. As long as a man is carnally minded, he cannot please God and he cannot obey the law. But if he changes his mind (repent), so that he is no longer choosing to live for himself but chooses to live for God, then he can be pleasing to God and he can obey the law. When the cause of his hostility towards God and His law is removed (the carnal mind), then He can be pleasing to God and in submission to His law. But if the cause of his hostility is not removed, he can do neither. As long as the will (a faculty of the mind) is in opposition to God, the will cannot be in submission to God. As long as the will of man is selfish, that man cannot be pleasing to God, because God cannot be pleased with selfishness.
This passage refers to a sinner’s mind, not to the sinner’s make up. It refers to his character, not his constitution; to the state of his will, not the state of his nature. This verse does not deal with the question of whether or not the carnally minded can change their mind, or whether they have the natural ability to repent. This verse simply says that while a person is in such a state of mind of carnality and selfishness, they cannot please God and they cannot truly obey the law. It would be equivalent to saying, “Those who have disobedient hearts cannot please God and they cannot obey the law.” That is, while their heart is disobedient, they cannot do such things. But if they change their heart, then they can. Such a statement does not say that they cannot change their heart, but it says that while their heart is in such a state, they cannot do such things. Likewise the statement about the carnally minded does not say that they cannot change their mind, it simply says that while their mind is in such a state, they cannot do such things.
I was pleased after writing the above to find that Albert Barnes and Charles Finney said that precise same thing. It is always a great relief to find out that you are not alone in your interpretation and understanding of the word of God. Charles Finney said, “The apostle does not affirm, that a sinner cannot love God, but that a carnal mind cannot love God; for, to affirm that a carnal mind can love God, is the same as to affirm that enmity itself can be love.”7 Albert Barnes said in his commentary, “But the affirmation does not mean that the heart of the sinner might not be subject to God; or that his soul is so physically depraved that he cannot obey, or that he might not obey the law. On that, the apostle here expresses no opinion. That is not the subject of the discussion. It is simply that the supreme regard to the flesh, to the minding of that, is utterly irreconcilable with the Law of God. They are different things, and can never be made to harmonize; just as adultery cannot be chastity; falsehood cannot be truth; dishonesty cannot be honesty; hatred cannot be love. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to prove the doctrine of man’s inability to love God, for it does not refer to that, but it proves merely that a supreme regard to the things of the flesh is utterly inconsistent with the Law of God; can never be reconciled with it; and involves the sinner in hostility with his Creator.”8
Every call to repentance in the Bible which is directed towards man implies that man has the ability to change his mind. If the call to repentance does not imply that man can repent, then what in the entire Bible could ever imply that men could repent? Nothing could imply the ability to repent more than the command to repent. Why command men to do something if it is impossible? If men were incapable of repentance, God would have no reason to command them to repent. If God is good, why command repentance and punish impenitence, if repentance is impossible for some and impenitence is unavoidable for some? If God commands men to do something, He gives them the ability to do it. God calls all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30-31), which means that all men everywhere have the ability to change their mind. None need to change their mind but the carnally minded. Those who are spiritually minded do not need to change their mind, therefore God does not call the spiritually minded to repentance. It is only the carnally minded that God calls to repentance. Every call to repentance is directed to, and only to, the carnally minded. Therefore the carnally minded have the ability to change their mind.
Here is are some logical syllogisms:
• Repentance is a change of mind • Only the carnally minded need to change their mind • Therefore only the carnally minded are called to repentance
• The command to repent implies the ability to repent (change your mind) • The carnally minded are commanded to change their mind (repent) • Therefore the carnally minded have the ability to change their mind (repent)
Men are commanded in the Bible to change their hearts, which implies that they have the ability to change their hearts. God, being a loving Ruler, does not command the impossible at the threat of severe punishment. The command of the ruler, without the ability of the subject, is tyranny. The command, if it comes from a good, just and reasonable ruler, presupposes the subject has the power of choice. God commands men in the Bible to change their hearts, which implies that they have the ability to do so. “Wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved” (Jeremiah 4:14). “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded” (James 4:8). “Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die…” (Ezekiel 18:31). If men are incapable of obeying these commands, why give these commands at all? If these commands cannot be obeyed, they are useless, and God must never have even intended on them being obeyed at all. If God never intended on these commands being obeyed, then God does not really want them to be obeyed. And if God does not really want them to be obeyed, He is insincere in commanding them. If God wants these commands to be obeyed, and if He is sincere in His command, then these commands must be possible for men to obey.
The Bible also says, “Set your affections as things above, not on the things on the earth” (Colossians 3:2). “Set your affections” is the same Greek word used for “mind” in Romans 8:5-7. Men have the choice of minding the flesh or of minding the spirit, of setting our affections on things above or things beneath. It is within our natural ability to choose who we will serve (Joshua 24:15), whether we will serve ourselves or serve God. We have the natural ability to choose what we will set our affections on, either on the flesh or on the Spirit.
Charles Finney said, “Some one may ask, Can the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, change itself? I have already said that this text in the original reads, “the minding of the flesh is enmity against God.’ This minding of the flesh, then, is the choice or preference to gratify the flesh. Now it is indeed absurd to say, that a choice can change itself; but it is not absurd to say, that the agent who exercises this choice, can change it. The sinner that minds the flesh, can change his mind, and mind God.” 9
DEAD IN SINS
“…we were dead in sins…” Ephesians 2:5 It is common for those who argue for the doctrine of inability to appeal to this verse and others like it that describe man, before regeneration, as being “dead in sin”. They will ask questions such as, “Can dead men choose anything?” and then say, “No, dead men cannot choose anything. Therefore sinners, who are dead in their sins, cannot choose to be converted and live righteous.” Following this logic we would have to conclude that sinners do not choose to sin either because “dead men cannot choose anything”. This whole line of reasoning blurs the distinctions between physical death and spiritual death. It is a logical fallacy to take the limitations of the physically dead and to impose them upon the spiritually dead.
The Bible says that Christians are “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2; 6:11) but does that mean that a Christian is incapable of sinning? No. Likewise, just because a sinner is dead in sins does not mean that he is incapable of repenting. We must be careful not to take points out of analogies which were not originally meant to be given. Regarding being dead to sin Adam Clarke said, “The phraseology of this verse is common among Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins. To die to a thing or person, is to have nothing to do with it or him; to be totally separated from them: and to live to a thing or person is to be wholly given up to them; to have the most intimate connection with them.”1 To be dead to sin is to be separated from sin and in a relationship with God. To be dead in sin is to be separated from God and in a relationship with sin. A person who is dead to sin is still capable of returning to sin (1 Jn. 2:1), and a person who is dead in sin is still capable of returning to God (2 Chron. 30:9; Isa. 55:7; Jer. 3:22; Hos. 6:11; Mal 3:7; Lk. 15:18, 20, 24).
When the Bible talks about a sinner being “dead” it is not talking about his ability at all, it is talking about his relationship. In Biblical interpretation we must look and see how a word is used elsewhere in the Bible. To see how a word is used gives us insight as to what the word means. “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” (Luke 15:24). What did the father mean that his prodigal son was “dead” but is now “alive”? Did he mean that his son did not have the ability to return home, but now he has the ability to return home? No. He meant that his relationship with his son was dead, but now that he has returned, his son is alive to him relationally.
A Calvinist will ask, “Can a dead man resurrect himself? No. Then how can a sinner repent?” But this is to compare physical death with spiritual death. To say that we were “dead in trespasses and sins” is to say that we were spiritually dead. Physical death is constitutional and therefore affects your abilities. Spiritual death is not constitutional, it is relational. It has to do, not with our abilities, but with our relationships.
When the Bible says that a sinner is dead, that does not mean that he doesn’t have the ability to turn to God. When the Bible talks about a sinner being born again, regenerated, or made alive, it is not saying that he has now received the ability to turn to God. Relationally, when a man sins, his relationship with God is dead. A man’s personal sins separate him from God (Isa. 59:2; Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; Rom. 7:9, Col. 1:21; 2:13.). When a man chooses to sin, he becomes spiritually separated from God or dead in his relationship with God (Eze. 18:4, 20; Isa. 59:2, Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; 5:14; 7:9; 7:11; 8:6; 2 Cor. 5:14; Col. 1:21; 2:13; Rev. 3:1). A sinner’s relationship with God is completely dead because of his sin. Spiritual death is relational separation from God. But when a man forsakes his sins and is forgiven through Jesus Christ, his relationship with God becomes alive. He starts to experience true life with God (Jn. 10:10; Jn. 17:3).
It is a very dangerous practice for any theologian to try to pull his theology out of, or squeeze his theology into, a single word. Since the Bible does not teach that sinners cannot repent and be converted, those who hold to such views have to resort to trying to prove their theology by imposing their own definitions upon words in Scripture instead of practicing proper exegetics. But if you simply give your own definition to Biblical words, instead of properly understanding their actual or original definition, you can make the Bible teach whatever doctrine you want. That is what I have seen many do when it comes to the word “dead”. To say that a sinner is dead in sin is to say that he is without a relationship with God, not that he is without the ability to return to God.
The story of Lazarus is sometimes appealed to by those who hold to the doctrine of inability. They equate God telling sinners, who are dead in their sins, to repent, with Jesus telling Lazarus to come forth. We should not equate the physical dead with the spiritual dead, but besides, when Jesus called Lazarus to “come forth”, Lazarus actually did it. This means God must have already given him the ability to do what He commanded. The fact that Lazarus actually came forth is proof that Lazarus had the ability to come forth. If he couldn’t have done it, he wouldn’t have done it. Nowhere in the Scriptures do we ever see God commanding anyone to do that which they cannot do. God only commands men to do what He has already given them the ability to do. What God commands, He supplies the ability to be done. God commands all those who are dead in their sins to repent of their sins (Acts 17:30), which means that He must have already given all of them the ability to do this. All men are obligated to obey God; therefore all are able to do so.
ETHIOPIAN SKIN & LEOPARD SPOTS
Another passage that is commonly used against the doctrine of man’s natural ability to obey God is Jeremiah 13:23 which says, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”
It should be remarked that this passage is talking about Israel during a certain period of time in their history. This passage is not talking about all sinners of all time. To apply this passage to all sinners of all time is to ignore the proper rules of hermeneutic interpretation, particularly context.
It should also be remarked that this passage is not talking about the way Israel was born. This passage is talking about the way Israel had become through their self-chosen habitual manner of living. The unchanging state of these people was a moral condition by choice, not a constitutional condition by birth.
Israel, at this point in their history, had resisted God for a long time. These men disobeyed God continually, after God had been reaching out to them time and time again. “But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people” (Romans 10:21). But despite all of the efforts of God, they were still wicked and evil. In fact, they were worst than when they started, because they had to continually harden their hearts as God was reaching out to them. They were well accustomed in doing evil.
They were so accustomed to do evil that their reformation would be comparable to a leopard changing his spots or an Ethiopian changing his skin. Through their habitual choice of disobedience, they made themselves reprobates. They resisted the influence of God to the point of no return. It was as likely to see an Ethiopian changing his skin, or a leopard changing his spots, as it would be to see these hardened reprobates changing their moral ways.
This passage was given to show Israel that they were without excuse, not with excuse. If they were born evil, had no choice in the matter, or truly could not obey God, they would have an excuse for being evil. In context God was revealing to them the justice of their punishment. “What will thou say when he shall punish thee?... And if thou say in thine heart, wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity… Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil” (Jer. 13:21-22). They rightly deserved punishment because of their habitual and continual disobedience, because of their voluntary and well established custom in doing evil.
To use this passage to say that all sinners, of all times, are incapable of changing their ways, of repenting, or of obeying God, is to severely stretch and twist this passage, to change it’s actual meaning. This verse certainly does not support the idea that all men are incapable of changing their moral character, or that all the disobedient are incapable of obeying God.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 19, 2010 18:03:53 GMT -5
Some object to the idea that repentance is man’s choice which they are capable of making because “Esau, who for one morsal of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears” (Heb. 12:16-17). Does that mean that Esau wanted to repent of selling his birthright but he couldn’t? The answer is no. If Esau had tears over selling his birthright, it is clear that he already repented of selling it. But this passage means that Esau sought his father with tears to repent of the pronounced blessing which Jacob stole, but his father did not repent. He sought repentance from his father with tears. But despite the pleading and tears of Esau, Jacob his father did not change his mind about rejecting him from inheriting the blessing which Jacob had stolen. It is not Esau who is doing the repenting. It is Esau who sought repentance from his father. It was not over the selling of the birthright that Esau repented, but over the loss of the blessing which Esau sought his father to repent of.
There are two different events mentioned in Genesis and in Hebrews. The one was the birthright, the other was the blessing. After Esau sold his birthright to Jacob his brother, Jacob also stole the blessing from his father Isaac. The birthright and the blessing were two different things. The birthright, or “the right of the first born” was a “double portion” of the father’s goods (Deut. 21:17), but the blessing was a pronouncement of blessing from the father (Gen. 27:1-41). Notice the distinction between the birthright and the blessing, “Esau, who for one morsal of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears” (Heb. 12:16-17). Albert Barnes said, “The ‘blessing’ here referred to was not that of the birth-right, which he knew he could not regain, but that pronounced by the father Isaac on him whom he regarded as his first-born son” Albert Barnes (Commentary on Hebrews 12:17, e-sword) It was the loss of the blessing, not the birthright, which gave Esau “tears”. This is what Genesis records, “And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, bless me, even me also, O my father” (Gen. 27:34). “Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?” (Gen. 27:36) “And Esau said unto his father, hast thou but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.” (Gen. 27:38) Esau sought repentance from his father with tears, but the answer he received was, “thy brother came with subtlety and hath taken away thy blessing” (Gen. 27:35). In this way, “he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears” (Heb. 12:17). He “sought” his father to repent “with tears”. The repentance mentioned is not in reference to the selling of the birthright, which Esau lost by choice, but in reference to receiving the blessing from his father, which Jacob stole trickery. The “tears” of Esau mentioned in Hebrews is in reference to “the blessing” not “the birthright”. Genesis does not record Esau weeping over the loss of his birthright which he willingly sold, but it does record Esau weeping over the loss of his blessing which was taken against his will. Whether Esau ever repented of selling his birthright, the scriptures do not say, either in Genesis or anywhere else. But we do know that Isaac did not repent of giving the blessing to Jacob, even though Esau sought him with tears to repent. It is not that Esau could not repent of selling his birthright, but that Esau could not persuade his father to repent about the stolen blessing given to Jacob. Adam Clarke said about the repentance mentioned in Hebrews 12:17 that “the word does not refer here to Esau at all, but to his father, whom Esau could not, with all his tears and entreaties, persuade to reverse what he had done.” Adam Clarke (Commentary on Hebrews 12:17, e-sword) Albert Barnes said, “Way to change his mind,’ That is, no place for repentance ‘in the mind of Isaac,’ or no way to change his mind. It does not mean that Esau earnestly sought to repent and could not, but that when once the blessing had passed the lips of his father, he found it impossible to change it.” Albert Barnes (Commentary on Hebrews 12:17, e-sword).
The whole point of this passage in Hebrews is that we must be careful and take heed, to “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness spring up and trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsal of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears” (Heb. 14:14-17) The usage of the story of Esau, when looked at in context, is to illustrate how we must not forfeit our own blessing to indulge our flesh because there will come a day when we may seek that blessing from God and cannot persuade Him to give it, just as Esau sold his birthright to indulge his flesh and than afterwards could not persuade his father to give him the blessing. It is not a perfect analogy, since Esau choosing to indulge his flesh was not associated with the loss of his father’s blessing, since the birthright was sold by choice and the blessing was stolen by deception, still the point the writer of Hebrews is making is that we can lose our blessing by indulging our flesh, and a day will come when God’s mind will not be changed. This passage does not teach that man’s repentance is not within man’s control and to use it to teach that man’s repentance is without the realm of his control is to misuse and misunderstand this passage entirely. It would also contradict all the many other passages in the Bible, which teach that repentance is in fact within man’s power.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 5, 2010 21:43:48 GMT -5
I'm tired of seeing Calvinists apply Jer. 17:9 to the believer.
The unregenerate are described as having hearts that are “only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5), whose heart is “deceitful… and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9), so that those who are unregenerate cannot say “I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin” (Prov. 20:9). But God promised to give us “a new heart” so that we would keep His commandments (Eze. 11:19-20; 36:26-27). Those who are saved and will see God, who have been regenerated through the knowledge of Jesus Christ, are described as being “pure in heart” (Mat. 5:8), or as having “a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:22). Jesus contrasted the unregenerate in heart with the regenerate in heart when he said, “an evil man out of the evil treasure” of his heart “bringeth forth evil things”, “a good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things” (Matt. 12:35). The defining distinction between the regenerate and the unregenerate is the moral quality or state of their heart and consequently the moral characteristics or conduct of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 5, 2010 15:33:19 GMT -5
There was a Calvinist twisting Jn 6:44 in a debate. He is saying that everyone who is drawn will be raised up. But that is not what the verse says. It says that those who come to Christ have been drawn, and will be raised up. In other words, it is not that everyone who is drawn will be raised up, but that those who come to Christ will be raised up.
Jn. 6:45 gives even more insight as to the drawing, as it says that those who "heard" AND "learn" from the Father "come". To it is not that everyone who is drawn will be raised up, but that those who both "heard" and "learn", those who both are "drawn" and "come" will be raised up.
God is drawing all men to Himself, but not all men will be raised to life, because not all mean "learn" and "come" as the Spirit draws them. God is drawing all men unto Himself, but men resist the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 4, 2010 23:07:53 GMT -5
HAHAHA. The things people say about Pelagius shows a real ignorance and lack of serious study.
Pelagius didn't teach that you can earn salvation by your own efforts, or that you could be saved without the grace of God.
Pelagius said that we are justified "by faith alone" if you read his commentaries on Romans. And if you read his letters, you see that he believed we are saved by the grace and influence of God. He viewed man's free will and God's grace as compatable.
And he rightly rejected the idea that babies are "sinners" or "damned" for a crime that they didn't even commit. Even A. W. Tozer denied that.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 1, 2010 20:07:05 GMT -5
We must consider context in biblical exegesis. Was the Psalm that Peter referred to talking about Judas? Clearly not. The Psalm is plural but Peter modified it to the singular. This is ecbatic, not telic. So when Peter said that the Scripture needed to be fulfilled concerning Judas which the Holy Spirit spoke, he couldn't have been saying that that Scripture was about Judas or that the Holy Spirit spoke it about Judas, but that in application to Judas it needs to be fulfilled.
It would be like me saying, "This Scripture needs to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke, in regards to this message board: The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men". I would be saying that the Holy Spirit spoke that Scripture and that it needs to be fulfilled on this message board.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 1, 2010 1:21:33 GMT -5
Peter was saying that the Scripture, which the Holy Spirit spoke, needs to be fulfilled in regards to Judas.
The Scripture Peter was referring to was that his habituation should be desolate and another should take his place.
This of course was not talking about Judas because the Psalm said "their habituation" while Peter changed it to "his habitation".
But nevertheless, the principle which the Holy Spirit spoke needed to be fulfilled in regards to this situation with Judas, that is, somebody needed to replace him.
Peter was not saying that the Holy Spirit spoke that Scripture about Judas, because then Peter would be lying, but that the Scripture which the Holy Spirit spoke needed to be fulfilled concerning Judas.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 1, 2010 1:14:27 GMT -5
God created us with a free will, so that we could freely choose the good and freely refuse the evil. This was a risk on God's part because with a free will, we are not only capable of creating good, we are also capable of creating evil.
Our choices are our own creations. The faculty of free will actually originates, or creates, choices which did not previously exist. Since sin is a choice, each sinner creates their own sin.
Sin is not something that God created, sin is something that men and angels created.
In fact, God cannot create sin for us, because sin itself is a choice and therefore can only be created by the moral being himself. Likewise sin cannot be inherited or transmitted because sin is a choice and therefore can only be created by the moral being himself.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 24, 2010 18:13:24 GMT -5
Calvinists have taught that Judas was not saved but was “doomed to destruction to fulfill the Scriptures”. However it is worth noting that there was absolutely no prophecy about Judas at all which he had to fulfill. Not a single Old Testament prophecy ever mentioned Judas or Christ’s betrayal. Usually Acts 1:16 is referred to in an attempt to say otherwise, but a closer examination reveals that this is not the case. “Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.” (Acts 1:16). And what scripture needs to be fulfilled? “For it is written in the book of Psalms, let his habituation be desolate, and let no man dwell therin: and his brishoprick let another take” (Acts 1:20). There was no prophecy about Judas’ betrayal that needed to be fulfilled, the scripture that Peter said needed to be fulfilled was that somebody need to take Judas’ place.
The scripture Peter referred to was not a prophecy about Judas, as the original passages speak in the plural but Peter modified them to the singular. Ps. 69:25 says let “their habituation” be desolate, but Peter changes it to “his habituation”. It says “let none dwell in their tents”. Peter was not quoting from a prophecy about Judas, since he had to change the passage to apply to Judas, and since he was actually merging two scriptures together. He references Ps. 69:25 about his habituation being desolate, and references Ps. 109:8 about another taking his office.
What needs to be understood is that in Hebrew culture, they applied scriptures to applicable situations. The scriptures were indeed “fulfilled” in these situations, but not prophetically. They were fulfilled through parallelism. Scriptures were “fulfilled” by Judas through similarity or applicability. They are known as “analogous fulfillments”. Hebrew writers would take Old Testament passages, which were specifically about Old Testament events, and apply them to New Testament events because of similarity. This is done by the Hebrew writer Matthew who applied Hos. 11:1 which talked about God calling Israel out of Egypt and he applies it to Jesus Christ in Matt. 2:15. Jesus also applied Ps. 41:9, which was talking about David’s betrayal by his trusted friend and counselor Ahithephel, and applied it to his own situation with Judas in Jn. 13:18. It was not that these New Testament events were prophetic fulfillments of these Old Testament passages, but that these events did fulfill these passages through similarity or applicability.
Jesus Christ said, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled” (Jn. 17:12). Jesus did not say which scripture it was that was fulfilled, but we know that since there were no prophetic passages regarding Judas in the Old Testament, the scriptural fulfillment Jesus referred to must have been that of fulfillment through similarity or applicability. Regarding the phrase “that it might be fulfilled”, Dr. S. T. Bloomfield said that “this Scriptural expression sometimes means that such a thing so happened that this or that passage would appear quite suitable or applicable to it” Dr. S. T. Bloomfield (The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy by L. D. McCabe, published by BRCCD, p. 86). Moses Stuart said that “the New Testament writers often used Old Testament phraseology, which originally was applied in a very different connection. And they do this because such phraseology expresses, in an apt and forcible manner, the thought which they desired then to convey.” (The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy by L. D. McCabe, published by BRCCD, p. 86). Dr. Edward Robinson said “The phrase is often used to express historical or typical parallelisms.” (The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy by L. D. McCabe, published by BRCCD, p. 87). These passages are known as “ecbatic” as opposed to “telic”. L. D. McCabe said, “The telic use implies purpose, determination, prediction, and foreordination, while the ecbatic use implies only consequence, parallelism, application, or mere illustration.” L. D. McCabe (The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy, published by BRCCD, p. 88)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 24, 2010 18:09:58 GMT -5
I didn't read everything, but I really enjoyed what I read.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 20, 2010 10:08:21 GMT -5
1. Calvinists will quote Jn. 15:16 “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” in regards to individual predestination and salvation. But Jesus was talking in reference to apostleship, not salvation. Jesus already said, “If any man will come after me…” (Matt. 16:24; Lk. 9:23). To “will” means to “to will, have in mind, intend”, “to be resolved or determined, to purpose” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword) Those whom Jesus chose to be Apostles were among those who already chose to come after him. “And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles…” (Lk. 6:13) Jesus chose, out of those who were already his disciples, who would be his apostles. They choose to be his disciples but Jesus chose them to be his apostles. Albert Barnes right understood this and said, “It refers here, doubtless, to his choosing or electing them to be apostles…” Albert Barnes (Commentary on Jn. 15:16) It was common for Christ to talk to his apostles in this manner. He said, “I know whom I have chosen” (Jn. 13:18), “Have I not chosen you twelve…” (Jn. 6:70), and “I have chosen you…” (Jn. 15:19). Jesus did not talk to all of his disciples this way, but only to his twelve apostles.
2. A Calvinist will quote John 1:13 which says, “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” Doesn’t that mean that salvation is not our free will choice? The answer is no. Proper biblical hermeneutics would exclude this interpretation because the immediate context contradicts it. The very verse before it talks about a man’s choice in becoming born again, “But as many as received him, to them he gave right to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name…” (Jn. 1:12). That word “receive” means to "to take, to choose, select” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword). Therefore those who choose Him are granted the right to become sons of God. Being born again, regenerated, or becoming a son of God only occurs after our choice to receive Christ. John 1:13 is referencing our first birth. Our parents decided by their will to come together and have intercourse which resulted in our creation. This was “of blood” and “of the will of flesh” and “of the will of man”. But we were not born again, or brought into a relationship with God, through our parent’s decision to have intercourse. It is not through their will that we are born again. If our parents were Christians, their relationship with God is not hereditary or transmitted to us. That was their choice and if we are going to have a relationship with God, we must choose to. A relationship with God cannot be inherited. We must have a second birth. What is physical is hereditary, but what is spiritual is not. That is why Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (Jn. 3:6). Our parents brought about our first birth by their will, giving us flesh, but God brings about our second birth, bringing us into a relationship with Him. John 1:13 is not saying that our will is not involved in our salvation, which would contradict so many other passages, but is simply saying that the decision of our parents did not give us a relationship with God or produce in us that which occurs at the second birth. We must remember the sound rules of biblical hermeneutics when interpreting the Bible. One verse does not cancel out many other verses. And that a single verse should be interpreted in light of those many others, especially if the single verse isn’t clear but the other verses are.
3. Calvinists apply Romans 3:10 to the converted, when it only applies to the unconverted. "There is none righteous, no, not one" is talking about those who don't know Jesus Christ. The context says that they don't know the way of peace and they don't have the fear of God (3:17-18). Christians know the way of peace and Christians have the fear of God. “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Pet. 4:18) Those who are saved are called “righteous” in opposition to being “ungodly” or a “sinner”.
The list of misused Scriptures goes on and on. Romans 4, 5, 7, 9, are all misused and misunderstood as are many others.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 18, 2010 17:20:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 16, 2010 20:10:59 GMT -5
Great report!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 16, 2010 20:03:39 GMT -5
1 John clearly states the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil is that the former are righteous and the latter are unrighteous, that the former keep God's commandments and the latter break God's commandments.
I've heard worse. These preachers are of the devil. They don't attack sin, they attack holiness. Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 10, 2010 9:54:26 GMT -5
My understanding is that the atonement is not the penalty of the law, but a substitute for the penalty of the law, which fulfills the purpose of our penalty so that the execution of our penalty can be remitted in forgiveness.
The atonement is not equivalent to the penalty of the law in nature or in duration, since the penalty of the law is eternal hell. But the atonement is far more valuable than if the penalty of the law was executed upon sinners, because of the sinless character of Christ and because of the divine dignity and person of Christ.
The severity of the penalty of the law declares the value of the law. The law of God is so valuable, because it protects the well-being of everyone, that the only adequate punishment is eternal hell. If God is going to set aside our penalty in forgiveness, He must find a substitute for the penalty of the law, which will declare the value of the law, or else He would be unjust towards His law. The atonement of Christ is of such great value, because of Christ's sinless character and divine dignity, that it can adequately substitute the penalty of the law. Because of the atonement, God can set aside the penalty of the law without dishonoring the law itself, because the value of the law is revealed through the atonement of Christ in an even greater way than the execution of the penalty upon sinners would have.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 8, 2010 20:51:16 GMT -5
God's universe of moral beings consists of both men and angels. Both men and angels are capable of sin and therefore both men and angels are under God's moral government, they are both subject to moral obligation which they have the free will ability to violate. Therefore God must impress both the minds of men and the minds of angels with His regard for His law, if He is going to uphold the authority and influence of His law over them.
Consider this:
God is called the “Lord of hosts”, which means He rules over many moral beings (Amos 4:13). The moral government of God is not limited to mankind. “I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts have I commanded” (Isa. 45:12). This means that they too are under the moral government of God. The hosts of heaven cannot even be numbered (Jer. 33:22; Heb. 12:22) which means the moral government of God is massive.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 8, 2010 20:46:26 GMT -5
It is also important to distinguish between public justice and retributive justice. Retributive justice is treating every moral being according to their merits and demerits. Public justice is promoting the well-being of all through issuing and maintaining precepts.
The atonement certainly did not satisfy retributive justice, because the sinner is guilty and is allowed to live, while Christ was innocent and was put to death. But the atonement did satisfy public justice because it maintains the moral law of God throughout His universe, by expressing His regard for His law, just as the execution of the penalty upon sinners would have.
The atonement justifies God in setting aside or remitting the execution of the penalty upon sinners, because the purpose of executing penalties (public justice) has been satisfied by the substituted means of the atonement.
God can be just (He satisfies public justice) while also being the justifier of sinners (remitting their penalty in forgiveness).
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 8, 2010 20:29:23 GMT -5
Yes Paul is clearly saying that the atonement was needed for God to be justified in forgiving us, implying that God would not be justified in forgiving us without an atonement.
If God was going to pardon (justify) mankind, He needed to be just (to His law, Himself, and His universe), so that He is both just and the justifier.
Just to His Law: If God merely forgave us by setting aside our penalty, without an atonement, God would be publicly dishonoring His law. When a law is violated, it is publicly vindicated through the execution of penalty, or in liue of penalty, through the atonement. The atonement declares the value of the law just as the executed penalty would have, and therefore God can pardon mankind by withholding our penalty, and still be just towards His law. But if God merely forgave us without an atonement, what would He be telling His universe except that the precept is not valuable enough to uphold, or that the sanctions were wrong or too severe to execute.
Just to Himself: If God merely forgave us by setting aside our penalty, without an atonement, His character could be questioned by His entire universe. Is God a liar? He said the soul that sinned would die. Is God really holy? He doesn't even uphold His holy law. Does God care about His universe? He let's sinners go unpunished. These would be the impressions and questions His universe would have about His character, if He pardoned us without an atonement.
To His universe: the moral law is good for everyone, and the law is upheld through the execution of penalty. If God's universe get's the impression that you can break the law and get away with it, they would be encouraged to transgression. The execution of penalties is therefore necessary, to prevent and discourage transgression, through a public display of God's regard for His law. If God is going to set aside the execution of our penalty in forgiveness, He must prevent and discourage transgression through a public display of His regard for His law through another means. That means it the atonement. Now that the atonement has been made for our sin, God can be just to the universe while at the same time pardoning us.
The atonement was necessary to publicly declare to God's universe His righteous means of forgiving sinners, so that He can be just to His law, Himself, and His universe, while at the same time justifying or pardoning sinners by withholding or setting aside our penalty in forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 8, 2010 15:32:01 GMT -5
If Jesus could live without sin, but we cannot, then Jesus is not really our example and we cannot really follow Him.
And if Jesus could live without sin, and we cannot, then He was not really "made in all things liken unto His brethren" as the Bible says.
And if we could not have avoided sinning, how could we possibly feel convicted or regretful? And how could God justifiably hold us accountable and punish us? Sin is punishable because sin is avoidable.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 8, 2010 14:52:09 GMT -5
Albert Barnes on "The Atonement" is pretty good, but one of the best is "Essay on the Scriptural Doctrine of Atonement" by Caleb Burge.
Also, truthinheart.com publishes "The Moral Government Presentation of the Atonement" which is a compilation of authors such as Charles Finney, Jonathon Edwards Jr, John Morgan, Henry Cowles, John Miley, Moses Stuart, Asa Mahan, and Nathan Beman. It is my favorite volume.
I hope to write a full book on the atonement soon.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 4, 2010 17:32:52 GMT -5
The Bible says that Jesus Christ became a man, partaking of man's fallen nature, so that he would be subjected to death. The body Jesus was born with was not a glorified body, but a physically depraved body that was capable of dying. The human body, apart from the fruit of the tree of life, is depraved and subjected to death. It was necessary for Jesus' body to be depraved or subjected to death in order for him to die for our sins, thus Jesus had to take upon himself our fallen nature in order to atone for our sins.
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakes of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same: that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil... For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. WHerefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his bretrhen..." Heb. 2:14, 16-17
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 28, 2010 20:29:21 GMT -5
It seems God wants us to prove our character, by being faithful until death, before access to the tree of life will be granted to anyone again.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 28, 2010 20:28:23 GMT -5
I figured that since the fall, mankind has been put into a probation period, so that if we live our lives faithful in holiness until we die, then God will allow us to eat from the tree of life again, since Revelation says blessed are those who keep God's commandments, that they might enter through the gates into the city and have right to the tree of life...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 27, 2010 11:45:33 GMT -5
Physical death can't always be a punishment, since animals die and they never sinned, babies die and they haven’t sinned, and Christians die and they have been saved from punishment. Death is a punishment for the wicked but a reward for the righteous, because the former goes to hell but the latter goes to heaven...
There are three types of death: physical, spiritual, and eternal. Physical death is a consequence of Adam's sin, spiritual death is a consequence of our sin, and eternal death is the punishment for our sin.
Physical death in Adam is not a punishment for our wickedness, anymore that physical life in Christ is a reward for our righteousness. The resurrection is a consequence of the atonement, just as death was a consequence of Adam's sin.
If the head of a home is fired by his employer for his bad work, his whole family suffers from the lose of income. The employer is not punishing the family for the bad work of the father, but the family is suffering the natural consequences of the fathers bad work.
Likewise, Adam is the head of our race. He was kicked out of his employment in the Garden where the tree of life was. Now the whole family of mankind suffers from this lose. God is not punishing all of mankind for Adam's sin, but all of mankind is suffering the natural consequences of Adam's sin.
When God placed Adam in the Garden, He told him that he could eat of any tree that was in the Garden except for the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:16-17). This means that man was allowed to eat from the tree of life. If man was created necessarily immortal, there would be no reason for the tree of life to be in the Garden. But the tree of life was in the Garden and it must have been a reason for this, it must be that Adam was created mortal, or at least conditionally immortal. So long as Adam continued to obey God, He would be allowed to continue to eat from the tree of life and therefore continue to live. His immortality was conditional upon his continued obedience. Food is sustenance which we all consume to sustain our body, but the fruit of the tree of life is the missing ingredient that would perfectly and forever sustain life. Once Adam sinned, He was cut off from this life sustaining sustenance (Gen. 3:22). As a natural consequence of Adam’s sin, we all suffer physical death. Even innocent infants suffer physical death as victims of Adam’s sin.
Irenaeus said, “By means of our first parents, we were all brought into bondage by being made subject to death.” (c.180, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 271, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
Dr. Wiggers said, "Here it is to be remarked that, with the fathers [Early Church Fathers before Augustine], as Erasmus has suggested, the expression to die or to die in Adam, is synonymous with being driven out of Paradise, because they who were driven out of Paradise, were no more allowed to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. At least this is the common meaning. For us to have died in Adam, is nothing else than what Methodius, in a fragment in Epiphanius (Haer. 64), thus expresses, "We were driven out of Paradise in the first father." (Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism, pg 399-400)
Gordon C. Olson said, "The tree of life that was doubtless endowed with a mysterious ability to sustain perfect bodily health, without the slightest decay or deterioration” (Essentials of Salvation,.pg.82) He also said, “The ‘tree of life’ in the midst of the most pleasant garden where man was invited to dwell must be suggestive of something. I suggest that it may have been the means of keeping man’s physical body and soul in vigor and to prevent decay and death. This is suggested also in Ge 3:24, where man is prevented from taking of the tree of life after the fall. In vs 22, the reason is stated, ‘lest he…eat and live forever.” Not, presumably, that if he had eaten one time from it, he would have lived forever, but lest he keep on eating from it and thus keep on living forever.” Gordon Olson (The Foreknowledge of God, pg 25)
It is very worth noting that the "wages of sin is death" is contrasted with "eternal life" (Rom. 6:23). Therefore the death spoken of is eternal death. Eternal death is the punishment for our sin. the "wages of sin is death" cannot be talking about physical death, because Christians have been saved from the wages of their sin and yet they still physically die.
Here is a logical syllogism:
- Jesus saved us from the punishment for our sins - Jesus saved us from eternal death, not from physically dying - Therefore eternal death is the punishment for our sins
Charles Finney wrote, "If natural death be the penalty of God's law, the righteous, who are forgiven, should not die a natural death... If natural death be the penalty of God's law, there is no such thing as forgiveness, but all must actually endure the penalty." He went on to say, "the penal sanction of the law of God is endless death, or that state of endless suffering..." (Finney's Systematic Theology, published by Bethany House, p. 203-204)
The wicked “shall go away into everlasting punishment…” (Matt. 25:46). “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thes. 1:9). Ray Comfort said, “What then is the punishment for sin? It is everlasting damnation.” (God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, published by Bridge-Logos, p. 120)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 26, 2010 23:55:35 GMT -5
Biblical Predestination
"What about predestination?” The answer is simple. Many have turned an issue of simplicity into an issue of complexity. The reason that many fall into serious error on this topic is because they fail to consider the circumstances and culture which Paul was writing in. Historical context is a necessary consideration in proper hermeneutics. Men read the writings of Paul through the eyes of the Reformers rather than through the eyes of the Early Church.
The Jews were considered the “chosen people”. Many of the Jews were outraged at the thought that God would seek after the Gentiles (Lk. 4:25-29), not remembering that they as a nation were intended to be a light and a blessing to all nations (Gen. 22:18; 26:4; Isa. 42:6; 49:6; Acts 13:47). Predestination is God’s predetermined plan for nations. God predetermined to have a holy people from both the Jews and the Gentiles. The question during the time of the Early Church was not “has God predestined individuals?” but “has God also to the Gentiles given repentance unto life”? (Acts 11:18) It was not that God predestined individuals to be saved or damned but that God also offers salvation to the Gentiles so that they too are chosen by God. God’s heart for the entire world and all nations is seen in the atonement (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 2:2) and in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15).
Paul’s specific ministry was to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17-18; Gal. 2:7; Eph. 3:8). That is why we see Paul confirming to the Church of Ephesus that “He has chosen us” (Eph. 1:4) because that Church was made up of Jews and Greeks (Acts 19:17). The Jews were not only chosen by God, but also the Gentiles were. "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery;... Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister,..., that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." (Eph 3:1-9) In Eph. 2:11-19, Paul told the Gentile believers that God brought them into the commonwealth of Israel, whereas before they were alienated and were far off, now they are brought in by the blood of Christ. Christ removed the wall of separation which was the ordinances of the Law of Moses, such as the one which required circumcision, so that God can make twain one new man of both Jew and Gentile. Now the Gentiles are fellow citizens with the saints and the household of God. The election of Jews and Gentiles is a major theme all throughout Ephesians.
Paul taught that salvation is “not to that only which is of the law” which are the Jews, “but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham” which are the Gentile believers, so that Abraham “is the father of us all” both Jew and Gentile (Rom. 4:16). Since Paul’s ministry was to the Gentiles we see Paul’s extensive defense of the election of the Gentiles all throughout Romans, especially in Romans 9, 10, and 11. God was not calling the Jews only. “Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (Rom. 9:24). Salvation was now made available to the Gentiles. “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith” (Rom. 9:30). In Romans, Paul thoroughly justifies God in his election of the Gentiles and says that the Jews have no reason to complain to God. Both Jews and Gentiles have been chosen to God for salvation. God’s election of the Gentiles was always a part of God’s plan. “As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people, and her beloved, which was not beloved.” (Hosea 2:23; Rom. 9:25; 1 Pet. 2:10) God’s heart had always been for all people; God has always planned to bless all nations (Gen. 22:18).
In Ephesians Paul continually uses the words “us” and “we” in relation to being chosen by God. He never uses the words “I” or “you”. That is because election is national, not individual. The Jews and Gentiles were chosen people, but God did not decide which Jews or which Gentiles would choose to be saved and to become part of His elect or precious people. Jed Smock said, “Election includes all Jews and Gentiles potentially, but no man unconditionally.” Jed Smock, (Debate on Calvinism, Unconditional Election, Jed Smock vs. Peter Allison, produced by Destiny Ministries). Many of the Jews thought that they were unconditionally elected to salvation because they were children of Abraham (Matt. 3:9). Neither salvation nor damnation is hereditary but requires personal choice. The cutting off of Israel and the grafting in of the Gentiles was not unconditional but conditional. The Gentiles were grafted in because they believed but Israel was cut off because they believed not (Rom. 11:20-23). God “hath… mercy on whom he will” (Rom. 9:18). God has chosen to have mercy on those who choose to repent and believe, while God has chosen to condemn those who sin and refuse to repent. “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matt. 22:14). That is because God only chooses to save those who obey the call. Men make themselves vessels of honor by choosing to purge themselves of their sins (2 Tim. 2:21) or if they persist in their sin, God, though He does it through “longsuffering”, makes them into vessels of wrath because they have fitted themselves for destruction (Jer. 18:4; Rom. 9:21-22). God does this through “longsuffering” because He wanted them to repent (2 Pet. 3:9).
Israel had marred itself and fitted itself for destruction, by persisting in sin and ultimately rejecting the Messiah. Therefore God made them a vessel to receive His wrath. Israel cannot object to this since the potter has power over the clay. God can use His own wise judgment and just discretion in appointing some to eternal life (believers) and others to damnation (unbelievers). God, the potter, was not at fault for the marred clay, since God originally intended to make Israel a different type of vessel. “And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O House of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? Saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel” (Jer. 18:4-5). God had an original plan but had to change His plans when the clay was marred. Making Israel a vessel of wrath was not God’s plan from the beginning. God made Israel a vessel for wrath but it was only because of their sinful choices. John Wesley said, “The vessels of wrath - Those who had moved his wrath by still rejecting his mercy. Fitted for destruction - By their own willful and final impenitence.” John Wesley (Commentary on Romans 9:22) Pelagius said, “By filling up the quota of their sins they became vessels worthy of wrath, and by their own doing they became vessels prepared for destruction.” Pelagius (Pelagius' Commentary on St Paul's Epistle to the Romans, published by Oxford University Press, 1998p. 119)
Regarding the words predestination and election, Jed Smock said, “Biblically these terms are primarily associated with the call of the Jews and Gentiles to join together, ‘to make in himself of twain one new man (the Church), so making peace,’ between these two estranged people. (Eph 2:15) These terms should not be associated with some fictitious Calvinistic notion, that God unconditionally elected before Creation certain individuals to eternal salvation and reprobated the rest of humanity to eternal destruction.” Jed Smock (The Mystery of Christ Revealed, Published by The Campus Ministry USA)
When God repented of creating mankind when He saw how they were continually choosing to sin, this implies that had God known they were going to sin He would not have created them (Gen. 6:5-6). This also explains why God did not create hell with mankind in mind (Matt. 25:41). Contrary to what John Calvin taught, that many men were “made and formed” John Calvin, (Commentaries on the epistle of Paul the apostle to the Romans, Edited by John Owen, 1849 Edition, p. 368) for damnation, mankind was created for the pleasure of God (Rev. 4:11) and God takes no pleasure in sin or in the damnation of the wicked (Gen. 6:5-6; Eze. 33:11). Therefore mankind was created to live holy not sinful, to have a relationship with God, not to be damned. God did not create mankind for sin nor did God create us for hell.
God’s plan from the beginning was for Jews and Gentiles to live holy. God “hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love…” (Eph. 1:4) Holiness is the moral quality of a person’s state of will and love is a personal choice. Therefore our election is in no way contrary to, or independent of our will, but our will must be involved. God did not choose for us to be holy or loving despite our choice, since this is an impossible contradiction, but He chose for us to be holy and loving by our choice.
The call to convert from death to life, from sin to holiness, from damnation to salvation, is a call which is made to all. Biblical predestination, when it is properly understood, is not at all contrary to the free will or natural ability of man, nor is it contrary to the biblical truth that salvation requires man’s free choice. Election does not coerce anyone to obey the Gospel; neither does election hinder anyone from obeying the Gospel. The Gospel is free to be obeyed by both Jews and Gentiles. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Pet. 1:17). God did not arbitrarily choose from all of eternity a few for Heaven and most for hell. God’s decree regarding man’s salvation is “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16). He has left it up to our own choice.
Some will ask, “But didn’t Jesus say you have not chosen me but I have chosen you”? Yes Jesus said that in Jn. 15:16 but he was talking about apostleship, not salvation. Jesus chose, out of those who were already his disciples, who would be his apostles. They choose to be his disciples but Jesus chose them to be his apostles. It is a very poor interpretation to apply this verse to salvation as it would ignore the basic hermeneutic principle of context.
Someone might ask “Why is one person saved while another person is not?” Some people have blamed God. Martin Luther said, “As to why some are touched by the law and others not, so that some receive and others scorn the offer of grace...[this is the] hidden will of God, Who, according to His own counsel, ordains such persons as He wills to receive and partake of the mercy preached and offered." Martin Luther (Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, translated by J. I. Packer & Johnston, published by Revell, 1957 Edition, p. 169). In other words, though they are invited, it is ultimately not their choice but God’s. The reason some are saved and some are not, according to Luther, is not because some receive the Gospel and others reject it. The reason is because God is not sincere in His offer and invitation, but has secretly willed some men to embrace the Gospel and some men to reject it. This would make God responsible, not only for all the repentance and faith in the world, but also responsible for all the impenitence and unbelief in the world! Why would God even invite them if their acceptance of the invitation is not even their choice?
John Wesley charged Calvinism’s doctrine of predestination with “making vain all preaching, and tending to destroy holiness, the comfort of religion and zeal for good works, yea, the whole Christian revelation by involving it in fatal contradictions… a doctrine full of blasphemy… it represents our blessed Lord as a hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity, as mocking his helpless creatures by offering what he never intends to give, by staying one thing and meaning another.” John Wesley (Sermon Entitled Free Grace)
God calls all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30-31) and He rightly blames them if they do not repent (Matt. 11:20; 23:37; Mk. 6:6; Lk. 7:30; 13:34; 14:17-18; 19:14; 19:27; Jn. 5:40; Rev. 2:21).
The Bible says that God “sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come” (Matt. 22:3). An invitation requires a response of the will. Those who are not saved are not saved because they “would not come”, not because they were not called or because God didn’t want them to come. God was sincere in His invitation. He wanted them to come and they were capable of doing so, otherwise they would not have been invited, but they were free not to come if they so choose. God has done His part in their salvation, but they have not done their part. As Jesus said, “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (Jn. 5:40). They did not receive life because they did not “choose” or “determine” (Strong’s Definitions, e-sword), because they did not “resolve” or “purpose” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword) Man is a free moral being and therefore God cannot save anyone against their will. “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!”(Lk. 13:34).
Salvation is a gift that God offers to all to accept and receive (Jn. 1:11-12; Lk. 14:16-24; Rom 5:18). If men who hear the Gospel do not accept God’s offer of salvation, it is not because they couldn’t but because they wouldn’t (Matt. 11:20-21; 23:37, Mk. 6:6; 7:30; 13:34; 14:17-18; 19:14; 19:27; Lk. 14:16-24; Jn. 5:40; Acts 7:51; 17:27; Rev. 2:21). Though God offers salvation to all men, many men choose to reject God’s gracious offer (Isa. 65:2; Lk. 7:30; 14:16-24; Jn. 1:10-11; Rom. 10:21; 2 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17). To their own damnation many men choose to resist His grace (Gen. 6:3; Matt. 23:37; Lk. 7:30, 13:34; Acts 7:51).
God calls all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30-31), therefore God wants all men everywhere to be saved. He wouldn’t call them to repentance if He didn’t want them to repent. The reason some are saved by the Gospel and some are not, is not because of predestination but because of free will. It is not that God unconditionally elected the one to be saved and unconditionally reprobated the other to be damned. It is not that God regenerated one so that they will have the ability to repent while he did not regenerate the other to have the ability to do so. It is that God has created men free and some choose to repent and believe while others do not. Augustine admitted that, “They that would not come [to Christ], ought not to impute it to another, but only to themselves, because, when they are called, it was in the power of their free will to come.” (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 63, published by Truth in Heart)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 17, 2010 2:07:00 GMT -5
In order to understand the atonement, we must understand the punishment for our sins, that is, we must understand the penalty of the law. The penalty for our sins is eternal hell fire. The wicked “shall go away into everlasting punishment…” (Matt. 25:46). “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thes. 1:9). Ray Comfort said, “What then is the punishment for sin? It is everlasting damnation.” (God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, published by Bridge-Logos, p. 120) The penalty for our sins is eternal death. Some have supposed physical death to be the penalty for our sin. This is a mistake since even infants die before they have a chance to choose sin, and since even Saints physically die though they have been saved from the penalty of their sins. It is not physical death which is the penalty for our sin, it is eternal death! That is why the “wages of sin is death” is contrasted with “eternal life” (Rom. 6:23).
The threatened penalty of the law is meant to be a deterrent to sin, operating as a moral influence upon the minds of all free moral agents, which is why God publicly announces the penalties for violating His law. That is also why the devil brought doubt to the minds of Adam and Eve regarding the penalty when he wanted them to sin (Gen. 3:1, 4). It is important for us to understand why the penalty of the law (eternal death) is executed upon the wicked. God does not execute the penalty of the law for any personal or vindictive reasons (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10). God says “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth…” (Eze. 18:32), and “For he doth not afflict willingly…” (Lam. 3:32). God, in His love, is personally reluctant to execute penalties, and He takes no personal pleasure in it. Therefore there must be another reason why He executes them. God in His love not only cares for the transgressor, but also for the community sinned against. Therefore the penalty of the law is executed for governmental reasons (Dan. 6:14-16; Esther 1:15-22; Ecc. 8:11; Rom. 11:20-22; 1 Cor. 10:5-6; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 1:7). “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecc. 8:11). It is the execution of the sentence against evil which discourages men from doing the evil. If the sentence against the evil is not executed, they are encouraged to do it. This shows the governmental reasons for executing penalty – to discourage disobedience. And it shows the governmental problems with forgiveness or remitting the penalty – it would encourage disobedience.
In the story of queen Vasti, she publicly disobeyed a command from the king (Esther 1:12). But her disobedience was not merely against the king, it was against the good of the entire kingdom. There was a governmental concern amongst the Princes. “Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the providences of the king Ahasuerus, for this done of the queen shall come abroad unto all the women, and that they shall despite their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, the King Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not” (Esther 1:16-17).
Disobedience is a public example which would encourage others to do likewise. To disobey the law is to endanger the well-being of an entire community. Therefore the public example of punishment is necessary, to counteract the public example of disobedience. Whereas, the public example of disobedience would encourage law-breaking, and thereby endanger the well-being of a community, the public example of punishment would discourage law-breaking, and thereby promote the well-being of the community. Just as the precepts of law are necessary for the well-being of a community, the sanctions of the law are a governmental necessary which are necessary for the well-being of a community, because the sanctions are what support the precepts.
The governmental purpose in executing penalties is clearly seen in the story of Daniel and the lions den. “Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him. Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, that no decree nor statue which the king establishes may be changed. Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of the lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee” (Dan. 6:14-16).
Nothing could be any clearer than that king Darius executed the penalty of the law, not because he was personally vindictive or unmerciful, but out of a governmental concern. The strength and stability of his government had always resisted upon the certainty his subjects had of the penalty. If the certainty of the penalty falls into question by his subjects, the strength and stability of the government is endangered. It was not that the king had any personal feelings towards Daniel which he was trying to gratify in his punishment, but rather, we see the opposite. The king was fond of Daniel and was “sore displeased” at the very thought of punishing him. He “set his heart” to deliver Daniel, but found no solution to his governmental problem. It is not that the king’s wrath needed to be satisfied, but that the king’s law needed to be vindicated and upheld. Darius must be viewed, not as an offended individual, but as a king with a law and a government.
God is called the “Lord of hosts”, which means He rules over many moral beings (Amos 4:13). The moral government of God is not limited to mankind. “I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts have I commanded” (Isa. 45:12). This means that they too are under the moral government of God. The hosts of heaven cannot even be numbered (Jer. 33:22; Heb. 12:22) which means the moral government of God is massive. We can see why the penalty of the law serves a very important purpose in God’s moral government.
God must publicly declare, display, or manifest His regard for His law in order to maintain its authority and influence throughout His moral government, in order to keep it from falling into contempt amongst all of His countless subjects. The awfulness of crime and the value of the law are shown in the severity of punishment which is executed. Whenever a Ruler executes the penalty of the law upon transgressors, He is showing the rest of His subjects His sacred regard for His law and His care for their well-being. The execution of penalties is meant to be a public example to deter others from doing likewise. “But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as ye also lusted” (1 Cor. 10:5-6). “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Cor. 10:11). “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrown, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly” (2 Pet. 2:6). “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal life” (Jude 1:7).
God’s moral government is full of moral agents whose wills are moved or influenced by truths and motives being presented to their minds. Therefore if God is going to maintain His authority and the authority of His law, in order to promote the well-being of His universe, He must manifest to the minds of His subjects His regard for His law. He does this either through the execution of penalty or through a substituted measure. This is done lest His law falls into contempt and His subjects are encouraged to disobey.
Thomas W. Jenkyn said, “The suffering of a sinner, of one who transgresses the law, are right and good for the ends of the government which we are members. The penalty is inflicted, not for the mere sake of putting the delinquent to pain, nor of gratifying the private revenge of a ruler, but to secure and promote the public ends of good government. These ends are to prevent others from transgressing; by giving, to all the subjects, a decided and clear demonstration of the dignity of the law, and a tangible proof of the evil of crime.” (The Extent of the Atonement, p. 144)
It is very important to understand the motive God has in executing penalties because that is the very same reason that God required the atonement. The atonement is a substitute for our penalty, designed to accomplish its purpose. If God executes penalties to satisfy some unmerciful or vindictive spirit in Himself, then that is why He required the atonement. But that was the idea of sacrifices for the pagan gods, not the God of the Bible. God executes penalties for the governmental purpose of sustaining His law and therefore that is the same reason God required the atonement of Christ as a substitute for the penalty of sinners. It is not that God’s wrath needed to be satisfied, since God is merciful and can turn away from His wrath. It is that God’s law needed to be vindicated and upheld, since the good of His universe depended upon this.
The problem of mere forgiveness (remitting penalty) is that the governmental purpose of penalty would be unfulfilled or unsatisfied. Forgiveness without atonement would encourage rebellion and cause the law to fall into contempt amongst God’s subjects. Forgiving the disobedience of mankind without the atonement would weaken and dishonor the law throughout the moral universe. Therefore God has governmental reasons in requiring atonement, in order to solve His governmental problems of forgiveness. The atonement must substitute the execution of our penalty in order to satisfy the purpose of our penalty. That way our penalty can be remitted without the governmental problems that mere forgiveness would have caused
Gregory of Nazianzus said, “Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the son of God?” (yr 330-390) (The Truth Shall Make You Free by Gordon Olson, Published by Bible Research Corp, p. 99)
Charles Finney said, “The atonement is a governmental expedient to sustain law without the execution of its penalty to the sinner.” (The Oberlin Evangelist; July 30, 1856; On the Atonement, p. 2)
God must either “shew his wrath” (Rom. 9:22), or through the atonement “declare his righteousness” (Rom. 3:25). To “shew” means to “to show”, “demonstrate”, “prove”, “manifest”, and “display” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword). To “declare” means to “demonstrate”, to give “proof”, to give “manifestation”, to give “sign” or “evidence” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword). To show implies the observer. To declare implies the hearer. Who is the recipient of these manifestations of God’s character? Who does God show His wrath to, or declare is righteousness to? It is the moral beings of His universe. It is their minds which are impressed with the character of God, either through His wrath being executed upon the wicked, or in lieu of this, the suffering and death of Christ on behalf of our sins. “…Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation…” (Rom. 3:24-25). Christ has been “set forth” means to “manifest”, “display”, “put forth” “point out” “show” “demonstrate”, and “prove” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword), before all the minds of God’s subjects, His righteousness in forgiving us of our sins. John Wesley said, “Whom God hath set forth - Before angels and men” (Commentary on Romans 3:25)
For what purpose are these demonstrations put before moral beings? Why are these manifestations given to their minds? It must be to uphold His law and maintain His government. Inflicting suffering for disobedience naturally discourages others from disobedience, and it naturally encourages others to obedience. The showing forth of His wrath, or the demonstration of His righteousness through the atonement, is absolutely necessary for God’s moral government in the Universe. Albert Barnes said that in Christ, “God had retained the integrity of his character as a moral governor; that he had shown a due regard to his Law”. (Commentary on Romans 3:26)
The idea of the atonement is that it substitutes our penalty of hell, fulfilling the purpose of our penalty, so that our penalty can be remitted (Heb. 9:22). The atonement is “to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins…To declare, I say at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” (Rom. 3:25-26). God must be just to His universe by discouraging rebellion, just to His law by maintaining its authority and influence, and just to Himself by manifesting His true character, if He is going to set aside the penalty of hell that sinners deserve in justifying him. If God pardoned or justified without atonement, it would be unjust to His universe because sin is not discouraged, unjust to His law because it is not being honored or vindicated, and unjust to God because His character would be questioned.
The purpose of executing penalties is not mere retribution. That is why the suffering and death of Christ could be a substitute for our penalty. If the only objective of penalty was retribution, Jesus Christ would not have provided a substitute for our penalty. He was innocent and therefore did not deserve to be treated the way He was. The atonement could not have possibly satisfied retributive justice. The objective of penalties is public justice. God maintains His law by manifesting to all His subjects His sacred regard for His law. Since the atonement is an alternative, replacement, or substitute for our penalty, it must fulfill the purpose of our penalty, otherwise forgiveness or remission would be unsafe. Though the atonement did not and could not have satisfied retributive justice, since Christ was innocent, the atonement did satisfy public justice, since God’s regard for His law is manifested and therefore its authority and influence is maintained.
While the penalty for our sins is eternal death, the suffering and death of Christ on the cross takes the place of our penalty. Jonathon Edwards said, “The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution.” (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 5-6) Albert Barnes said, “His sufferings were in the place of the penalty, not the penalty itself. They were a substitution for the penalty, and were, therefore, strictly and properly vicarious, and were not the identical sufferings which the sinner would himself have endured.” (Commentary on Galatians 3:13) He also said, “The atonement is something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself would. It is instead of punishment. It is something which will make it proper for the lawgiver to suspend or remit the literal execution of the penalty of the law, because the object or end of that penalty has been secured, or because something has been substituted for that which will answer the same purpose.” (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 244-145.)
The suffering of Christ was a substitute for the punishment of sinners; it was an alternative to the damnation of our race. His voluntary suffering takes the place of the punishment of the guilty. His suffering and death is an adequate substitute for our eternal punishment because it reveals to the universe God’s regard for His law in an even greater way than our penalty would have. Since the purpose of our penalty has now been fulfilled through this substitute or alternative measure, our penalty itself can be remitted by God’s grace and mercy. While the atonement is a substitute for our penalty so that our penalty can be remitted, in order to actually have your penalty remitted you must repent of your sins (Lk. 24:47). Jesus Christ shed his blood “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28), but after the atonement sinners must still repent of their sins “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Just as it would not be safe to the public for God to pardon without atonement, so also it would not be safe for God to pardon without repentance. Therefore the conditions of God’s forgiveness are not only an atonement but also repentance.
Contrary to Reformed or Calvinistic Theology, the Bible says that the atonement of Christ was made for everyone (Isa. 45:22; 53:6; 55:1; Eze. 18:30-32; Matt. 23:37; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 2:10-11; Jn. 1:29; 3:16; Rom. 2:11; 5:15; Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:11; 4:10; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Jn. 2:2; Rev. 3:20). “But we see Jesus, who was made little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). However, this does not mean that every individual is saved. “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2). Yet we know that the whole world is not saved from God’s wrath. The atonement of Christ does not automatically or unconditionally save anyone. That is why after the atonement we have the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18) and why even after the atonement we are to tell men “be ye reconciled unto God” (2 Cor. 5:20). The atonement was one necessary condition in the process of reconciliation, but man’s conversion is also necessary for reconciliation between God and man. To be saved, men need to obey the Gospel (2 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17). The blood of Christ does not cover men if they continue in their sins (Heb. 10:26-31). Only those who are converted, who forsake their sins, have their sins covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. Some are saved by the atonement and some are not saved by the atonement, not because the atonement was limited, but because some men choose repent and believe while others choose not to. Paul said, “God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Tim. 4:10). “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it” (Heb. 4:2). The atonement does not automatically or unconditionally save anyone.
Those who believe that the atonement automatically and unconditionally saves men, believe that in the atonement Jesus Christ “took our penalty” or “took our punishment”. But the penalty of the law is “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Eze. 18:4, 20). That is retributive justice. The death that occurred in atonement was not of “the soul that sinneth”. Therefore the atonement was not the penalty of the law or retributive justice.
A Calvinist will argue that Jesus Christ suffered our penalty, or took our punishment, because the Bible says “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). But what is the curse of the law? Did the law of God ever demand for sinners to be crucified? No. In the civil government of Israel, the severest punishment of the law was stoning. God never crucified sinners. Under the moral government of God, the severe punishment of the law is eternal hell. That is why the text says that Jesus didn’t suffer “a curse”, not suffered “the curse of the law”. The curse of the law is what we are saved from; a curse is what he endured. The curse of the law was substituted with a curse. Paul did not say that Jesus saved us from “the curse of the law” by suffering “the curse of the law”, but that he saved us from “the curse of the law” by suffering “a curse”. Jesus Christ saved us from the curse of eternal hell, by suffering the curse of hanging on the tree. His curse substitutes our curse, so that our curse can be avoided. By Jesus suffering the curse of crucifixion, of hanging on the tree, we now are saved from the curse of the law, which is eternal damnation.
Since our punishment is eternal hell (Matt. 25:46; 2 Thes. 1:9) it cannot be literally said that Jesus Christ took our punishment. It would be unjust for God to punish the innocent at all (Prov. 17:15). And since it would be unjust to punish the same sins twice, if Jesus was punished for our sins, justice would demand that the whole world be saved! Nobody that Jesus died for could possible go to hell for their sin. This view of the atonement has lead to the errors of universalism, limited atonement, unconditional salvation, and once saved always saved. These conclusions cannot be logically denied if the premise is accepted that Jesus Christ took our punishment or was punished for our sins.
Charles Finney said that “it would not only be unjust, but it is impossible with God to punish an innocent moral agent at all. Punishment implies guilt. An innocent being may suffer, but he cannot be punished. Christ voluntarily suffered ‘the just for the unjust.’ He had a right to exercise this self-denial; and as it was by his own voluntary consent, no injustice was done to any one. (Lectures on Systematic Theology, published by BRCCD, p. 299)
Justice demands that punishment only be inflicted upon the sinful. That is why those who hold to the view that Jesus Christ was punished also hold to the view that Jesus Christ, through imputation, became sinful. Just as they believe that babies are sinful through the imputation of Adam’s sin, so they believe Jesus became sinful through the imputation of our sin. Martin Luther said that “of all sinners” Jesus became “the greatest.” (On the Galatians, Gal. 3:13) R. C. Sproul said, “He became the virtual incarnation of evil” (Tabletalk magazine, “My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?” (April 1990), p. 6). Adam Clarke said, “a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own.” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21) Albert Barnes said, “Jesus was not sinful, or a sinner, in any sense. He did not so take human guilt upon him, that the words sinful and sinner could with any propriety be applied to him. They are not applied to him any way in the Bible; but there the language is undeviating. It is that in all senses he was holy and undefiled. And yet language is often used on this subject which is horrible and only a little short of blasphemy, as if he was guilty, and as if he was even the greatest sinner in the universe. I have heard language used which sent a chill of horror to my heart; and language may be found in the writings of those who hold the doctrine of imputation in the strictest sense, which is only a little short of blasphemy” (Commentary on Galatians 3:13)
To support their notion that Jesus Christ became sinful, they appeal to “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin…” (2 Cor. 5:21). Does this verse actually teach that Jesus became sinful, or that Jesus became a sinner? There is an alternative interpretation or understanding, which is more consistent with the whole of Scripture. Adam Clarke said, “He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us.” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21). This is not uncommon to the Scriptures, as the word “sin” is translated “sin offering” in many places throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Ezekiel. Albert Barnes said, “To be sin - The words ‘to be’ are not in the original. Literally, it is, ‘he has made him sin, or a sin-offering’”. (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21) and “If the declaration that he was made “sin”… does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering - an offering or a sacrifice for sin” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21) John Wesley said, “He made him a sin offering, who knew no sin” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21)
Those who believe that Jesus Christ became sinful on the cross will also say that, “the father turned his face away” (How Deep The Father’s Love For us, written by Stuart Townend). The problem is that this is a hymn, not a Scripture. The Scriptures no where state that the Father turned His face away from the Son, as if His Son was repulsive to His eyes. R. C. Sproul said, “The load He carried was repugnant to the Father. God is too holy to even look at iniquity. God the Father turned His back upon the Son” Tabletalk magazine, “My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?” (April 1990), p. 6. Their support for this view is “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity” (Hab. 1:13). This must be poetic and cannot be taken literally, because it would be a denial of the omniscience of God. The Bible says “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” (Prov. 15:3), and “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13).
Their “ultimate” proof-text for their view of Jesus being so sinful that the Father turned His back on him is when Jesus said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mk. 15:34). The meaning of this verse is shown in the context of the Psalm Jesus was quoting. The rest of the Psalm said “why art thou so far from helping me…” (Ps. 22:1). This clarifies what it means to be “forsaken”. To be forsaken is not to be spiritually or relationally separated, but to be provisionally abandoned. He was forsaken in the sense that the Father gave the Son over into the hands of wicked men to be crucified (Matt. 17:22; 26:35; Mk. 14:41; Lk. 24:7; Acts 2:23), when the Father lifted up the protection He previously had over the Son (Matt. 4:6; Lk. 4:11; Jn. 7:30; 10:31; 10:39). Pilate had no power over Jesus except what the Father gave to Him (Jn. 19:11).
In contradiction to his own doctrine, that the Father turned His back on the Son, R. C. Sproul said that the Father was the one who “did strike Him, smite Him, and afflict Him” (The Truth of the Cross). How the Father could do all this, without even looking upon Christ, or with His back turned on Him, Sproul does not explain. But the Bible says that it was wicked men who actually crucified Jesus (Mk. 12:7; 27:35; Mk. 15:24-25; Lk. 20:14-15; 23:33; 24:20; 24:7; Jn. 19:18, 23; Acts 2:23; 2:36; 4:10; 1 Thes. 2:14-15). The Apostle Creed says that Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate”. That is because it was Pilate who “delivered” Jesus to be “crucified” (Matt. 27:26; Mk. 15:15; Lk. 24:7; Jn. 19:16). In this same way the Father can be said to be the one who bruised the Son (Isa. 53:10), or sacrificed the Son (Gen. 22:2) in the sense that the Father gave the Son over as an offering (Jn. 3:16), lifting up the protection that He once had over the Son, delivering His Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. As the hymn says, “God, His Son not sparing, sent Him to die…” (How Great Thou Art by Carl Boberg, written in 1886) God spared not His Son but delivered Him for all mankind (Acts 4:25; Rom. 8:32). The Father bruised the Son only in the sense that He made “His soul an offering for sin” (Isa. 53:10), but not in the sense that the Father directly bruised and crucified Him, or that the Son was under the wrath of the Father. Jesus must have been pleasing to the Father at all times, especially on the cross, because Jesus was perfectly obeying the Father and doing precisely what He wanted Him to do.
Contrary to the doctrine that Jesus Christ became a sinner or sinful, the Bible says that Jesus was offered to God without blemish or spot (Lev. 22:20; Ex. 12:5; 1 Pet. 1:19; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 13:8; Lk. 23:41; 1 Pet. 2:22-23). “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb. 13:8). Jesus has never been anything other than holy. The only reason that the atonement of Christ is acceptable to God, as a substitute for the punishment of the guilty, is because Jesus Christ was perfect and innocent. Jesus was a sinless sacrifice, not a punished sinner. While punishment signifies the personal sin and guilt of the individual being punished, a sacrifice signifies the personal sin and guilt of another individual. That is why the Bible never says Jesus was “punished” for our sins, but that Jesus Christ was “sacrificed” for our sins, that He “suffered” for our sins. A sacrifice is offered to God as an alternative or replacement to our punishment. His sacrifice is in the place of our punishment, fulfilling its purpose, so that our punishment can be set aside by God’s grace and mercy, or withheld in forgiveness. A sacrifice for sin, or atonement, makes it possible for God to set aside our punishment but it does not obligate Him to do so, so our salvation is a matter of grace not justice. If our sins were punished, justice would demand that God does not punish us. But when a sacrifice is made, which substitutes our punishment, God can exercise grace and mercy in withholding our punishment when we repent, and justice would still allow for God to punish those who do not repent.
It must also be understood that the atonement was not the payment of our debt but was that which was necessary for God to graciously and mercifully pardon our debt (Matt 6:12; 18:27; Lk. 7:42). The debt that we owed was an eternity in the lake of fire. The atonement is a substitute for our penalty, not the penalty itself. If the atonement was just a commercial transaction where our debt was paid, we wouldn’t need to repent and believe to be saved since even if we are impenitent and unbelieving, our debt is still paid. But the Scriptures never represent the impenitent and the unbelieving as being saved, even though Jesus Christ has died for them. If our debt was paid, we wouldn’t have to worry about ever going to hell if we continue in our sins and die in our sins. And there would be no real grace, mercy, or forgiveness in our salvation since grace, mercy, or forgiveness is when our debt is pardoned, when our penalty is remitted. Matt. 18:23-34 contrasts forgiving a debt with the payment of a debt. If Jesus paid our debt, we could never pray as Jesus taught us to, “forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12).
Albert Barnes said, “When a debt is paid, there is no forgiveness; when a penalty is endured, there is no mercy.” (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 231) John Wesley said, “…when the debt is paid, or the purchase made, it is the part of equity to cancel the bond, and consign over the purchased possession.” (Notes on the New Testament) Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “But the fact is, that Christ has not, in the literal and proper sense, paid the debt for us… Payment of debt equally precludes grace, when made by a third person, as when made by the debtor himself…” (Grace Consistent with Atonement, p. 3-4, 6)
Contrary to what some theologians try to say, the atonement did not satisfy the wrath of God. This is obvious since God still has wrath after the atonement (Jn. 3:36; Acts 12:23; Rom. 1:18; 2:5; Col 3:6; Rev. 6:17; 14:10; 16:19). People say that Jesus drank the “cup” of God’s wrath, but this cannot be true, because Jesus told his disciples that they would drink of the same cup that he would drink of (Matt. 20:22), and because the cup of God’s wrath is still full after the atonement (Rev. 14:10; 16:19). “The wrath of God was satisfied” (Keith Getty & Stuart Townend) is a modern hymn, not a Scripture. Jesus died for the whole world but the world is still under God’s wrath. If God’s wrath was satisfied for us, we wouldn’t need to repent and believe in order to be saved from God’s wrath. We would have been saved even while we were impenitent and unbelieving, in fact, everybody would have been born saved! There would be no wrath to flee from (Matt. 3:7; Lk. 3:7). And there would also be no real forgiveness or mercy if God’s wrath was satisfied. That is because forgiveness or mercy is when God turns away from His wrath. “Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passes by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy” (Mic. 7:18).
When I preach to sinners in the open air, I tell them that they are under the wrath of God because of their sin, and I also tell them that Jesus Christ has died for their sin. Logically, I could not say that they are still under the wrath of God if the atonement was the satisfaction of God’s wrath. I could not tell them to flee from the wrath that is to come by repenting of their sins and coming to Jesus Christ. The truth is that atonement makes the forgiveness of sins available to everyone, but only those who are converted receive it. Forgiveness is not when God’s wrath is satisfied; forgiveness is when God turns away from His wrath (Ps. 78:38; 85:2-3; Jonah 3:9; Micah 7:18).
The good news is that because of the atonement, God will turn from His wrath if sinners turn from their sins. But those who stay in their sins stay under God’s wrath despite the atonement that was made for them. Those whom Christ died for can still perish (1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Pet. 2:1). Forgiveness through the atonement comes to those who repent and believe. The atonement is not at all inconsistent or incompatible with repentance. Forgiveness was made available to all at Calvary but forgiveness only becomes actual at conversion. No man is saved from God’s wrath until they repent and believe. The atonement is a substitute for the penalty of everyone, which makes the penalty of every remissible, but only those who are converted actually have their penalty remitted by God’s grace and mercy. The atonement is by no means contrary to the requirement of repentance but in fact is the only reason God can forgive those who do repent.
Why Isn’t Everybody Saved?
Why are some damned for their sin but some are saved by the atonement? It is not become the atonement was limited or only made for a few. It is because some freely choose to repent and some freely choose not to. Though Christ has died for all, sinners still need to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18-20). What remains left to be done in the process of reconciliation, now that the atonement has been made, is man’s repentance and faith. The atonement was one condition in the process of reconciliation. The atonement was one condition of God’s mercy and forgiveness. Man’s choice to repent and believe is also conditions. If reconciliation between God and man does not take place, it is not because God has not done His part, it is because man has not done his.
A. W. Tozer said, “Universal atonement makes salvation universally available, but it does not make it universally effective toward the individual.” (Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania) He also said, “If atonement was made for all men, why are not all saved? The answer is that before redemption becomes effective toward the individual man there is an act which that man must do. That act is not one of merit, but of condition.” (Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania)
Gordon C. Olson said that “man must repent and stop the flow of sin in order to be brought to the point where he is not under condemnation… If God forgave sin apart from repentance, man would be in the predicament of continuing ‘in sin that grace might increase’ (Rom. 6:1)… The Bible says nothing about the forgiveness of present or future sins, and everywhere implies, what our common sense affirms, that all sin brings condemnation and must be repented of and confessed before forgiveness can take place through faith in the atonement. We must repent, then, to be free from guilt and condemnation” (The Truth Shall Set You Free, published by BRCCD, p. 123-124)
God wants all to repent and be saved (Eze. 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9). But those who refuse to repent must be damned. They are damned not by any fault of God’s but by their own fault. They are damned because they freely chose not to repent. Sinners who refuse to repent and be reconciled to God must be sent to hell. Hell is a real governmental necessity. No community is safe if there is no prison for law breakers. God’s law is for the good of everyone but no law would be maintained if there is no punishment. No punishment would even be punishment unless it is painful. Therefore those who refuse to repent of their sins and be reconciled to God must be sent to hell, the prison of the universe (1 Pet. 3:19), where they will be tormented in eternal pain (Matt. 22:13; Rev. 14:10-11). The good of the universe demands this. God has no other alternative for those who do not choose to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel.
=============
Here is another article explaining the governmental atonement view:
The Tale of Two Kings
While I was preaching at the University if Minnesota in Minneapolis, I illustrated the atonement by telling the students about the ancient King of the Locrians in Italy named Zalukas. King Zalukas saw the problem of infidelity within his kingdom. He saw how the backbone of a strong society is a strong family and how adultery had the potential to destroy a society by destroying the family. When there is adultery, there could be children born out of wed lock. This breaks down the family unit. There could also be jealousy and murder when a husband finds out that another man has been sleeping with his wife. Therefore for the good of His Kingdom, the King outlawed adultery. But laws are not respected or regarded unless they have consequences. Penalties give the law authority and influence. Therefore the King assigned a very severe penalty for those who violated his law. Those who were found committing adultery would have both of their eyes removed by a hot poker!
A few people were found committing adultery and quickly the penalty was executed. This showed the Kingdom that the King meant business. He surely regarded his law and meant to maintain it. It wasn't long until adultery literally ceased from his Kingdom. But one day a man was brought before the King who had been committing adultery. It was the Kings own son, the prince of the Kingdom. The King was in a dilemma. On the one hand the King wanted to maintain His law. The authority and influence of his law depended upon the execution of the penalty. If He didn't execute the penalty, his Kingdom would question whether or not the King really regarded his law or not. If the King did not execute the penalty, the Kingdom would think that he gave a bad law or that he gave too severe a penalty. But on the other hand, the King cared about his son and was prone to forgive him. The King naturally preferred to show his son mercy. How could he do both? How could the King show mercy to his son but still uphold the authority and influence of his law throughout His Kingdom at the same time? The solution which the King found to his dilemma was a painful one. The King had one of the eyes of his son removed out of his love for his kingdom, and in lieu of the other eye of his son, he sacrificed his own out of his love for his son. He substituted one of his own eyes for the eye of his son. In this way the King showed His care and concern for his kingdom by supporting the law and his care and concern for his son by making a personal and painful sacrifice.
Through this sacrifice the King found a way to show mercy to his Son by not executing the full penalty of the law upon him, while also expressing to his Kingdom his regard for his law and thereby maintain the authority and influence of the precept. His sacrifice must have made a profound impression upon the minds of all his subjects and upon the mind of his son. Upon his kingdom, they must have been profoundly impressed with the King’s regard for the law. They would not dare to break the law themselves since they clearly see the king’s determination to uphold and maintain it. They also see how good their King is and how worthy He is to be obeyed. Upon the son, his mind must have been profoundly impressed with the love his father had for him. What remorse he must have had for his crimes! His disobedience cost his father so much! Out of love and gratitude for his father, he would want to live a life pleasing to him. He would forever see the loss of his father’s eye for the rest of his father’s life. How could he ever commit adultery again after seeing what a great price his father paid? Seeing what his law breaking cost his father would make him never want to break the law again.
I then explained that God gave His universe a very good law for our own good. The law of God promotes the highest well-being of all. In order to give authority to the precept, God has given a severe penalty. The penalty for violating God's law is to burn in hell for all of eternity. That is eternal death. At first there were angels who rebelled against God. They were quickly thrust out of Heaven and are now waiting Judgment Day. But then mankind sinned. Mankind was made in the image of God. Men were the crown of God's creation. God was prone to forgive mankind, but He must also maintain His law. On the one hand, the authority and influence of His law throughout His universe or Kingdom depends upon Him making a proper expression of His regard for His law so that crime is discouraged. God must protect and promote the well-being of His Kingdom. But on the other hand, God would prefer to forgive mankind by withholding or setting aside our penalty. How could God do both? How could God pardon disobedient men without encouraging the rest of His universe to sin? How could God remit our penalty of eternal hell but still uphold His law and maintain its authority and influence by manifesting His regard for His law? The answer is the atonement.
When God offered His own Son to make atonement for our sins, He provided a sacrifice which would stand in lieu of our eternal punishment. Catherine Booth said, “The Divine law has been broken; the interests of the universe demanded that its righteousness should be maintained, therefore, its penalty must be endured by the transgressor or, in lieu of this, such compensation must be rendered as would satisfy the claims of justice, and render it expedient for God to pardon the guilty… Christ made such a sacrifice as to render it possible for God to be just, and yet to pardon the sinner.” Catherine Booth (Popular Christianity, Published by Convention Bookstore, p. 30) Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself so that we don’t have to suffer the punishment of eternal hell. His suffering and death is a substitute for our penalty so that our penalty can be remitted. Through the atonement God manifests to His universe His regard for His law in a way even greater than the penalty of the law upon sinners would have. God showed His love for His universe by protecting their rights and interests by upholding the law while also showing His love for mankind by making such a personal and painful sacrifice on our behalf.
The atonement of Jesus Christ must have a profound impact upon all of the minds of the moral beings within God’s Kingdom. Upon His Kingdom, they must be deeply impressed with God’s regard for His law and for their interest by maintaining the law. This impression through God’s sacrifice upon their minds is even greater than it would have been had the penalty be simply executed upon us. Now the other moral subjects in God’s moral government would not dare break the law themselves since they clearly see God’s determination to uphold and maintain it. And they see how worthy God is to be loved and obeyed. The atonement accomplished the needed affected upon the rest of God’s kingdom in an even greater way than the penalty of the law being executed upon sinners would have. The atonement of Christ maintained, not only the fear of punishment amongst God’s other moral subjects, as the penalty being executed upon us would have, but also it gave them even greater motivation to obey God – because they see how good and worthy He. Though the penalty might have caused his subjects to fear him, the atonement must cause them to love Him. The penalty would have shown them God’s justice, but the atonement shows them God’s justice and His mercy. They behold the goodness and the severity of God. A fuller revelation or manifestation of God’s character is revealed at the cross of Christ than what could have been revealed by the penalty of the law.
The atonement also has a very deep impact and profound impression upon us who are being pardoned. What remorse the atonement creates in us for our sins! Our wickedness cost our loving Father so much! Out of love and gratitude, those who have been truly converted have decided to live the rest of their lives in a way pleasing to Him. Even for all of eternity we will see the wounds in the Lamb that was slain. How difficult it is for us to walk the path of sin again seeing what a great price that was paid. Seeing how much our transgressions of the law cost God, we want to never break the law again. We begin to love the precepts of the moral law and respect the authority of the law because we begin to love the Author of the law! Those who love the Lord will hate evil (Ps. 97:10; Amos 5:15). They can say, “I love thy law!” (Ps. 119:97). We begin to love God and His character and come to abhor everything that is contrary to God and His character. We love Him because He first loved us (1 Jn. 4:19). We love much because we have been forgiven much (Lk. 7:47). And love is the fulfillment of the law.
A revelation of God’s benevolent character and a manifestation of the loving heart of God, which was publicly shown and made known at the cross, is the converting power of the Gospel. It is that precious and powerful truth revealed to the mind that brings the rebellious will of man into complete submission, unconditional surrender, and loving obedience to the good and reasonable moral government of God. James B. Walker said, “The atonement of Christ produces the necessary effect upon the human soul, in restoring it to affectionate obedience, which neither philosophy, law, nor perceptive truth could accomplish.” James B. Walker (The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation, published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 160) This understanding gives us insight as to why true faith in Christ will purify our hearts (Acts 15:9), sanctify our lives (Acts 26:18), overcome the world (1 Jn. 5:4), result in good works (James 2:14-16), and works with a motive of love (Gal. 5:6). “And every man that hath his hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:3). Faith in Christ is a life changing thing! Now that we have put our faith in Christ, the rule of our life should be obedience. Hermas said, “That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of sins should not sin anymore, but should live in purity." Hermas (Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II, The Pastor of Hermas, Book Second) Our life should no longer be characterized by sin. We should walk in habitual holiness out of our love for Jesus Christ and a desire to glorify God. We love Him because He first loved us, and we know that love is the fulfillment of the law.
The Atonement as Objective and Subjective
The atonement solves all of God’s problems in forgiving mankind. The atonement makes it possible for God to safely remit the penalty of the law, by substituting our penalty and bringing us to repentance. It brings pardon and purification; forgiveness and freedom. The atonement is both objective and subjective. As a governmental substitution, the atonement is objective. The atonement substitutes our penalty and upholds or maintains the moral law throughout God’s universe just as our penalty would have and the atonement confirms holy beings in their obedience towards God. As a moral influence, the atonement is subjective. Seeing what Jesus Christ has done for us and beholding the great goodness and kindness of God brings us to complete repentance so that we never want to sin again but always want to do that which is pleasing to Him. Knowledge of the atonement draws sinners away from sin and unto God. Jesus said “if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (Jn. 12:32) The Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). The truth of the atonement is the greatest moral influence in the entire universe. No other truth could possibly influence our will to repentance and obedience as forcefully or persuasively as the truth of the atonement can. If a man is not brought to repentance by the truth of the atonement, after it has been clearly and powerfully presented to his mind, than his case must be hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 15, 2010 20:49:50 GMT -5
MAN’S ABILITY TO OBEY THE GOSPEL
The first public message that Jesus heralded in public was “repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). This was a command to men. Jesus didn’t say that God would repent and believe for them. Jesus didn’t say, wait for God to give you the ability to repent and believe. Jesus commanded them to simply repent and believe immediately, preaching in such a way that we can logically conclude that he assumed that they were capable of doing this.
After preaching repentance and working miracles, it says that Jesus began “to upbraid the cities wherein most of his might works were done, because they repented not” (Matt. 11:20). Why would Jesus be frustrated with them for not repenting if they were not capable of repenting? Unless they had the power of choosing to repent, and were freely refusing to repent, why would Jesus rebuke them? His frustration could only be logical, reasonable, or justified if they were capable of fulfilling his expectations. Jesus here assumed that they could have repented. Michael Pearl said, “When you are angry towards a man for his degrading or offensive behavior, you are assuming he could have acted differently.” 1
Repentance Is Man’s Choice
A. W. Tozer said “we must of our own free will repent toward God and believe in Jesus Christ. This the Bible plainly teaches; this experience abundantly supports. Repentance involves moral reformation. The wrong practices are on man’s part, and only man can correct them. Lying, for instance, is an act of man and one for which he must accept full responsibility. When he repents he will quit lying. God will not quit for him; he will quit for himself.” A. W. Tozer (Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania) He also said, “God cannot do our repenting for us. In our efforts to magnify grace we have so preached the truth as to convey the impression that repentance is a work of God. This is a grave mistake, and one which is taking a frightful toll among Christians everywhere. God has commanded all men to repent. It is a work which only they can do. It is morally impossible for one person to repent for another. Even Christ could not do this. He could die for us, but He cannot do our repenting for us.” A. W. Tozer (Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania)
God said, “Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die….” (Eze. 18:30-31). “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (Isa. 55:7) God “commandeth all men every where to repent…” (Acts 17:30). All throughout the Bible God commands men to repent. This means that repentance is man’s own free choice. A command is a declaration of what type of choice you should or shouldn’t make. It is the will which is the subject of a command. God does not force us to repent through some irresistible will, as if we were machines. Rather He calls and commands us to repent, because we are free moral agents (Matt. 9:13; Acts 17:30-31). Jesus said that he came to “call” sinners to repent (Lk. 5:42). To call means to “invite” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword) or to “bid” (Strong’s Definitions, e-sword). Entreating and beseeching sinners to repent takes for granted that repentance is their choice that they can and must make.
Repentance is a moral change in man and therefore it cannot occur without man’s consent. Repentance, as a moral change, must be man’s choice. A change of character is a change of choice. Repentance is not a choice that God can make for us; otherwise God is responsible for all of the impenitence of the world. Repentance is man’s own choice, which is why Jesus rebuked men for not repenting (Matt. 11:20). Melito said, “There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.” (c.170, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 286, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
C. S. Lewis said, “we are... rebels who must lay down our arms.” C. S. Lewis (The Problem of Pain, published by Macmillan, p. 91.) George Otis Jr. said “entire personality is involved in the act of repentance. Our minds, enlightened through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, are able to perceive sin stripped of all pretense. Emotionally we respond to this understanding with considerable revulsion, pain and sorrow. But the final and crucial stage involves our will in the actual severance and forsaking of sin. This stage will always follow if repentance is genuine.” George Otis Jr. (The God They Never Knew, published by LuLu, chapter 6)
Catherine Booth said, “But then another difficulty comes in, and people say, 'I have not the power to repent.' Oh! yes you have. There is a grand mistake. You have the power, or God would not command it. You can repent. You can. This moment lift up your eyes to Heaven, and say, with the Prodigal, "Father, I have sinned, and I renounce my sin… God "now commandeth all men everywhere to repent," and to believe the Gospel. What a tyrant He must be if He commands that and yet He knows you have not the power." Catherine Booth (Papers on Godliness by Catherine Booth, published in 1881, p. 96-97)
The disciples of the Lord “went out, and preached that men should repent” (Mark 6:12). Jesus also said to the Church, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Why should we preach the Gospel to all men, commanding them to repent and believe, unless all men are capable of this? To offer them hope through the Gospel, when they cannot obey the Gospel, is an offer that is nothing but a mockery! God would be insincere in commanding all to repent and believe, unless they all could do it. Why would God want all of the unsaved to hear the Gospel, unless once they hear it, they are capable of obeying it and being saved through it?
If the call to obey the Gospel does not imply that man can obey the Gospel, then what in the entire Bible could ever imply that men could obey it? If the command does not presuppose ability, what text ever could presuppose ability? Nothing could imply the ability to repent and believe more than the commands to do so.
The Gospel requires that men give up their sins in order to be pardoned by God through Jesus Christ. Sin is the choice to violate God’s law. Since we have already established that the moral law is not impossible but that sin is avoidable, then we can logically conclude that men are capable of obeying the Gospel, they are able to give up their sins or of repenting as the Gospel demands.
Faith is a Choice
Obeying the Gospel also implies having faith. No man can be saved without faith. Faith is a personal choice. Faith is not merely a passive state of the mind; it is an active state of the heart. Faith is not only the assent of the mind to the truths of the Gospel but faith also includes the consent of the will to the demands of the Gospel. Gordon C. Olson said, “Saving faith is not merely an intellectual state… Saving faith is an act of the will in total commitment… Saving faith is always our own act…” Gordon C. Olson (The Truth Shall Set You Free, Published by BRCCD, p. 135-136) Faith is the hearts active embrace and compliance with the truth. Faith is deliberate. Believing is a deliberation of the heart, a personal volition of the will.
Some say that faith is a gift from God in such a way that it is not man’s free choice. This would make God responsible for all of the unbelief of the world. Unbelief would not be man’s fault because he doesn’t have the ability to have faith. Augustine even admitted that God was responsible for the unbelief of the world because he believed that faith was God’s gift, not man’s choice. Augustine said, “Faith then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God’s gift… this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given.” Augustine (God’s Strategy In Human History by Paul Marston and Roger Forster, p. 258) A. W. Pink said “faith is God’s gift, and the purpose to give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give it to others. Without faith there is no salvation… hence if there were some of Adam’s descendants to whom He purposes not to give faith, it must because He ordained that they should be damned.” A. W. Pink (The Sovereignty of God, p. 101)
Calvinists use Eph. 2:8-9 to support their doctrine that faith is not man’s choice but is rather God’s gift. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” Referring to this passage, John Piper said, “Faith is a gift from God.” John Piper (A Godward Life, Book Two pp.327-332) This verse however is not saying that faith is not of ourselves, but that salvation is a gift. Salvation is not something that we earn by our works but something we receive by a living and obedient faith. We cannot boast since salvation is unmerited and undeserved; it is by grace. Even John Calvin did not interpret the “gift” of this passage as “faith” but as “salvation”. John Calvin (The Epistle to the Ephesians, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965, p. 144)
Salvation is God’s gift but faith itself is our choice. The word “heart” in the Bible is commonly used as a metaphor to refer to a man’s will. Heart is figurative or symbolic for the human will. And the Bible says it is with the heart that men believe. “If thou believest with all thine heart…” (Acts 8:37) and “…believe in thine heart… for with the heart man believeth…” (Rom. 10:9-10). Jesus commanded men not only to repent, but to “repent and believe” (Mk. 1:15). This means that believing is a person’s choice just as repenting is a person’s choice. A command is a declaration of what you should choose. Telling men to “repent and believe” is nonsense unless repenting and believing is their choice. Jesus charged his audience to “believe the works” that he performed so that they might believe in his relationship with the Father (Jn. 10:38; 14:11). Jesus told his hearers to “believe on the light” or the illumination which he had given them (Jn. 12:36). Paul told the jailer in Philippi to “believe on the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:31). All of these examples show that it is within man’s ability to believe. To speak to men in this way or manner takes for granted that faith is a choice. To tell a man to believe presupposes that faith is a choice which they are capable of making.
A. W. Tozer said, “The day when it is once more understood that God will not be responsible for our sin and unbelief will be a glad one for the Church of Christ. The realization that we are personally responsible for our individual sins may be a shock to our hearts, but it will clear the air and remove the uncertainty. Returning sinners waste their time begging God to perform the very acts He has sternly commanded them to do.” A. W. Tozer (Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania)
Unbelief is a Choice
Unbelief also is a personal choice of the will. Unbelief is a sinners own fault. Unbelief is not merely a passive state of the mind; it is an active state of the heart. Unbelief is the hearts active rejection of the truth. The Bible tells us to “take heed… lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief…” (Heb. 3:12). “Take heed” implies choice and “evil heart of unbelief” means that unbelief is not merely of the mind but is of the will. Unbelief is described as being deliberate. “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed…” (Matt. 13:15; Acts 28:27). This shows their personal and intentional choice. Their unbelief was volitional. Men purposely turn their ears away from the truth (Acts 7:57; 2 Tim. 4:4). Unbelief is the wills active state of suppressing the truth (Rom. 1:18). “Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts” (Heb. 3:15; 4:7). This command implies that a man chooses to harden his heart or not. We are also told that men refused to believe in Jesus Christ (Ps. 118:22; Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10; Lk. 20:17; 1 Pet. 2:7) Just as faithfulness is obedience, faithlessness is disobedience. The Scriptures even contrast disobedience is contrasted with believing. “Unto you therefore which believe he is precious, but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner…” (1 Pet. 2:7). An unbelieving heart is the wills rejection of the truth that is revealed to the mind.
Jesus even rebuked men for not believing, which implies that it is their choice to believe or not. “Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” (Luke 24:25). It would make no sense to rebuke men for not believing, unless faith and unbelief is their free choice. Their unbelief was their own deliberate choice, as implied in the rebuke “slow of heart to believe…” Jesus did not look at them in their unbelief and think, “poor men, God has not yet granted them the gift of faith”. He knew that their unbelief was their own fault, not God’s. We are told that Jesus “marveled because of their unbelief” (Mk. 6:6). If they were incapable of believing, or if God simply did not grant them faith, Jesus would not have marveled. There would be nothing to marvel at. Jesus marveled because they could have and should have believed, but they didn’t. Jesus commanded “be not faithless, but believing” (Jn. 20:27). Therefore it is our choice to be faithless or believing.
The reason that men do not know God is not because they are ignorant of God. God has given all men knowledge of Himself. The Bible says that God “lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (Jn. 1:9). The word “lighteth” means that to “enlighten” and “illuminate” (Strong’s definition in e-sword) We are also told, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20). All men are “without excuse” for not acknowledging and serving God because no man is without the knowledge of God. The reason that men do not know God is because they choose not to seek after God. Jesus said, “…seek and ye shall find..” (Matt. 7:7). Paul said, “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.” (Acts 17:27). The knowledge of God, and knowing God, is available to everyone. The problem is that “there is none that seeketh after God.” (Rom. 3:11). God said that sinners “refuse to know me” (Jer. 9:6). Men do not know God by choice.
Just as God has granted mankind natural ability, God has granted us natural knowledge. That is why unbelief is a crime! An unbeliever is not an ignoramus who hasn’t encountered the light, who cannot believe in God because of lack of knowledge. An unbeliever is a criminal who selfishly and foolish rejects the light! They choose to rebel against the knowledge that they have. They run from the light! God punishes men for their unbelief. It would make no sense to punish men for not believing, unless believing or not is their own choice. Sin is always a choice. The “sin of unbelief” is the choice not to believe. The condemnation of the unbeliever is justly deserved because light has come into the world but men chose darkness over the light (Jn. 3:19). The only thing that keeps men back from God is their own unwillingness of heart, not any inability of their nature (Isa. 30:9; 30:15; 30:16; Jer. 8:5; Eze. 20:7-8; Matt. 11:20-21; 23:37, Mk. 6:6; 7:30; 13:34; 14:17-18; 19:14; 19:27; Lk. 14:16-24 ;Jn. 5:40; Acts 7:51; 17:27; Rev. 2:21).
All Men Can Seek God If They Wanted To
Sinners have enough natural knowledge of God to seek after Him if they wanted to. “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I….” (Isa. 48:16) “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse…” (Rom. 1:19-20) “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you…” (Jas. 4:8) Cornelius was a Gentile who sought after God with the limited knowledge that he had and so God gave him a further revelation by bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to him (Acts 10:1-48).
I once met a man on the Mizzou University in Missouri who had heard us open air preaching and came up to us afterwards. He said that he grew up in Nepal in a Muslim family. His father was a leader in the Mosque. When he was younger he said it was his responsibility to rise up early, get into the prayer tower, and call the community to prayer. During his teenage years he began to question whether Islam was true or if truth was somewhere else. He began to pray and to fast in the Mosque, praying and fasting continually because his soul was not satisfied. After much prayer and fasting he said that he had a vision. The Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him, whom he had known to only be a prophet, and said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father but by me.” It was not until he came to the United States as a foreign student to study in College that he found a Bible and read that Jesus Christ had said the same thing two thousand years ago.
At the age of accountability, it is a person’s individual responsibility to seek after truth and not to be dependent upon his family or culture. Once that state of reason is reached, those who do not know God do not know Him by choice. And those who do know God know Him by choice. Knowing God or not knowing God is a choice for those whom God has granted the light of natural revelation.
Men have the natural ability to obey their conscience (natural revelation), and when men hear the Gospel and the truths of the Bible (supernatural revelation); they are capable of obeying it or disobeying it. The Gospel requires repentance and faith from men. Repentance is the hearts choice to turn from sin and obey God. Faith is the hearts choice to embrace the truth and trust in Christ. Both repentance and faith are states of the will. Therefore the Gospel requires states of the will. Under a good government, the command implies ability. Only under tyranny is this not true. God’s government is good and therefore in God’s government the command implies ability. We can conclude then that that which the Gospel requires of men, men are capable of doing. A sinner is capable of remaining in a disobedient state of mind, or of having an obedient state of mind through repentance. A sinner is capable of rejecting the truth and not trusting in Christ, or of embracing the truth and trusting in Christ. If men were not capable of it, they would not be commanded to do it.
- The command of a good ruler implies the ability of the subjects. - God (a good Ruler) commands all men to obey the Gospel when they hear it. - Therefore all men are able to obey the Gospel when they hear it.
Men are commanded to circumcise their hearts (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4) which means that this is their own responsibility and choice. To circumcise your heart means to repent or put off your sins (Col. 2:11). When Stephen was open air preaching, he said to the crowd “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). Stephen was rebuking them for disobeying a specific commandment, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked” (Deut. 10:16). Why would Stephen rebuke them for being uncircumcised in their heart unless they were capable of circumcising their hearts? Why rebuke them for breaking a commandment unless they were capable of obeying the commandment? Why would he rebuke them for resisting the Holy Spirit unless they were capable of yielding to the Holy Spirit? Unless they were capable of doing these things, why rebuke them for not doing these things? Stephen seemed to take for granted or assume the ability of his audience.
Jesus said, “And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not” (Revelation 2:21). Why would God give her time to repent, if she doesn’t have the ability to repent? Also, is it not clear that her impenitence was not God’s fault, but her own fault? But if God created her with the inability to repent, her impenitence would be His fault. But if God created her with the ability to repent, then her impenitence is her own fault. The blame of impenitence in this passage is clearly put upon her. God wants all men to repent (2 Peter 3:9), He calls all men to repent (Acts 17:30-31), and He blames them if they do not repent (Matt. 11:20, Matt. 23:37, Mk. 6:6, Lk. 7:30, 13:34, 14:17-18, 19:14, 19:27, Jn. 5:40, Rev. 2:21). This presupposes that they have the ability to repent.
Sin is a choice. Sin is an avoidable choice (Jn. 5:14, 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:34; 1 Jn. 2:1). It is a man’s own choice to be in a state of rebellion or sin, that is, it is a man’s own choice to be a sinner (Gen. 6:12, Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29, Rom. 3:23, 1 Jn. 3:4). Therefore reconciliation, or ceasing to be a sinner, also requires the choice of man (2 Corinthians 5:20). Repentance and impenitence are man’s own choice (Matt. 11:20, Rom. 2:5). Therefore man, not God, is responsible for the impenitence of the world. If God makes men incapable of repenting and obeying, by either removing free will when Adam sinned or by withholding free will when He forms us, then God and not man is responsible for the disobedience and impenitence of the world. Therefore either man is capable of obeying and repenting or else God is the reason for the disobedience and impenitence of the world. Consider how God treats those who disobey the Gospel. “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17). The Bible answers that question. “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 1:8). Why would God punish men, for not obeying the Gospel, unless they were capable of obeying it? Is God cruel and unjust as to command of them the impossible, only to punish them eternally for their failure to do what He created them incapable of doing? In a good government, not only does the command imply ability, but punishment for failure to obey the command most definitely implies ability. God is just, good, reasonable, and loving. Therefore He commands the possible and only punishes men for doing what was avoidable.
God punishes those who do not repent (Eze. 20:8; Rom. 2:5). Therefore repentance must be within our power and impenitence must be our choice! John Fletcher said, “It is offering an insult to the only wise God to suppose . . . that he gave them the Gospel, without giving them power to believe it . . . With regards to repentance, ‘Then he began,’ says St. Matthew, ‘to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.’ Merciful Savior, forgive us! We have insulted thy meek wisdom, by representing thee as cruelly upbraiding the lame for not running, the blind for not seeing, and the dumb for not speaking! . . . Suppose a schoolmaster said to his English scholars ‘Except you instantly speak Greek you shall all be severely whipped.’ You would wonder at the injustice of the school tyrant. But would not the wretch be merciful in comparison of a Savior, (so called) who is supposed to say to myriads of men, that can no more repent than ice can burn, ‘Except ye repent, ye shall all perish?’” 2
A Loving Relationship with God
It is an age old question, “What is the meaning of life?” It is an identical question to ask, “Why did God create us?” The answer is a loving relationship. God wanted to love and enjoy us. He wanted us to love and enjoy Him. And he wanted us to love and enjoy each other. It seems that all men know that loving relationships is really what is important and what life is all about. When a person is on their death bed, who do they want to be around them? They want their loved ones to be there. If a person is on a plane, knowing it is about to crash, who do they call? They called their loved ones to tell them that they love them. The death of a loved one is the greatest tragedy that we can experience in this life, because we are relational beings. We have been created and designed to love God and love each other, and to be loved by God and to be loved by each other.
Just as parents create children to have loving relational experiences with them, God created mankind for the same purpose. In the beginning, man had a loving relationship with God. Everything was very good in the Garden and the Lord wanted it to stay that way. When we choose to sin, God’s plan was interrupted. Now God wants to bring man back into a relationship with Him but in order to do that, He must turn us from our sins. If mankind had never sinned, the relationship between God and man would never have been interrupted. “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God…” (Isa. 59:2). God’s problem with mankind is that we have chosen to sin. Therefore the solution to the problem is for God to get man to decide to turn from his sin. God is trying to salvage His fallen creation, to restore our rebellious race. In this reconciliation or restoration, He must not take away our free will otherwise He could not accomplish that which He created us for.
While I was open air preaching at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, one of the students asked me "Why did God give us free will? Couldn't He have created a universe where there was no possibility of sin?" I explained that God did not want His universe to be full of puppets or robots. That is why God even gave the angels free will and allowed them to choose between loyalty and rebellion. Without free will, there can be no loving relationship. A loving relationship requires mutual consent. God created us to have a relationship with Him. The reason for our existence necessitates the existence of free will. Sure God could have created us without a free will, thereby avoiding all possibility of sin, but this would have also excluded any possibility of us doing what we were created to do! We could not have a real loving relationship with God! Love is a free choice. God cannot and will not make us love Him. God leaves that to our own free will.
Steve Harrison said, "He made us free moral agents with the ability to chose who we would love. He could have made us like animals, driven only by instinct, but God took the risk of rejection for the prize of uncoerced love. He desires a response of love, a voluntary choice of friendship." Steve Harrison (Consuming Love by Steve Harrison)
The salvation experience is when a person enters into a relationship with God. Eternal life is to know God (Jn. 17:3). A relationship between two people requires the choice or willingness between the two. God cannot enter into a loving relationship with man without man’s choice. That a loving relationship requires mutual consent is shown by the extreme example of date rape. When a man forces a woman into a relationship with him, it is not real love because there is no mutual consent. There can be no loving relationship when there is a violated will. Love must be a free choice or else it is not love at all. Since God wants to have a genuine loving relationship with man, He gives us the freedom of choice to know Him or not.
God made Himself very vulnerable with Israel because instead of usurp their free will to force them into a loving relationship with Him, He granted them the freedom of choice to have a loving relationship with Him or not. “The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? She is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these things, turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put here away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord. And the Lord said unto me, the backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and will not keep anger for ever.” (Jer. 3:6-12)
God even subjected Himself to great heartache by granting Israel the free choice to have a loving relationship with Him or not. He said, “I am broken with their whorish heart, which hath departed from me, and with their eyes, which go whoring after their idols…” (Eze. 6:9). God told Hosea to take a wife of whoredom to illustrate his relationship with Israel, because “the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord” (Hosea 1:2). God granting Israel the choice to have a relationship with Him or not is clearly seen when God said, “I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offense, and seek my face…” (Hosea 5:15). God was stepping back, giving them the choice and opportunity to come after Him. He was not going to force them to know Him, nor seek after them anymore, but was waiting for them to come after Him. God wanted to have a relationship with them, but He wanted it to be a consensual relationship.
God has wanted to know men in a personal way but was unable to because they would not consent. God said, “… thou hast forgotten me, and cast me behind thy back…” (Eze. 23:35). “Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? Yet my people have forgotten me days without number.” (Jer. 2:32). God said, “… they refuse to know me…” (Jer. 9:6). A personal relationship between God and man requires the personal choice of God and man. We read about the “bride of Christ” and that there will be the “marriage supper of the Lamb”. What is a marriage but the union of two consenting individuals who have decided to enter into a loving and permanent relationship? The consent and willingness of Christ’s bride is clearly seen, since “his wife hath made herself ready” (Rev. 19:7).
I have heard Calvinists argue, “If you pray for God to save someone, you are assuming that salvation is solely God’s decision and is not man’s free will choice”. This line of reasoning is completely fallacious. When I pray for someone’s salvation, I am not praying for God to override their will, violate their will, or usurp their will. I am praying for God to draw men unto Himself by influencing their will. I am praying for God to send the Holy Spirit to convict them of their sin, or to send a believer to them to give witness to the Gospel. God does not convert men through causation but through influence which is why we should “Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest” (Matt. 9:38). Praying for God to save someone through public proclamation presupposes that truth is an influence upon man’s will. When I pray for someone’s salvation, I am asking for God to reveal His good character to them and give them a powerful revelation of the atonement. If a man wants to enter into a relationship with a woman, he doesn’t give her a “date rape drug” to violate her will, but he woos her until she forms affection for him and chooses to enter into a relationship. God does not violate our will, but He woos us to Himself through the Spirit’s revelation of His good character, until we freely choose to enter into a relationship with Him or not.
Conversion is Man’s Choice
The way to Heaven and the way to hell are described as roads (Matt. 7:13-14). It is our choice which road we are going to walk on. We are commanded, “Enter ye in the straight gate” (Matt. 7:13). This implies man’s choice in salvation. We are also told, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate” (Lk. 13:24). This means that we are to absolutely determine with our will to do so, that we are to energetically put forth the powers of our will.
True conversion is the choice to live a new life. True conversion is the decision to no longer live a selfish life, but to live a holy life to please and glorify God. “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds” (Col. 3:9) and “That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts…” (Eph. 4:22) The phrase “ye have put off” and “ye put off” means that it is our own responsibility and our own choice. The words “deeds” and “conversation” implies our former way of life. We are also told to “put on the new man” (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). This also signifies our own activity or choice. Whether we are living the old sinful life or living a new and holy life is our own intentional choice. It is the result of our own personal volition.
Jesus also said, “If any man come to me” (Lk. 14:26), and “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink” (Jn. 7:37), which describes our own personal role and activity in salvation. It was man who left God so it must be man who comes back or returns to God, as it is written “return unto the Lord thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity” (Hos. 14:1).
The Bible also says that it is our choice to do the will of God or not. Jesus said, “If any man will do his will…” (Jn. 7:17). Jesus taught that to preserve your life and consequently lose it or to give your life to the Lord and consequently save it, is your own choice. Jesus said, “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it, but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it” (Lk. 9:24). All men are free to choose between these two possibilities. God let’s us decide. “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24; Lk. 9:23). This indicates the activity of man’s will in conversion. The word “will” in these passages means to “choose” and to “determine” (Strong’s Definitions, e-sword), it means to “resolve” and to “purpose” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword). No man is passively converted, or converted independent of his will, but conversion is actually decision of the will.
A Calvinist will object and quote John 1:13 which say, “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” Doesn’t that mean that salvation is not our free will choice? The answer is no. Proper biblical hermeneutics would exclude this interpretation because the immediate context contradicts it. The very verse before it talks about a man’s choice in becoming born again, “But as many as received him, to them he gave right to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name…” (Jn. 1:12). That word “receive” means to "to take, to choose, select” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword). Therefore those who choose Him are granted the right to become sons of God. John 1:13 is referencing our first birth. Our parents decided by their will to come together and have intercourse which resulted in our creation. This was “of blood” and “of the will of flesh” and “of the will of man”. But we were not born again, or brought into a relationship with God, through our parent’s decision to have intercourse. It is not through their will that we are born again. If our parents were Christians, their relationship with God is not hereditary or transmitted to us. That was their choice and if we are going to have a relationship with God, we must choose to. A relationship with God cannot be inherited. We must have a second birth. What is physical is hereditary, but what is spiritual is not. That is why Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (Jn. 3:6). Our parents brought about our first birth by their will, giving us flesh, but God brings about our second birth, bringing us into a relationship with Him. John 1:13 is not saying that our will is not involved in our salvation, which would contradict so many other passages, but is simply saying that the decision of our parents did not give us a relationship with God or produce in us that which occurs at the second birth. We must remember the sound rules of biblical hermeneutics when interpreting the Bible. One verse does not cancel out many other verses. And that a single verse should be interpreted in light of those many others, especially if the single verse isn’t clear but the other verses are.
The Gospel appeal that Peter made, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40) certainly takes for granted the role of man’s choice in the salvation experience. The Bible says “whosoever will” and therefore salvation is a choice of the will (Rev. 22:17). Paul’s gospel appeal took for granted man’s role and choice in reconciliation when he said, “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). Paul said that by continuing in the truth, you will “save thyself” (1 Tim. 4:16). Paul also said, “I declare unto you the gospel, which I preached unto you, which also ye received…” (1 Cor. 15:1) He also said, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received…” (1 Cor. 15:3). Christians are those who chose to receive the gospel instead of reject it. The Bible says that men need to “receive” Christ (Jn. 1:2; 1:11), but some men refused to believe in Him and rejected Him (Ps. 118:22; Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10; Lk. 20:17; Acts 3:14; 1 Pet. 2:7). Receiving and rejecting are states of the will. Receiving Christ and rejecting Him is a personal volition. “For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:15). Just as we went astray by choice, we have returned by choice. The word “returned” in this passage means to “to turn one’s self about” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword)
Clement of Alexandria said, “We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.” (c.195, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, published by Hendrickson Publishers) Origen said, “We have freedom of the will and that we ourselves are the cause of our own ruin or our salvation” Origen (Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, by David Bercot, pg 74, printed by Scroll Publishing). Pelagius said, “Grace indeed freely discharges sins, but with the consent and choice of the believer” Pelagius (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 92, published by The Boydell Press) Augustine said, “The beginning of our salvation flows from the merciful God; but it is in our power to consent to his saving inspiration.” Augustine (An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism by John Fletcher, Volume Two, pg 206, Published by Carlton & Porter) Erasmus said, “By free choice in this place we mean a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from them.” Erasmus (E. Gordon Rupp, P. Watson, Luther And Erasmus: Free Will And Salvation, The Westminster Press, 1969, p. 47)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 13, 2010 16:52:40 GMT -5
THE FALL OF ADAM AND EVE
When God created Adam and Eve, He created them in His image therefore He gave them a free will (Gen. 1:26). Just as God has the power of self-determination, so did they. They were free to choose their behavior for themselves and consequently they were free to decide what their moral character would be. Created morally innocent, they were now free to choose what is good and as a result have a good character, or to choose evil and as a result have an evil character. While God created their constitution and gave them a free will, they themselves would create their character by how they would use their free will.
Since God created man a moral being, capable of virtue or vice, He gave them a moral law. By giving them a moral law, He gave them the opportunity to obey it or disobey it. By forbidding the tree of knowledge, God gave them the opportunity of forming good moral character. Because of the good moral character of God, He did not place them in the Garden with the forbidden tree so that they would disobey Him, but so that they would obey Him. By granting them the freedom of doing wrong, He gave them the freedom of doing right. A person has good moral character if they could do what is wrong but choose to do what is right instead. For that reason, temptation can be considered good in this sense, which is why we should count it a joy when we are tempted (Jas. 1:2), because there is a blessing for those who overcome (Jas. 1:12). The opportunity to do what is wrong is a good thing, because every opportunity to do what is wrong is an opportunity to do what is right.
While God certainly did grant Adam and Eve the ability to sin or not by giving them a free will, and He gave them the opportunity to sin or not by placing them in the Garden with the forbidden tree, it was not God who tempted them to sin in the sense of suggesting it to their minds. God does not tempt anyone to sin (Jas. 1:13) and we are to pray for God to deliver us from temptation (Lk. 11:4). It was the serpent who actually tempted Adam and Eve to sin (Gen. 3:1-4; 3:13-14). He suggested to them that they should disobey God. It was God who had commanded them not to sin (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:11; 3:17). God was completely sincere in His command. He really did want them to obey Him and motivated them to do so by warning them of the possible consequences of sin if they were to choose that course.
But there was a war going on between God and the devil for the will of man. Man was a moral being and therefore neither God nor the devil could force him to do their will. God, motivated by love, was trying to govern man by moral law, or by presenting the truth about the sanctions of the law, giving them motivation for the right choice (Gen. 2:17). God warned them about what was true. God was trying to govern them with truth. The devil, motivated by selfishness, was trying to govern man through deception, by lying about the sanctions of the law (Gen. 3:4) and motivating them to make the wrong choice by making empty promises (Gen. 3:5). The devil was trying to tear down God’s influence over their will by lying about God’s sanction, while trying to set up his own influence over their will by making empty promises. The sanctions of moral law are a moral influence upon the will of a moral being when they are perceived and understood by their mind. That is why the devil challenged and questioned the sanction of the law when He wanted to influence the will of man to disobey God. This was the fight for the allegiance of man’s will. God is good and wanted man to do what was good. The devil is evil and wanted man to do what was evil. The devil tempted them to sin by putting forth effort to bring about their sin, while God commanded them to obey and thereby put forth effort to bring about their obedience.
After placing man in the Garden with the forbidden tree, God had warned Adam about the consequences of his possible choice ahead of time (Gen. 2:17). This is because God did not want them to sin and hoped to influence them not to by bringing to their attention the consequences of such a choice. The objective of warning is that the one who is being warned would make the right choice. Warning a person about the consequences of their choices take for granted that they have the ability of choice and assumes that they can choose between two alternatives. They were free to make the right or wrong choice and God wanted them to make the right choice. Yet despite the effort and influence of God, they sinned. God had not failed man, since He had done all of His responsibility, but man had failed God, for violating his obligation. “And when the women saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (Gen. 3:6). They sought to gratify their natural desires in an unnatural and unlawful way, through means which God did not plan for them.
I can hear the pain in God’s voice and the grief of His heart as He asked, “What is this that thou hast done?” (Gen. 3:13). But as the Moral Governor of the Universe, the one who has created them moral beings and granted them moral law, who was responsible for the well-being of His creation, He had to hold them responsible and call them into account for their choices.
Is God The Author Of Sin?
We know that Adam and Eve did not have a sinful nature because when God made everything He made it “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Their nature did not necessitate their will. Their nature did not force them to do what is good or to do what is evil. Doing what was right or doing what was wrong was not determined by their nature but was determined by their will. If their good nature necessitated good choices, they never would have sinned. If their nature necessitated their choices and they sinned, God must have given them a sinful nature. The only way to explain their sin, without making God the author of sin, is to say that they sinned by free will and not by necessity of nature.
Just as Lucifer sinned against his nature, not because of his nature, but by his own free will (Isa. 14:13-14), so the sin of Adam and Eve was not the result of their nature but was caused by their free will. Your nature does not cause your will, that is, the state of your nature does not necessitate the choices of your will, but the will is free to choose according to or contrary to your nature. James Arminius said, “The Efficient cause of that transgression was man, determining his will to that forbidden object and applying his powers or capability to do it… Man therefore sinned by his free will…” James Arminius (The Works of James Arminius, published by Baker Book House, p. 371, 373)
Clement of Alexandria said, “In no respect is God the author of evil. But since free choice… originates sins… punishments are justly inflicted.” Clement of Alexandria (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, published by Hendrickson Publishers) Tatian said, “Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.” Titian (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 286, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
Martin Luther unashamedly said that God was actually the cause of sin, so that all sin is caused by God and all sin is unavoidable. He said “God… effects, and moves and impels all things in a necessary, infallible course…” Martin Luther (Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, translated by J. I. Packer & Johnston, published by Revell, 1957 Edition, p. 265) Martin Luther also said, "This is the highest degree of faith - to believe that He is merciful, the very One who saves so few and damns so many. To believe that He is just, the One who according to His own will, makes us necessarily damnable." Martin Luther (Martin Luther on The Bondage of the Will, by Rev. H. Cole, 1823 Edition, published by T. Bensley, p. 58) Where Martin Luther got the idea that man’s sinfulness was “according to His own will” or that God “makes us necessarily damnable” is a very good question since it is not anywhere in the Scriptures. God does not make men damnable because God does not make men sinful. Men make themselves damnable because men make themselves sinful. Sin is the result of man’s free will, not the effect of God’s predetermination.
While I was street preaching outside of a club in Ottawa Canada, a girl said to me “God wants us to be out here and have fun. God wants us to get drunk!” She thought that God wanted her to sin! She must have believed in Calvinism. John Calvin said, “Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3).
I have often wondered if everything is caused by God, why do Calvinists get upset with me for rejecting Calvinism? My rejection would not be my own free will choice, but the secret decree of God! Or why would they be upset with me writing an entire book defending free will and refuting total inability, if this too was decreed by God! If they are upset with me rejecting Calvinism, or for my theology, they would be upset with the secret, immutable, irresistible, and eternal will of God! It shouldn’t be me that they are upset with, it should be God!
I have also wondered how could any lover of holiness be expected to accept Calvinism? Calvinism teaches that God prefers sin over holiness in every instance that sin occurs. God could have decreed righteousness in those situations, but choose to decree sin instead! It means that God preferred a sinful universe over a sinless universe, that God preferred rebellion over obedience! If a believer wants the world to be perfectly holy, are they more righteous and loving than God? Ultimately Calvinism teaches that God is the author of sin. Vincent Cheung said, “God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power.” Vincent Cheung (The Problem of Evil) While Calvinism says that “God has decreed the existence of evil”, the God of the Bible says, “Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees…” (Isa. 10:1).
The God of the Bible did not secretly decree that men should sin. God’s eternal decree for sin was “thou shalt not” (Exo. 20:1-17). God said “thou shalt not” and He meant it! Calvinism makes God insincere in His commandments. God does not tell us to obey, only to decree our disobedience! God does not even tempt anyone to sin, let alone cause anyone to sin (Jas. 1:13). God is not the author of sin! We are! God never wanted sin to occur at all! God gave us a moral law and gave us the ability to obey it or disobey it. The reason that God calls sinners to repentance and punishes them for their sin is because their sin is not His will. It would make no sense to rebuke sinners for their sin and call them to repentance and obedience if they were already doing the will of God. We would be rebuking the will of God when we rebuke sin, if sin was God’s will! Why should we ever be upset with sin, if sin is God’s plan or if He secretly causes it? We would be upset with God’s plan! If sin is God’s plan, we should rejoice over sin! If God wants men to be sinful, we should want them to be sinful too! If God decreed the existence of sin, or if God took away our free will so that sin is unavoidable, then sin must be the will and plan of God.
All throughout the Bible we see God’s condemnation of sin. Is God condemning the fruit of His own activity, or the work of His own hands? Is God condemning His own plan? Shouldn’t the will of God be commended, not condemned? I have asked Calvinist, “Is God angry and grieved with sin?” They have answered, “Yes”. Then I’ve asked, “Was sin the secret Sovereign plan of God?” They have answered, “Yes”. Then I’ve asked, “So your saying that God angry and grieved with His own secret Sovereign plan?” They don’t know how to answer that. Logically, if God is angry and grieved with sin and sin is His plan, then God is angry and grieved with His own plan! But if God’s plan is good, He should rejoice over it. Therefore if sin was God’s plan, God should rejoice over sin! This of course He never does, because sin is not His plan and sin is not good.
If sin was God’s plan, and God is angry and grieved with sin, then He should also be angry and grieved with Himself because He is the one who caused it! He is the one who secretly eternally decreed it! Sin is not self-existent. To be angry and grieved with sin, but not to be angry and grieved with the one who caused the sin, would make no sense. Therefore God ought to be angry and grieved with Himself if God secretly decreed the existence of sin. But God is angry with sinners for their sin (Ps. 7:11). Therefore sinners are the cause of sin, not God.
Ben Sirach, the Jewish scribe during Old Testament times, rightly reasoned, “Say not: ‘It was God’s doing that I fell away’; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: ‘He has caused me to err’; for he has no need of wicked man. The Lord hates all abominations; and they that fear God love it not. When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has set fire and water before you, stretch forth your hand to whichever you choose. Before man is life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him.” (Sirach 15:11-17)
John Calvin taught that Adam did not have two alternative possibilities to choose between, but that God did cause him to sin. He said, "The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 8). He also said, "I freely acknowledge my doctrine to be this: that Adam fell, not only by the permission of God, but by His very secret council and decree…" John Calvin (Secret Providence, pg. 267.) How contrary this is to the Word of God which says, “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works” (Ps. 145:17). “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above…” (Jas. 1:17). “The just Lord… will not do iniquity…” (Zep. 3:5). To “do” means to “accomplish”, “advance”, “appoint”, “bring forth”, “provide”, “make”, or “procure”. We are told that, “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he” (Deut. 32:4).
A sinner is someone who causes sin to exist. A “worker of iniquity” is someone who “makes” or “ordains” sin. (Strong’s Definitions, e-sword) If Adam sinned because God secretly caused him to, God is the real sinner, not Adam! Adam would not be a criminal since he had no free will. Adam would be the victim of God’s eternal and secret bullying. If God caused all the sin of men, if we are puppets of God and not free moral agents, then God is the only real sinner in the entire universe and we cannot be responsible and accountable whatsoever. God is the only one who actually has moral character since God is the only one who causes moral choices to occur. If a man uses a gun to kill another person, the courts will hold the man accountable, not the gun!
While Adam blamed God and his wife for his sin (Gen. 3:12), and Eve blamed the serpent for her sin (Gen. 3:13), God blamed each individual for their sin which shows that their sin was their own free choice. It reveals to us that they could have obeyed the law that God had given them. God said to Adam, “Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” (Gen. 3:11). God was not to blame since God commanded him not to. God was sincere in His command. He didn’t want Adam to sin. God warned Adam ahead of time about the consequences he would face if he made that choice (Gen. 2:17). The objective of commanding and warning is that the one who is being commanded and warned would make the right choice. The fall of Adam occurred despite the efforts of God to avoid it. He went on and said to Adam. “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife…” (Gen. 3:17). Adam’s sin was the result or product of his own volition or choice. God said to Eve, “What is this that thou hast done?” (Gen. 3:13) and God said to the serpent, “Because thou hast done this” (Gen. 3:14). Before assigning their consequences, God said that it was their own fault. If it was not their fault, but was secretly God’s fault, then they would not have deserved any punishments whatsoever. Moral beings, with freedom of will, are rightly subject to consequences for their choices.
To deny that mankind has genuinely rebelled against the will of God is to actually deny the fall or rebellion of man. If sin was the will of God, mankind was not rebelling against God’s will by choosing to sin, but was rather acting according to it! Man would be a puppet of God, rather than a rebel against God. It does not solve the problem to say that God has a “revealed will” and a “secret will”. For if holiness was God’s revealed will, but sin was God’s secret will, than God is insincere in His commands, His revealed will is a lie, and His secret will is His actual will. If God publicly favors righteousness, for appearance or reputation sake, but secretly favors sin, what kind of being is He? A person’s character is what he is in secret! If God secretly decrees sin, God would be secretly sinful! God said, “I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth… I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” (Isa. 45:19). If God has a secret will, which is contrary to His revealed will, than that secret will would be “wrong” because His revealed will is “right”. If God has a secret will, which is the opposite of His revealed will, we can never trust anything that God says! All the public threatening and promises in the Bible would be questionable and untrustworthy! And if sinners have acted according to the actual will of God, they are not really rebels at all. Our world would not be fallen; mankind would not be a race of rebels, but would be obedient servants of God who always do the will of God in every instance.
After one young convert heard a Calvinist describing Calvinism, he said to him, “Your god is my devil.” There is a lot of truth in that statement. That is because God’s plan was for holiness but the devil’s plan was for sin. The world chose to do the devil’s will instead of God’s will. That is why the devil is called the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4) and the “prince of this world” (Jn. 12:31). There is a real war going on between God and the devil for the allegiance of man’s free will. It was God who commanded obedience from Adam but it was the devil that tempted Adam to sin. To say that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin is to confuse God with the devil!
Theodore Beza, the successor of John Calvin, said that “The fall of man was both necessary and wonderful”. Theodore Beza (The Christian Faith). Calvinists have taught that God secretly predestined the fall of Adam, and consequently the damnation of our race, so that the atonement of Christ would be necessary and He can get the glory of our salvation. This would be like a fireman who secretly started fires throughout the community so that their rescue work would be necessary and they can get the glory of putting these fires out. While it is good to put out fires, it is not good to start them! The end does not justify the means in this scenario. If their secret activity is revealed, their rescue work doesn’t seem so wonderful anymore. They would not be viewed as heroes but as heinous monsters! Their actions would not be praiseworthy but punishable! Calvinism says that God caused the damnation of all, so that He could predestine the salvation of the few. They say that many are on the broad road, and few are on the narrow road, because God wants it to be that way. This would be like a Doctor who infected a community with a deadly disease, resulting in the death of masses, so that He could give the cure to those few whom He wanted to. Nobody would ever call such a man benevolent or good. Insecure mothers will cause their children to be sick so that they can appear to others to be good mothers and so that they themselves will feel needed. Is that really what God is like? How awful it is to view God as causing the wickedness of our race, just so he can cause the salvation of “the elect”!
Calvinists ask, “But wasn’t the atonement planned before the fall of Adam?” Yes and no. God was prepared in the same way that an airplane would have a parachute on it before it crashes. It is a precautionary measure knowing the possible danger. Christ was ordained before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20), because God prepared for the possible fall, knowing that man had free will. But Christ was not actually slain until the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), because that is when the fall actually occurred and therefore an atonement became necessary for our salvation. We must remember that God does not desire sacrifice but desires a holy people (Ps. 51:16-17; Hos. 6:7; Mic. 6:7-8). God said that “to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22). With that in mind, it would seem that God would have preferred a sinless universe that needed no atonement at all than a sinful one that did. God prefers holiness over sinfulness. God created everything “good” and He wanted it to stay that way. The fall of Adam and Eve was not the result of God pushing them down. Their sin was their own free choice which God was deeply grieved with.
Calvinists will even try to use the Bible to teach that God is the Creator of sin. They misuse Isa. 25:7 which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” The evil, in the Greek, is calamity which is physical evil. It does not mean that God created moral evil. God talks about bringing evil or calamity to a city to punish their sins (Neh. 13:18; Jer. 21:10; 25:29; Amos 3:6). God did not say “I make righteousness and create evil”. Evil is contrasted with “peace” because the evil referred to is calamity. God gives peace to the righteous but God destroys the wicked. That is because God never wanted sin to occur but wants men to be righteous. God told His people to “put away evil” from among them (Deut. 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21; 22:22, 24; 24:7; Jdg. 20:13; Ecc. 11:10; Isa. 1:16). This command shows that evil was not God’s will for them. God is not the author of sin.
We know that God does not take pleasure in sin, but is grieved and angry with sin (Gen. 6:5-6; Ps. 7:11)! God loves righteousness but hates sin (Prov. 6:16; Isa. 61:8; Zec. 8:17; Heb. 1:9)! We also know that all things were created for the pleasure of God (Rev. 4:11). Therefore we can conclude that God did not create sin, neither did God create us for sin! God did not create what He hates; neither did He create us to do what He hates! God takes pleasure in righteousness, God created us for His pleasure, therefore God created us for righteousness. We were created us to live right, to walk in love and live free from sin. God regretted the creation of our race when He saw how we became sinful (Gen. 6:5-6). Hell was not created for mankind (Matt. 25:41). Man was created for God’s pleasure, therefore nobody was created to live in sin and to die in sin, since God takes “no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Eze. 33:11), but that “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints” (Ps. 116:15). Sin was an interruption in the plan of God, a rebellion against His will.
John Calvin said, “Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God.” John Calvin (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p. 169) James White is a modern apologist for the Reformed or Calvinist faith and he gave us an example of the “right and just works of God”. He was asked, "When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?" James White answered "Yes". (James White’s Debate with Hank Hannegraaf and George Bryson) All sinful actions, according to Calvinism, are the just and right works of God. In my mind, both the child and the rapist are victims of God fatalistic will! Consider the consequences of what Calvinism is saying here. If Calvinism were true, when we pray “thy will be done” (Matt. 6:10; 26:42) we would be praying for children to be raped! In fact, Jesus taught us to pray for children to be raped, because Jesus taught us to pray “thy will be done”. If Calvinism is true, Jesus taught us to pray for the occurrence of all the sin of the entire world!
The best criminal defense a person could have in court would be, “It’s not my fault. God made me do it.” Is God the “the mastermind” behind all crime? If he was, every crime that is prosecuted is really the work of God being prosecuted! Every sin that is condemned is the condemnation of the work of God! You can forget about praying, “lead us not into temptation” (Matt. 6:13), God straight out forces you to sin by His irresistible will! Martin Luther said, “Since, therefore, God moves and does all in all, He necessarily moves and does all in Satan and the wicked man” Martin Luther (The Bondage of the Will, Sovereign Grace Publishers, p. 87) Are we to blame God for all the acts of Satan and wicked men? Think of all the awful stories you have ever heard on the news. Are we to credit to God’s “Sovereignty” or “the good pleasure of His will” all of the tragedies of our world? Is God to blame for all the kidnappings each year? Or for how many girls are sold into the sex trade? Or for how many people die by drunk drivers? Is God the cause of all the suicides in the world? This was not the wonderful picture that God had envisioned and planned for His creation! These events were not secretly decreed by God, as if God were such a heinous monster! These events are caused by man’s own free will, because our race has become a heinous monster! If God decreed, sin, sinners go to hell for doing the will of God. In the Scriptures, we don’t see God sending sinners to hell for doing His will, but for rebelling against it.
We are to pray “thy will be done in earth” (Matt. 6:10). This prayer presupposes that God’s will is not always being done. The Bible says that men reject the counsel of God against themselves (Lk. 7:30). Contrary to John Calvin’s blasphemous charge “that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it" John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion" Book III, Chapter 23, Paragraph 7), the Bible explicitly and plainly describes God’s great heartache and disappointment with mankind because of their sin. What a great tragedy to read “…it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth (Gen. 6:5-6). The fall of our race did not bring any “pleasure” to God. It was not arranged for “his own pleasure”. God was deeply upset with mankind’s sin because that is not what He had planned for us! That is not what He created and designed us for! God did not publicly grieve over man’s sin, when secretly He had caused them to do it! Mankind sin was not the result of God’s secret decrees or the result of God removing mankind’s free will. God is not to be blamed at all.
Gordon Olson said, “Beloved, when God had made such glorious and blessed plans for His creature man, and man had forsaken the great heart of God for sinful pleasure, and further, grew worse and worse, can we form any conception of the sorrow and grief that came upon the blessed Trinity when they "saw" such wickedness? And further, when God contemplated man's glorious endowments, created so that man might fellowship with and understand his Creator, now being used to devise means of sinful gratification, who shall measure God's sorrow…?” Gordon Olson (Explanation of Ephesians 1:3-14)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 13, 2010 16:51:22 GMT -5
I would say that nobody ever had to sin, and infants haven't sinned yet, but I have never met anyone who has come of age who hasn't sinned.
|
|