Tag: Spiritual Gifts

Posted on

The Red-Letter Words of Yeshua ~ Part 9

Yeshua Meets the Women at the Well ~ Part 2

We continue our story of Yeshua’s ministry in Shomron as He Meets the Women at the Well.

15 “Sir, give me this water,” the woman said to Him, “so that I won’t have to be thirsty and keep coming here to draw water.” 16 He said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.” 17 She answered, “I don’t have a husband.” Yeshua said to her, “You’re right; you don’t have a husband! 18 You’ve had five husbands in the past, and you’re not married to the man you’re living with now! You’ve spoken the truth!”

If the woman had five previous husbands who either died or divorced her, she would have exceeded the traditional limit of three husbands in Jewish law.

19 “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet,” the woman replied.

I can see that you are a prophet because you supernaturally knew about my sin. The Tanakh prophets spoke forth God’sWord concerning the sins of Isra’el and other nations; the prophecy was a secondary aspect of their ministry.

20 “Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you people say that the place where one has to worship is in Yerushalayim.”

This mountain refers to Mount Gerizim, the holy mountain for the Samaritan community. The mountain was visible from the well where Yeshua and the woman were speaking.

21 Yeshua said, “Lady, believe me, the time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Yerushalayim. 22 You people don’t know what you are worshipping; we worship what we do know because salvation comes from the Jews.

Yeshua does not take up the debate over legitimate holy places. Instead, He points to a future time of salvation when worship will not be limited to any local sacred site, neither Mount Gerizim nor Jerusalem. How one worships is more important than where one worships.

Salvation comes from the Jews. Messianic Believers should acknowledge the Jewish roots of their faith and present close involvement with the Jewish people (Ephesians 2:13). Jews should acknowledge more specifically that only through Yeshua comes yeshu’ah, “salvation.”

 23 But the time is coming – indeed, it’s here now – when the true worshippers will worship the Father spiritually and truly, for these are the kind of people the Father wants worshipping Him. 24 God is spirit, and worshippers must worship Him spiritually and truly.”

Verse 24 is sometimes misappropriated to support the mistaken idea that the Torah is inferior or is no longer in force, having been replaced by worship “in spirit and in truth” (the literal rendering of spiritually and truly). But spiritual and genuine worship is not to be set alongside or compared with the Torah. Instead, authentic, spiritual worship is God’s universal standard, which He also commands in the Torah itself. The Torah opposes legalism and the mere performance of acts and routines without genuine, spiritual involvement.

25 The woman replied, “I know that Mashiach (Messiah) is coming” (that is, “the one who has been anointed”). “When he comes, he will tell us everything.” 26 Yeshua said to her, “I, the person speaking to you, am He.”  ~ Yochanan 4:15-25

I, the person speaking to you, am He, literally, “I am, the one speaking to you.” Thus, He answers everyone who questions whether Yeshua proclaimed his own Messiahship. The declaration, “I am,” echoes Adonai’s self-revelation, “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14). Yeshua says this “I am” nine times in Yochanan’s Gospel (here; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:9; 18:5, 6, 8), implying a claim even more significant than being the Messiah.

Our next post will continue to examine that YeshuaMeets the Women at the Well ~ Part 3.

Click here for the PDF version.

Posted on

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 40

The Nicene Creed~ Part 26

In our last post, we continued to explore the Nicene Creed. In this post, we continue to dig into the third article of faith, keeping with the phrase We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

WE BELIEVE IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC KEHILLAH ~ One Holy Catholic and Apostolic ~ Part 2

The term catholic, not much used before, acquired a new significance in the mouth of Believers. Pacian of Barcelona wrote that no one used to be called catholic during the time of the emissaries. But when heretics had appeared and were striving under various names to tear apart the kehillot, the apostolic people required a name of their own by which they would mark the unity of an uncorrupted people. Ignatius of Antioch was the first to attribute the adjective catholic to the kehillah to warn Believers against the celebration of the Eucharist by renegades.

The final description that the creed uses in referring to the kehillah is the adjective apostolic. Not present in the Brit Hadashah, this term refers directly to the emissaries as a historical reality. In early messianic history, the emissaries enjoyed a privileged position in that they were bearers of the message of Yeshua and about Yeshua. That message could be transmitted only by people legitimately chosen and invested with that authority proper to Yeshua. The first bearers of the message, in turn, sent other emissaries. Its communication was oral. At the beginning of the second century, Papias of Hierapolis considered the oral reception more profitable than the written. Also, Tertullian referred to the methodology of reading Scripture within the oral tradition. In the second century, the apostolic authority was found in written texts that went under the names of the emissaries. All appealed to the emissaries and their teaching, even the Gnostics, who referred to the secret teaching of Yeshua and the emissaries. From this came the necessity of a public and documented succession from the emissaries onward through the drawing up of the lists of bishops.

The terminology of succession is not present in the Brit Hadashah. The preoccupation with assuring the continuity and fidelity to sound doctrine is present in the Pastoral Letters and the Acts of the Emissaries to preserve identity in time and space. For this reason, the priesthood was instituted. The succession was assured through the imposition of hands and the invocation of the grace of God: Do not neglect your gift, which you were given through a prophecy when the body of elders gave you s’mikhah. [1] 6For this reason, I am reminding you to fan the flame of God’s gift, which you received through s’mikhah from me. 7 For God gave us a Spirit who produces not timidity, but power, love, and self-discipline. [2] Clement of Rome was the first to elaborate on the terminology of succession. Tertullian confronted the issues of kehillot not founded by the emissaries. Over time, apostolicity [3] came to carry the weight of institutional and doctrinal importance concerning the catholicity of the kehillah.

One could write the history of the ancient kehillah as a continuous battle against swarms of heresies and schisms. It was a kehillah in continuous tension between unity and division, which it overcame partially through the centralization of power in the hands of the bishops. From this arose the necessity to celebrate numerous conciliar assemblies at various levels (diocesan, provincial, regional, or more than one geographical area, or of the whole empire). For example, in the councils, there was the African practice of rereading the canons of the previous meetings. Why? This rereading was also a sign of continuity. The councils, then, were a model of collegiality at various levels, both geographically and through time.

This continuity was essential for the faith and life of the kehillah. When Believers inserted apostolicity in the creed, they wanted to affirm the historical and verifiable continuity of the faith, of the kehillah, of the individual Believers, and the kehillot religious organization. The two terms, apostolic and catholic, complement each other in that the first explains the present unity and continuity with its origins while the second explains present kehillah.

Believers of the early centuries found and practiced different ways of preserving and promoting communion, unity of faith, and discipline between the numerous kehillot spread throughout the Roman Empire, especially in the first centuries and in the autonomous political entities succeeding centuries. More or less effective and valuable methods were indispensable because of the incredible variety that was very notable. Furthermore, communication and the circulation of ideas were problematic. Still, the organizations that were formed to ensure unity evolved enormously and sometimes assumed permanent forms. In ensuring ecclesial peace, the laity became more and more marginalized when they had exercised a significant role in early times. For example, in the third century, the laity was vigilant about the orthodoxy of their bishop. Contact with other Messianic kehillot served to maintain and develop a consciousness of many kehillot’s unity, like a federation of kehillot. There is a hierarchy of importance, reference, and coordination. In the East, the seats of reference were those of Alexandria, of Antioch of Syria, and, from the end of the fourth century, of Constantinople, which more and more became the center of attention and acquired a type of importance, which was challenged by the other eastern sees. The presence of the emperor in the capital attracted many bishops there who could form a type of permanent council during their stay in the city.

There had to be a close communication system, especially since there was no canon law, norms, and local and regional traditions. Not excluding those of the ecumenical councils, the conciliar canons had a relatively limited circulation, and their knowledge was lacking. A well-defined biblical canon did not exist either at that time. The Bible, a fundamental part of believing, was the constant point of reference in the life of Messianic kehillot, in particular, in antiquity. Biblical exegesis was at the basis of preaching, catechesis, doctrinal elaboration, ethics, the institutions and the liturgy, and the controversies. It was the source of unity and division because of the different possible interpretations, depending on different theologies. For this reason, discussion and communication, and not an imposition from above, created real communion between the kehillot. [4]

In my next post, we continue to dig into the third article of the Nicene Creed: We Acknowledge One Baptism.

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 40

[1] 1 Timothy 4:14 (CJB).

[2] 2 Timothy 1:6–7 (CJB).

[3] Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity.

[4] Di Berardino, A., & Oden, T. C. (Eds.). We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Vol. 5, pp. 54–57).

Posted on

The Body of Believers Begin to Share Everything

In my last post, we learned that after being freed, Kefa and Yochanan Attend a Prayer Meeting. In this post, we pick up with Acts 4:32 to learn that The Body of Believers Begin to Share Everything. Although Kefa is not mentioned in this passage, I felt it essential to lay a firm foundation for when we next encounter him.

32 All the many believers were one in heart and soul, and no one claimed any of his possessions for himself, but everyone shared everything he had. 33 With great power, the emissaries continued testifying to the resurrection of the Lord Yeshua, and they were all held in high regard.

Notice how the early community of Believers is described: They were one in heart and soul. Unity among the people of God is critical for the revealing of the visible manifestation of His glory. It is what Yeshua prayed for (see John 17:23-23), and it what these first Believers demonstrated and what Sha’ul insisted on (see Eph. 4:3). When there is disunity, the Ruach does not work.

They were all held in high regard by the non-believing Jews, as at Acts 2:47. Nevertheless, thinking positively of Believers is not enough to save unbelievers. Or, saying the same thing in the words of Isra’el’s former Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, “There is a great difference between gathering a good impression and taking the correct view.” [1]

34 No one among them was poor, since those who owned lands or houses sold them and turned over the proceeds 35 to the emissaries to distribute to each according to his need.

As long as there was complete unanimity of purpose and intention among them, the early Believers shared the proceeds from their possessions freely to each according to his need. They were able to do this not because of their strength, but because great grace was on all of them. Therefore, the generosity was, above all, a work of God. Yet, we will learn that trouble is coming.

36 Thus Yosef, whom the emissaries called Bar-Nabba (which means “the Exhorter”), a Levi, and a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field which belonged to him and brought the money to the emissaries. ~ Acts 4:32-37 (CJB)

Yosef, whom the emissaries called Bar-Nabba. The Exhorter translates the Greek phrase, which can mean “son of counsel,” “son of exhortation,” or “son of encouragement.” Aramaic Bar (“son of”) often has the sense, “one who has the quality of.” The word Nabba is related to the Hebrew root meaning “prophet,” and a prophet is own who counsels, comforts, exhorts, and encourages. Yosef was always comforting and exhorting his fellow talmidim, so the emissaries gave him the nickname. He becomes a prominent figure in Acts 9-15.

Bar-Nabba’s generosity is set in stark contrast to the couple Luke describes next.

In my next post, we will learn that not all Believers were willing to share all that they had by looking at Kefa Confronts Hananyah and Shappirah.

Click here for the PDF version.

[1] Jewish New Testament Commentary

Posted on

Eliyahu ~ Part 11

In my last post, Eliyahu encounters The Enemies Message of Danger in 1 Kings 19:1-4. In this post, Eliyahu hears The Angels Message of Grace in 1 Kings 19:5-8.

Don’t Worry Eliyahu; I Have Your Back

Recall that in our last passage Eliyahu ran from Izevel, sat under a broom tree, prayed and pouted and ask God to relieve his misery by taking him home. I can certainly relate to him given his immediate circumstances.

“5 Then he lay down under the broom tree and went to sleep. Suddenly, an angel touched him and said to him, “Get up and eat!” 6 He looked, and there by his head was a cake baked on the hot stones and a jug of water. He ate and drank, then lay down again. 7 The angel came again, a second time, touched him and said, “Get up and eat, or the journey will be too much for you.” 8 He got up, ate and drank, and, on the strength of that meal, traveled forty days and nights until he reached Horev the mountain of God.” ~ 1 Kings 19:5-8 (CJB)

God’s miraculous provision was resumed, this time purely for the prophet. After Eliyahu ate and rested, he returned to the place where the covenant had been given to Moshe, Mount Horev. There, Eliyahu would have his faith renewed by God’s presence.

When the heart is heavy, and the mind and body are weary, sometimes the best remedy is sleep – take a nap! Nothing seems right when you’re exhausted. But while the prophet was asleep, the Lord sent an angel to care for his needs.

The angel had prepared a simple but adequate meal of fresh bread and refreshing water, and the prophet partook of both and lay down again to sleep. We aren’t told how long the Lord permitted Eliyahu to sleep before He awakened him the second time and told him to eat. The Lord knew that Eliyahu planned to visit Mount Horev [1], one of the most sacred places in all Jewish history, was located about 250 miles from Be’er- Sheva, and he needed strength for the journey. Eliyahu obeyed the messenger of God and was able to travel for forty days and nights on the nourishment from those two meals.

When we review God’s ministries to Eliyahu as recorded in 1 Kings 18 and 19, you see a parallel to the promise in Isaiah 40. “But those who hope in Adonai will renew their strength; they will soar aloft as with eagles’ wings; when they are running, they won’t grow weary, when they are walking they won’t get tired.”~ Isaiah 40:31 (CJB)

For three years, the prophet had been hidden by God, during which time he waited on the Lord. When the Lord sent him to Mount Karmel, He enabled Eliyahu to soar aloft as with eagle’s wings and triumph over the prophets of Ba’al. After Eliyahu prayed and it began to rain, the Lord strengthened him to run and not be weary (18:46), and now He sustained him for forty days, so he could walk and not get tired (19:8). Eliyahu wasn’t wholly living in the will of God, but he was smart enough to know that he had to wait on the Lord if he expected to have the strength for the ministry and for the journey that lay before him.

In my next post, we continue to explore the Biblical story of Eliyahu. In this passage, Eliyahu hears the Creator’s Message of Power in 1 Kings 19:9-14.

Click here for PDF version.

[1]Horev is another name for Mount Sinai. If Sinai is to be found down in the southern region, he must travel another two hundred plus miles and could therefore easily take forty days. It is true that a caravan could often make seventeen to twenty miles a day, but Eliyahu is not accustomed to this type of travel and is traveling on his own. Five miles per day under such conditions in this climate would not be unusual. ~ The IVP Bible Background Commentary – Old Testament.

Posted on

Lay Hold of Yeshua and His Redemption ~ Part 4

Messianic Jews 6:13-20
Letter to the Messianic Jews

 

In my last post in this series, we examined Messianic Jews 6:9-12 ~ Lay Hold of Yeshua and His Redemption ~ Part 2. In this post, we conclude this section by reviewing Messianic Jews 6:13-20 ~ Lay Hold of Yeshua and His Redemption ~ Part 4 to learn that God’s covenant promises are unchanging.

God’s Covenant Promises Are Unchanging

“13 For when God made His promise to Avraham, He swore an oath to do what He had promised; and since there was no one greater than Himself for Him to swear by, He swore by Himself 14 and said, “I will certainly bless you, and I will certainly give you many descendants”;
15 and so, after waiting patiently, Avraham saw the promise fulfilled. 16 Now people swear oaths by someone greater than themselves, and confirmation by an oath puts an end to all dispute. 17 Therefore, when God wanted to demonstrate still more convincingly the unchangeable character of His intentions to those who were to receive what He had promised, He added an oath to the promise; 18 so that through two unchangeable things, in neither of which God could lie, we, who have fled to take a firm hold on the hope set before us, would be strongly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as a sure and safe anchor for ourselves, a hope that goes right on through to what is inside the parokhet, 20 where a forerunner has entered on our behalf, namely, Yeshua, who has become a cohen gadol forever, to be compared with Malki-Tzedek.”  ~ Hebrews 6:13-20 (CJB)

Avraham was a man of great trust. Afterall, he offered his son Yitz’chak as an offering to God trusting that God would supply a substitute. The double security of oath and promise which God offered him in B’resheet 22:17 should strongly encourage us, who also have been given a hope set before us of going right on through… the parokhet of the Most Holy Place in heaven to God Himself (see Messianic Jews 10:22).

We can enter into the Most Holy Place because we are united with Yeshua, and he has entered ahead of us as our forerunner. He has been able to enter because He has become a cohen gadol forever, to be compared with Malki-Tzedek. The author thus returns to the line of thought which he left at 5:10 to urge the readers to diligence. He also is preparing the groundwork for his argument in the next chapter (7:20-21).

In the ancient world, the anchor was the symbol of hope. Epictetus says: “A ship should never depend on one anchor or a life on one hope.” Pythagoras said: “Wealth is a weak anchor; fame is still weaker. What then are the anchors which are strong? Wisdom, great-heartedness, courage—these are the anchors which no storm can shake.”  [1] The writer of Messianic Jews insists that Believers posses the greatest hope in the world.

That hope is one which enters into the parokhet of the Most Holy Place. In the Temple, the most sacred of all places was the Most Holy Place. Within the Most Holy Place, there was held to abide the very presence of God. Into that place, only one person in all the world could go, and he was the Cohen HaGodol; and even he might enter that Most Holy Place on just one day of the year, the Day of Atonement.

The writer to the Hebrews uses a most illuminating word about Jesus. He says that he entered the presence of God as our forerunner. The Greek word is prodromos. It has three stages of meaning: (1) It means one who rushes on; (2) It means a pioneer; or, (3) It means a scout who goes ahead to see that it is safe for the body of the troops to follow. Yeshua went into the presence of God to make it safe for all humanity to follow.

Before Yeshua came, God was the distant stranger whom only a very few might approach and that at the peril of their lives. But because of what Yeshua was and did, God has become the friend of every person. Once humanity thought of Him as barring the door; now they think of the entrance to His presence as thrown wide open for all.

In my next post, we’ll begin a new mini-series on Yeshua’s Malki-Tzedek Cohenhood Surpasses the Levitical. We’ll explore Messianic Jews 7:1-10 on the priority of the Malki-Tzedek Cohenhood.

Click here for PDF version.

 

[1] Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT) by William Barclay.

 

Posted on

Eternal Security ~ Part 19

Election

In my last post, we concluded our presentation of Arminian Theology.  In this post, I want to go back to Eternal Security ~ Part 2 to complete the definition of Election as it applies to the Calvinistic and Arminian Theology.

Recall that Unger defined the Biblical view of Election [1] as: “This word in the Scriptures has three distinct applications.

  1. To the divine choice of nations or communities for the possession of special privileges with reference to the performance of special services. Thus the Jews were “a chosen nation,” “the elect.” Thus also in the NT, bodies of Christian people, or churches, are called “the elect.”
  2. To the divine choice of individuals to a particular office or work. Thus Cyrus was elected of God to bring about the rebuilding of the Temple, and thus the twelve were chosen to be apostles and Paul to be the apostle to the Gentiles.
  3. To the divine choice of individuals to be the children of God, and therefore heirs of heaven.”
The Calvinistic View of Election

The Westminster Confession, the standard of the Church of Scotland and of the various Presbyterian churches of Europe and America, contains the following statement:

“God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own free will freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw its future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving Him thereto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Therefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.”

In support of this doctrine several arguments are made by Calvinistic theologians: (1) According to the Scriptures election is not of works but of grace; and that it is not of works means that it is not what man does that determines whether he is to be one of the elect or not. For the descendants of Adam this life is not a probation. They stood their probation in Adam and do not stand each one for himself. (2) The sovereignty of God in electing men to salvation is shown by the fact that repentance and faith are gifts from God. These fruits of His Spirit are the consequences and signs of election and not its conditions. (3) The salvation that is of grace must be of grace throughout. The element of works or human merit must not be introduced at any point in the plan. And that would be the case if repentance and faith were the conditions of election. (4) The system of doctrine called Calvinistic, Augustinian, Pauline, should not be thus designated. That though taught clearly by Paul, particularly in Romans 8:9, it was taught also by others of the writers of sacred Scripture, and by Christ Himself. Reference is made to Matthew 11:25-26; Luke 4:25-27; Luke 8:10; John 6:37, 39. (5) That the sovereignty of God is evidenced in dispensing saving grace is illustrated also in His establishing the temporal conditions of mankind. Some are born and reared in the surroundings of civilization, others of barbarism. And precisely so some are blessed with the light of the gospel, while others, dwelling in pagan lands, are deprived of that light and consequently are not saved.

This system of strict Calvinism above outlined has received various modifications by theologians of the Calvinistic school. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, May 1903, adopted the following: “We believe that all who die in infancy, and all others given by the Father to the Son who are beyond the reach of the outward means of grace, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how He pleases.”

The Arminian View of Election

The Arminian view of election has been in recent years more generally accepted than formerly, even among denominations whose teaching has been Calvinistic or indefinite upon this point. This view grounds itself, in opposition to Calvinism, upon the universality of the atonement and the graciously restored freedom of the human will. Election, accordingly, is not absolute but conditional, contingent upon the proper acceptance of such gifts of grace as God by His Spirit and providence puts within the reach of men.

Inasmuch as this subject involves the character and method of the divine government and the destiny of the entire race, the following should be said:

  • According to the Arminian doctrine the purpose of God to redeem mankind was bound up with His purpose to create. The Lamb of God was “slaughtered before the world was founded” (Revelation 13:8). God would not have permitted a race of sinners to come into existence without provision to save them. Such provision must not be for only a part but for the whole of the fallen race. To suppose the contrary is opposed to the divine perfections. To doom to eternal death any number of mankind who were born in sin and without sufficient remedy would be injustice.
  • The benefits of the atonement are universal and in part unconditional. They are unconditional with respect to those who, through no fault of their own, are in such a mental or moral condition as to make it impossible for them either to accept or reject Christ. A leading denomination emphasizes the doctrine that “all children, by virtue of the unconditional benefits of the atonement, are members of the kingdom of God.” This principle extends to others besides children, both in heathen and Christian lands. God alone is competent to judge the extent to which, in varying degrees, human beings are responsible, and therefore the extent to which the unconditional benefits of the atonement may be applied.
  • The purpose or decree of God is to save all who do not, actually or implicitly, willfully reject the saving offices of the Lord Jesus Christ. Among those who have not heard the Gospel may exist “the spirit of faith and the purpose of righteousness.” Thus even those who have no knowledge of the historic Christ virtually determine whether or not they will be saved through Christ. They to whom the Gospel is preached have higher advantages and more definite responsibilities. To them, repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are the conditions of salvation.
  • Upon all men, God bestows some measure of His grace, restoring to the depraved will sufficient freedom to enable them to accept Christ and be saved. Thus, in opposition to Calvinists, Arminians assert that not only Adam, but also his depraved descendants are in a stage of probation.

In behalf of this doctrine the following is argued:

  1. That the whole trend of the Scriptures is to declare the responsibility of men and their actual power to choose between life and death.
  1. That the Scriptures explicitly teach that it is the will of God that all men should be saved. Only those perish who wickedly resist His will (1 Timothy 2:4; 4:10; John 5:40; Acts 7:51).
  1. That the Scriptures declare the universality of Christ’s atonement, and in some degree the universality of its benefits (Hebrews 2:9; John 1:29; John 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:18-19; and many other passages).
  1. That the doctrine of unconditional election necessarily implies that of unconditional reprobation; and that is to charge God with cruelty.
  1. That unconditional election also necessarily implies the determinate number of the elect, a point that Calvinists hold, though they admit that they have for it no explicit teaching of Scripture. To the contrary, the Scriptures not only generally but particularly teach that the number of the elect can be increased or diminished. This is the purport of all those passages in which sinners are exhorted to repent, or Believers warned against becoming apostate, or to “make certain about His calling and choosing you” (Matthew 24:4, 13; 2 Peter 1:10).
  1. That the Scriptures never speak of impenitent and unbelieving men as elect, as in some cases it would be proper to do if election were antecedent to repentance and faith and not conditioned thereby.
  1. That the whole theory of unconditional election is of the same tendency with fatalism.
  1. That the logic of unconditional election is opposed to true evangelism.
  1. That the essential features of the Arminian doctrine of election belong to the primitive and truly historic doctrine of the church. Augustine was the first prominent teacher of unconditional election, and he, regardless of the logical inconsistency, granted that reprobation is not unconditional. This doctrine of Augustine was first formally accepted by the church in a.d. 529, in the Canons of the Council of Orange, approved by Pope Boniface II. The prominence of unconditional election in the theory of Protestantism is due largely to the influence and work of John Calvin, who not only set forth the Augustinian doctrine of unconditional election, but also taught unconditional reprobation. John Wesley and his followers were responsible in a large degree for reviving and developing the doctrine of Arminius.

The limits of this post do not permit an examination of the contested passages of Scripture. But as we used to say in our retreats: “The best is yet to come.”  In my next post, I want to tackle the issue of the Unpardonable Sin and Grieving the Ruach.  Once those issues are fully addressed, I will move on to the contested passages before wrapping-up this series with my own personal position.

Click here for PDF version.

[1] New Unger’s Bible Dictionary by Merrill F. Unger provide all three views of Election.

Posted on

Eternal Security ~ Part 18

Arminian Theology ~ Part 4

In my last post, we continued to drill down into Arminian Theology.  In this post, we will conclude our presentation of Arminian Theology.  As a reminder, in order to ensure that I present the material on this topic and Calvinistic Theology without any preconceived bias, I have elected to utilize “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns as my source document.

Terms of Salvation

Human responsibility in salvation involves knowledge of sin, turning from sin, turning toward God, and faith in Christ. Repentance has the idea of change. To repent means that sin must be forsaken; change has taken place. Repentance, therefore, involves action; moreover, repentance, comes before faith.

John Wesley (an Arminian) defined saving faith in three terms: (1) to put one’s trust in the mercy and forgiveness of God; (2) to receive assurance in the Believer’s life for instance, that Jesus is the Son of God; (3) to express reliance upon Christ, turning one’s life over to Christ as Lord. For Wesley, belief is ultimately expressed in obedience. This is in agreement with Arminians today who also emphasize the importance of works as a condition or result of salvation.

Meaning of the Atonement

Arminians generally hold to the governmental view of the death of Christ, which, as taught by Grotius, teaches that Christ did not die a substitutionary death for sinners. Christ suffered to satisfy the justice or government of God. Instead of dying for mankind, Christ made a “token payment” that satisfied the government of God. God therefore sets aside the requirement of the law and forgives sinners on the basis that His government has been upheld and honored.

Extent of the Atonement

Arminians teach that the atonement of Christ was universal. “This does not mean that all mankind will be unconditionally saved, but that the sacrificial offering of Christ so far satisfied the claims of the divine law as to make salvation a possibility for all.” The provision of Christ in His atonement is for everyone; it is sufficient for everyone to be saved (although not all are). The Scriptures emphasize universal provision (John 3:16-17; Romans 5:8, 18; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 1 Timothy 2:4; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 10:29; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:2; 4:14). Since Christ made provision for all, the proclamation of the Gospel is to all (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47).

Arminians also teach that the benefit of the atonement includes the following:

(1) The continued existence of the race. It is hardly conceivable that the race would have been allowed to multiply in its sin and depravity, had no provision been made for its salvation.

(2) The restoration of all men to a state of solvability. The atonement provided for all men unconditionally, the free gift of grace. This included the restoration of the Holy Spirit to the race as the Spirit of enlightenment, striving and conviction. Thus man is not only given the capacity for a proper probation, but is granted the gracious aid of the Holy Spirit.

(3) The salvation of those who die in infancy. We must regard the atonement as accomplishing the actual salvation of those who die in infancy.

Salvation May Be Lost

Arminians have adhered to the doctrine that believers can lose their salvation. Although Arminius himself did not clearly state that Believers could be lost, his conclusions pointed in that direction. Arminius taught that man is saved by grace but not apart from his free will. The will remains free. Arminius emphasized that the free will had to concur in perseverance, otherwise the Believer could be lost.

John Wesley also taught that the believer may “make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, that he may fall, not only foully, but finally, so as to perish forever.” The basis for losing one’s salvation is found in passages like Luke 13:14; Colossians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 6:4-6; and 1 Peter 1:10.

Summary Evaluation of Arminian Theology

Arminianism stresses a number of important features. The emphasis on man’s responsibility is surely a Biblical factor: man must believe to be saved (John 3:16; Acts 16:31). If man refuses to believe, he is lost (John 5:40; 7:17). Arminianism’s emphasis on the universality of the atonement is also biblical (1 Timothy 4:10; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:2).

Several features within Arminianism should be evaluated:

(1) Arminianism denies the imputation of sin; no one is condemned eternally because of original sin. Man is condemned because of his own sins. This appears at variance with Romans 5:12-21.

(2) Though variously interpreted, Arminians generally teach that the effects of the Fall were erased through prevenient grace bestowed on all men, enabling individuals to cooperate with God in salvation. There is, however, no clear indication of this kind of prevenient grace in Scripture.

(3) Arminians teach that the Fall did not destroy man’s free will; furthermore, they teach that prevenient grace moves upon the heart of the unbeliever, enabling him to cooperate with God in salvation by an act of the will. While it is true that man must bear responsibility in responding to the gospel (John 5:40), man’s will has been affected because of the Fall (Romans 3:11-12; Ephesians 2:1); man needs God’s grace in order to be saved (Ephesians 2:8; Acts 13:48; 16:14).

(4) Arminians relate predestination to God’s foreknowledge of man’s actions. They stress that God knew beforehand who would believe, and He elected those. In Arminianism, election and predestination are conditioned by faith. The word foreknowledge (Gk. prognosis), however, is basically equivalent to election (cf. Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20). The data of God’s foreknowledge originates in advanced planning, not in advanced information.

(5) Arminianism stresses human participation and responsibility in salvation: recognition of sin, turning from sin, repentance, confession, and faith. For Arminianism, repentance involves change of actions, forsaking sins, whereas the biblical word repentance (Gk. metanoia) means “change of mind.” Although the stress on human responsibilities is significant, if it involves multiple conditions for salvation, this stress becomes a serious matter because the purity of salvation-by-grace-alone is then at stake. The sole condition of salvation stressed in scores of Scriptures is faith in Christ (John 3:16, 36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9).

(6) Arminianism teaches that Believers may lose their salvation because the human will remains free and so may rescind its earlier faith in Christ by choosing sin. Frequently this view is based on controversial passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 and 2 Peter 2:20-22. The clear emphasis of Scripture, however, is that the Believer has eternal life as a present possession (John 3:16; 1 John 5:11-13) and is kept secure by Christ (John 10:28) because of what He has done (Romans 5:1; 8:1).

In my next post, I want to go back to the topic of Election which we briefly defined in Eternal Security ~ Part 2 as it applies to the Calvinistic and Arminian Theology.

Click her for PDF version.

 

Posted on

Eternal Security ~ Part 17

Arminian Theology ~ Part 3

In my last post, we took a brief look at Arminian Theology.  In this post, we continue to explore Doctrinal Affirmations of Arminian Theology and The Remonstrance. As a reminder, in order to ensure that I present the material on this topic and Calvinistic Theology without any preconceived bias, I have elected to utilize “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns as my source document.

Original Sin

Arminians teach the doctrine of original sin; it affects the entire being of man; man is destitute of all positive good, and apart from God’s grace, man commits evil continually. Through Adam’s sin, sin and death entered the world. The penalty of death came upon all mankind because of a state of the human heart (not imputation). In addition, all people inherited a corrupted human nature as offsprings of Adam. This is not to suggest a legal imputation of sin, however. The Apology of the Remonstrants declares, “There is no ground for the assertion that the sin of Adam was imputed to his posterity in the sense that God actually judged the posterity of Adam to be guilty of and chargeable with the same sin and crime that Adam had committed.”

 

ARMINIAN DOCTRINE (THE REMONSTRANCE)
Doctrine

Explanation
Election Based on Knowledge God elected those whom He knew would of their own free will believe in Christ and persevere in the faith.
Unlimited Atonement In His atonement, Christ provided redemption for all mankind, making all mankind saveable. Christ’s atonement becomes effective only in those who believe.
Natural Inability Man cannot save himself; the Holy Spirit must affect the new birth.
Prevenient Grace Preparatory work of the Holy Spirit enables the Believer to respond to the Gospel and cooperate with God in salvation.
Conditional Perseverance Believers have been empowered to live a victorious life, but they are capable of turning from grace and losing their salvation.

While Arminianism recognizes original sin and depravity, it also teaches that the effects of original sin are erased and reversed in everyone through the grace of God, enabling the sinner to respond actively to God, or cooperate with God in salvation. No one is condemned because of imputed sin from Adam or because of a depraved nature, but only because of individual sins.

Election and Predestination

Arminius related the doctrine of predestination (God appointing certain people to salvation) to the foreknowledge of God (emphasis added). God knew who would choose Him and those are the ones God predestined. He also related his doctrine of predestination to those whom God knew would not only believe but also persevere. Concerning the election of individuals Arminius states “(the) decree rests upon the foreknowledge of God, by which He has known from eternity which persons should believe according to such an administration of the means serving to repentance and faith through His preceding grace and which should persevere through subsequent grace, and also who should not believe and persevere.”

Arminianism includes all mankind in its definition of predestination, which may be defined as “the gracious purpose of God to save mankind from utter ruin. It is not an arbitrary, indiscriminate act of God intended to secure the salvation of so many and no more. It includes provisionally, all men in its scope, and is conditioned solely on faith in Jesus Christ.”

Arminians have always regarded election to eternal life as conditional upon faith in Christ. It is not an arbitrary choice of God; instead it is based on man’s faith response to the gospel.

Prevenient Grace

Prevenient grace is the “preparing” grace of God that is dispensed to all, enabling a person to respond to the invitation of the Gospel. Prevenient grace may be defined as “that grace which ‘goes before’ or prepares the soul for entrance into the initial state of salvation. It is the preparatory grace of the Holy Spirit exercised toward man helpless in sin. As it respects the guilty, it may be considered mercy; as it respects the impotent, it is enabling power. It may be defined, therefore, as that manifestation of the divine influence which precedes the full regenerate life.”

This leads to a belief in synergism, “working together” or a “cooperative action” between man and God with regard to salvation. Because God dispenses prevenient grace, the effects of Adam’s sin are reversed, enabling the person to respond in faith to the Gospel. Man may accept or reject the Gospel and the grace of God of his own free will. “Through this awakening from original sin, one becomes open to the grace freely offered in Jesus Christ. Restoration to close and uncorrupted relationship with God is there by made possible.”

The Arminian system of grace may be summarized as follows; “(1) the inability of man as totally depraved; (2) the state of nature as in some sense state of grace through the unconditional benefit of the atonement; (3) the continuity of grace as excluding the Calvinistic distinction between common and efficacious grace; (4) synergism, or the co-operation of grace and free will; and (5) the power of man to finally resist the grace of God freely bestowed upon him.”

Freewill

It becomes apparent that there is a relationship between prevenient grace and free will. Wiley cites four propositions in relating prevenient grace to freedom of the will.

(1) Prevenient grace is exercised upon the natural man, or man in his condition subsequent to the fall. This grace is exercised upon his entire being, and not upon any particular element or power of his being.
(2) Prevenient grace has to do with man as a free and responsible agent. The fall did not efface the natural image of God in man, nor destroy any of the powers of his being. It did not destroy the power of thought which belongs to the intellect, nor the power of affection which pertains to the feelings. So, also, it did not destroy the power of volition which belongs to the will.
(3) Prevenient grace has to do further, with the person as enslaved by sin…This slavery is not absolute, for the soul is conscious of its bondage and rebels against it…Thus grace is needed…to awaken the soul to the truth…and to move upon the affections by enlisting the heart upon the side of truth.
(4) The continuous co-operation of the human will with the originating grace of the Spirit, merges prevenient grace directly into saving grace…Arminianism maintains that through the prevenient grace of the Spirit, unconditionally bestowed upon all men, the power and responsibility of free agency exist from the first dawn of the moral life.

In summation, Arminianism teaches that the fall of man did not destroy the power of the choice. Prevenient grace thus moves the person to see his spiritual need, enabling him to choose salvation. But grace, Wiley emphasizes, is prominent in the transaction.

In my next post, we will continue to drill down into Arminian Theology.

Click here for PDF version.

 

 

Posted on

Eternal Security ~ Part 16

Arminian Theology ~ Part 2

In my last post, we took a brief look at Arminian Theology.  In this post, we continue to explore Doctrinal Affirmations of Arminian Theology and The Remonstrance. As a reminder, in order to ensure that I present the material on this topic and Calvinistic Theology without any preconceived bias, I have elected to utilize “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns as my source document.

Doctrinal Affirmations of Arminian Theology

Arminian doctrine is found in widely diversified groups today: Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Free Will Baptists, and most Charismatic and Holiness Believers. The doctrinal views that will be presented here are generally representative of Arminianism (especially as held by Wesleyans), but because of the diversity of the denominations and groups holding to the general tenets of Arminianism, what is true in particular of one will not necessarily be true of all.

Not all the doctrines that are fundamental to the Christian faith will be discussed, but only those which particularly set Arminianism apart as distinctive. Continue reading “Eternal Security ~ Part 16”

Posted on

Eternal Security ~ Part 15

Arminian Theology ~ Part 1

In my last post, we took a brief look at Jacobus Arminius.  In this post, we now turn to explore Arminius’ views of Scripture which have been distilled into what has been called Arminian Theology.  As a reminder, in order to ensure that I present the material on this topic and Calvinistic Theology without any preconceived bias, I have elected to utilize “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns as my source document.

Introduction

Arminianism is a term used to describe the theological views of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) and the movement that followed his teachings. The Arminian position was expressed in detail by followers of Arminius in the Remonstrance, a document produced in 1610, formally protesting the strict Calvinism in the Netherlands.  Recall that Arminius died in 1609.

Major theological emphases of Arminianism are:

  • Conditional election based on the foreknowledge of God;
  • God’s grace can be resisted;
  • Christ’s atonement was universal;
  • Man has a free will and through prevenient [anticipatory] grace can cooperate with God in salvation;
  • And, the believer may lose his salvation.

Although Arminianism is a product of a theological difference within the Reformed church, its theological views are held by diverse groups today. Methodist and Wesleyans adhere to Arminian doctrine, as also do the Holiness movement, many charismatics, and others such as the Free Will Baptists. Continue reading “Eternal Security ~ Part 15”

%d bloggers like this: