Calvinism – Page 3 – LOVE | ACCEPT

Eternal Security: McKnight on the Hebrews Warning Passages

To perform a detailed study of perseverance is to read and analyze numerous academic and theological works. Nearly every article or book written on the topic since 1992 contains a footnote referring to a lengthy article by Scot McKnight that appeared in the Trinity Journal. McKnight is well known among blog readers as the author of numerous books and articles and for his blog JesusCreed.org. [Sadly moved to beliefnet and diminished by the transfer.] I am a great admirer of Mr. McKnight because he displays that rare combination of scholarly excellence and pastoral sensitivity. This article proposes a way of reading the Hebrews passages so as to address the fear or insecurity that many Christians experience when they are presented with 6:4-6 alone, as though it exists in a scriptural vacuum. His proposed methodology is familiar to any student of scripture; that is, all verses and passages must be examined in context. This context can extend from the surrounding sentences and paragraphs to the book as a whole and on toward the whole of the biblical story. McKnight proposes that the warning passages [2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39; 12:1-29] must be read as an “organic whole” and not as unrelated texts in order to understand the message of the author of Hebrews.

In preparation for making his case, McKnight rehearses the four historical views that theologians have taken with regard to the Hebrews passages. They are:

Hypothetical View: The passages are simply a warning against a sin that has not been committed, no can it be committed. This position rests upon the assumption that true believers cannot fall away.
Phenomenological-False Believer View: The passages in view are real and the sin can be committed but, those who do commit the sin are not true believers.
Phenomenological-True Believer: The passages warn against a sin that can be committed by true believers. Thus, the true believer can forfeit their eternal salvation.
The Covenant Community View: This minority position states that those in view to whom the passages are directed are not Christians and refer to a community living outside of God’s will.

McKnight’s conclusion rests in the third category, the phenomenological-true believer who is able to commit the sin referred to and thus lose their salvation.

If it possible to lose one’s salvation, we must ask ourselves what sin or sins could place us in such peril. As we saw in earlier posts on the Arminian views (here and here), it is not a variety of sins or even backsliding that imperils a believer but it is the singular sin of apostasy that commits a believer to perdition. McKnight defines this as “a willful rejection of God and His Son, Jesus the Messiah, and open denunciation of God and ethical standards.” [His footnote is especially helpful: “When we think of this sin pragmatically (how it took, and takes, place), I do not mean to suggest that apostasy is always a single act of sin…it could also be the result of a progressive downward spiral into bad habits, attitudes, and dispositions toward God.”] This sin is not to be read as an accidental fall or momentary backslide; the reader is not to interpret momentary lapses in anger, lust, pride, etc. as threatening their ultimate condition. As referenced in 10:26 [ If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge…], the apostasy is deliberate and considered.

Scot arrives at his conclusions by reading synthetically, that is, reading all of the warning passages together in order to discover a common thread that might appear in each or to see whether each stands on its own with a separate message for unique audiences in each passage. A synthesis of the passages, he contends, provides the reader with a clear answer regarding the two prominent theological issues mentioned above: identifying the subjects of the warning and the sin that imperils. In form, each of the passages shares common elements that he lists as:

The subjects or audiences
The sin
An exhortation to avoid the sin
The consequences of not avoiding the temptation

By aligning these components in each of the passages we are able to better understand the intent of the author of Hebrews in extending the warnings. McKnight contends that in taking this approach we are better able to perform the necessary exegesis for theological conclusions and pastoral care.

Conclusion

McKnight’s article is an extensive commentary on the Hebrews warning passages that displays his dedication to the subject. His work is of value to the theologian and the pastor alike and should be required study for anyone engaged in a discussion of perseverance. His conclusion, already mentioned in detail above, is that the warnings are intended for true Christian believers and that they caution against the penultimate sin of apostasy. This position does not fit neatly into either the Calvinist or Arminian frameworks but he provides a quote that should be considered by those engaged in debating theological correctness:

I suspect that the expressions “losing one’s salvation” and “conditional salvation” are the most distasteful expressions used in the debated between Calvinists and Arminians. I also suspect that “losing one’s faith” is much more acceptable to the same palate since it seems more congenial to religious affections and is consonant with what many of us have seen when someone deserts the faith.”

His conclusion from the same synthetic view of the entire Bible, and Hebrews specifically, is that the teaching of conditional salvation is the correct interpretation. Given this position, the perseverance of the believer hinges upon their continued faith in Christ. To apostatize is to of one’s own volition turn away from this faith publicly and definitely.

Though Scot’s contribution is a theological gold mine of great benefit to the community of faith, his sensitive encouragement to the assurance of a believer is especially welcome. Many Christians have anxiety over the possibility of losing their salvation to errant sin but understanding Hebrews in this way reminds the believer that their very concern is evidence that they have not turned away from the Savior. His long term view of salvation (the futurity of salvation) further says that salvation is a future event and thus, one cannot lose what one does not possess.

Source: Trinity Journal, Spring 1992, No. 13NS, pp. 21-59

Eternal Security: The ‘Moderate’ Calvinist Position

All is not unified within the family of believers who identify themselves as Calvinist. Framed by the the five points of the TULIP, each point dependent on the others, this theological system is pulled and disassembled by many adherents as they pick and choose which of the five petals they agree with. We find in our relationships and the abundant literature an array of four, three, and even one-point Calvinists. Norman Geisler is among those who self-identify as Calvinist but who provide a modifier for the label – Moderate. He uses the term ‘moderate’ to differentiate theology that differs from ‘Extreme Calvinists’ (Strong Calvinists in later writings) who are ‘more Calvinist than Calvin.’ Geisler enumerates the differences that he notes in his book Chosen But Free so I will leave the details to your further reading but the table below (CBF, pg 120) summarizes the difference as we focus on this ‘moderate’ take on Perseverance.

TULIP	Extreme Calvinism	Moderate Calvinism
Total Depravity	Intensive (destructive)	Extensive (corruptive)
Unconditional Election	No condition for God or man	No condition for God; One condition for man (faith)
Limited Atonement	Limited in extent (only for elect)	Limited in result (but for all men)
Irresistible Grace	In compulsive sense (against man’s will)	In persuasive sense (in accordance with man’s will)
Perseverance of the Saints	No saint will die in sin	No saint will ever be lost (even if he dies in sin)

Moderate Calvinists (recognizing Geisler as the spokesman) confirm that believers will persevere until the end with no possibility of losing their salvation through act or belief. The Strong Calvinist position is that no saint will die in sin and that all will be faithful until the end. Unifying the P with the rest of the TULIP, this faithfulness is a foregone product of the other four points. In other words, the saint will be faithful because he or she is unable to do otherwise, thus countering the promises of Election as interpreted by Augustine and Calvin. The Moderate view differs in lessening the requirement of faith saying “moderate Calvinists hold that even if some true believers are not faithful until death, nonetheless, God will still be faithful to them.” (CBF pg 101)

If we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself. (2 Tim 2:13)

A subtle difference, it seems, is the divide between assurance and security. The Strong Calvinist finds themselves in a position where they have no earthly assurance of their eternal state – one cannot know if one is elect or not. The elect are secure in their salvation but they must persevere to the end in order to find out upon meeting the Lord. Assuming one’s state is ‘false assurance’. As Sproul asserts, “we may think that we have faith when in fact we have no faith.” (Chosen by God, pg 165-66) The Strong will point to apparent believers who fall away, thus not persevering until the end, as clear evidence that they were not true believers or among the Elect. Backsliding for a season of life should render one anxious about their eternal status then given the lack of present assurance. The Moderate believes that one can have both assurance and security.

Assurance leads the believer into a more productive Christian life and the Moderate Calvinist points to this in extolling their framework. Geisler quotes the Puritan writer Thomas Brooks, “Being in a state of grace will yield a man a heaven hereafter, but seeing of himself in this state will yield him both a heaven here and a heaven hereafter.” The Scriptures encourage us to seek this assurance:

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. (2 Cor 13:5)

Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Pet 1:10-11)

As John wrote:

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)

Summary

Ultimately, both the Strong and Moderate Calvinist assert that the Elect will persevere and be gathered home for eternity in heaven. Article III of the Canons of Dort states the Calvinist position stand: “But God is faithful, who having conferred grace, mercifully confirms and powerfully preserves them therein, even to the end. While not the only difference theologically, the distinction with regard to this perseverance is that the Strong Calvinist does not believe that one can be assured of his or her eternal state while the Moderate says that present assurance is available and is an important part of the Christian life here in the world.

Eternal Security: The Calvinist View

The five-point Calvinist view of eternal security is enumerated in the last letter of the TULIP acronym, P standing for the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. In line with the totality of Calvinist theology and its focus on God’s sovereign actions, this would perhaps be better entitled Perseverance of the Lord since it is He who keeps the believer until their moment of glory. These believers may backslide and sin but this view states that the believer cannot fall away completely from grace and they will persevere until the end and be saved.

Eternal security in Calvin’s theology must be understood in the context of the entire framework, as all of the points are logically connected. The elect (the only humans who God chooses to redeem) will be the recipients of the persevering power introduced by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. These believers will be kept in the power of the Spirit and are eternally secure. Calvin words it this way:

God, who is rich in mercy, from his immutable purpose of election, does not wholly take away his Holy Spirit from his own, even in lamentable falls; nor does he so permit them to glide down that they should fall from the grace of adoption and the state of justification; or commit the “sin unto death,” or against the Holy Spirit; that, being deserted by him, they should cast themselves headlong into eternal destruction. So that not by their own merits or strength, but by the gratuitous mercy of God, they obtain it, that they neither totally fall from faith and grace, nor finally continue in their paths and perish.

Scripture references are easy to locate in support of this idea of perseverance. The unbroken chain of salvation found in Romans 8:29-39, so glorious that it leads Paul to doxological joy, is often put forth as the only passage necessary in support of this doctrine. Jesus gives the promise voice in John 10:27-29 where He recites the covenant using a shepherd metaphor; His sheep know Him and they have been given eternal life by Him. They face no danger of perishing nor can any force or event challenge that status (cf: Rom 8:38-39). Divine purpose is described in the introductory lines of Ephesians (Eph 1:3-14) where the unbroken chain of salvation is again rehearsed. The Elect were chosen by God before creation for redemption therefore that status cannot be broken; it must come to pass that they will be saved. Further texts [1 Pet 1:3-5, Phil 1:6, Heb 7:25, et. al.] cited by the Calvinist would cement the same point: since God has elected certain of humanity from among the fallen to be the recipients of eternal life and these individuals are promised that life, it necessarily follows that this salvation is permanent. If they could somehow lose this salvation, God’s promise would not be effectual.

Calvinist theologians also infer the doctrine of perseverance from the study of other doctrines. For example, believers enjoy a union with Christ. In John 15:1-11, the Elect are shown to be united with Christ and living through the life force that flows from Him. No force can divide this union, thus removing a believer from the Body so the promise inevitably follows. The doctrine of being born again anew also points to the promise. In 1 John 3:9 John writes:

No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

If salvation could be lost, regeneration would have to be undone and the believer visited by spiritual death once again. This idea would challenge the power of the Holy Spirit who, indwelling the believer, would have been unable to keep the individual. Perseverance can also be implied by the doctrine that the believer can have assurance of his or her salvation (Heb 6:11, 10:22, 2 Pet 1:10). John once again offers a text that follows his list of evidences that God has given eternal life followed by these words, “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)

There is a critique commonly spoken against this position that is rooted in the sovereign choice, maintenance, and glorification of the Elect by God, wholly apart from the will or actions of man. Given such assurance apart from their own will or choice, humankind is tempted to live a morally lax life assured that regardless of their sinfulness or even devotion to Christ, their ultimate salvation is guaranteed in the promise of God. As Demarest writes (The Cross and Salvation, pg 444) “The popular saying, “Once saved, always saved” is misleading, for it may suggest that believers will be saved irrespective of how they live. The Calvinist response is to initially agree that regenerated and justified believers may indeed lapse in their faith, resist God, and fall into sin for a period but their unbelief and resistance is fleeting, rather than incorrigible and final. God deals graciously and patiently with genuine Christians who lapse in their faith. Spurgeon commented that there is a kind of faith that appears lively but never personally commits to Christ and obeys the gospel. It is these ‘supposed’ or ‘outward appearing’ Christians that are at risk of finally falling away. He writes of the assurance implicit in the promise, regardless of temporary lapse:

We believe that God has an elect people whom He has chosen unto eternal life, and that truth necessarily involves the perseverance in grace. We believe in special redemption, and this secures the salvation and consequent perseverance of the redeemed. We believe in effectual calling, which is bound up with justification, a justification which ensures glorification. The doctrines of grace are like a chain– if you believe in one of them you must believe the next, for each one involves the rest; therefore I say that you who accept any of the doctrines of grace must receive this also, as involved in them.

Summary

The classical Calvinist position is perhaps the easiest to examine as it simply rests on the promise of the Lord. Eternal security rests in the sovereign will of God; He chose some for eternal life and because of this fact, nothing can interfere with that promise coming to fruition. Jesus explains it simply:

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. (John 6:38-39)

CampOnIntellectual Dishonesty in the Debate

Everyone can recognize a caricature when they see one. Here is how our President is portrayed and the President himself. The caricature grossly exaggerates some feature or characteristic of a person in order to visually portray that person in a certain light. Here we are to believe that President Bush not only possesses these huge fly-out ears and little beady eyes but a level of intellectual shortcoming as well. Caricature is used of ideas and concepts as well, usually of an idea with which you disagree. The caricature contains some element of the original idea, just enough to make it identifiable. It is then lampooned and distorted in a way intended to either belittle or dismiss the thought without actually engaging the idea. It is often intellectually dishonest.

So, what role should caricature play in the discussion of theology? Is God’s word and its interpretation and application the domain of comedy and not-so-subtle deception? Certainly, Elijah was not kind to the prophets of Baal as he questioned why their god was indisposed, perhaps in the rest room but by and large, the Bible presents the unvarnished truth without resorting to deprecation rooted in falsehoods. Because we engage in discussion that has eternal implications, those who write and speak on topics relating to God and His truth should consider carefully how we present our ideas.

Steve Camp has once again done his best to caricature the Calvinist-Arminian theological debate by portraying Arminian theology incorrectly. In a post entitled “The Five Points of Free Will” he writes this;

The previous post represented a condensed version of the five points of Arminianism that sparked the development of the five points of Calvinism at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619 as a theological and biblical corrective to the heretical views of Jacob Arminius.

The previous post is where the real caricature appears as he presented this little cutesy test by which one could engage in a witch trial of your own to determine if, according the theologian Camp, you held to the correct framework. Here are the questions which he claims to be representative of the Arminian framework:

1. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters. T or F?

2. God selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. T or F?

3. Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe. T or F?

4. The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. Man’s free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ’s saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. T or F?

5. Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) – man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, “choose” to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. T or F?

Reading the comments attached to this quiz is typical of the CalBloggers as they high-five one another for scoring so high on the exam without once pointing out that this does not accurately reflect the theological points made by the Remonstrants. (BTW, according to Mr. Camp, the answer to all of these should be False, something that an Arminian would agree with.)

Okay, everyone had a bit of fun and in a few days the post will scroll off into blog oblivion but when do we begin to consider the long term effects of this kind of discourse? Mr. Camp’s blog is quite popular and many (most?) accept whatever he writes without challenge or correction. Because he inaccurately portrays a theology that he does not support, he is either a) disingenuous or b) ill informed on the topic on which he writes. Which I dare not speculate but leave that up to you to decide. Although, Steve, it seems to me that there is something in the Bible about bearing false testimony…

Debating Points for Calvinists and Arminians

A word that is desperately needed here in the land of Blog is posted over at Arminian Today. While the well reasoned and written piece is especially applicable to the Cal-Arm debate, it is also instructive for inviting the LDS or Watchtower folks into your living room to help them reason through the tenuity of their belief system. The author makes an important point as he echoes something I have long made note of; many Reformed brethren consider the Arminian theologian to be ‘deceived’ and following the ‘false god of Man’, therefore placing themselves on the wide road that leads to destruction. He does a good job of setting this and other straw men afire so as to encourage more collegial discussion.

Wesley on the catholic Spirit

Wesley does not speak here about theological compromise. Instead, he demonstrates a rare ability to segregate the essential from nonessential elements in the Christian faith.

Every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true; (for to believe any opinion is not true, is the same thing as not to hold it;) yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. Nay, every thinking man is assured they are not… “To be ignorant of many things and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity.” This, therefore, he is sensible is his own case. He knows in the general, that he himself is mistaken; although in what particular he mistakes, he does not, perhaps he cannot, know…

Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking which he desires they should allow him; and will no more insist on their embracing his. He bears with those who differ from him, and only asks him whom he desires to unite in love that single question, “Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?”…

But what is properly implied in the question? … The first thing implied is this: Is they heart right with God?…Does the love of God constrain thee to serve Him with fear? … Is they heart right toward thy neighbor?… Do you show your love by your works?… Then, “thy heart is right, as my heart is with they heart.”

“If it be, give me thy hand.” I do not mean, “Be of my opinion.” You need not: I do not expect or desire it. Neither do I mean, “I will be of your opinion.” I cannot; It does no depend on my choice; I can no more think, than I can see or hear, as I will. Keep you your opinion, I mine; and that as steadily as ever. You need not even endeavour to come over to me, or bring me over to you. I do not desire you to dispute these points, or to hear or speak one word concerning them. Let all opinions alone on one side and the other: Only “give me thine hand.”

I do not mean, “Embrace my modes of worship;” or, “I will embrace yours.” This also is a thing which does no depend either on your choice or mine. We must both act as each is fully persuaded in his own mind. Hold you fast that which you believe is most acceptable government to be Scriptural and Apostolic. If you thing the Presbyterians or Independents are better, think so still, and act accordingly. I believe infants ought to be baptized; and that this may be done either by dipping or sprinkling. If you are otherwise persuaded, be so still, and follow you own persuasion. It appears to me, that the forms of prayer are of excellent use, particularly in the great congregation. If you judge extemporary prayer to be of more use, act suitably to your own judgment. My sentiment, is that I ought not to forbid water, wherein persons may be baptized; and that I ought to eat bread and drink wine, as a memorial of my dying Master; however, if you are not convinced of this, act according to the light you have. I have not desire to dispute with you one moment upon any of the preceding heads. Let all these smaller points stand aside. Let them never come into light. If thin heart is as my heart, if thou lovest God and all mankind, I ask no more: “Give me thine hand” (Works, V, 494-499)

Perhaps we too can exercise some discernment and divide the essential from the non-essential, loving one another as the result.

The Reformed Echo Chamber

This post at Arminian Perspectives takes on Tim Challies and his generally dismissive review of Roger Olson’s book Arminian Theology. The review follows the template established by other Calvinist reviewers, defaulting to the tired accusations of Pelagianism, etc. What is telling is that with the ability of nearly everyone in the age of the Internet to discover the facts about Arminian theology, the Calvinist accolytes continue to simply listen to one another, echoing the same incorrect notions, proof texts, and authorities back to the others in the chamber.

Reformed Jesus, Merely a Prop?

A key verse often cited as evidence of the Calvinist interpretation of the concept of election and predestination is the berakah in Ephesians 1:3-6. It reads like this:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ in accordance with his pleasure and will– to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

Given the supralapsarian metrics of this passage, as we align it with the the petals of the TULIP some questions arise. The notion of some being chosen (elected) before the creation of the world while others are simultaneously selected for reprobation via God’s sovereign decision forms the very center of Calvin’s theological framework. It is important to note that the order of the selection chooses from among humans who have yet to be stung by the poison of sin, since the Fall has yet to be authored by the Father. In other words, they are yet to become totally or even partially depraved when their unconditional election occurs.They are already Saints, consecrated and set apart according to Sproul (Ephesians, 24.) When the Lord is cruelly and viciously sacrificed on the tree, it is an already foregone conclusion that the expiation (atonement) will apply only to those selected pre-creation. It logically follows then that the eternal status of these blessed few does not require their assent, nor can it be denied except by the Sovereign who decided it.

Calvinist W.J. Seaton (The Five Points of Calvinism) comments on the limited application of the sacrifice of Christ.

Christ died positively and effectually to save a certain number of hell-deserving sinners on whom the Father had already set His free electing love.

Note again that these “hell-deserving sinners” were created by God for the express purpose of being such. Why then is the sacrifice of Jesus necessary? If the Elect are holy and blameless from and for all of eternity then, it stands to reason, the Fall was orchestrated simply to provide the means to condemn those not selected for sanctification. It becomes merely a symbolic act in the predestined history of the World, necessary to further the story for which the conclusion is already known. If the Elect are claimed holy and blameless, why does God allow them to be stained by sin (Rom 5:14)? Because sin is in the world (at His permission and only eternally affecting those who are elected to perdition), God demands propitiation. His Holiness requires that atonement comes only from an equally holy sacrifice. Thus, the Christ must be the sacrifice. But the righteousness that He imputes, (cf Rom 5:17) is it needed by those already considered from eternity past to be holy and blameless? Does this doctrine not belittle the cross?

Why then was the Cross necessary? To show His love to those he has already given His eternal promise to? To demonstrate His sovereignty or power to all the rest whom He has left powerless to affect their eternal condemnation in Hell? In light of the order of elements above, Jesus become just a prop in the play, not really necessary but used to further the plot. Or, as Robert Reymond suggests, God does not see the men He creates as men but as sinners because His decretal system is not sequential but, simultaneous. However this process is enumerated, does it not hold true that God creates humankind knowing that they are a) going to sin because he created them that way with the ability (will) to walk counter to His commands and b) that some of them are created specifically for the purpose of being destroyed?

There are so many questions…does Calvin offer any answers?

A Single Thesis on the Church Door

I have called a heretic, labeled a fool, told that I am obviously too simple to understand the errors in my thinking, and virtually challenged to a duel by a self-proclaimed expert on Reformed theology. I have seen others abused, taunted in verse and lyric, and categorized as clowns for their theological positions. The overall tenor of debate over matters theological is becoming more and more rancorous and divisive with one recent posting labeling all of those in Christ’s church who don’t believe as the writer did as “deceived” and headed to Hell. This atmosphere has caused me to sharply curtail my posting in recent weeks as I reevaluated any contribution that it might have to greater work of the Church.

And then I reread a favorite quote by Annie Dillard…

On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest ideas of what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews.

Pride abounds in certain theological circles with much chest pounding among writers over sudden revelations in life that cause them to suddenly pledge allegiance to one systematic way of interpreting the Bible or another. Where Pride rules, charity vanishes and it has become de rigueur to label any other theological system heretical at worst, and childish and misguided at best. We would do well to consider the many who came before us who were martyred as heretics only to be exonerated with the passage of time. Where would the English speaking world be without the first steps of William Tyndale?

I would implore those who judge another Christian’s belief to consider what spiritual gift they have been given that allows them to peer into the heart of another man and discern the work that God is doing there. Is it a biblical gift? Can you provide others with chapter and verse so that we might study it? Until such time as you are absolutely certain that one position is correct and another is not (and remember, one rapidly growing church gains assurance of the correctness of their theology through a burning in the bosom), we would all do well to remember the Lord’s words in John 17:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

To paraphrase Miss Dillard, remember who it is we write about so blithely…

Acts 13:48 An Exegetical Study

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (NIV)

Acts 13:48 is a verse that has drawn much attention both as a proof text in support of a theology (e.g. Steele, Thomas The Five Points of Calvinism pp 33, 35, 60; Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III Ch. 24) and more specifically, the doctrine of unconditional election. This verse is often pointed to as “the divine side of evangelism” (Bible Exposition Commentary), saying that one of the key words, variously translated as Ordained or Appointed, connotes those who are written in the Book of Life (Phil 4:3, etc.) and destined to everlasting life, saved from perdition.

This same verse which is said to emphasize God’s sovereignty in election and salvation is also many times is seen as a mandate to evangelization so as to draw people to our Savior. Greg Laurie (Growing Your Church Through Evangelism and Outreach pp. 139), for example, says that by evangelism people must be persuaded to come to the work of the Spirit. Sometimes, he points out, two invitations are necessary in order to give people an opportunity to make a choice for Christ.

In the debate of continuous interest–Calvin versus Arminius–this same verse is said support both the monergistic and synergistic points of view. The Calvinist reads it as a declaration of the election of certain of humankind to salvation and the Arminian agrees. Those who interpret scripture through the Arminian-Wesleyian framework say yes, individuals are appointed for life eternal and that this appointment is made by God but, contrary to the Calvinist position, this gift must be received by a man or woman in order to be effectual.

Can this Word of God be rightly divided in such a way that it means everything that is attributed to it? Or, when placed back into its larger context and read in its original Greek form, does it lean heavily to one side or the other. The purpose of this study will be to help you decide the meaning of this verse and how it affects our reading of other verses and passages in God’s revelation to us. Though you may be tempted to read this simply to find affirmation of your particular theological framework, I urge you to approach this (and the study of all Scripture) prayerfully and with a heart open to movement and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Lukan Corpus

Proof-texting can be a disingenuous practice if the verse or passage that one chooses to utilize as support for a specific doctrine or practice has a different meaning when it is extracted from the larger context in which it was written. In order to properly evaluate a section of Scripture, it is critical that we locate that section within its surrounding material. Examining Acts 13:48 then requires us to look at the verse in the context of its immediate pericope, Luke’s description of Paul and Barnabas’ ministry in Pisidian Antioch, then the entire book of Acts and finally, the corpus of Luke’s writing, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

If we read Luke/Acts with the common focus of its historicity it is easy to miss the emphasis that the author places on the way of salvation and the work of the Holy Spirit. The progress (cf. Liefeld, Interpreting the Book of Acts, pp 41-42) of the gospel is recorded in a series of summary verses:

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 2:47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Acts 4:4 But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand.

Acts 5:14 Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.

Acts 6:7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Acts 9:31 Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.

Acts 9:42 This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord.

Acts 11:21 The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

Acts 12:24 But the word of God continued to increase and spread.

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Acts 16:5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.

Acts 19:20 In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.

Acts 28:31 Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Salvation is a major theme in both Luke and Acts (Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian). In Luke, the verb “save” appears some seventeen times and thirteen times in Acts. “Savior” appears twice in each book and “salvation” shows up seven times in Acts (cf. soteria in 13:47-48) and two Greek words for “salvation” appear six times in Luke. In Luke the emphasis is appropriately placed on Jesus as the one who brought (was) God’s salvation. The focus in Acts is the extent of this salvation, open to all classes of people — Gentiles, sinners, and the disenfranchised across all supposed geographic boundaries. Many Jews believed but the gospel did not end there; it went afar into the Gentile world where it was gladly received. Intertwined with these themes we find the related word “grace” in its theological sense of God’s work in an individual.

Liefeld (ibid. pp 93) suggests a further theme that runs through the twin volumes that is easily overlooked, the sovereignty of God and divine necessity. Necessity is defined as “what must be done to complete God’s sovereign plan.” Luke’s use of the word dei (“it is necessary”, “it must”) is frequent enough to warrant notice of a thread of divine intention running through the books. God is at the foundation of the kerygmatic impulse that propels Acts that finds two matching ideas that should not be separated: divine providence and the summons to obedience. As Fernando says (Fernando, NIVAC:Acts, pp 343) “Those who do seek after God , then, do not do so entirely by their own efforts but by the enlightening of their minds and the energizing of their wills by the Holy Spirit.” An example of these ideas is seen in the conversion of Lydia where the gospel message is first presented to this successful woman and God then “opened here heart to respond to Paul’s message. (Acts 16:14).” An evangelistic principle is extracted from the Lukan examples. There is an interplay between human initiative and divine quickening which leads us to understand our responsibility and emphasizes that it is God who ultimately gives the results (ibid. pp 451) [cf. vv 26:18, 29].

Context Within Acts

It is generally recognized that Acts divides into two parts; the first (Chs 1 to 12) half having to do with Peter and the beginnings of the Church within the Holy Land and the second (Chs 13 to 28), with Paul and the movement of the gospel from Antioch to Rome. Recording Paul’s missionary journeys, the verse of interest occurs within the context of his first missionary adventure. To outline the immediate context of chapter 13 we can utilize clear breaks in the movement of narrative as our guide.

Vv 1 to 3 – Paul and Barnabas are commissioned and sent
Vv 4 to 12 – Ministry on Cyprus
Vv 13 to 52 – Ministry in Pisidian Antioch
1. vv 13 – 41 : Preaching Ministry
2. vv 42 – 52 : The Effect of Paul’s Sermon

The nearest context of interest in this narrative locates Paul and his companions ministering in Pisidian Antioch. On the Sabbath they enter the synagogue and await the movement of the Spirit. They don’t wait long as the synagogue leadership asks them to share a “message of encouragement.” (v 15) Paul delivers much more than they bargained for. He rehearses the history of God’s dealings with Israel and now His movement to the Gentiles leading up the death and resurrection of the Savior Christ. Paul proclaims the good news that forgiveness of sins through Jesus is available to “everyone who believes.” (v 39) The power of the gospel message and dire warning that Paul issues at the close garners him a second invitation to preach on the next Sabbath.

Paul returns to the synagogue to find nearly the entire population of the city gathered to “hear hear the word of the Lord.” (v 44) This surge in attendance did not sit well with the Jews who abused Paul and the gospel message that he delivers. Paul, never one to cower in the face of a challenge, speaks “boldly” (v 46) pointing out that the Jews were the first to receive the revelation of the justification available through Jesus but, he continues “since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life” (v46) Paul is guided to take the message to a new people. When the Gentiles hear their place in God’s plan “they were glad and honored the word of the Lord;” resulting in their belief. This movement of the Spirit caused a stir in the whole region resulting in further abuse by the Jews driving Paul’s band on to Iconium. “The disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.” (v52)

A careful reading of the verse being examined finds that it is a necessary counterbalance to the emphasis on human will and choice that precedes it in the passage. It does not abrogate the previous references but reinforces the the divine imperative that regenerates the human soul and makes repentance and belief possible. “All those who believed “were appointed for eternal life” It is never merely a person’s own choice that saves them, it is always God’s love and mercy.” (Fernando, NIVAC) Williams has a similar view of the verse (NIBC) “The idea of appointment in this verse is not meant in a restrictive sense. The thought is not of God limiting salvation to the few, but of extending it to the many, in contrast to the exclusiveness of the Jews. And of course this divine choice did not obviate the need for personal faith.”

Word Study

Irving Jensen has said, “Just as a great door swings on small hinges, so the important theological statements of the Bible often depend upon even the smallest words, such as preposition and articles.” (Jensen, Enjoy Your Bible) A single word is often at the center of the life giving doctrines of the Bible and, in order to understand them, we must study the specific words in their original context. We begin then by examining Acts 13:48 in its Greek form:

Acts 13:48 akouonta de ta.eqnh ecairon kai. edoxazon ton logon tou/ kuriou kai.episteusan osoi hsan tetagmenoi eij zwhn aiwnion\

Translated:

akouonta de ta.eqnh ecairon

And hearing the nations rejoiced

kai. edoxazon ton logon tou/ kuriou

and glorified [honored] the word of the Lord

kai.episteusan osoi hsan

and believed as many as were

tetagmenoi eij zwhn aiwnion\

having been disposed to life eternal

The word of most interest to this discussion is tetagmenoi (tetagmenoi), a form of the verb tassw (tasso). Before parsing the verb, let’s establish the root definition. [Highlighted phrases and sentences added to point to references of the verse being examined.]

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Gerhard Kittel

The basic definition of this word means to appoint, to order, with such nuances as to arrange, to determine, to set in place, to establish, and (in the middle form) to fix for oneself.

LXX: senses are to appoint, to prohibit, to ordain, to set, to draw up, and middle to command, to make disposition, to fix, to turn one’s gaze, to set one’s heart, and to make.

NT: in Acts 15:2 – to determine / Acts 28:23 to appoint / Mt 28:16 to order. Christians are ordained to eternal life in Acts 13:48; conferring of status rather than foreordination is the point.

The NIV Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words – Verlyn D. Verbrugge

tasso – Arrange, appoint / protasso – command, appoint / diatasso – command, order / diatage – ordinance, direction / epitasso – command, order / epitage – order, injunction

This word is common in classical Greek. Its first meaning is military: draw up troops (or ships) in battle array. From this verb it came to mean direct or a appoint someone to a task, arrange, setup , put things or plans in order. All these verbs and nouns imply an acknowledged authority and power residing in the person from whom decisions or directives issue.

In the LXX the words in this word group are used with both God and humans as the arranging or directing agents.

NT: tasso is used 8 times and means some order or arrangement that has been made. It denotes God’s appointment of the “authorities that exist” (Rom 13:1), of Paul’s career assignment (Acts 22:10) and of individual persons’ “appointed” for eternal life through believing the gospel (Acts 13:48). In the middle Voice it means to make a mutual arrangement [Taxamenoi] (Acts 28:23)

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains – J.P. Louw & E.Nida

37.96 τάσσωa; ὁρίζωb; ἀναδείκνυμιb; τίθημιb: to assign someone to a particular task, function, or role—‘to appoint, to designate, to assign, to give a task to.’

τάσσωa : ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ‘those who had been designated for eternal life became believers’ Ac 13.48. Though τάσσω in Ac 13.48 has sometimes been interpreted as meaning ‘to choose,’ there seems to be far more involved than merely a matter of selection, since a relationship is specifically assigned.

ὁρίζωb : ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κριτής ‘the one designated by God as judge’ Ac 10.42.

ἀναδείκνυμιb : ἀνέδειξεν ὁ κύριος ἑτέρους ἑβδομήκοντα δύο ‘the Lord appointed another seventy-two men’ Lk 10.1.

τίθημιb: ἔθηκα ὑμᾶς ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε ‘I appointed you to go and bear much fruit’ Jn 15.16.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature – Frederick Danker / Walter Bauer

To bring about an order of things by arranging, arrange, put in place
1. Of an authority structure passive
2. Of a person: Put into a specific position, used with a preposition. (in the passive, belong to, be classed among those possessing) (Acts 13:48) Mt 8:9 Lk 7:8 1 Cor 16:15

When we parse the verb, we discover that it can be read in two forms. This is because “in the present tense, the middle and passive forms of the verb are identical” (Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek). Accordingly, many lexicons and other language tools will show two parsings side by side:

1. participle perfect passive nominative masculine plural

2. participle perfect middle nominative masculine plural

A little grammar to begin that you can skip if Greek is second nature to you. A participle (in English and Greek, a verbal adjective) has the characteristics of both a verb and an adjective. It has a tense (present, aorist, perfect) and a voice (active, middle, passive) like a verb and as an adjective it agrees with the word that it modifies in case, number, and gender. The tense describes the type of action denoted:

present – describes a continuous action
aorist – presents an undefined action – the participle describes the action without commenting on the nature of the action
perfect – describes a completed action with present effects

The voice refers to the relationship between the subject and the verb.

active – the subject does the action of the verb – Bob threw the ball. Threw is active because Bill did it.
passive – the subject receives the action of the verb – Bob was hit by the ball. Was hit is passive because Bill was hit.
middle – the action of the verb in some way affects the subject – The closest we can come with Bob and the ball is Bob hits himself with the ball.

It is an important footnote to this discussion to note that Luke is aware of and uses a variety of Greek words having the same meaning as the verb in question (appointed, ordained). See his usage in Luke 2:23, 10:1 and Acts 3:20, 6:3, 10:42, 12:21, 14:23, 15:12, 17:31, 22:10, 22:14, 26:16 & 28:23.

[Note that the discussion of middle versus passive voice is also a component of the Cessationist debate over the spiritual gift of tongues. The verb that Paul selects is pausontai which can also be parsed in the middle or passive voice. In 1 Cor 13:8, the verse can be read to indicate that the gift of tongues will cease or the gift of tongues will cease in and of itself.]

Conclusion

As I stated at the outset, the purpose of this study is not to present to you a conclusive reading of this important verse. What I have done is survey the scholarship and presented my findings to you in an orderly manner so that you can prayerfully decide what the appropriate reading and application of this verse is. Do not allow your theology to be determined solely on the word of others and a proof-text list. God has provided his revelation so that each of us can determine, given the entire scope of Scripture, the appropriate rendering of his Word and the aspects of His character and action that each reveals. Proof-texting that inappropriately “helicopters” in (as my beloved Dr. Carroll used to say) and pulls a verse out of its surrounding context is an incorrect way of dividing the Holy Word.

God bless you all in your study.

Update:

A fine analysis of this passage by William Birch can be found here.