One problem that I have with the idea of perseverance of the saints is my own personal experience. I’ve seen committed Christians lose their faith.
The standard answer is that if they had really been Christians, they wouldn’t have lost their faith. And this does seem to have some biblical backing: “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” (1 John 2:19) Isn’t that what John is saying here?
I’m not so sure. This really seems to be more of a reference to unity in the body than to salvation. 1 John presents continuance in the body as of vital importance; many think that’s what he’s referring to in these verses: “If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.” (1 John 5:16) Many commentators think that the sin John is referring to is leaving the fellowship (see 1 John 1:5-7)
I know that many people have been convinced that they were in Christ, yet then fell away. “How do you know they were in Christ?” Well, 1 John 5:13 says that someone can have confidence of eternal life. I just can’t see saying that everyone who ever fell was just fooling themselves about their faith.
“But you can think that you are in Christ and not really be in Christ!” Again, this seems to have some backing, reading Matthew 7:21 (a verse that has been strangely popular in some churches). Somehow, I don’t find this “assurance” very comforting. It tells me that I may believe that God has given me eternal life, but be very wrong about it. That’s blessed assurance?
I’ll stick with the confidence that as long as I continue to believe in Jesus and seek the salvation he offers, he will continue to give it to me. That’s the kind of assurance I can base my hope on. “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13) That’s what I call blessed assurance
Tiim: first of all I have no denomination or specific doctrine to defend. Years ago 20 to be exact, I found myself realizing that what I considered to be doctrinal and scriptural and correct, wrong. Dispensational truth freed me to see that there is a difference between law and grace, Jew and Gentile, prophecy and mystery. That the apostle Paul is the gentilic apostle and that the 4 gospels are just a continuation of the prophetic program with the law and 10 commandments in place. How can Christ mention anything about grace and his shed blood on our behalf when he hadn’t gone to the cross, hadn’t risen from the grave, the offer to gentiles when his ministry was only to Jews? What did he say to the rich young ruler? Have you sold everything, and followed Christ, kept the commandments? Remember, that is what the early Christians did in Jerusalem. They waited for the return and found themselves needing money which the Christians in Thessalonia sent. Go back to Gideon, he needed a sign from God, didn’t he? The Jews needed signs that the Messiah, had come. This followed prophecy, All the miracles, The sermon on the mount, the Lords prayer, The prodigal son, Israel. The bride of Christ, Israel, everything that Christ is being quoted as saying was to the nation that prophecied his coming. In the Jewish temple there was a sign posted all around the outer court. Any gentile found beyond this point is subject to death.
My blessed assurance comes from what was done at the cross. The shed blood as a propitiation for me and you. We are reconciled, justified and no longer sinners in the sight of God. That is my blessed assurance.
If we were talking about newspaper accounts of the life of Jesus, you would be correct. If we were talking about history books, you would be partially correct. The gospels are neither. They were written to teach Jesus’ followers, not to teach the people of Jesus’ day. John probably wrote 50-60 years after Jesus’ death; why go to that trouble if his words meant nothing?
The gospels were written after Jesus’ death. Three of the four probably had Gentiles as the intended audience. These teachings were preserved for Gentiles who would come to believe in Jesus. That’s us!
(And the church in Jerusalem went through hunger because:
1. Jerusalem was historically a poor city; Jews the world over sent money to fellow Jews there.
2. There was a famine in the region. (Acts 11:27-30)
3. The Christians shared what they had BECAUSE of the extreme poverty there. The poverty didn’t arise because of the sharing)
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: and I quote ” the books were not written to teach the people of Jesus day” If they were written as you say 50 or 60 years after his death
that puts all the writings after the destruction of the temple that occurred in 70 A.D. I am speechless…..
I’m sorry, maybe I didn’t write it clearly enough, though I’ll try quoting the pertinent section: “John probably wrote 50-60 years after Jesus’ death.” I don’t believe that John wrote the other gospels, if that’s where the confusion lies.
Most scholarship that I’ve read places the first 3 gospels no earlier than the 50s, probably 25 years or more after Jesus’ death. There is some debate about John; I’d always heard the 80s or 90s, but I notice my NIV Study Bible says some believe it may have been written as early as the others.
My point still stands: the gospels were not written to the people of Jerusalem to remind them of what Jesus said. They were primarily written for those that did not witness Jesus’ ministry firsthand.
Are you speechful again? ;-)
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Ok Tim: I will just give you a few openings of some of the books that I remember that specifically state who the letter is to.
John III: The elder unto the well beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth
John II: The elder unto the elect lady and her children
I Peter: to the scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia
and Bithynia
James: To the 12 tribes scattered which are scattered abroad greeting
Hebrews: God who at sundry times and in diverse manner spoke in time past unto the fathers and prophets,
Philemon: Philemon our dearly brother and our beloved Apphia
Titus: To Titus, mine own son after the common faith.
Now really, I think I have proved my here.
about the gospels, obviously the gospels were written for those that didn’t walk with him and didn’t hear him. But his audience was limited. There was a good reason why he didn’t venture beyond Israel. He didn’t come to win over the gentiles, he came to fulfill prophecy. Read the account of the Syrophenician woman. The fact that Christ says I am not BUT sent unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. and he points out to her that being a gentile, she has no right to be asking for a healing of her daughter. taking bread from the children (Israel) and casting it to dogs
(Gentiles). The first time the term dogs is used is in Exodus 11: the term dogs is used to describe the Egyptians. Also when Christ was on the cross in Psalms 22 16-20. The the term dogs is the description used to declare gentiles surrounding him.
Well, H.B., as long as you are able to prove things to yourself, I guess that’s what matters.
Though I am curious what you think the opening to Hebrews says about who it is to.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
H.B., I would suggest that the ends of the gospels are pertinent. For example, take the end of Matthew’s gospel: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20)
Go to all nations and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. The teachings of Jesus were for all nations, ARE for all nations. Hopefully it won’t offend you if I point out that the word “nations” is the same word for “Gentiles.” Earlier, Jesus had told them not to go to the “nations.” Now he sends them to the nations, to teach them what he has taught.
We see the same in Mark and Luke:
“He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)
“He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:46-47)
The writings contained in the gospels, the teachings of Jesus, were to be taught to the Gentiles, according to Jesus.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I guess it is true that we can make the Bible say whatever we want it to say.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Tim: The main problem with what Christ said to his disciples is this.
They never got out of Israel. If you recall in Acts the transitional book that we refer to as the passing of the message from the 12 disciples to Paul was that he went on to be the apostle to the Gentiles. With the persecution that took place with Christians during the time after Christ ascended this proclamation didn’t get out. Paul as Saul ravaged and plagued the disciples with torture murder and imprisonment. The culmination of the futility of the 12 in getting the message out was the stoning of Stephen. Dispensational truth if followed allows us to get a clear picture of the end of the prophetic program and the beginning of what was kept secret and hidden as a mystery. Col 1:25-29
I also might add that in Acts the meeting with Peter, James and Paul, it was decided the the apostles would go to Jerusalem and Paul would take the message to the NATIONS (gentiles) A change has taken place and it is so important that Christ was the fullfillment of prophecy and Paul was the chosen one taking it to the nations…..His Roman heritage dictated that he be the one and I might add the chosen one and not the disciples that would take the message to the pagan world.
Tim: you mentioned Hebrews, I am a former teacher and taught in the Public school system in Ohio for 15 years. I am here to teach. The book entitled Hebrews obviously is written to the Hebrew people and as I said in a previous post spoke of the fathers and prophets…..To Jews for Jews. Paul is not the writer of this book…..he states in one of his letters that he signs what he writes.
Heavenbound,
While Paul certainly went to the Gentiles with the gospel, if you will read Acts carefully you will notice that Paul had a habbit of going to the Jews as well.
Grace and peace,
Rex
H.B., teachers need to learn as well. You are jumping by leaps and bounds beyond what is written. I’m curious… do you think Jesus made a mistake by sending out the twelve, or was the Holy Spirit incapable of preparing them for their task? I’m curious where you see the failing, because Jesus told them they would be his witnesses to the ends of the earth. Why was Jesus so wrong?
Yours is an interesting rewrite of the biblical history, but not one that fits with the New Testament record.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: In Acts 9 After Paul’s blinding V13 Then Ananias answered Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem V14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But Christ says V15 Go thy way for he is a chosen vessel unto me to bear my name before the Gentiles and Kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. This marks a change in what the risen Lord wanted done. This coinsides with this passage Luke 24:49
Christ is speaking right before his assension “And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power on high.
Please explain away the difference of Matthew 10:5 When Christ says These 12 Jesus sent forth and commanded them saying Go NOT in to the way of the Gentiles and into any city of the Samaritans enter not; But go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
V7 And as ye go preach saying The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
V14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake the dust off your feet.
V15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that City.
Now this is in direct conflict with Matthew 28: 16-20.
K. Rex, yes Paul went to the synagogues, to tell the Jews that the Messiah had come. Paul in Acts 18:18 Takes a Jewish vow. In Acts 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles and that they will hear it. v29 and when he had said these words the Jews departed and had great disputing among themselves.
Tim,
With respect, it is not a good thing to base a Bible doctrine on anecdotal evidence. What evidence do you have that XYZ who lost his faith was ever saved? You only know what you observed. And, since you and I can’t see a man’s “faith” or look into his heart, or observations are not very solid evidence.
Royce
H.B., during Jesus’ ministry on earth he gave the apostles one set of instructions, specific ones for a short term mission. His earthly ministry was limited to Israel. Once he had been sacrificed, the ministry became worldwide, hence the change in instructions. Change, not contradiction.
Look at Acts 1:8. Who is Jesus talking to? Where are THEY going to be witnesses, with the power of the Holy Spirit? Again, I have to ask: did the Holy Spirit fail or was Jesus wrong?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Thanks, Royce, for the comment. Your point about not knowing the heart goes both ways. It’s pretty ridiculous (and a tad judgmental) to try and say that none of these people had their hearts right with God. “Well, he left. Guess he never was a believer.” We have no right to make such assertions.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: A short term mission, I missed the time frame. Please point me to the scripture that it says it was for a limited time. My Bible KJV, gives no specifics on time. I don’t think yours does either. You can’t dodge this fact either, Matthew 10:23 same chapter in which he gives the marching orders to the disciples and I quote “But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another; for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come” In all my comments I have not watered down or changed anything. I have been straight forward with my approach to the word. I read the doctrine of the Church of Christ this morning. It encourages private and personal interpretation of scripture. To be honest I have not used any commentaries, nor extra books for interpretation of scripture, as I have allowed the words to come off the page and enlighten those that have read my thoughts about what I see.
I am fortunate to have been exposed to dispensational study.
It has changed my life and allowed me to be completely free of
any guilt trip that people would like to bestow upon me. Yes interpretation is my own. But I can tell you this. When I die, I will stand before the throne and say, I owe everything to Christ, not what he did on earth in his earthly ministry, but what he did for me at Calvary. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that he paid it all…….
Read through the gospels. Jesus sent his disciples out and back several times. The instructions were different the different times. The disciples’ mission after the cross was extremely different from that before the cross.
Again I beg you to read Acts 1:8. Here, I’ll print it for you, straight from the KJV: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) This was spoken to the apostles (1:2), all Galileans (1:11), which Paul was not. We’re faced with three possibilities:
BTW, wherever you read the “doctrine of the Church of Christ,” it was a bogus site. There is no such doctrine spelled out. There are general ideas that are widely adhered to, but there is great variety of belief.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Ok, I won’t argue about what I read on the doctrine of the COC. But I will address Acts 1:8. Yes it says and the uttermost parts of the earth. But you must agree that it gives no specifics as mentioned in the early part of the verse. He mentions Judea and Samaria. The term uttermost is used 3 different times and in none of the uses, is it used as a particular place or direction. I sure wouldn’t hang my hat on 4 words in one verse. This could be a translation mistake. The term uttermost is used in Matt. 5:26, I Th. 2:16 and Hebrews 7:25 none of these are used in the description of a outer reaches of the earth. I might add that they in v4 were told to wait in Jerusalem. Could it be that the translators added this? Or could the translators just misapplied the word? As you admitted in the previous post they did go out, but like Jesus he never left Israel nor did they in the gospels.
If you read further, the twelve were busy in Jerusalem, they were beaten, jailed, chased from the temple. Paul was assigned to lay them to waist. In your readings have you come across how the disciples
experienced their demise?
The important thing to remember, what was the message they were telling. It wasn’t the same message that Paul preached.
Acts 1.8 gives no specifics because Luke’s original readers understood what he meant.
Grace and peace,
Rex
K rex I am not an original reader. Its been 2000 years since this was penned and quite honestly the more hands in the pot the more muddy it gets……
“As you admitted in the previous post they did go out, but like Jesus he never left Israel nor did they in the gospels.” I’m sorry, you lost me… who is he? Luke, the author of Acts? Paul’s travel companion?
Your desire to change what the New Testament says has led you to claim textual error with no evidence… that’s scary! Each of the gospels says that the apostles were to preach to the whole world, Acts says the same thing… but you have to invent a non-existent textual variant to try and support your theory. That’s a dangerous practice.
As for them preaching a different message, now you’re contradicting Paul himself! In Galatians 2, he met with the apostles, told them what he was preaching, and they shook hands in agreement that one group was preaching the gospel to the Jews, one to the Gentiles, but it was the same gospel. (Be sure and read what Paul says in chapter 1 about there only being one gospel)
The important thing to remember is that the gospel message remains the same as it did from the very beginning, the same gospel that Peter and Paul preached.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Ok we have to look at what is apparent to me but you don’t seem to either realize or ignore. We have copies, thousands of copies of manuscripts written over centuries. Do you think that God protected these manuscript copies? Do you think the Catholics preserved what they had in their possesson or manipulated them for their own purpose? I for one, think that they manipulated them for their purpose.
Lets talk about Peter. He didn’t know that the Gentiles were part of salvation until Christ revealed it to Paul. Peter had no knowledge of this.
This is why Peter had the dream of the sheet. He was getting heat about going to the Gentiles This is in chapter 10. The Christian Jews wanted Gentiles to be circumcised, to be part of the fellowship.
Peter in his speech in Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews devout men, out of every nation. V10 Both Jews and proselytes
V14 Ye men of Judea V16 quotes the prophet Joel V22 Ye men of Israel V36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ.
Now this is very important to point out. Acts 2 is full of Jewishness and no mention of any Gentiles. This is very important as it establishes that the disciples were only seeking other Jews to tell them of the news that they had killed the Messiah. They needed to repent, be baptized
for the remission of sin V38. Now there is no doubt with this proof that I have showed that this is the same theme as it was in the Gospel accounts. I have documented so many verses that substantiate what I have been saying. As I conclude, An anouncement had taken place.
With John the Baptist, Christ’s earthly ministry, thru the gospels with
complete exclusion of the Gentiles.
H.B., you desperately need to read the literature about how we got the Bible. We have lots of textual evidence older than the Catholic church.
Peter saw the sheet before he had ever heard of Paul. It was to prepare him to go preach to Cornelius, a Gentile. I have admitted that he didn’t understand all of the references to the Gentiles in Acts 2… but surely we are smart enough to read them! Luke, the Gentile, faithfully recorded them for us. I listed them for you before; do you need them again?
Paul wrote to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians about baptism (as well as the Greek Titus). It was NOT only for the Jews. It was, as the Holy Spirit said through Peter, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:39—which is a reference, of course, to Joel 2, the passage Peter quoted before speaking about “all flesh”)
Remember these words of Paul: “Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:11-22)
The Gentiles were brought in, made part of God’s people. They are part of the holy temple built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. There’s no disconnect there. The gospel is the same for all, the gospel that was preached when Jesus was on earth, was preached by his apostles, including the apostle Paul.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: I have a question for you Why Paul? If the disciples were chosen to take this to the uttermost parts, why did Christ choose a Pharisee who was given authority to ravage the Christian Jews and take them out to be the one to take the message that Christ had given. I am sorry but I must
defend my position. The message is different from what the disciples was spreading. That the messiah has come. Peter says you have killed our Messiah. Paul says Christ has risen and become a propitiation for you.
You are justified and sanctified. The sin debt has been paid. Do you see the difference. Jesus wasn’t the Messiah for the gentiles was he? The gentiles didn’t prophecy that he was coming now did they? The Jews describe the gentiles as dogs. Why would they spread the news to people they thought of as dogs? I can’t believe you don’t see the change that took place. My last point is this: Acts 9 Saul’s conversion.
Acts 10 Peters vision. What happened first?
I want to add one other point: Once the disciples met with Paul and he gave them the information that was given to him by the risen Christ, they too preached the message of salvation. I never disputed the fact that they didn’t know. What I have disputed is when did they know it.
This message could have only been given to the gentiles after the ascension had taken place and the mystery of the death burial and ressurection had been revealed to Paul. Remember, mystery, kept secret, only revealed to Paul, minister of the gentiles, change taken place.
It is so critical to make the bible clear to those that read it, to understand that as long as the Temple stood a middle wall of partition separated the Jews from the Gentiles.
(1) Why Paul? God chose a Jew from Tarsus to reach out to the Gentile world. Has nothing to do with a change in message, just a change in messenger.
(2) Now you’ve strayed from your KJV. Peter uses the term Christ. Of course the initial sermons had to do with the killing of the Christ… they were given in Jerusalem just weeks after the event. Read Paul’s sermon in Acts 13 when he was speaking to Jews. It contains many of the same themes as Peter’s sermon in Acts 2.
(3) Paul’s conversion seems to have taken place before Peter’s vision. Luke tends to be more chronological than some of the other writers, so that’s probably true. Now here’s a question: which took place first, Peter’s vision in Acts 10 or the beginning of Paul’s ministry to Gentiles in Acts 11?
Tim: I would like to hear your comment about the temple
You are thinking of a verse that I can’t call to mind right now. Where does Paul say that the mystery of God was only revealed to him? I’m not saying it’s not there, it just doesn’t ring a bell with me right now.
I’m guessing that you believe Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, etc. were written after A.D. 70? They each talk of the barrier between Jew and Greek having been removed.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: Have you heard the term progressive revelation? Paul didn’t get the complete message at one point in time. That is why you see changes in a step by step progression. Paul preaches in synagogues, Paul preaches to Jews and Gentles. Paul has a vision when stoned. Goes to the third heaven,Paul circumcises Timothy, Paul takes a Jewish vow. He still felt a duty to preach to the Jews scattered. That is why there is contention as when was the offering officially made to the gentiles. You have different view points in the dispensational doctrinal camp. Acts is a transition even in the last chapter he is talking to Jews and they walk away arguing and disputing what he says to them. Just like you are disputing with me, LOL. I love this back and forth that we have been doing. It is good for my soul to dig into scripture and I thank you for it….I am still waiting for the comment about the temple. The most important structure in the Jewish religion.
Tim Eph 2:14 for he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances to make in himself of twain one new man so making peace.
Look up these verses as well Romans 16:24, Gal 1:12 and Eph 3:5.
In answer to your question about when Paul’s letters were written I think they were written before 70 A.D. What I contest about was the book of Revelation being written in 90 to 95 A.D. 20 to 25 years after the destruction of the temple. In John’s letters or in Revelation is there mentioned of any destruction? As important as that was to the Jews I would think it would be mentioned at least once. Allowing a reader to draw a parallel of John’s writing to the Gentiles of his time…..This from a historical standpoint. I don’t want to get into a discussion about this
here.
I guess we’ll agree to disagree on the progressive revelation. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on the dating of the letters. Were they mostly written after 70 a.d.? Or were some written before Paul received the whole mystery from God?
I guess I’m not clear as to what you want me to say about the temple. Built by Solomon on the spot where David offered the sacrifice to end the plague. Destroyed by the Babylonians. Rebuilt after the return from exile. Herod greatly enlarged the temple, making it an architectural showpiece. Destroyed by the Romans in 70 a.d.
At Jesus’ death, the massive curtain of the temple was ripped from top to bottom, signaling that all men now have access to the Holy of Holies.
I doubt that I’m touching on the exact point that you are looking for. Ask a specific question, or make a statement, and I’ll see if I can respond.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Yes, H.B., Ephesisans 2:14 contradicts this statement that you made:
That’s why I thought you must have thought Ephesians was written after 70 a.d.
Romans 16 says the mystery was made known through the prophets. Eph 3 says the holy apostles and prophets.
In Galatians 1, Paul talks about the gospel he received from Jesus. He then says in chapter 2 that he went to Jerusalem and they were in full agreement with what he was preaching.
Nothing about the mystery only being revealed to Paul. In fact, Romans 16 and Ephesians 3 refute that idea.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: what is in your tea man. I quoted Eph 2:14 precisely word for word.
Oh wow! You have flat out denied that the world is round and from your perspective you are just like the Jews blinded to the truth. I guess if a guy believes that you can lose your salvation, why should I believe that you would change your way of thinking…….Good luck as I am kicking the dust from my sandles and moving on……..
Well, you may not be back to read this H.B., but I’ll lay it out for you.
Eph 2:14 “he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.” Hath broken down. That’s past tense. The wall is gone.
You said: “as long as the Temple stood a middle wall of partition separated the Jews from the Gentiles.”
Confused, I asked if you thought Ephesians was written after the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. You said no.
Paul says the wall was broken down. You say it still separated them.
And you’re upset with me? Wow.
Suppose a man had a son whom he loved. The son was loving and obedient when he was younger, but as he got older he became more and more rebellious. He rebelled against the authority of the father. He disobeyed and behaved in such a way as to bring shame on himself and his family. The father tried one thing and then another to no avail. The son might temporarily seem to repent, but in the end he continued to rebel.
If you were the father of that son would you give him up as hopelessly lost? Would you halt your efforts to bring the son to repentance and leave him to his own devices?
Suppose you had all the knowledge and wisdom in the world. Furthermore, you had infinite power and were able to know what would and what would not be effective at turning your son’s mind and attitude and behavior around. You knew you could be successful in bringing your son to repentance and restoring a right relationship with him. Is there anything that would cause you to refuse to it? Would you decide against it b/c it wouldn’t be fair to use your limitless resources against the rebellion of a mere son. Would you decide to not bring your son, whom you loved, to repentance b/c you might infringe on his free will? Is there anything at all that you would not do do to effect the restoring of a right relationship with your son?
I speak only for myself, but I can not imagine a scenario where I would not use all my resources to bring about that end.
I think God has spoken through his word for himself and I never hear him say he doesn’t want to infringe upon the free will of his children. Indeed he has given his son; won’t he also give us all things in him? “Who will separate us from the love of Christ?”
“But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”
Randall,
Do you feel that God does not love the rest of the world? Your arguments lead me again not to POTS but to universalism. I don’t agree with either doctrine, but a God who would choose to lead people irresistibly (trying to avoid any hot buttons with terminology) to salvation, would choose to lead ALL men to salvation.
Every time that God stands before a man and says, “Choose,” he speaks of free will. When he speaks of being willing to announce evil, then do good, he speaks of free will. Free will is written throughout Scripture. Like the terms “Bible” or “discipleship,” it never appears as such, but it’s presence is real.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
The scripture is clear that God makes choices and they are not arbitrary even though he does not always tell us why he made those choices. Israel, he loved though she was the least of nations. All through scripture God chooses one over another. He has mercy on whom he will and he hardens whom he will and I think the scripture is clear on that. So yes, I think God loves some people more than others and that although he is gracious to all men w/o exception (the rain falls on the just and the unjust) he gives special grace to some women and men that he does not give to others. This riles our sense of fairness and we judge God as behaving wrongly if he does that. This is why I say one of our biggest objections to Calvinism is that we think it makes God unfair to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use. If God hardens Pharaoh then how he still find fault with Pharaoh for having a hard heart? Paul reminds us the potter has the right to do with the clay as he pleases. Paul then suggests that God does this to demonstrate both his mercy and his wrath. This is why Roman 9: 1-23 is controversial and we go jump though such hoops as to make it not say what it does say.
Like you, I am not a universalist. Both “heaven” and “hell” were prepared from eternity past and the wicked were made for the day of judgment. I think where we disagree is that I think God is ultimately sovereign regarding all things, including our salvation. I wonder if you might believe God has delegated that sovereignty to man. Of course, that is a hunch as I have had this conversation with many friends in the CofC ( and other non Calvinist churches) and it frequently comes down to that. They are truly bothered (more than me anyway) that God would choose one over another and have it not based on something good God foresaw in the man i.e. foreseen faith. I would be interested in whether that is a significant objection you have to this doctrine.
Peace,
Randall
P.S. Sam Storms little book titled Chosen for Life has an excellent illustration on pages 125 – 130. I would be ever so grateful if you had the opportunity to read it and respond to it.
Here is brief except for earlier in the book:
“Divine election is certainly one of the more profound and controversial doctrines in Holy Scripture. To some it is an idea conceived in hell, a tool of Satan to thwart the evangelistic zeal of the church and thus responsible for populating hell with those who otherwise would have been reached with the gospel. To others divine election is the heart and soul of Scripture, the most comforting and reassuring of biblical truths, apart from which grace loses its power and God his glory. To the former, then, election is a primary reason why people are in hell. To the latter, it is the only reason why people are in heaven.”
Randall,
God makes choices. Man makes choices and God reacts to man’s choices. God chose Jacob over Esau, yet Esau was richly blessed and the people of Edom were treated in a special way… until by their choices they forfeited that special position. Edom was ultimately rejected by God not because of God’s ancient choice but because of Edom’s treatment of Israel.
Your statement about Romans 9 can be equally applied to a host of passages. When I presented a few the other day, there was a general outcry of “foul”! You seemed to be one anxious to make each of those texts “not say what it does say” (to use your phrase). Yes, I do read Romans 9 differently than you.
My belief in the sovereignty of God is no less than yours. We differ in how he chooses to use that sovereignty. Your objections to universalism recognize that God has chosen to limit his sovereignty, that is, he could make all men good, but does not choose to do so.
As far as delegation, I don’t see that concept as applying. If man could somehow lay claim on salvation, saying, “I’ve done this and this and this, so you HAVE to save me,” then I guess that could be seen in that way. We are instead told that God chooses to save those that have faith in His Son Jesus. God’s choice, not man’s.
God chose to save Noah. He chose to do it through the ark. Why not just make him able to swim all that time or miraculously save him without any action on Noah’s part? We don’t know. It was God’s choice. If someone had built an ark on their own, I don’t think they would have been saved. If Noah had refused to build the ark, I don’t think God would have saved him. The ark was God’s choice, not Noah’s. It was Noah’s choice whether he would accept what God offered, or if God would have to bring about the continuation of mankind through someone else.
What if God did chose to express his sovereignty through giving men free will? Would he be any less God? Is that something we would not allow him to do? There is the ancient debate about whether or not God can create a boulder so big that he can’t move it. Such debates, of course, show our own pride, thinking that the creature can tell God what he can and cannot do.
God can choose people and bring them inevitably to salvation. God can choose to save all people. God can choose to save only those that respond in the way that he has chosen.
God will be God. God will be praised because of it.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer