SOTERIOLOGY 101: Recent Episodes
None
A Professor and former 5-Point Calvinist Discussing the Doctrines of Salvation, Election, Predestination, and God's Amazing Grace.
The concept of spiritual death is a significant theme in biblical theology, particularly in relation to the nature of sin, salvation, and the transformative power of the gospel. To understand why spiritual death is not about a moral inability but rather a state of separation from the life offered by the gospel, we can explore several key biblical principles.
- Definition of Spiritual Death
Spiritual death is primarily understood as separation from God due to sin. This is evident in passages like Ephesians 2:1-3, which states, “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked.” Here, “dead” indicates a state of being separated from the life and relationship that God offers. This separation is not about moral incapacity but signifies a profound disconnection from the source of life, which is God Himself.
- The Nature of Sin and Separation
In Isaiah 59:2, it is stated, “But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God.” This verse emphasizes that sin creates a barrier between humanity and God, resulting in spiritual death. Rather than indicating an inability to respond positively, this separation suggests that individuals are estranged from the divine life, which they were created to enjoy. It highlights the relational aspect of spiritual death—humanity’s alienation from God rather than a complete moral inability to choose good.
- God’s Initiative in Redemption
The biblical narrative consistently shows that God takes the initiative to restore the relationship that sin has broken. In John 3:16, we see that “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Here, the offer of life is extended to all, indicating that while spiritual death creates a barrier, it does not eliminate the possibility of response to God’s appeal. God’s gracious work through the gospel enables individuals to respond to the truth they otherwise would have never known (Rom. 10:13).
- The Role of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit plays a crucial role in awakening individuals to their need for God. In John 16:8, Jesus mentions that the Holy Spirit will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness. This conviction suggests that while people are spiritually dead, they are still capable of responding to the Spirit’s work. The Spirit’s role is to illuminate the truth of the gospel and draw individuals toward the life offered through Christ. This indicates that spiritual death does not equate to an inability to respond but rather a need for divine intervention. The incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, inspiration of scripture and commissioning of the Bride of Christ are some of the ways God has chosen to intervene; to which all mankind is able to respond and thus is held justly responsible.
- Human Responsibility and Response
The Bible consistently calls individuals to respond to God’s invitation to life. In Deuteronomy 30:19, God sets before His people life and death, urging them to choose life. This call implies that despite their spiritual condition, people have the capacity to respond to God’s offer. Romans 10:13 reinforces this idea, stating, “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” The emphasis here is on the opportunity for response rather than an innate deterministic inability.
Conclusion
In summary, spiritual death in the biblical context refers to a state of separation from the life that God offers through the gospel. It underscores the relational rupture caused by sin, rather than an inability to respond to God. The biblical narrative highlights God’s initiative in redemption, the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, and the inherent responsibility of individuals to respond to the divine call. Thus, spiritual death is best understood as a separation due to our own rebellion that necessitates God’s grace and intervention, allowing for the possibility of a positive response to the gospel and the restoration of life in Christ.
by Mindtrap James LeBlanc
IntroductionAll positions which hold to an exhaustive divine decree (EDD) are eventually confronted with the accusation that it makes us into puppets, or robots. Many are quick to dismiss it, and some are perplexed by the accusation. So I want to try and explain it.
Puppets Taking a moment to step back and consider our experience with puppets. Something adults do is to “suspend disbelief”. Basically, it is to pretend along with theater. In the case of puppets, we pretend that they are individuals. This allows us to accept the back and forth of ventriloquists, or to enjoy a sock puppet show. A child may actually believe they are real. In pretending, we end up ascribing individual will and motivations, we get impressed with whit of the puppets jokes, we may even be moved to tears by its selfless sacrifice on stage. All from immersion into a good story.
In pretending, we are purposely ignoring some truths, and accepting the implausibility of some fictions. We treat the puppet as an individual, when the truth is that a performer is the real source of talent. We may weep at love or sacrifice, but they don’t actually exist. Like the Monty Python “It’s only a model” line. These higher truths falsify all that come before it, and in a moral context have significant implications.
Grounding of the objection The thing about suspended disbelief, is that there is no obligation to play along. The man who says “it is only a model” destroys the fictitious premises which create a thing to be impressed with, and simply asserts the greater “truth” which is the reality of the situation.
Applied So the accusation that EDD makes us all puppets, is to apply the greater truth of EDD and refuse to pretend along. EDD creates direct threads between all the objects, and God. Which in eternity past God through his divine decree dictates each and every action. Pointing out the strings is what defines the puppet. EDD asserts the string exists, and the puppet analogy is to point out the strings and how change the context from those pretending.
ObjectionsMost objections to the puppet analogy generally fall into the category of attempting to establish a difference. Sure we may pretend puppets have consciousness, but people have REAL consciousness. We may pretend that puppets are originating jokes, but we really do originate jokes. Ultimately, these all fail because they aren’t really pointing out a difference, so much as they are listing other things connected to God by the strings of EDD. Another objection is to attempt to constrain the conversation to within the story level context. This is insufficient, as it just ignores the greater truth, rather than even contradict it.
Here are 7 Reasons from Context & Grammar Showing Acts 13:48 Gives an Example of Personal Response to the Gospel… not Divine Election of Individuals before Creation
Context1. The context contrasts the Jews who judged themselves “unworthy of everlasting life” (vs 46) with the Gentiles who “arranged themselves (got in line) for everlasting life” (vs 48).
-
The context of verse 48 has five verbal actions (heard, were glad, glorified, arranged, believed), and one would normally expect all those verbal actions to be accomplished by the same subject – the Gentiles who were there that day.
-
The context does not mention God as an actor in this story at all, but only the Jews, Paul and Barnabas, and the Gentiles, except perhaps in the last words of verse 52 – “filled…with the Holy Spirit”. Therefore the implied subject of this participle should naturally be found among one of these actors, not God, unless a similar verse in Luke or Acts can be shown where Luke introduces God’s activity of one action into a list of actions done by another subject.
Grammar4. The grammar (semantic range of meaning) of Greek participle – τεταγμένοι – must be determined by context since the Greek word τασσω, is a generic word, almost exactly like our English word “arrange”. The choice of “ordain” is clearly interpretive, wrongly implying that God must be the actor of this “arranging”.
- The grammar (inflected form) of Greek participle – τεταγμένοι – denotes that a choice of interpretation has to be made between the middle or passive voice, since both are spelled the same way. The passive voice denotes action received by the subject (“were arranged”) and the middle voice denotes reflexive action by the subject (“arranged themselves” or “arranged for themselves”).
This verb – τασσω – is only used 9 times in the NT and twice are in the active voice, with one of those instances of the active voice clearly showing the action being done reflexively (like middle voice) by the subject on themselves (1Cor 16:15). The other instance in active voice, in Acts 15:2, shows that the elders “arranged” for Paul to represent them in Jerusalem (also an indirect reflexive idea). Of the seven other instances, one is clearly middle in form, Matt 28:16, where Christ arranges for Himself to meet with the apostles in Galilee. The last six are middle or passive in form, so the context must determine which fits best.
Of the last six, the middle reflexive idea fits best for Matt 8:9, Luke 7:8, and Acts 28:23 for they are much like Matt 28:16 where a person is arranging something or someone for his own benefit. The passive idea, where the subject receives the action, arranged by someone else, fits best for Acts 22:10 and Rom 13:1, and in those two contexts God can be assumed to be the one doing the arranging, though there is no hint in those contexts that He had to do it before creation. Since the middle/reflexive idea fits well with six of the eight contexts, it can be expected to also fit as normal for the ninth context in Acts 13:48, making the reflexive idea found in seven of nine NT instances of this verb.
- The grammar (lexical evidence) of this same verb as a middle participle was used in Classical Greek of soldiers and ships getting in line, according to an example found in Liddell Scott. (I, 1. fall in, form in order of battle… formed in a circle… having drawn up their ships in four lines). It is not hard to then visualize that when Paul and Barnabas said out loud that they were now turning to the Gentiles, that those Gentiles rushed to “arrange themselves” in line to profess their public commitment of faith and be baptized. Luke is saying that as many as got in line, seeking for everlasting life through the Gospel, did indeed become public believers!
In Acts 18:6 the word for “opposed” is – ἀντιτασσομένων – which is the antonym for the participle – τεταγμένοι – here in 13:48. This antonym in 18:6 is middle or passive in form, but there is no doubt that in that verse the middle voice is the preferred choice. Those Jews, like those in Acts 13 were arranging themselves in opposition to Paul and Silas.
- The grammar (less contextual but possible) concedes that God or the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, might be the main subjects of this one of five verbal ideas in 13:48. That is, there could be the passive idea of God or the apostles having first arranged for the Gentiles to hear the Gospel for the purpose of their receiving everlasting life. However, the passive verbal concept of those offering this arrangement assumes a voluntary response of those being so arranged. And Luke confirms the acceptance of that arrangement by them by confirming their act as a personal commitment of trust in the active voice (“believed”), and not in the passive voice (“were converted”).
If Calvinists have as many contextual/grammatical reasons for the idea of divine ordination before creation being taught in this verse, let them show the evidence. They will look in vain for “God” as the declared subject of a verb or the phrase “before creation” in this context.
This is a re-blog of an article by AndrewH of “Beyond Calvinism“
*All scripture quotations are from NASB, unless otherwise noted.
In his song “Context”, Calvinist recording artist Flame says:
“exegesis is the careful systematic study of scripture for the Christian this should be a habit but to discover the original intended meaning of the author to his audience is exegeting”
and:
“a text can never mean what it never meant before to its original reader or author so if you run into a difficult passage and you know the Bible never contradicts itself then turn the pages to a parallel passage and just let the scriptures interpret itself”
I’ve used these quotes a number of times in Bible studies I’ve led, both as a Calvinist and later, to help new Christians understand what our first objective is as we come to a text.
As I’ve said before, Romans 9 was the passage that really led me into Calvinism, and later, the passage that held me there.
In this post I want to look at the two questions which challenged that understanding, and then at a third question which confirmed my new view:
(1) What was Paul’s point?
(2) What did Paul’s 1st century audience think he meant?
(3) Are there parallel passages which could bolster our conclusion?
(1) What was Paul’s point?
“but to discover the original intended meaning of the author to his audience is exegeting”
The key which allowed me begin considering other interpretations was when I finally “arced” Romans 9 from beginning to end, rather than stopping around verse 23.
I wasn’t alone in skipping over the last few verses of this chapter; in fact it seems to be a common problem among Calvinists. After considering verse 23 in his commentary on Romans, FF Bruce (who considered himself “an impenitent Augustinian and Calvinist” [1]) wrote:
It is a pity that in some schools of theological thought the doctrine of election has been formulated to an excessive degree on the basis of this preliminary state in Paul’s present argument, without adequate account being taken of his further exposition of God’s purpose in election at the conclusion of the argument (xi. 25-32). [2]
What immediately became clear to me as I arced was the relation of verses 30-33 to the preceding context. Verse 30 began as an inference (“what shall we say, then”) from Paul’s thought throughout the rest of the chapter.
Imagine you are reading an academic article, and you’re really having trouble following the author. You find yourself thinking, “What’s your point?” In this situation, you might well turn to the author’s conclusion and find, “Ah ha, so that’s what he’s been getting at! That’s what his argument has been moving towards”.
If the author’s conclusion contradicted what you had read in his preceding argument, you may rightly conclude that you had misunderstood what he had been saying, and you would re-read the preceding arguments to find out how they fit and build towards that conclusion. [3]
In Romans 9, Paul’s conclusion is clear:
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
(30-33)
Paul is very clear regarding why some are saved while others are “separated from Christ” (v 3). Those who are saved, “attained righteousness […] by faith” (v 31); those who are separated from Christ are separated because they pursued righteousness (or we might say, “pursued a right standing with God”) “as though it were by works” (v 32).
If instead Paul’s argument had been, as the Calvinists claim, that “His promise gave expression to an ‘electing purpose’ (9:11) by which God aims to preserve his complete freedom in determining who will be the beneficiaries of his saving promises, who will be the ‘Israel’ within Israel (9:6b). His purpose is thus maintained by means of the predestination of individuals to their respective eternal destinies. […] Within the context of Romans 9, this means that God maintains his sovereign ‘purpose of election’ by determining, before they are born, who will belong to the ‘saved’ among Israel”,[4] Paul would have concluded and summarized his argument very differently. As another blogger noted, a Calvinist conclusion should read something like:
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by ~~faith~~ unconditional election of individuals (with faith merely being evidence of an individual’s prior election); but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they ~~did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works~~ had not been unconditionally and individually elected for salvation. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever is irresistibly caused to believe~~s~~ in him will not be put to shame.” Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they ~~may be saved~~ have always been vessels of mercy, otherwise there is no hope for them. [5]
In particular, we would be left wondering why Paul brought up faith at all, if, as John Piper suggests, “Neither the bad willing/running of ‘works’ nor the good willing/running of faith had any influence at all on God’s decision to show mercy”[6] and “‘willing and running’ cannot legitimately be limited in such a way that some willing, like that act of trusting Christ, does ultimately determine God’s bestowal of mercy, namely, the mercy of salvation”[7] (I would point out however, that to trust/have faith in/rely on/believe is not always a type or subset of “willing”; compare, for example, John 1 where “believe” (v12) can be contrasted with both “the will of flesh” and “the will of man” (v 13). Likewise, on the broader phrase “willing and running”, we know from the testimony of the Lord Jesus himself that “to believe in Him whom [God] has sent” is the one “work” that God does require (John 6:28-29).)
The burden of proof, then, is on the Calvinist to explain how Paul’s argument fits with his conclusion (and not to stop the exegesis at verse 23, mid-sentence!).
(2) What did Paul’s 1st century audience think he meant?
“a text can never mean what it never meant before to its original reader or author”
After I saw the conclusion in verses 30-33, I knew I had to re-examine the argument that had led Paul there. As I considered, it struck me to wonder, “How would the Roman Christians have understood the phrase in verse 11, ‘God’s purpose according to His choice‘ (or “God’s purpose of election” ESVUK)?” Would they have understood Paul to mean some pre-temporal decree of certain individuals to salvation?
In the context, Paul seems to be talking about God’s purpose in choosing Isaac and Abraham, and choosing Jacob to continue that purpose. So what was his purpose in choosing Abraham?
We find a hint back in chapter 4, where Paul also talks about Abraham and God’s purpose; there with regard to circumcision. He says:
The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.” (v 11-12)
This led me to look into the Old Testament, to find out if there are any explicit statements there about God’s purpose in choosing Abraham. In fact, we have a very clear statement, and one which fits very nicely with both Romans 4 and Romans 9, in Genesis 18:17-19 (note also, that Paul actually quotes from this very same chapter in Romans 9:9!) bold mine:
The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.”
And in fact, we can see the fulfilment of this––that through Jesus all nations are blessed––stated in Romans 9:4, “and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.” And in verses 24-26:
even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’ And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”
“And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”
I had to conclude, then, that the Roman Christians, fluent in the Old Testament, would have understood the choice/election of Abraham in verse 11 to be a reference to God continuing through Jacob and not Esau, his purpose to bless all nations through the Messiah. This choice of Jacob was not based on anything Jacob had done, but was purely of God’s sovereign choice. It had nothing to do with Jacob’s own eternal state, which would still be determined by his faith in God to bring about what He had promised, just as it was for Abraham (Rom 4:21).
As NT Wright put it:
This was never an abstract ‘doctrine of predestination’, attempting to plumb the mysteries of why some people (in general, without reference to Israel) hear and believe the gospel and others do not. Paul never encourages speculation of that sort. Rather, it was a way of saying, very specifically, that the fact of Israel’s election (starting with the choice and call of Abraham) had always been there to deal with the sin of the world; that Israel’s election had always involved Israel being narrowed down, not just to Isaac and then to Jacob, but to a hypoleimma, a ‘remnant’, a ‘seed’; and that this ‘remnant’ itself would be narrowed down to a single point, to the Messiah himself, who would himself be ‘cast away’ so that the world might be redeemed. [8]
(3) Are there parallel passages which could bolster these conclusions?
“so if you run into a difficult passage and you know the Bible never contradicts itself then turn the pages to a parallel passage and just let the scriptures interpret itself”
I’ve mentioned a few parallels already, so here I will dig into verses 19-23:
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory
When I first turned from Calvinism and began to email back and forth with one of my more studied Calvinist friends, I offered my alternative interpretation of these verses, to which he responded, “we need to walk through this. I cannot understand this text in any other way than to understand that God has indeed predestined before the foundations of the world that there would be vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, for His own glory.”
First, I had to point out to him the leaps my friend had made:
(1) There is no mention of “before the foundations of the world” anywhere in the passage; and
(2) He had moved from “God… endured with much patience” to “God … predestined … vessels of wrath … for destruction, for His own glory.”
Next, I questioned how he understood a few other New Testament texts which seemed to me to carry the same idea: Ephesians 2, Romans 2:4-5, 2 Peter 3:9 and 2 Tim 2:20-21.
In Ephesians 2:3-5 we see that we “were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy […] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” – in other words, we were vessels of wrath but became vessels of mercy.
In Romans 2:4-5, we see that God’s patience is meant to turn vessels of wrath into vessels of mercy; those who refuse to repent are preparing themselves for destruction:
Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God
Likewise in 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
And 2 Tim 2:20-21, perhaps the clearest of all, says:
Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.
As Calvinist Bill MacDonald wrote, against the common Calvinist view, “God does not prepare vessels of wrath for destruction, but he does prepare vessels of mercy for glory“.[9]
FF Bruce takes much the same approach:
While Paul will allow no questioning of God’s right to do what He will with His own, he lets his emphasis fall, not on God’s wrath towards the reprobate, but rather the postponement of His wrath against men who have long since become ripe for destruction. As has been pointed out earlier (2:4), the mercy and forbearance of God are intended to afford men time for repentance; if, instead, they harden their hearts yet more, as Pharaoh did after repeated respites, they are simply storing up an increasing weight of retribution for themselves against the day of requital. [10]
Jeremiah 18, where Paul’s illustration seems to have originated, also confirms this. There, the Prophet Jeremiah watches a potter as “the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make” (v 4). The Lord tells the Prophet:
“Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.”’ But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ (v 6-12)
If a vessel of wrath, prepared for destruction, “turns from its evil” it becomes a vessel of mercy. And like in 2 Peter 3, God longs for it to be so: “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.” (v 11, and cf Romans 11:20 & 23)
Endnotes:
[1] FF Bruce, “Original Forward and Comments”, in Paul Marston & Roger Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History. (you can see his comments Google Preview here).
[2] FF Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, p 190 [Bruce]. In John Piper’s book, The Justification of God, which is generally considered the leading Calvinist exposition of Romans 9, he too stops his examination at verse 23.
[3] Dr Greg Boyd, in his excellent sermon on Romans 9, similarly argues that Paul’s conclusion does not fit the Calvinist interpretation.
[4] John Piper, The Justification of God at 218 [Piper].
[5] Kingswood Hart, “New Calvinist Bible – Romans 8-11” (March 27, 2014), link.
[6] Piper supra note 3 at 153.
[7] Ibid at 157. However, in the next sentence, Piper correctly points out, “Faith is indeed a sine qua non of Salvation; Rom 9:16, therefore, necessarily implies that the act of faith is ultimately owing to the prevenient grace of God.” But then gets around this by stating, “But this is a theological inference, however true, beyond Paul’s explicit concern here. There is no reference at all to faith in Rom 9 until verse 30.”
[8] NT Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. As quoted by Michael F Bird, “N.T. Wright on Election in PFG” (October 18, 2013), link.
[9] William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, p 1719.
[10] Bruce supra note 2.
by Isaac Barrett The goal of this review is to demonstrate that Piper’s interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9 is incorrect. First this review will summarize the possible interpretations of what the gift is in verse 8. Then, each section of this analysis will restate and identifies problems with Piper’s arguments. Timestamps have been included to encourage readers to listen […]
by Isaac Barrett This review will analyze John Piper’s four main arguments in his exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-9. Two of these arguments, he makes from outside the text in question. One argument is from Ephesians and the others are from Philippians and 1 Corinthians. This first article in the series will focus on those external […]
You can find the original post over at Sin and Glory. In the Reformed camp there is a big problem with conflation. If you’re not familiar, conflation happens when two separate things are brought together to appear as if they are one. Dictionary.com defines it thus: “the merging of two or more sets of information, […]
By Justin Brierley Someone I know (let’s call him Joe) recently owned up to an embarrassing incident during his time at Bible college. Another student there (let’s call him Trevor) was a confirmed Calvinist, who believed that everything in life had been predestined by God – from eternal salvation to the colour of the socks […]
By Richard Coords To preface, in the second movie of the Hobbit Trilogy, “The Desolation of Smaug,” the wizard Gandalf instructs his company of dwarves to pass through the Enchanted Forest, but with on key instruction: “You must stay on the path. Do not leave it. If you do, you’ll never find it again. No […]
by Yoki Maurx “The doctrine of election is biblical and true” can be said by any Bible believing Christian. There have been numerous debates about the doctrine of election and reprobation for hundreds of years. Without defining terms, two people may have completely different understandings of the doctrine of election. Election, simply defined, means “to choose”. When […]
Original post by Ronnie W. Rogers I agree with the Calvinist claim that the gospel is simple and clear, but I contend that Calvinism, by its very nature, complicates and obscures the simple and clear gospel.[1] Yes, someone can be saved when anyone says something like, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” but the difference between […]
You can read the original post by Dr. Adam Lloyd Johnson over at Convincing Proof Here are my initial ‘off the cuff’ thoughts concerning the debate between William Lane Craig and James White over the issue of Molinism and Calvinism that took place in December 2021. You can watch the debate here: William Lane Craig vs […]
I know this may come as a shock to some of our readers but…God chooses some stuff. Or, at least, this is what one Presbyterian minister thinks should be a surprise to us. Of course, this is not a surprise. Provisionism happily accepts that God chooses all kinds of things, of course He does, He’s […]
by Ronnie W. Rogershttps://ronniewrogers.com/2021/11/08/calvinism-and-the-problem-of-damnation-and-hell/ Calvinism’s exclusive doctrines position it in an untenable place when it comes to people spending eternity in hell. They offer various responses to allay the indefensible entailments of Calvinism that consign people to hell (the reprobate non-elect class). Here are a few: first, some say they deserve to be there. While […]
The state of the soteriological controversies online is a shambles. It seems like most want to build brand recognition through “gotcha!” mudslinging and memes. I like memes as much as the next guy, and they can be useful rhetorical tools, but when the dialogue never goes deeper that is indicative of a wider problem. In […]
this post is originally by Tim Stratton which you can find on freethinkingministries.org Since publishing Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism in October of 2020, almost every day I have dialoged with determinists. They are either theological determinists (typically Calvinists) who are seemingly committed to exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) or they are scientific determinists (typically naturalists/atheists) […]
by Duane Waller In keeping with Calvinism having “the same vocabulary but a different dictionary” – this is one of Calvinism’s most pronounced examples. Here is where we should introduce the understanding of normative vs non–normative use of language. When we say we have the normative understanding of [X] – we are referring to the […]
This post was originally published on 3 May 2016. Balthasar Hubmaier (1480-1528) was a thoughtful opponent to the doctrine of the bondage of the will and of predestination that was prevalent in thought of Luther, Zwingli and the Magisterial Reformers. For Hubmaier, the liberation of the will is the work of God through the preaching […]
Why do both Calvinists and Provisionists get so frustrated with the inane doctrinal beliefs and the harmful immoral behavior of others? I find myself agreeing with many of my Calvinistic brother’s quotes on social media about the ever-growing ills of our secular society. I share in their frustrations and join with them in their appeals […]
© Copyright 2020, Steve Sabin. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Episode 4: Insulation Several months have elapsed and our acolyte is loving every minute of the fellowship, Bible study, and iron-sharpening-iron discussion that occurs every Tuesday night. He has missed only a single session – the unfortunate casualty of an overnight business trip. On […]
In responding to someone concerning the existence of what is known as Libertarian Free Will, I decided to sketch a quick flow chart that could aid one in recognizing whether or not free will exists or applies to a given situation. (See Chart Below) In book project “Why I’m Not an Atheist: An Analysis of […]
by Leighton Flowers Are “Modern Arminians” and Provisionists Semi-Pelagians for denying the need for a Partial Regeneration? As many of our regular listeners are aware, we as “Provisionists” (or “Traditional Southern Baptists”), are sometimes accused of holding to heretical (or “semi” heretical) views due to our denial of the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Inability, the belief that all men are born in a corpse-like dead […]
The standard-bearing Reformed confessions state that “God has decreed whatsoever may come to pass” and yet “God is not the author of evil”. While God ordains all things, including evil desires and actions, He does so without being the author of evil. I think the danger the Westminster Confession of Faith is trying to avoid […]
Leighton Flowers is sincere and genuine…and that’s why Calvinists are angry with him. Let me premise this article with a disclaimer: Dr. Flowers does not tell me what to write. Never has. Not once. On occasion he has asked me to amplify something he wrote but he has never told me what to say about […]
This post is adapted from a brilliant social media discussion by Drew McLeod. Is John 6 about Gentile Christians 2000 years after Jesus walked the Earth? When Jesus says, “It is the will of Him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given me, but raise it up on […]
by Brian Wagner, PhD Reasons from Context and Grammar that John 6:44 Does not Mean Irresistible Grace to An Eternally Elect Few John 6:44 ουδεις δυναται ελθειν προς με εαν μη ο πατηρ ο πεμψας με ελκυση αυτον και εγω αναστησω αυτον τη εσχατη ημερα John 6:44 No one is able to come to Me […]
It has been six weeks since the last post on the Soteriology 101 blog. So, what have we been doing? This has certainly been a strange time. At the beginning of this pandemic I, Eric Kemp, moved to Texas. It was the most difficult thing our family has ever done and there have been several […]
© Copyright 2020, Steve Sabin. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Episode 3: Submergence It’s Tuesday night, marking our acolyte’s third encounter with Thiely. There’s now a recurring appointment on Jordan’s iphone for the weekly Bible study at a trendy place called Midtown Brewmasters. Last week the group covered T, U, I, and P. This […]
By Dale Decker In G. K. Chesterton’s 1908 novel, The Man Who Was Thursday, constable Gabriel Syme is recruited to be an agent of the police department’s New Detective Corps. The Chief, a shadowy figure in a dark room, inducts Syme into an undercover operation with the mission to frustrate the schemes of the Central Anarchist Council. Syme then […]
The world ought to be better. The state of the world ought not to be this way. Like many of you, I have been (probably unhealthily) glued to the current events of unrest, violence, and change dominating our news feeds. I heard a new term for it today; doom scrolling. That’s what I’ve been doing…doom […]
A tale of the things we believe and why we believe them © Copyright 2020, Steve Sabin. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Episode 2: Brotherhood It’s Tuesday night. Our acolyte has completed his homework assignment (reading John 6:44 and Acts 13:48) and is making his way across the floor to a corner table in […]
Adam Harwood, Ph.D. Adam Harwood is Associate Professor of Theology, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also Director of the Baptist Center for Theologyand Ministry and Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry. This article was first published to JBTM 10.1 (Spring 2013). Footnotes can […]
What we believe shapes our lives and forms our behaviors. Theology never stays in the abstract, it always filters down to what we do and how we live. Most Calvinist pastors I have listened to are simply practical Christians. They may preach effectual grace one Sunday but the next Sunday extoll the responsibility of their […]
The following is from Manor Rabbit over at Fallacies of Style. The original article titled “White vs. Wilson (Part 3)”. The article is re-blogged in its entirety. After sitting through several hours of Dr. James White responding to Dr. Ken Wilson’s thesis and exposing some of White’s obvious errors in Part 1 and Part 2, it became apparent (to me) that White […]
A tale of the things we believe and why we believe them, by Steve SabinThis article (except comments thereto) is copyright © 2020, Steve Sabin. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. The Acolyte Our protagonist, the acolyte, is a young man in his 20s named Jordan Frazier. He became a Christian about a year ago […]
The following is from Fallacies of Style. The original article titled “White vs. Wilson (Part 2)”. The article is re-blogged in its entirety. I’ve just finished reading Ken Wilson’s The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism. The book is intended to be a more accessible summary of his longer Oxford dissertation, but in my estimation is still academic enough to […]
The following was written by, and posted with permission, by Drew McLeod I suffer from chronic back pain. I also believe in a God who heals. But these truths eventually led me to stop praying for healing. Later, a separate truth helped me to restart. Christians can often get into heated discussions about whether God […]
The following is from blogger Fallacies of Style; the original article titled “White vs. Wilson (Part 1)”. The article is re-blogged in its entirety. Anyone who listens to James White’s Dividing Line program regularly is no doubt are aware of his ongoing disagreement with Ken Wilson. Wilson’s recent book, The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism, has irked […]
I have come to think of the defense of Calvinism as mainly the endeavor to equate logical differences with semantic distinctions. In other words, when a Reformed scholar defends Calvinism, the main strategy he uses is to control the language of the debate as if doing so is the same as defending Reformed theology rationally. […]
I have come to think of the defense of Calvinism as mainly the endeavor to equate logical differences with semantic distinctions. In other words, when a Reformed scholar defends Calvinism, the main strategy he uses is to control the language of the debate as if doing so is the same as defending Reformed theology rationally. […]
Recently, a fan of the blog remarked that I only write about things I disagree with, tearing down arguments, and never giving a positive case for what I believe. This is mostly true. Evaluating arguments is fun for me. It’s a fair criticism, so here are some of my commitments. Spirituality I’m not afraid of […]
In Dr. Flowers broadcast, embedded above at the 9:00min mark, Chris Date addresses some of the objections against Calvinism. I’m hopeful that dialogue with Chris Date’s ideas and answers will prove fruitful because Date is particularly consistent in his Calvinism, cordial in his demeanor, and accurate in his representation of Non-Calvinism. However, Chris Date has […]
IF CALVINISM IS TRUE THEN WHY EVANGELIZE? by Leighton Flowers When I was a 5-point Calvinist I was also evangelistic. I participated in mission efforts and was as active in sharing my faith with others as I am today. In this blog and on my podcast I have regularly strived to help my non-Calvinistic friends […]
The following is satire. The Warden: “Prisoner #489739525, I have developed a Wanting Serum which makes you want freedom and no longer desire to be a criminal” A Prisoner: “What?” Warden: “I just want you to know that, if you want, I can give you this Serum and you will want to be free” Prisoner: […]
This month Justin Dillehay, pastor and contributing editor at The Gospel Coalition, wrote a piece about his conversion from Arminianism to Calvinism being spurred on by Romans 8. Let’s examine the story he is telling his reading audience so that, later, when he gets to discussing the Scriptures, you will believe him despite the fact […]
by Leighton Flowers & Eric Kemp Calvinists often argue that if we as Christians were free to suppress the truth or believe it then we could boast in our choice to believe the gospel. In other words, if we are able to meet the condition of faith that is required for salvation, we can boast. […]
“Don’t let the Pelagian goo get on you” – James White You have to admit, James White knows how to turn a phrase. Dr. Flowers responds to this latest accusation of being Pelagian with a 15min video showing exactly how the accusation is fallacious and off-base. The main point from the video I would like […]
David said, “The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue.” -2 Samuel 23:2 So, if David, teaching by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, helped someone to understand a divine truth that she didn’t understand before, who should be given the credit? David, the Holy Spirit or both? Both, […]
The following, the final in a three-article series, was penned by a friend of the ministry, Dale. W. Decker. You can find him at the Theogineer. Thank you, Dale. Unconditional Election: Is Jesus the Press Secretary for God? The job of press secretary many times appears to be providing political camouflage for a president by […]
The following, the second in a three-article series, was penned by a friend of the ministry, Dale. W. Decker. You can find him at the Theogineer. Thank you, Dale. Total Inability: The Island of Dr. Moreau In H.G. Wells 1896 book, The Island of Dr. Moreau, the doctor, in his secluded laboratory, uses vivisection to […]
The following, the first in a three-article series, was penned by a friend of the ministry, Dale. W. Decker. You can find him at the Theogineer. Thank you, Dale. At The Dock, But Not On-board The Ship While Reformed Theology and Calvinism may not be strictly equivalent terms, I think they are essentially equivalent in […]
by Leighton Flowers & Eric Kemp Often we hear the objection that God is not obligated to have mercy on anyone. That’s true. However, the fact that God is not obligated to be merciful towards all people is what makes the display of His mercy to all people so amazingly gracious and abundantly glorious. That […]
by Dr. Leighton Flowers
The following was written by Phillip Stratton, a friend of Soteriology 101, and posted with full permission. Thank you, Phillip! To both Calvinists and Arminians, the identity of “the elect” is widely accepted as “the saved ones”. Even if the sides disagree how one becomes saved the usual consensus is that new covenant believers are […]
by Leighton Flowers Good deeds are worthless as a filthy rag in the sight of God not because the motive of the doer is necessarily wrong, but because the debt of sin owed is too great to be overlooked on account of such deeds. No deed, even if motivated by a genuine faith and selflessness, […]
Nominal Calvinism: And the Accusation of Misrepresentation by Leighton Flowers Have You Heard of “Nominal Christians?” The term nominal simply means “in name only.” So, when we refer to a Christian as being nominal we typically mean those who may call themselves Christian (and may even attend church once or twice a year on special […]
SPIRITUALIZED GASLIGHTING by Dr. Leighton Flowers According to psychological experts “gaslighting” is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own perception of reality. SOME Calvinists argue that we are all born believing in the […]
Does God Grant Repentance to Some and Not Others? 2 Timothy 2:24-26 by Dr. Leighton Flowers Well respected Calvinistic pastors and theologians often reference 2 Timothy 2:25 as proof of their claim that God effectually gives some people (those unconditionally elected before creation) a new nature which inevitably leads to their repentance. God, according to […]
by Dr. Leighton Flowers Why do self-proclaimed Calvinists, like John MacArthur, rebuke others, like Beth Moore, and express disapproval and indignation against that which they believe God has unchangeably brought to pass for His own self-glorification? It certainly seems reasonable for us as non-Calvinist to disapprove of the autonomous behavior of errant Christians, false teachers […]
by Dr. Leighton Flowers God’s choice of Israel and even specific individual Israelites was not to the neglect of the rest of humanity, but to their benefit! God’s original promise to Abraham was that through him “all the families of the earth would be blessed” (Gen 12:3). God’s choice of one of Abraham’s sons or […]
by Dr. Leighton Flowers These are some recent comments sent to me via social media: “Your theology is man-centered…” “You are a humanistic Pelagian…” “You start with man and build your view of God around humanistic reasoning.” “Making God in your own image is not theology, Mr. Flowers!!!” And those were the nice ones. (Listen […]
Did you know that Dr. Flowers has been doing short(er) videos? No? Well, crawl out of the rock you’re living under and behold the glory of less Dr. Flowers! Wait, that’s not what I…Look, Dr. Flowers is doing bite-sized videos to show your friends and family. There is a sample below and check out the […]
This is a re-blog from Transformed Theology, “A Critical Look at Romans 8:29-30” by Pastor Bob Hadley; Pastor of Westside Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Florida. Pastor Bob succinctly shows how the Calvinistic reading of Romans 8 is out of bounds given the grammatical context of the passage; both the objects of the verbs and […]
Dr. Ken Wilson’s bookKindle version: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VTS48L6 Paperback version: https://www.amazon.com/dp/108280035X?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860
By Drew McLeod. Drew is currently working with students alongside his wife, Kirsty, at in her native New Zealand and is the co-host of The Provisionist Perspective podcast. You can see the original article, and visit Drew’s blog, here.edited by Eric Kemp After meeting at a friend’s wedding in 2009, a fiery red-headed girl and […]
by Leighton Flowers One reformed scholar has explained the role of the Holy Spirit in this way: Theologian Herman Bavinck wrote an important volume called An Introduction to the Science of Missions. Drawing from the word translated “convict,” he coined the word elenctics. His argument, written in the context of the mid-20th century, was that […]
Dr. Brian Abasciano just released this article in response to Dr. John Piper’s recent critique of classical Arminians view of “partial pre-faith regeneration” (represented by Dr. Roger Olson) which can be heard here. Both Drs. Abasciano and Olson represent Arminian theology, though they have a different take on the concept of “partial regeneration,” which Abasciano […]
Dr. James White released a broadcast today where he played a 44 second clip plucked out of its context from someone off twitter, in which I used the example of “choice meat” to illustrate that calling something or someone ‘choice’ or ‘chosen’ doesn’t mean they were chosen for no apparent reason. In the original video, […]
I had an exchange with a Calvinistic friend recently where he said, “Leighton, when will you accept the fact that we are born again by God’s will, not free will?!” Then he emphatically read John 1:13 to support his assertion: “…he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood […]
The following was written by valued reader and now contributor, br.d, who has long kept the discussion going on this blog. Edited by Eric Kemp. Dr. Flowers engaged with Dr. James White, in a YouTube presentation titled “Does God Make a Sinner Sin?” In this dialog, Dr. White presents the following argument: “If God did not […]
This post was submitted by a reader, Jenai Rothnie, and we are grateful for her contribution. Edited by Eric Kemp. Recently, Dr. Roger Olson wrote a blog post, “For Fellow Arminians and Quasi-Arminians (Non-Calvinists): Prevenient Grace” [1] in which he asked the thoughts of those who do not identify either as Calvinists or Arminians on […]
How can it be that God tells us to love our enemies while the Bible indicates that He hates His own enemies? Is God a hypocrite who tells us to do things He Himself is not willing to do? No, God is not hypocritical. God does love all people, even His enemies. Please allow me […]
What follows is a refreshingly honest look into how a leading Calvinist, Dr. Kevin DeYoung, views opponents of Reformed theology and the role of Reformed Theology in the Church. The article from Crossway I’m going to respond to was light on context and so I did some digging. Here is what I found: I had […]
Written by Stephen C. Marcy © April 2019. Edited for blog by Eric Kemp I recommend listening to this program to give context to what I write here. The program can be found at: https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Does-God-predetermine-everything-Chris-Date-and-Leighton-Flowers-debate-scripture The core controversy between Calvinists and non-Calvinist, whatever their particular stripes, has gone on for centuries because of […]
Is faith something God effectually (or irresistibly) gives to some people and withholds from everyone else? Calvinists, such as John Piper, believe this is what the Bible teaches. This article will examine the proof texts Piper, and many modern day Calvinists, use to validate their position. Pastor Piper puts it like this, “Paul is concerned […]
When teaching on John 6, John Piper asserts that God, by a sovereign and effectual act of the Spirit, regenerates some people which decisively causes them to come to saving faith. Piper puts it this way, The teaching that I want to try to persuade you is biblical and, therefore, true and precious is that […]
I recently had Dr. Roger Olson, of Truett Seminary, on the program to discuss his work on soteriology and some of our theological differences, which you can watch here. Dr. Olson is a scholar I have admired from afar for quite some time and I felt our conversation was very fruitful despite some of our […]
John Piper is arguably the most influential Calvinist in the United States today and he consistently defends theistic determinism, the view that God is the decisive cause of all things, including every creature’s evil thoughts, desires or actions. As Piper puts it, …God is the only being who is ultimately self-determining, and is himself ultimately […]
by Leighton Flowers We all intuitively know that it is morally wrong to condemn people due to factors beyond their control. For example, this is why racism is so detestable. A person has no control over their skin color and thus it would be completely unjust to condemn or mistreat people on the basis of […]
by Leighton Flowers I just recorded a debate over the question, “Does God Predestine All Things that Come to Pass” for Premier Radio’s “Unbelieveable?” podcast hosted by Justin Brierley. My theological opponent was once again our Calvinistic friend, Chris Date, most well known for his work on Rethinking Hell. I was told the podcast will […]
Revised and reblogged from this article, by Leighton Flowers In the typical debate over Calvinism’s soteriological claims you will often see the non-Calvinist refer to John 1:12 to emphasize man’s responsibility to “receive Him” so as to be given the right to become a child of God. John 1:12: “But as many as received Him, to […]
When we call God “good” we mean that He is “recognizably good,” which is based on standards revealed to us in the Scriptures. The news about God is called the “Gospel” (good news) because God’s character is loving, kind, patient, impartial, just, right and clearly made known. In short, the truth about God is good […]
This article is re-blogged in its entirety with permission from Matteo Mortelliti over at Mirror Dimly. We will check back in with Matteo as he continues to relate his journey. I distinctly remember the warm and sunny drive back home to Montreal from my Pentecostal Bible college in Massachusetts. It would be the last of many […]
This episode was particularly fascinating to me. I found myself reading articles about Stoicism on the internet to get a better grasp of the material discussed by Dr. Ken Wilson. It seems like I have a new area of study in the the soteriological controversies.
This article, originally entitled “Edwin H. Palmer’s Twelve Theses on Reprobation: Speculation or Scriptural?” is reproduced in its entirety with permission by its author Ron F. Hale Over Christmas, I went hunting while visiting family in Dallas, Texas. I love hunting old theology books in quaint book stores. I tracked down two books in the older […]
This post is a response to the latest over at BTWN. Tim Hurd disagrees with Dr. Leighton Flowers on, well, just about anything theological. Recently, he had a guest, Len Pettis, on to discuss a broadcast Dr. Flowers did on the Sovereignty of God. Disagreement = Nefarious Motives It is not the disagreement, itself, that […]
Let it never be said that I do not agree with a Calvinist when he’s right. In 1976 Pastor John Piper wrote the article below and I could not agree more with him on this point… “The question I am trying to answer is this: If faith is the sine qua non of being saved […]
IS GOD PERMITTING AND/OR RESTRAINING HIS OWN DECREES? Proverbs 21:1 says, “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hands of the Lord; he turns it wherever he wishes.” In reference to this passage, Dr. John Piper, a notable Calvinistic pastor and author writes, “What is apparent here is that God has the […]
This is a 6-Session study on the biblical doctrines of salvation (Soteriology) with Dr. Leighton Flowers. In this study we unpack the key errors of the “limited” 5-point Calvinistic perspective as contrasted with the “provisional” corporate perspective that has been more traditionally held by many Christian pastors and theologians. The student will learn the main […]
“WHY DID YOU BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, BUT YOUR FRIEND DID NOT? ARE YOU WISER OR SMARTER OR MORE SPIRITUAL OR BETTER TRAINED OR MORE HUMBLE?” This is typically one of the first questions a Calvinist will ask a non-Calvinist when attempting to convince them of their doctrine.[1] In fact, when I was a Calvinist, I used […]
Since I had Andy on the broadcast last month I’ve had several listeners send me messages with an implied expectation that it’s now my ethical responsibility to defend every controversial thing he has said. Is that fair? Double Standard? Should John MacArthur, who has interviewed with people like Ben Shapiro and RC Sproul Jr., or […]
The Gospel Coalition recently published an article written by Courtney Reissig titled, How Does a Mom Pray as a Calvinist? This article was written in direct response to my interview with Andy Stanley, Pastor of North Point Community Church in Georgia. In this post I would like to provide a cordial but direct response to several […]
Over the years in discussing this topic I have been accused of things such as, “worshipping the idol of human autonomy” and “making free will into a god.” But, have those who bring this kind of harsh accusation really unpacked the meaning of these terms, or sought to understand my intentions? I suspect not. Websters […]
Andy Stanley, Pastor of North Point Community Church in Georgia, joins Leighton to discuss the practical impact of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention and the local church. Some expressed concerns about Andy’s “unhitching from the OT” comments and I feel as if his interview with Dr. Michael Brown clear that issue up, which you […]
Why I Prefer Not To Be Called An Arminian: I’ve often told people that I am not an Arminian, but that is not because I dislike Arminians; nor is it because we disagree over that many issues. In fact, Traditional Southern Baptists (Provisionists), like myself, agree with much of what many good Arminian brothers teach. […]
Reblogged from March 2018 If I tell my child that he should clean his room it does strongly imply that he could clean his room. This is basic common sense, but is it applicable to how God deals with humanity? Is the implication in scripture of “you should” mean that “you could?” I think we […]
By Dr. Leighton Flowers Calvinistic scholar, Dr. Greg Forester, just released an article titled “Five Myths about Calvinism” through Crossway and I would like to provide a critique here. I’ve listed Forester’s myths followed by my responses below each one: Myth #1: We don’t have free will Is this a myth about Calvinism? Calvinists affirm “compatibilistic […]
What Happened to Derek Webb? by Steve Fraley Reblogged by permission from the blog site: That’s What Steve Said! It’s the fall of 1999, and as the world lies restless in anticipation of Y2K-inflicted chaos, I find myself in Visalia, CA with tickets to see Caedmon’s Call. The Christian alternative music scene is thriving in […]
This blog post is copied below in its entirety with permission. Please follow the links if you would like to see more of Kingswood and his series in Romans. This is part of a series of posts on Romans. Click here for the contents page. After considering Romans 11:1-6 in the previous post, now we’ll continue with verses 7-10. […]
Dr. David Allen’s post entitled “Claims, Clarity, Charity – Why the Traditional Baptist Statement on Soteriology is not and cannot be Semipelagian” is quoted below in its entirety with permission. You can find his published works here. “Periodically over the past couple of years I read a post at “The Baptist Review” that addresses some […]
“…there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.” – Romans 3:11 In an effort to demonstrate that all people have fallen short of the glory of God and broken His law, Paul quotes from Psalm 14:2-3, which says: “The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if […]
I want to focus this post specifically on my ever-growing concerns about the philosophical view call “compatibilism” (a view most often held to by Calvinistic believers). This view claims that one can affirm free will (as they define it) and divine determinism, as these two are considered “compatible” according to the claims of this perspective.* Compatibilists (Calvinists) attempt […]
Acts 13:48 is one of the most referenced proof texts used by Calvinists to support their belief in unconditional election. And, admittedly, this verse when read with the claims of the Calvinistic worldview in focus does seem to support those claims. However, it should be noted, that this is true of any proof text being […]
Below is a recording of my review of Tom Ascol’s latest book confronting the view of the Traditionalist’s Statement, but I’m intentionally going to stick to the scriptural matters. I’m not going to engage over these 2 major points of the book: 1) The SBC was started by Calvinists so that’s the real “tradition” I […]
If you have been around church functions as long as I have you have seen just about every kind of motivation to get people to “come to Jesus” or just to “walk the aisle.” And let’s just face it, sometimes people go way overboard in their attempt to “get people saved.” I remember in […]
John Piper, and many other Calvinists, appeal to God’s work to ensure Calvary (i.e. Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28) as their proof of Divine Determinism (as addressed on THIS PODCAST). But does citing examples of events God has worked to bring about prove God brings about all events in this manner? If so, there are […]
Suppose someone said, “I can lift cars over my head.” Well, there is an easy way to falsify that claim. “There is a car, go pick it up.” If they can’t lift the car over their head, you know the original claim was false. What if, when faced with the counterevidence they cannot lift the […]
The following, reproduced with permission, is a section of an article written by Braxton Hunter in the Spring 2013 edition of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry entitled “Commentary on Article 8: The Free Will of Man”. “Article 8” refers to the Baptism Faith and Message Statement of 2000. A Soft-Libertarian Model of Soteriology […]
Below is Dr. Flowers’ latest broadcast where he addresses recent comments Dr. James White made during a debate that seems to affirm provisional atonement. TL;DW? No problem, here is a brief outline of the broadcast. Overview of provisional atonement Plays clip of James White explaining provisional atonement “If you end up under the wrath of […]
Many Calvinists teach that regeneration precedes faith. They say that a person must be born again before he believes. They argue that new life comes before faith. John Piper, a Calvinistic pastor, puts it this way: “We can say, first, that regeneration is the cause of faith… Having been born of God results in […]
Many church-goers grew up being taught to believe in the “age of accountability” (AoA), as was I. After all, we certainly see this taught in my own Baptist tradition as the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message states regarding man “as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.” However, after […]
If you would like to interact with Dr. Flowers with his work in apologetics, we are daily adding resources on the ChristianApologetics101 Facebook page as well as weekly content on the ChristianApologetics101 blog.
Tim Keller, a well-known Calvinistic author and pastor, wrote an article at The Gospel Coalition titled, “3 Objections to the Doctrine of Election” that I wish to unpack further today. For the sake of brevity, I will only deal with the first of Keller’s three objections in this article. It first should be noted that […]
THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION The Southern Baptist Convention #SBC18 is just around the corner here in my hometown of Dallas. Due to some recent conflict many are speculating the attendance will be higher than normal and media outlets will be swarming to watch what all unfolds…
Have you ever been mistreated or just ignored at a church event only to feel loved and accepted at a work party full of unbelievers? Ever browse your favorite news website and read about yet another church’s misuse of funds followed by a story covering a secular organization donating millions to a good charitable cause? […]
A reader named Joey wrote one of the most thoughtful and well-reasoned comments I personally have seen on this page. For that reason and since the objection seems a common one, I thought it deserved its own post in response. His comment responded to Dr. Flower’s article entitled “Answering the Calvinist’s Most Popular Argument” so […]
The analogy of being “dead” is seen throughout the scriptures, but can it be demonstrated to mean that mankind is born morally unable to willingly respond to God Himself, as the Calvinists presume? Are we born dead like Lazarus, a corpse rotting in the tomb (a link scripture never draws), or are we dead like […]
“I sought out the permission from the Journal of Baptist Theology & Ministry to reproduce this article because I believe it is one of the best and most concise refutations of the Calvinistic reading of Romans 9-11. Please read this with the objectivity to learn from brother Eric’s wise words.” -Leighton Below the article is […]
Below is the video broadcast walking through 2 Thess. 2:13 with a response to Calvinistic pastor, Paul Washer. Or you can download the podcast version HERE. 2nd Thessalonians 2:13-14 “But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the […]
The Two Pardons of Basil Manly, Sr. by Ron F. Hale Two pardons marked the life of Basil Manly, Sr. One pardon was of a spiritual nature, while the other legal. The first occurred in a cornfield and the other in the White House. Basil Manly, Sr. was born near Pittsboro, North Carolina, on January […]
LIMITED ATONEMENT VERSUS PROVISIONAL ATONEMENT DR. LEIGHTON FLOWERS I. Our Agreement: a. The gospel appeal is for all: The gospel is for every man, woman, boy and girl. We should all agree (unless you affirm Hyper-Calvinism) that all are to be the recipients of the gospel offer. b. The atonement is sufficient to save all: Christ’s death is […]
If I tell my child that he should clean his room it does strongly imply that he could clean his room. This is basic common sense, but is it applicable to how God deals with humanity? Is the implication in scripture of “you should” mean that “you could?” I think we can all agree that […]
In the video presentation below Dr. Flowers unpacks the various theories regarding the fate of the unevangelized while debunking the idea that this is a black and white divide between Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic scholars. In other words, there are even Calvinistic scholars (and confessional statements) that take a more inclusivistic approach regarding those who are […]
Written by Billy Wendeln and Matt Chisholm of The Bible Brodown Knowing and understanding the character of God is important and critical in understanding scripture. It is foundational to sound doctrine. This study will look at God’s revealed justness — specifically His impartiality with His judgement and giving His offering of forgiveness and salvation to […]
Dr. John MacArthur, in his message covering Romans 2:11-16 (mp3 45-20b), gives a summary of those who did not have the written law and have not heard the specifics of the gospel: “Creation, conduct, conscience, contemplation, what they do, how they deal with the good and bad in their own life and how they deal […]
DOES GOD SHOW FAVORITISM? Suppose a High School Principal selected 12 of his Seniors to spread a message to the student body about a special treat being given out in the cafeteria. Would the Principal’s choice of these 12 messengers demonstrate that he has favorites or has unfairly shown partiality to some individuals over others? […]
John MacArthur wrote,
“How we address the misconception of the present age is crucial. We must not respond to an overemphasis on divine love by denying that God is love. Our generation’s imbalanced view of God cannot be corrected by an equal imbalance in the opposite direction, a very real danger in some circles. I’m deeply concerned about a growing trend I’ve noticed — particularly among people committed to the biblical truth of God’s sovereignty and divine election. Some of them flatly deny that God in any sense loves those whom He has not chosen for salvation.
I am troubled by the tendency of some — often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine — who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.
The argument inevitably goes like this: Psalm 7:11 tells us “God is angry with the wicked every day.” It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God does not love the non-elect. Those who hold this view often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot reallymean God loves the whole world. …
The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God’s attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God’s boundless love? It is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.”
Many Calvinistic brethren, like MacArthur in the quote above, when discussing the sincerity of God’s love for all people, seem to distance themselves from the inevitable conclusions drawn by the implications of their own systematic. While attempting to maintain some semblance of divine love for those unconditionally rejected by God in eternity past, they appeal to God’s common provisions such as rain and sunshine. But can such provisions be deemed as genuinely loving given the Scripture’s own definition of love found in 1 Corinthians 13?
Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clearly explains what love is not when he writes,
“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.” (1 Cor. 13:1-3)
So we can conclude love is not:
Having the power and ability to do all things (vs. 1)
Having knowledge of all things (vs. 2)
Giving gifts and showing kindness to the weak and poor (vs. 3)
Omnipotence without love is impotent. Omniscience apart from love is worthless. And even benevolent gifts, like the provisions of rain and sunlight, apart from love are nothing. We know that God is omnipotent, omniscient and graciously benevolent to all humanity, but we also know that these characteristics do not necessarily reflect the true nature of love. God, through his servant, tells us what true love is:
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” (1 Cor. 13:4-8)
No Bible believing Christian questions the truth that “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8). “The Lord is gracious and merciful; Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness. The Lord is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.” (Ps. 145:9). This biblical truth is simply undeniable, which is why many Calvinists attempt to offer these types of rebuttals in defense of God’s love for all people from their Calvinistic worldview. But, can one objectively conclude that God’s treatment of the reprobate within the Calvinistic system is truly “loving” according to God’s own definition above?
Is God patient with the reprobate who he “hated” and rejected for salvation “before he was born or had done anything good or bad.”
Is God kind to those he destines to torment for all eternity without any regard to their own choices, intentions, or actions?
Does God honor the non-elect by allowing them to enjoy a little rain and sunlight before they spend an eternity suffering for something with which they had absolutely no control over?
Is God not easily angered by those who are born under His wrath and without hope of reconciliation?
Does God keep the record of wrongs committed by reprobates?
Does the so-called “love” of God for the non-elect fail or does it persevere?
I must ask, as Dave Hunt so succinctly inquired, “What love is this,” and by what measure can it ever be deemed “great!?”
Lest someone accuse me of being uncharitable, it should be noted that some “higher” forms of Calvinism do not even attempt to defend the idea that God sincerely loves everyone. In a work titled, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink, he wrote, “God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody.” He further argued that the word “world” in John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world…“) “refers to the world of believers (God’s elect), in contradistinction from ‘the world of the ungodly.’”[1]
The issue comes down to how one defines the characteristic of love. According to Paul, “love does not seek its own,” and thus it is best described as “self-sacrificial” rather than “self-serving” (1 Cor. 13:5). As Jesus taught, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” It seems safe to say that love at its very root is self-sacrificial. Anything less than that should not be called “love.” One may refer to “kindness” or “care” in reflection of some common provisions for humanity, but unless it reaches the level of self-sacrifice it does not seem to meet the biblical definition of true love.
Given that biblical definition of love as “self-sacrifice,” let us consider Christ’s command to love our enemies. Is this an expectation Christ himself is unwilling to fulfill? In other words, is He being hypocritical in this command? Of course not. The very reason He told His followers to love their enemies is “in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven…” (Matt. 5:45).
The meaning is undeniable. We are to love our enemies because God loves His enemies. He loves both “the righteous and the unrighteous” in exactly the same way we are told to love our enemies. The greatest commandment instructs us to “love our neighbor as ourselves” (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:37-38). “And who is our neighbor?” (Lk. 10:29). The pagan Samaritans, who were detested as enemies of God.
In short, Jesus is teaching us to self-sacrificially love everyone, even our worst enemies, because that reflects the very nature of God Himself.
Now, we know that Jesus perfectly fulfilled the law in every way (Matt. 5:17-18), which would have to include the greatest commandment. Christ’s self-sacrificial love for His enemies was certainly as encompassing as what He demanded from His followers in Luke 10. Without a doubt, Jesus loved everyone, even His greatest, most undeserving enemies; otherwise, He would have failed to fulfill the demands of the law.
Paul taught, “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” And again in Romans 13:8: “He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” Thus, to deny Jesus’ self-sacrificial love for everyone is to deny that He fulfilled the demands of the law. This would disqualify Him as the perfect atoning sacrifice.
If we accept that Jesus fulfilled the demands of the law by self-sacrificially loving all people, then how can we conclude that God’s love is any less far-reaching than that which is reflected in the Son? Would God expect our love to be more encompassing and self-sacrificial than His own?
When God invites His enemies to be reconciled (Isa. 1:18; 2 Cor. 5:20; Mt. 11:28-30), He is making an appeal from a sincere heart of self-sacrificial love. “‘As surely as I live,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’” (Ezek. 33:11). “The Lord loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods…” (Hosea 3:1). Obviously, God does sincerely love even those who turn from His provision and grace.
Many have reduced the interpretive options of the term ‘foreknew’ in Roman 8:29 to either the classical Arminian concept of “foreseen” or the Calvinistic concept of “foreordained.”
Foreseen = God saw through the corridors of time who would believe and chose those individuals based on their “foreseen faith.” (Classical Arminian)
Foreordain = God set his love on certain unconditionally pre-selected individuals before the world began (“foreloved”) and effectually works to change their hearts so that they want to come to Him for salvation. (Calvinist)
But there is a third and much simpler option that is often overlooked in some modern theological circles :
Formerly Known (known before) = As in Romans 11:2, Paul is simply referring to saints of old in former times who loved God and were known by Him. Paul said, “The man who loves God is known by God” (1 Cor. 8:3). And men like Elijah and those who refused to bow a knee to false gods did love God and thus were known by him in the past. They were foreknown (previously known) by God, as in they had an intimate personal relationship with God in the past. There is no reason to add all the esoteric theological baggage of God looking through corridors of time or making arbitrary “sovereign” choices about who He will and will not love before the world began.
In his work, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom, Dr. William Lane Craig references the word study of Drs. Rodger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (with a recommendation by the notable F.F. Bruce). They argue:
“God ‘foreknew them’ or ‘knew them of old‘ thus it does not mean that God entered in some former time into a relationship with the Israelites of today, it, means that he entered a (two-way) relationship with the Israel that existed in early Old Testament times, and he regards the present Israelites as integral with it.”*
Dr. William R. Newell was one of the greatest Bible teachers of his day. A friend and colleague of D.L. Moody and R.A. Torrey, he taught thousands of people as a Bible teacher in Moody’s Bible college. His book, Romans Verse by Verse, discusses that God “had acquaintanceship” with the Israelites of the past. So, it was not “mere Divine pre-knowledge” of certain individuals, but a real intimate “pre-acquaintanceship.”*
Take an objective look at this perspective and give it fair hearing before you dismiss it out of hand. Many exegetes and scholars in the past held to this view, but it has been buried under the all too popularized Arminian/Calvinistic debate over the last 3 to 4 hundred years in our Western culture.
Romans 8:28
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.
The Greek verb oida (“we know”) is a perfect active indicative form of the verb, which may simply refer to knowledge gained by observance or remembrance of the past. This is paralleled earlier in verse 22 (using the same Greek verb tense of oida) when speaking about their observation of creation “groaning as in the pains of child birth right up to the present time.”
Paul seems to be saying “we have observed” and “therefore we know.” The context and grammar appear to indicate a reference not to an intuitive knowledge of Paul’s readers, but to that which comes from observation of the past, or a remembrance.[1]
Paul means that believers know, from observation of God’s past dealings with those who love Him, that he has a mysterious way of working things out for the greatest good. By observing the stories of the saints of old—those called to accomplish His redemptive purposes—believers can rest in knowledge of this truth. God can take whatever evil may come our way and redeem it for good. Believers can know this because God has been doing it for generations.
Paul does not say that his readers should intuitively know how God works things out for those who love Him in the present. He is saying believers know what is true of God by observing what He has done in the past for those who have loved Him. The New Testament saints have a great cloud of witnesses that have gone before them (Heb. 12:1), giving evidence of God’s trustworthiness toward all who enter into a covenant with Him.
A simple survey of the verses leading up to this point reveals that Paul is reflecting on the problem of the evil and suffering in our world since the beginning:
“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (Rom. 8:20-22).
N.T. Wright comments on Rom. 8:28–30, saying in part:
“[This passage] is a sharp, close-up, compressed telling of the story of Israel, as the chosen people, whose identity and destiny is then brought into sharp focus on Jesus. Jesus, in a sense, is the one ‘chosen one.’ But, then that identity is shared with all of those who are ‘in Christ.’ And he [Paul] isn’t talking primarily there about salvation. He is talking primarily about the way God is healing the whole creation. There is a danger here. What has happened in so many theological circles over the years is that people have come to the text assuming that it is really saying how we are to get to heaven, and what is the mechanism and how does that work. And if you do that, interestingly, many exegetes will more or less skip over Romans 8:18–27, which is about the renewing of creation.”[2]
In verse 28 the focus shifts to providing comfort for those in suffering by reminding them to observe God’s dealings with others who loved God throughout history. Notice that this truth is not applicable to everyone. The passage is specifically an observation of those who “love God,” or as Wright notes, “those who are in Christ.” The point is not that God causes everything for a good purpose, but that God redeems occurrences of evil for a good purpose in the lives of those who love Him. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to use this passage to support the concept of divine meticulous determinism of all things.[3] Again, God does not cause occurrences of evil for his purposes; instead, he redeems moral evil for a good purpose. Non-Calvinists would agree with Calvinistic Pastor John MacArthur on this point when he wrote:
“But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things—including all the fruits of all the evil of all time—work together for a greater good.”[4]
The focus of the apostle’s observation is on the saints of old, those from the elect nation of Israel who were called to fulfill God’s plan to redeem His creation from its groans and sufferings. This passage does not mean that the truth being revealed is not applicable to those of other nations. Rather, it means that what is proven to be true of God by observing His dealings with those called out from Israel throughout history must also be true of anyone who comes to follow and love the God of Israel.
Suppose a new pastor is called to a church. The staff members are nervous about his leadership style and how they might be treated, but a letter of reference which reflects on his past relationships might ease their fears. The pastor’s reference might say something like, I have observed this pastor’s dealings with the staff members he knew before, and he has always worked to lovingly support anyone who gets behind the vision and direction of the church. By reflecting on the pastor’s history, the new staff can know what to expect in their future dealings with him. So too, Paul gives a divine reference by reflecting on the trustworthiness of God in His dealings with the saints of old so as to ensure his readers of what they may expect of Him.
Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Here the apostle reveals his focus on the saints of old, “those God foreknew.” Paul seeks to provide evidence of his claim in verse 28 by reflecting on God’s faithfulness to His chosen nation, those beloved who were known before. Paul provides a reference of sorts to ease the fears of those who are now coming to faith. This point continues to be the apostle’s focus for the next three chapters.
Much debate centers on the meaning of the word proginōskō (“to know beforehand”).[5] Many popular authors fail to recognize all the available options for consideration. For example, John Piper lists only two options for interpreting this verse:
Option #1: God foresaw our self-determined faith. We remain the decisive cause of our salvation. God responds to our decision to believe.
Option #2: God chose us—not on the basis of foreseen faith, but on the basis of nothing in us. He called us, and the call itself creates the faith for which it calls.[6]
Piper overlooks the most basic meaning of this word, which is “to know beforehand” or to have known in the past. The same Greek word is used in 2 Pet. 3:17, which states, “Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.” And the same word is used in Acts 26:4–5:
“The Jewish people all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that I conformed to the strictest sect of our religion, living as a Pharisee.”
Clearly, this word can be understood simply as knowing someone or something in the past, as in those known previously (i.e. the saints of old). Non-Calvinistic scholars, Roger Forster and Paul Marston, convincingly argue,
“God ‘foreknew them’ or ‘knew them of old’ thus it does not mean that God entered in some former time into a relationship with the Israelites of today, it means that he entered a (two-way) relationship with the Israel that existed in early Old Testament times, and he regards the present Israelites as integral with it.”[7]
If Paul intended to use the word proginōskō in this sense, then he meant simply that because we have seen how God worked all things to the good for those whom He knew before, we know that He will do the same for those who love and are called by Him now.
Some Calvinists contend that the word foreknew is equivalent to fore-loved. That use of the word generally fits this interpretation since the Israelites of the past who loved God certainly would have been loved by God before (i.e. fore-loved). Of course, the Calvinistic interpretation differs because they insist this passage is about God unconditionally setting His “effectual” salvific love upon certain individuals before the foundation of the world. Calvinists go to great lengths to show that God did not merely foresee the behavior and choices of the elect by looking down the corridors of time. Rather, God knew them intimately and set His effectual love on them before the foundation of the world.[8]
This argument might address the classical Arminian approach (Piper’s first option),[9] but it fails to rebut the approach being advocated here. Fore-loved is a viable and even likely meaning of the term proginōskō, yet it does not clarify who might be the intended target of that divine love.
Was Paul intending to introduce for the first time in this epistle a particular group of people out of the mass of humanity who were unconditionally elected to be effectually saved before the world began? Or, was he simply referencing those from the past whom God had known and faithfully cared for throughout the generations?
Romans 8:29b states “he (God) also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son.” Who was “predestined” and to what ends were they predestined, according to this passage? Remember the point of the apostle leading up to this verse. He began speaking about the futility and suffering that has come into this world due to the fall of humanity into sin (vv. 20–22). In verse 28-29a, Paul provides comfort to lovers of God in his audience by reminding them of God’s trustworthiness for those who have loved Him throughout the generations.
Paul reminds his readers that God will redeem the suffering and evil for a good purpose in their lives just as he has done in the lives of those known before and loved throughout the previous generations. It is these whom God previously knew (Israelites whom loved God in the past) who were predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ so as to make the way for His coming.
God planned to accomplish salvation for those who were previously known and loved (i.e. Abraham, Moses, David, etc) by conforming them into the image of the One who would come to purchase their redemption. This is the ultimate example of God causing “all things to work for the good” of those saints of old who loved God. Paul is saying that God works the redemption of their souls and He will do the same for whoever loves Him. N. T. Wright states,
“Here is the note of hope which has been sounded by implication so often since it was introduced in 5:2: hope for the renewal of all creation, in a great act of liberation for which the exodus from Egypt was simply an early type. As a result, all that Israel hoped for, all that it based its hope on, is true of those who are in Christ.”[10]
Romans 8:29c states “that he (the Son) might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” Consider the fact that he is speaking about what Christ might be, which strongly implies that Paul still has the saints of old in focus here. Why would Paul speak of future generations being conformed to the image of Christ so that he “might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” if he were already the firstborn prior to this discourse?
The term prōtotokos (“firstborn”) can simply refer to the one who is first to be born in a family, which carries much significance in the Jewish culture (Luke 2:7). Typically, the birthright given to the firstborn son signified a place of preeminence, by which he would receive the father’s inheritance and blessing. For instance, Psalm 89:20, 27 states, “I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him. . . . And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.” David, who was the last one born in his family, was called by God the firstborn. David was given a place of preeminence.[11]
The term firstborn also speaks of Christ’s preexistence as the eternal Creator.[12] God created the world through Christ and redeemed the world through Christ (John 1:3, 10; Heb. 1:2–4). The former speaks of His eternal nature and the latter of His temporal role as the redeemer of the world.
Yet, even when speaking of our preexistent Lord, the Biblical authors addressed Him as “becoming” or “fulfilling” His role as our Messiah within the temporal world. For example, the Psalmist writes, “And I will appoint Him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27). For the Old Testament saints, the firstborn Savior was the expected One that was yet to come. From their view, the long-awaited Messiah was the future hope, not a past and completed reality.
In contrast to the Old Testament saints, a modern-day preacher would not teach that we are being conformed to Christ’s image so that Jesus might be the firstborn among many brethren, because we know Him to already be the firstborn of many brethren. Our being conformed into Christ’s image today has nothing to do with the future coming of Christ’s birth, whereas the saints of old were part of His very lineage. It is through the life of men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and many other saints of old that Christ is brought into this world “that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters (Rom. 8:29c).”
Paul is reflecting on God’s redemptive purpose being accomplished through those who loved God in former generations. That redemptive purpose included bringing the Messiah into this world through Israel (Rom. 9:4-5), or those Israelites set apart for that noble purpose (Rom. 9:21). This was God’s predestined plan of redemption, which was brought to pass through those who loved God and were called according to His purpose. Tim Warner describes this purpose,
“Paul was not referring to some prior knowledge in the mind of God before creation. Nor was He speaking about predetermining their fate. He was referring to those whom God knew personally and intimately, men like Abraham and David.
The term ‘foreknew’ does not mean to have knowledge of someone before they were conceived. The verb προεγνω is the word for ‘know’ (in an intimate sense) with the preposition προ (before) prefixed to it. It refers to having an intimate relationship with someone in the past…Literally, we could render Rom. 8:29 as follows: ‘For those God formerly knew intimately, He previously determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.’
The individual saints of old, with whom God had a personal relationship, were predestined by Him to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is, God predetermined to bring their salvation to completion by the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf.” [13]
Likewise, William R. Newell, a colleague of D.L. Moody and a notable teacher at the Bible Moody College, explained that God “had acquaintanceship” with the Israelites of the past. So, it was not “mere Divine pre-knowledge” of certain individuals, but a real intimate “pre-acquaintanceship.”[14]
Romans 8:30
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Notice the apostle’s use of the past tense in this verse. If Paul intended to speak about the future salvation of every elect individual, then why would he use these past tense verbs? When writing these words, Paul and his readers had not yet been glorified, so why use the past tense of the word? There is no reason to assume Paul has in mind the future glorification of all believers.
The past tense suggests that Paul is referring to former generations of those who have loved God and were called to fulfill His redemptive purpose. They were known in the past generations and predestined by God to be made in the very image of the One to come, “the firstborn among many brothers and sisters,” which is something already completed in the past through the working of God in former generations. These are the individuals whom God called, justified, and who now, even as Paul was writing these words, already glorified in the presence of God.
If indeed Paul was referencing the saints formerly known and loved by God, he would have communicated the certainty of their being justified, sanctified and finally glorified in a way that some might describe as a “golden chain of redemption.”[15] To presume, however, that Paul’s unbroken chain of past tense verbs is not in reference to people of the past is a linguistic stretch. [16]
Calvinists must explain away the use of the past tense verbs in order to maintain their interpretation of Paul’s intent. For instance, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, a Calvinistic source, provides this explanation, “Glorified is in the past tense because this final step is so certain that in God’s eyes it is as good as done.”[17]
Calvinists must interpret Paul’s use of the past tense (aorist indicative) as meaning “it is as good as done” because it was predestined. But this is a very rare usage in the original language and the immediate context does not clearly support a Calvinistic rendering. We must take into account Paul’s usage of the same term earlier in the chapter as a future hope for believers.
For example, notice Paul’s reference to the future glorification in Rom. 8:17,
“Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in His sufferings in order that we may also share in His glory” (emphasis added).
Paul does not speak of glorification as a past and completed action in reference to the believers in his day. Rather, he seems to qualify their being glorified upon the condition that they persevere through the suffering that is to come. If it is “as good as done” due to God’s predetermination, then why would Paul make such a qualification and use the future tense of the same verb? Further, Paul speaks of the eager expectation of the glorification that is to come in verses 22–25:
“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently” (emphasis added).
Is the reader to believe that Paul shifts from speaking of glorification as a future hope for those who persevere, to speaking of it as a past and already-completed act for those who have not yet been glorified? Or, could it simply be that Paul has the Old Testament saints in view as he makes his case for the trustworthiness of God throughout all generations? The latter seems to be the most basic understanding of the apostle’s words in their context.
Though this interpretation may seem foreign to some western readers because of the philosophical and theological baggage that has been attached to the concept of divine foreknowledge over the centuries, to the first century reader the simple term proginōskō (as previously known) would have been far less complex. In fact, if one can objectively back away from their presuppositions and approach this passage with fresh eyes I believe they will discover the utter simplicity and clarity of this perspective.
Instead of introducing a complex concept of divine prescience of those unconditionally elected to effectual salvation, could it be that Paul may intend simply to communicate that those who previously loved God and were known by God were predestined to be conformed to the image of the One to come through them, “so that He would be the firstborn of many brothers” (Rom. 8:28-29)? Paul seems to be giving a brief history lesson of what God had done in former generations as a reference for God’s trustworthiness for all who come to Him in faith. Wright explains it this way:
“The creation is not god, but it is designed to be flooded with God: The Spirit will liberate the whole creation. Underneath all this, of course, remains Christology: the purpose was that the Messiah ‘might be the firstborn among many siblings’ (8.29). Paul is careful not to say, or imply, that the privileges of Israel are simply ‘transferred to the church,’ even though, for him, the church means Jews-and-gentiles-together-in-Christ. Rather, the destiny of Israel has devolved, entirely appropriately within the Jewish scheme, upon the Messiah. All that the new family inherit, they inherit in Him.”[18]
Those who object to the suggestion that Paul’s use of the term proginōskō is limited to the beloved of Israel should consider the apostle’s use of the same word just three chapter later,
“But concerning Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ I ask then: Did God reject His people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject His people, whom he foreknew” (Rom. 10:21-11:2a, emphasis added).
Notice that Paul uses the term proginōskō in reference to God’s intimate relationship with the faithful Israelites of old. Paul continues to make his case,
“Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me?’ And what was God’s answer to him? ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal’” (Rom. 11:2b-4).
Elijah and those who refused to bow a knee were among the ones who were previously known (foreknown/fore-loved) by God. To foreknow (or even fore-love) refers to God’s intimate relationship with people who loved Him in the past (like Abraham in Rom. 4:22–5:5). Nothing in this or any other text supports the concept of God in eternity past preselecting certain individuals out of the mass of humanity for effectual salvation. It would be difficult to substantiate this meaning of the term foreknow in reference to the Israelites who were in covenant with God. It is best interpreted in reference to those known by God in former times.[19]
Romans 8:31–39
Returning to the analogy above, the pastor had former staff members whom he intimately knew and loved. The new staff would be comforted to know of the pastor’s prior dealings with those formerly known and loved. Likewise, those being grafted into covenant with the God of Israel for the first time (i.e. the Gentiles) would be thrilled to learn of God’s faithfulness to those He formerly knew and loved (i.e. men like Abraham and David, etc.). What can the readers say in response to these teachings of Paul about God’s faithfulness toward the saints of old?
That is the very question the apostle poses in Rom. 8:31a as he transitions to the application of His message, “What, then, shall we say in response to these things?” This interpretation is consistent with the view that present-day saints who love God and are called according to His purposes (vs. 28) have nothing to fear, for “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (vs. 31b). God, who gave up His Son, justifies, intercedes, and places His undying love upon all who love Him and are called according to His purposes (vv. 32–39).
Suddenly, the objector in Paul’s mind asks: Paul, you have made a good case regarding God’s faithfulness to the Israelites in the past, but what about the Israelites today? Have God’s promises for Israel failed? Why are the Israelites today refusing to accept their own Messiah? The apostle attempts to answer these questions in Romans 9 and following. [For commentary on Romans 9 CLICK HERE.]
[1] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 29.6.
[2] N. T. Wright in a question and answer session at Oklahoma Christian University on April 1, 2014. Samuel Selvin, “Dr. N. T. Wright on predestination,” YouTube video, 05:08, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKwIijhZW-M; [date accessed: 10/10/15]
[3] This is also true of Eph. 1:11, which is often misapplied to support the idea of meticulous determinism.
[4] John MacArthur, “Is God Responsible for Evil?” Grace To You Ministries web page. Quote taken from: http://www.gty.org/ resources /articles/A189/is-god-responsible-for-evil; [date accessed: 5/19/15]
[5] The definition of proginōskō is from The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2011), 30.100.
[6] John Piper, Sermon: “Foreknown by God,” Quote taken from: http://www.desiringgod.org/labs/foreknown-by-god; [date accessed: 10/19/16]
[7] Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1973), 179–90.
[8] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Volume I (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1959), 316-318.
[9] Frederic Godet’s commentary on Romans 8:29, inquires: “In what respect did God thus foreknow them?” and answers that they were “foreknown as sure to fulfill the conditions of salvation, viz. faith; so: foreknown as His by faith.” The word “foreknew” is thus understood by Godet, a classical Arminian, to mean that God knew beforehand which sinners would believe, and on the basis of this knowledge He predestined them unto salvation. Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Messrs Clark, 1880), 325.
[10] N. T. Wright, Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 30–67, Quote taken from: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans _Theology_Paul.pdf; [date accessed 9/7/15]
[11] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 38a (Dallas: Word, 1988), 1: 484.
[12] Theologian Bernard Ramm noted that “It has been standard teaching in historic Christology that the Logos, the Son, existed before the incarnation. That the Son so existed before the incarnation has been called the pre-existence of Christ.” Bernard Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 1993) 47.
[13] Tim Warner, PFRS Commentary on Romans, Pristine Faith Restoration Society. Quote taken from http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/Rom_8_28.pdf; [date accessed: 10/15/15]
[14] William R. Newell, “Romans Verse-by-Verse,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1938, web page; available from https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=CWhyt fIWOg8C&printsec=frontcover&ouput=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP1; [date accessed: 4/9/16]
[15] Some Calvinistic scholars describe this as the unbreakable “golden chain of redemption” meant to communicate the unchangeable plan of God to irrevocably justify, sanctify and glorify those He elected before the world began.
[16] Greek scholars teach that while the aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed, this usage is “not at all common.” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1997) 564.
[17] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds. The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Dallas: Victor Books, 1983), 474.
“And all this is viewed as past; because, starting from the past decree of ‘predestination to be conformed to the image of God’s Son’ of which the other steps are but the successive unfoldings—all is beheld as one entire, eternally completed salvation.” Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, “Romans 8,” Quote take from: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/romans /8.htm; [date accessed 10/22/15]
[18] Wright, Pauline Theology, 20.
[19] William Lane Craig explains, “In certain cases, proginōskō and prooraō mean simply that one has known or seen (someone or something) previously. For example, in Acts 26:5 Paul states that the Jews had previously known for a long time the strictness of his life a Pharisee, and in Acts 21:29 Luke mentions that the Jews had previously seen (prooraō) Trophimus in Paul’s company. This sense is probably operative in Romans 11:2 as well, where Paul states of apostate Israel that “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew [proginōskō],” that is, whom He had previously known in an intimate way. Similarly, when Peter warns his readers of the danger posed by heretics’ twisting the Scriptures, He commands them, “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand [proginōskō], beware. . .” (2 Peter 3:17). What they know is not the future, but some present danger which might possibly confront them in the future as well.” William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 31–32.
If I had a dollar for every time I was accused of being a “Pelagian” or “Semi-Pelagian,” I would have at least enough money to put my eldest through college and for that, I would be grateful. At least it would serve some practical purpose.
Typically, the accusation comes from those who are less informed about the historical use of these labels and their actual meanings as it relates to our current soteriological disagreements.[1] So, let’s get educated.
Pelagius was a 5th-century British monk who was accused of teaching that people had the natural ability to fulfil the commands of God by an exercise of the human will apart from divine assistance (grace). Pelagianism came to be known as the belief that mankind is born basically good, without a sinful nature, and is thus capable of doing good without God’s help. [2]
Because Pelagius was deemed a heretic, little of his work survived to the present day except in the quotes of his opponents (not the most reliable of sources). Many modern scholars suspect that Pelagius’ actual teachings were greatly misrepresented so as to demonize and marginalize him (this is not difficult to imagine).
Despite what is commonly known of Pelagius, evidence indicates that he and his followers taught that all good works come only by divine aid (grace), which was seen as “enabling,” not “effectual/irresistible” in nature. For instance, in a letter to the Pope defending himself, Pelagius is reported to have written:
“This grace we for our part do not, as you suppose, allow to consist merely in the law, but also in the help of God. God helps us by His teaching and revelation, whilst He opens the eyes of our heart; whilst He points out to us the future, that we may not be absorbed in the present; whilst He discovers to us the snares of the devil; whilst He enlightens us with the manifold and ineffable gift of heavenly grace… This free will is in all good works always assisted by divine help.” [3]
And in an accompanying confession of faith, he states, “Free-will we do so own, as to say that we always stand in need of God’s help,” And he affirmed, “We do also abhor the blasphemy of those who say that any impossible thing is commanded to man by God; or that the commandments of God cannot be performed by any one man.” So, while Pelagius maintained human responsibility to keep the commands of God he still seemed to maintain the need for divine aid in doing so.[4]
Augustine, a contemporary of Pelagius, was the first on record to teach the concept of individual effectual election to salvation. Even Calvinistic historian, Loraine Boettner, concedes that this “was first clearly seen by Augustine” in the fifth century. In fact, Boettner notes, not only did the earliest Church Fathers not interpret the doctrine of election “Calvinistically,” but much of their teaching stands in strong opposition to such conclusions. A great emphasis on the absolute freedom of the human will and repudiations of individual predestination to salvation are found clearly throughout the earliest writings of the church. [5] John Calvin himself acknowledged this fact when he stated:
“Further, even though the Greeks [Early Church Fathers] above the rest—and Chrysostom especially among them—extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, waver, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings.”[6]
So, by Calvinists own admission, Augustine introduced much of these unique (and often controversial) doctrinal beliefs in the 5th century.[7]
Pelagius stood up against Augustine’s new doctrinal positions and even went so far as to accuse him of being under the influence of his former Manichean (Gnostic) roots, which was known to teach pagan fatalism as if it were a Christian doctrine.[8] Augustine, in turn, accused Pelagius of denying any need for divine aid in the conversion process. It is likely that both of them went too far in their accusations against the other, but history reveals that it was Augustine’s smears of Pelagius that won over in the court of public opinion.[9]
Pelagianism, therefore, has become known historically as “the teaching that man has the capacity to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God or the Holy Spirit, and therefore that salvation is affected by man’s efforts.”[10]
Traditionalists, like myself, wholeheartedly deny this belief and consider the label offensive and completely misrepresentative of our actual teachings (and I’m under the impression Pelagius himself would express similar sentiments if given a fair hearing today).
Here are a few reasons why this label would not rightly represent our views:
We believe man has the capacity to respond willingly to God’s means of seeking to save the lost, NOT that man would seek God if left alone.
We believe our gracious God is actively working in and through creation, conscience, His bride, His Holy Spirit filled followers, and his Word to aid humanity in their conversion.
We believe salvation is wholly of God in that He owes no man forgiveness or eternal life, even if they freely repent and humbly submit to Him as Lord and Savior. Asking for forgiveness no more merits that forgiveness than the prodigal son’s return home merited the reception he received from his father. That was the choice of a gracious father alone.
What about Semi-Pelagianism? First, it should be noted that the term “Semi-Pelagian” was first introduced in the late 16th century by Calvinistic theologians attempting to combat the rising popularity of Molinism, an alternative method of reconciling the problem of divine omniscience and human freedom.[11]
Calvinistic Apologist, Matt Slick, describes Semi-Pelagianism in this way:
“Semi-Pelagianism is a weaker form of Pelagianism (a heresy derived from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome). Semi-Pelagianism (advocated by Cassian at Marseilles, 5th Century) did not deny original sin and its effects upon the human soul and will, but it taught that God and man cooperate to achieve man’s salvation. This cooperation is not by human effort as in keeping the law but rather in the ability of a person to make a free will choice. The semi-Pelagian teaches that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will and that man can cooperate with God’s grace even to the keeping of his faith through human effort. This would mean that God responds to the initial effort of a person and that God’s grace is not absolutely necessary to maintain faith.”[12]
In my lengthy discussion with Matt Slick over our soteriological differences, he more than once accused me of “Semi-Pelagianism.”
First, do Traditionalists (like myself) believe that “God and man cooperate to achieve man’s salvation?” Of course not!
Let me clarify this point of contention by asking a question: Did the prodigal son and his father cooperate to achieve the son’s restoration, or was that a gracious choice of the father alone upon his son’s return? The false belief that forgiveness is somehow owed to those who freely humble themselves and ask for it leads to erroneous conclusions such as this.
Second, do Traditionalists teach that “man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will?” Absolutely not! I challenge anyone to find just one Traditional Southern Baptist scholar who has even come close to making this kind of claim.
Third, do Traditionalists teach that “God responds to the initial effort of a person?” No! Belief that mankind is able to willingly respond to the gracious means of God to seek and save the lost IS NOT equal to mankind making “the first move toward God.”
If it was proven that I could not call the President of the United States on the phone, would you also conclude, based on that information, that it would be impossible for me to answer the phone if the President tried to call me? Of course not, but that is exactly what those who accuse us of Semi-Pelagianism are doing.
In their shortsighted and ill-informed effort to discredit our perspective, they have resorted to what is known as a “boogie-man fallacy.” This is a certain type of argument, which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling discussion and erroneously labelling an opponent’s position with that of a known heresy so as to demonize and discredit it.
For example, someone in a debate might say, “Look! His view sounds like something Hilter said once, so you shouldn’t listen to him any more.” Hitler is a known “boogie man” or “bad character,” so if I can associate my opponent’s views with Hilter, then I’ll discredit him all together. Likewise, Pelagius has become the Calvinist’s go-to “boogie man,” and many of them will stop at nothing to slap that label on us so as to marginalize and discredit anything we say.
This method bears a certain resemblance to the ad hominem fallacy, and comes from the same root motivation: Discredit and marginalize the person and their views rather than objectively evaluating and offering a sound, non-fallous biblical rebuttal.
The ad hominem fallacy consists of attempting to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent, where as the boogie man fallacy seeks to associate an argument with that of someone whose character (or belief) has already been impeached (like poor ol’ Pelagius). This would be like an Arminian calling Dr. John Piper a “Hyper-Calvinist” (those who denounce the need of evangelism) on the basis that he teaches some similar views to that of known hyper-Calvinists.
This is pure “guilt by association” and it is the lazy man’s approach to avoid an otherwise rational and informed discussion of the issues. Those who resort to such tactics either do not know any better or they are nefariously attempting to marginalize and demonize the views of those who disagree with them. Readers of this article can no longer appeal to the former as an excuse.
If Traditionalists can rightly been labeled “semi-pelagian,” then by that standard we could conclude that Calvinists are “semi-gnostic,” after all those were the two groups promoting the extremes of both views in the fourth and fifth centuries. I would rather avoid such demonizing labels altogether and actually practice the principle of SOLA SCRIPTURA (scripture alone). Rather than appealing to ancient Catholic labels created by men who were known for their often violent and extreme intolerance of dissenting views, how about we approach each other with patience, kindness and good intentions? Let us not repeat the mistakes of those who lead the church into The Inquisition and other horrific abuses of dissenters, but instead set a better example for theological discourse to all who come after us.
Added Note: Some Arminians have mistakenly joined in this accusation against Southern Baptist Traditionalists. To read my response to Roger Olson’s critique of the Traditional Statement: CLICK HERE.
And to read a more thorough historical and biblical rebuttal of those who disagree on this issue: CLICK HERE.
To listen to my discussion with an Arminian over this subject: CLICK HERE
[1] http://baptistcenter.net/journals/JBTM_10-1_Spring_2013.pdf [Note: I highly recommend reading this journal article by Dr. Adam Harwood explaining in great detail why Traditionalists are not Semi-Pelagian.]
[2] Matt Slick, CARM Ministries: https://carm.org/pelagianism
[3] Bonner, Gerald (2004). “Pelagius (fl. c.390–418), theologian”. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/21784. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
[4] Pohle, Joseph. “Pelagius and Pelagianism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 Jan. 2014
[5] Loraine Boettner, Calvinism in History: Before the Reformation, web site, available from http://www.seeking4truth.com/before_reformation.htm; Internet; accessed 17 April 2015.
[6] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: web page: https://books.google.com/books?id=0aB1BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=or+speak+confusedly+on+this+subject,+that+almost+nothing+certain+can+be+derived+from+their+writings&source=bl&ots=qBEMo_kr1v&sig=FjMfiVDcr7iliN31rPJ5pVSraI4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy5YqU3P_KAhVGmIMKHZGXBgYQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=or%20speak%20confusedly%20on%20this%20subject%2C%20that%20almost%20nothing%20certain%20can%20be%20derived%20from%20their%20writings&f=false
[7] Robert Arakaki, Calvin Dissing the Early Church Fathers: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/calvin-dissing-the-fathers/
[8] Augustine is known for his nine-year fascination with Manichaeism: http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?p=4705
[9] The determination of the Council of Orange (529) could be considered “semi-Augustinian.” It defined that faith, though a free act, resulted even in its beginnings from the grace of God, enlightening the human mind and enabling belief. However, it also explicitly denied double predestination (of the equal-ultimacy variety), stating, “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.” The document links grace with baptism, which was not a controversial subject at the time. It received papal sanction.[Oakley, Francis (Jan 1, 1988), The Medieval Experience: Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity, University of Toronto Press, p. 64.; Thorsen, Don (2007), An Exploration of Christian Theology, Baker Books, 20.3.4. Cf. Second Council of Orange ch.5-7; H.J. Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, 375-377; C. H. (1981) [1967]. “Faith”. The New Catholic Encyclopedia 5. Washington D.C. p. 797; Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005]
[10] Adams, Nicholas (2007). “Pelagianism: Can people be saved by their own efforts?”. In Quash, Ben; Ward, Michael. Heresies and How to Avoid Them. London: SPCK Publishing. p. 91.
[11] Named after 16th Century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, is a religious doctrine which attempts to reconcile the providence of God with human free will: Joseph Pohle, “Semipelagianism” in Catholic Encyclopedia 1912.
[12] https://carm.org/semi-pelagianism [Note: Ironically there is also much dispute as to whether Cassian actually taught what he was accused of teaching as well: The view that Cassian propounded Semipelagianism has been disputed. Lauren Pristas, writes: “For Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God’s grace. It is fully divine. Salvation, however, is salvation of a rational creature who has sinned through free choice. Therefore, salvation necessarily includes both free human consent in grace and the gradual rehabilitation in grace of the faculty of free choice. Thus Cassian insists salvation is also fully human. His thought, however, is not Semi-Pelagian, nor do readers who submit to the whole corpus emerge Semi-Pelagians.” [see Lauren Pristas (1993), The Theological Anthropology of John Cassian, PhD dissertation, Boston College, OCLC 39451854]