Losing Everything

J. D. Gallé | Tuesday, 1 December 2015

“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matt. 10.37–39)[1] 

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” (Matt. 16.24–26)

        The entirety of a person’s life is to be invested in pursuing Jesus. The temporal recognition of colleagues, friendships, the love of a husband or wife, familial and relational stability, occupational security, financial prosperity, the acquisition of goods, health, and all worldly comforts may need to be sacrificed to this end. The sober truth we are presented with is that clinging dearly to one’s life in the present age will only result in losing it for the age to come. It is only in denying oneself and following Christ to the bitter end that one preserves his or her life. If one gains the whole world and yet loses Christ, one will have lost everything. For to lose Jesus Christ is to have lost everything.

Note

        1. All scriptural quotations have been taken from the English Standard Version (2011 text edition).

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2021. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: 22 March 2016 (one word omitted); altered scriptural abbreviations, one word in article, and one word in note (17 Nov. 2021).

When Silence Speaks Louder than Words: No Scriptural Attestation to the Undying Human Soul

J. D. Gallé | Tuesday, 3 November 2015

        On 4 January 2015, Sha, an Amazon reviewer, wrote the following in his review for the volume Four Views on Hell (1996)[1]: ‘One thing is for sure, whatever hell is I don’t want to go there. I lean towards the traditional view, even if we find it hard to understand for many reasons. I reject the annihilation view [sic] in that I believe man has an eternal spirit/soul.’[2] In response, I wrote: ‘Where do you get the notion that humans possess eternal/immortal souls or spirits from Scripture?’ (24 Apr. 2015). Today, over six months later, I decided to check and see what might have become of Sha. As it turns out, he has since gone on to review several other products. It would appear that death has not prevented him from communicating. Nevertheless, I have yet to receive a response from him.

         The truth is that Scripture never utilises terms like ‘immortal/incorruptible’ (aphthartos) or ‘eternal’ (aidios, aiōnios) to describe the human soul (psuchē) or spirit (pneuma). In fact, the only time we read of an ‘eternal spirit’ in Scripture, the designation most likely refers to either the Holy Spirit or the pre-existent, pre-incarnate spirit of Christ (pneumatos aiōniou, Heb. 9.14). Suffice it to say, such language is never employed by the scriptural authors to describe some aspect of human nature that is incapable of dying or insusceptible to perishing.
        The reason why the question of common or innate immortality is so pertinent to the discussion of final punishment is simple: once two destinies, the irreversiblility of divine judgement, and human immortality are admitted as biblical data, the exegesis of any and all texts pertaining to the future and final punishment of the unrighteous can be taken in no other way than as lending support to the conventional teaching of endless torment.

        Believers who adhere to the doctrine of final annihilation do not dispute that there will be two destinies for humankind or the irreversible nature of divine judgement in the age to come. Some will inherit final salvation; others will be condemned. We only call into question the notion that all humans are (or will be) endowed with immortality.

Conclusion 

        Sha is to be commended for his candidness in admitting (in so many words) that his acceptance of the presupposition of universal human immortality is what has led him to exclude even considering the possibility of final annihilation as the fate of the unrighteous. Sadly, not all proponents of the conventional view are quite so forthcoming (or self-aware). Here we have a clear example of one’s understanding of anthropology determining one’s view of eschatology.
        As for Sha’s belief that humans possess eternal souls or spirits, we are only left to ponder why he chose not to defend this notion from a single text or citation from Scripture. My suspicion as to why Sha remained silent in the face of the rather simple question posed to him is because no such scriptural text exists.

Notes

        1. William Crockett (ed.), Four Views on Hell, 1st edn, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1996).
        2. See Sha’s review and my original comment: <https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RGQFMT5QWEH39/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0310212685>. (As from January 2021, Amazon has eliminated the comment feature on reviews. My comment is therefore no longer present [9 Oct. 2021].)

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: 6 November 2015 (minor alterations); 13 November 2015 (subtitle added); 12 May 2016 (minor emendation made to note); 7 October 2016 (emended title and book citation slightly; two minor emendations made to par 2.); 1 November 2016 (hyphenated two terms in par. 2); 15 January 2017 (minor punctuational alterations made to par. 3); 23 February 2018 (one note added; one colon converted to a full stop; altered subtitle slightly); 28 February 2018 (added one preposition to par. 3); corrected the phrase ‘call in to question’ to ‘call into question’ in par. 3 (1 Aug. 2021); emended nn. 1 and 2 (9 Oct. 2021); added a paragraph break (5 Oct. 2022).

Arminianism, Universal Atonement, and Universal Salvation

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 23 August 2015

        In this article I will seek to demonstrate that, when properly understood, the Arminian belief in universal atonement does not logically necessitate the realisation of universal salvation. I will argue that the reason why the latter need not follow from the former lies in God’s free and sovereign decision to save sinful human beings conditionally.

The universality of atonement and the conditionality of salvation 

        A basic tenet of Arminianism is that salvation is genuinely conditional in nature. Consequently, individual election to salvation is understood as conditional as well.[1] The logical corollary to conditional salvation is unlimited/universal atonement: Christ died for all persons without exception. Arminians affirm that God the Father sent Jesus Christ as a sin offering into the world in order to procure salvation universally for all humankind. However, in the economy of redemption, God has decreed that salvation be applied only to particular individuals, namely believers. In other words, whereas the procurement of salvation is universal in nature, its application is particular. The conditionality of salvation is made evident in this: God has determined to actually save only those who place their faith in the blood of Christ for the remission of their sins.

The potentiality of universal salvation 

        The benefits of Christ’s propitiatory/expiatory death on the cross may be received or appropriated by all, but neither a positive or negative response to the good news is divinely determined or guaranteed. In the present age, persons may accept or reject the saving work of Jesus Christ. Whilst salvation has been objectively achieved for all, it must be subjectively applied. The potential for universal salvation exists, but its actualisation is by no means a foregone conclusion. God requires that persons respond to the gospel of Christ by meeting the gracious conditions of salvation as set forth in his Word. Salvation is a gift that must be received. Arminians deny the inevitability of universal salvation because Christ did not die with the aim of infallibly (or unconditionally) securing the salvation of all persons irrespective of the human response to the good news.[2, 3]

The condition of those outside Christ 

        Put another way, the non-Calvinist’s logic is fairly straightforward: whilst God desires that all persons become reconciled to him by responding to the gospel in repentance and faith in his Son Jesus Christ, unbelievers remain in a state of condemnation and estrangement from God. So long as persons remain unrepentant and unbelieving, they are left in an unsaved condition, under the wrath of God for their personal sins. For those who reject Christ, Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross does not benefit them. Unbelievers have not been united to Christ or into his death by baptism, nor have their sins been cancelled or remitted. They are dead in their trespasses and sins, dead to God, and without the Holy Spirit. If one should die in this unrepentant, unbelieving state, he or she will be irreversibly condemned in the age to come when the Lord Jesus Christ returns to judge the living and the dead.[4]

Conclusion 

        In upholding the universal scope of Christ’s sacrifice for sin and the particularity of salvation, Arminianism serves as a kind of via media between Calvinism and universalism. When salvation is understood as conditional in nature, there is little difficulty in holding an unlimited/universal atonement in tandem with a limited or particular application of Christ’s sin-cancelling death on the cross. Whilst the forgiveness of sins is restricted to believers only, the truth of universal atonement is in no way negated. The procurement of salvation is not restricted, only its application. All are called to respond positively to the good news because the good news is intended by God to be received by all. Christ died for the salvation of all; therefore, all may potentially be saved.
        The only problem we are left with is the tragedy of any rejecting Christ and his propitiatory/expiatory sacrifice for sins. Apart from the sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit,[5] all manner of sins may be forgiven humans. The reason why all are not saved is because all do not turn from their sins and receive the remission of their sins through faith in the cross of Christ. All sins may be cleansed, but not apart from faith in the blood of Jesus. In the end, the difficulty we are left to grapple with is the pervasiveness of human obstinacy and depravity,[6] not any want of a universal atonement for sin.[7]

Notes

        1. Arminians deny that God has unconditionally elected or unconditionally damned any human being, thus negating the high Calvinistic doctrine of double predestination.

        2. The salvation of all persons without exception could only be infallibly ensured via exhaustive divine foreordination. If God decreed that all persons without exception should respond positively to the good news and have the benefits of Christ’s redemptive work applied to them, all would invariably be saved. Whilst foundational with respect to strict Calvinism as a brand of theological determinism, the doctrine of exhaustive foreordination is foreign to Arminianism and all forms of free-will theism (e.g. Eastern Orthodoxy, open theism).

        3. Furthermore, the human response itself is not secured. Arminians of all stripes deny that Christ in some way purchased ‘the gifts’ of repentance and faith for specific individuals via his death on the cross. If repentance and faith are in fact divine gifts bestowed on some and withheld from others (as claimed by Calvinists), the sole reason why any person should ever fail to turn from his or her sins and savingly believe on Christ is because God did not see it fit to unconditionally elect him or her to salvation via his eternal decree. Differing views on human depravity and prevenient grace notwithstanding, at the fundamental level free-will theists understand repentance and faith to be the individual human’s free, non-meritorious response to the good news of Jesus Christ for the reception of the divine gift of salvation.
        4. For the purposes of the present discussion, whether the resurrection of judgement/condemnation (see John 5.29) entails endless conscious punishment or culminates in the final annihilation of the unrighteous is a moot point.
        5. See Matthew 12.22–32; Mark 3.22–30; Luke 12.10.
        6. See John 3.19–20; Romans 3.9–18.
        7. Contrary to the high Calvinistic doctrine of limited (or definite) atonement. Strict Calvinists deny that Christ died in a saving sense for all persons without exception.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: 12 November 2015 (n. 1 slightly altered); 21 November 2015 (a few alterations made); 2 April 2016 (n. 1 modified and one note added); 7 July 2016 (two words emended); 18 September 2016 (first, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs slightly emended; nn. 1, 2, and 7 slightly emended); 2 October 2016 (minor emendations); 17 February 2018 (six colons converted to full stops).

Justification, Regeneration, and Progressive Sanctification: Three Distinct yet Interrelated Aspects of Salvation

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 13 August 2015

Preface

        What follows is a recent response I gave to a Roman Catholic online. I have made various revisions to my original message and have expanded upon it as you see it now in its final form below.


Justification, Regeneration, and Progressive Sanctification: Three Distinct yet Interrelated Aspects of Salvation

Arthur Sippo: [Roman] Catholicism insisted that we are not merely saved from the consequences of sin, but from sin itself. To do this we must undergo transformation to become a new creation in Christ so that we are not enslaved to sin but the willing servants of righteousness. This is the clear teaching of Romans 6.

J. D. Gallé: Contrary to Roman Catholicism, conventional Protestantism maintains a strong distinction between justification and sanctification. Whereas sanctification is understood as progressive in nature, conventional Protestants do not recognise justification as a process. Nevertheless, Calvinists and Arminians alike maintain the necessity of both in salvation. Sinful human beings require remission for their sins, a right standing before God (justification), and deliverance from the power and practice of sin as well (regeneration). Believers are saved from objective guilt and condemnation[1] as transgressors of God’s law via justification and freed from the power of sin via regeneration.[2] These two aspects of salvation, whilst distinct, occur simultaneously; one cannot be divorced from the other. (It is not possible for one to be justified and unregenerate or unjustified and regenerate.)

As a result of the regenerating work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, believers are enabled to live lives of ongoing repentance from sin. The goal is for believers to become increasingly holy (set apart, consecrated) over time, maturing in Christ in the present age. This concept is known as progressive sanctification. Protestants typically maintain that believers will not attain sinless perfection prior to final salvation (glorification). Until then, even the greatest Christians fall something short of perfect obedience. The reflection of Christ’s moral image is not yet wholly untainted in the most virtuous of saints.

When you write that ‘[W]e must undergo transformation to become a new creation in Christ so that we are not enslaved to sin but the willing servants of righteousness. This is the clear teaching of Romans 6’, you are using the scriptural terminology ‘new creation’ incorrectly. ‘New creation’ (kainē ktsis) occurs in two texts, both of which are Pauline: 2 Corinthians 5.17 and Galatians 6.15. In the former text, when Paul writes, ‘[I]f anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation’ (2 Cor. 5.17, ESV), he is speaking of the believer’s regenerate condition as a result of his or her union with Jesus Christ. Paul is not here addressing the matter of believers progressing in holiness as in Romans 6 where (in so many words) he exhorts those who have been baptised into the death of Christ to continue submitting to God and not reclaim sin as their master. There Paul urges believers to live in accordance with their identity in Christ as dead to sin and alive to God (see Rom. 6.10–11). The consecrated living of saints (i.e. walking in ‘newness of life’, Rom. 6.4) is to spring forth from believers’ union with Christ (vv. 3–7). This union between Christ and believers is a present reality that occurred at a specific point in the past: in baptism (vv. 3–4; see also Col. 2.11–14).

The point that must be stressed is this: regeneration is God’s act. One cannot make himself or herself a new creation in Jesus Christ (see Jn 1.12–13).[3] As I see it, the error you have made is in conflating progressive sanctification with regeneration. The process of moral transformation (otherwise known as progressive sanctification) is ongoing and the result of regeneration. No amount of human striving for holiness will result in justification (the forgiveness of sins; a sinner being declared righteous before a holy God), being ‘born again’[4] by the power of the Holy Spirit (regeneration), or union with Christ. We must be careful not to inadvertently reverse the order of salvation (ordo salutis).

Notes

        1. That is, the divine eschatological penalty against sin, resulting in endless, conscious punishment or final annihilation (see e.g. Matt. 13.40–42; 25.41, 46; Mk 9.43–47; Lk. 13.3, 5; Jn 3.16, 36; Rom. 6.23; Phil. 3.19; 2 Thess. 1.9; 2 Pet. 2.6; 3.6–7; Jude 7; Rev. 14.9–11; 21.8).
        2. Regeneration is sometimes referred to as initial sanctification.
        3. I will leave aside the Arminian–Calvinist dispute concerning whether regeneration precedes faith or faith precedes regeneration. As a non-Calvinist, I understand the latter view to be correct.
        4. Or ‘born from above’ (see Jn 3.3).

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: 11 November 2015 (some material was added and revised in the fifth and sixth paragraphs); 13 November 2015 (one word added); 18 September 2016 (minor emendations); 18 November 2016 (converted a ‘cf.’ to ‘see also’ in brackets [i.e. parenthesis]); 17 February 2018 (converted twenty colons to full stops); 26 February 2018 (abbreviated assorted scriptural references); 24 May 2019 (minor revision to n. 1); altered two scriptural abbreviations (12 Dec. 2021); added a comma in n. 1 (14 Aug. 2022).

Theological Knowledge and Pride

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 31 July 2015

        Optimally, the humility of a believer would grow in proportion to his or her knowledge of God’s Word, theological studies, etc. Oftentimes, however, this is not so. Instead, we begin to take pride in what we have learned. We come to believe that we are superior to those who know less than us. This is not a Calvinist problem or an Arminian problem, but a human one. Pride manifests itself in many forms; no human being is immune to its ill effects, small or great.
        I fear that in our quest for doctrinal knowledge and purity we can all too easily neglect our walk before God. How many persons have died in a spiritually bankrupt state who knew so much? Their knowledge did not serve to benefit their relationship with Jesus Christ; rather, it perished with them. How many have been so rich intellectually but not rich towards God himself? How many have deluded themselves into believing that their storing up of knowledge was equivalent to a right relationship with God through faith in the Lord Jesus and his saving work? How ironic, how tragic would it be for one to discover on the last day that he or she is found alienated from God by pursuing biblical and theological knowledge as an end in itself, to the neglect of his or her soul?

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015. All rights reserved.

Thomas R. Schreiner’s Perspective on Apostasy: an Arminian Analysis

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 26 June 2015

        In his volume on perseverance, Run to Win the Prize (2010), Thomas Schreiner declares: ‘The admonitions and threats in the Scriptures address the issue of eternal life. […] They are addressed to those who have received the Holy Spirit, to those who are genuine Christians.’[1] ‘I have argued thus far that the warnings in the NT are directed to believers, and they threaten final judgment.’[2] Along with all Arminians who adhere to the doctrine of conditional security, I can give my wholehearted assent to these statements. Unfortunately, I cannot likewise endorse Schreiner’s understanding of perseverance and apostasy. Schreiner writes:

[T]he elect[3] and those in the new covenant always heed the warnings [of Scripture]. God loses none of those who belong to him. Just as all the elect believe the gospel when it is proclaimed to them, so too all those who are foreknown and predestined will certainly be glorified. God’s promise that all those who are his will persevere does not exclude the need to heed the warnings. As we have seen, heeding the warnings is the means by which believers are preserved on the last day.[4]

        According to Schreiner, all who have been initially saved will be finally saved. Any individual who has been united to Christ by faith will never become an unbeliever again. The inevitable conclusion is this: apostasy remains an impossibility for ‘genuine Christians’. Schreiner assures us that the various ‘admonitions and threats’ contained throughout scripture serve as ‘the means’ whereby believers are infallibly preserved from condemnation on the day of judgement. As for those who may have appeared to have borne the marks of a Christian for a season but nevertheless defected from the faith, Schreiner informs us that such persons were never actually in a saving relationship with Christ to begin with. 

Those who fall away were never truly Christians. […] Perseverance is the mark of genuineness, and those who do not persevere reveal that they were not genuinely part of the people of God. […] No one who is truly elect will ever fall away, for those who do apostatize reveal that they were never genuinely saved.[5]

        In the end, the only apostates Schreiner allows for are phoneys and false professors of the faith, persons who ‘were not genuinely part of the people of God’. Faux believers may apostatise; true believers cannot. For Schreiner, failure to persevere only proves a professed convert’s lack of ‘genuineness’. All apostates without exception are persons who ‘were never genuinely saved’.
        In summary, Schreiner holds the two following propositions as equally valid: (1) believers are ‘preserved’ from eternal condemnation by heeding the scriptural admonishments warning against the danger of committing apostasy; (2) it is impossible for believers to commit apostasy and so be finally condemned.[6]

Conclusion

        It is not enough to assert that ‘genuine Christians’ will not apostatise. No, according to Schreiner’s strict Calvinistic perspective, the possibility of apostasy itself cannot be actualised. For Schreiner, there is simply no possibility of such an occurrence. In the case of ‘genuine Christians’, then, apostasy is relegated to the hypothetical realm,[7] for it is something that those who are ‘genuinely saved’ neither will nor can commit.
        The logical implication of Schreiner’s view is that the very means by which God’s people are said to be infallibly preserved from damnation via the word of God are dubious at best, and completely disingenuous at worst. Exhorting believers to do that which they cannot fail to do (i.e. persevere), and severely warning them against committing the impossible (i.e. apostatising) with the threat of eternal condemnation if they should fail to continue in the faith (which, again, cannot happen according to Schreiner), naturally calls into question the wisdom, goodness, and truthfulness of God and his Word.[8]
        It is much wiser to accept the possibility of apostasy as real in the present age.[9] Yet in so doing, one would have to accept salvation as being truly conditional in nature and jettison the entire Calvinistic soteriological paradigm as spurious.[10] In my judgement this should be done sooner rather than later.

Notes

        1. Thomas R. Schreiner, Run to Win the Prize: Perseverance in the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), p. 113. See also idem and Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001).
        2. Schreiner, Run to Win the Prize, p. 104.
        3. Schreiner routinely uses the term ‘elect’ as a shorthand designation for persons that God has unconditionally chosen for salvation before the creation of the world. As Arminians affirm conditional election to salvation, we take issue with Schreiner’s consistent use of the scriptural term ‘elect’ as more or less synonymous with the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election.
        4. Schreiner, Run to Win the Prize, p. 113.
        5. Schreiner, Run to Win the Prize, p. 106.
        6. Schreiner’s erroneous understanding of perseverance as inevitable and apostasy as impossible appear to stem from an a priori commitment to Calvinist double predestination.
        7. Albeit unwittingly.
        8. I am aware that Schreiner would disagree (that is, unless or until he should become an Arminian).
        9. For Arminian perspectives on perseverance and apostasy, see, for example, Gareth L. Cockerill, ‘A Wesleyan Arminian View’, in Herbert W. Bateman IV (ed.), Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007), pp. 257–92; I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1969; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008); Robert Shank, Life in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance, 2nd edn (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1989).
        10. To that end, see, for example, F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2011); Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2002); Clark H. Pinnock and John D. Wagner (eds), Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2015); Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2023. All rights reserved.

Addendum (26 Sept. 2022; 13 Feb. 2023).  This article was published on the Society of Evangelical Arminians’ website on Wednesday, 5 August 2015, written in American English (apart from ‘judgement’ and ‘phoneys’). See the link to the following web page: 

• <http://evangelicalarminians.org/j-d-galle-thomas-r-schreiners-perspective-on-apostasy-an-arminian-analysis>

Lastest revisions: 3 July 2015 (one note added); 14 December 2015 (a few minor alterations and additions made to the text); 17 March 2016 (alteration of one word); 7 April 2016 (minor emendations); 28 June 2016 (punctuation added to par. 1); 16 September 2016 (minor emendations); 22 February 2017 (emended punctuation in a few places); 9 and 25 February 2018 (minor editorial revisions); slightly emended nn. 9 and 10 (17 Nov. 2021), slightly modified citation in n. 1 (2 Aug. 2022); corrected error in n. 9 (26 Sept. 2023).

Christ Died for All: Respond!

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 31 May 2015

        Strict Calvinists often argue that, if Christ died for all persons without exception (universal atonement), all would invariably be saved (universal salvation). Since the Scriptures portray two disparate destinies of humans, it is reasoned, universal atonement cannot be true.

Salvational conditionality

        Our response is simple: if the New Testament authors view salvation as genuinely conditional in nature, universal atonement does not inevitably lead to the actualisation of universal salvation. The possibility remains that some (if not many) will perish because God has not chosen who will come to a salvational knowledge in Jesus Christ. In other words, there is no election to (or unto) belief. All are to be urgently called to repent and believe in Christ for salvation because Christ has died for all. All have sinned and all likewise need a saviour, but only those who respond positively to the gospel will be saved. The gracious character of redemption is in no way compromised by affirming its conditional nature.

Christ’s redemptive work: appropriation and application

        In Christ God has acted on behalf of the salvation of all humanity. Christ has taken the judgement of God due to sinners upon himself as the representative and substitute for sinful humankind. He bore the curse for us on the tree. By his blood there is redemption and forgiveness of sins, and by his blood believers are declared righteous. Through the death of the Son those who were once the enemies of God are reconciled to the Father. Those who are in Christ are made new creations by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the powerful working of God. Christ has died and risen again; he will never die again. Jesus is now Lord over all. Those who trust in him will not perish but inherit eternal life. They will share in the resurrection life of Jesus by being raised immortal by him on the last day. The kingdom of heaven will be theirs. 

        All may potentially be saved, for Jesus has procured redemption for the whole world via his sacrificial death at Golgotha. Nevertheless, according to the sovereign decree of God, the benefits of Jesus’ sacrificial death are actually applied only to those who cling to the Son as their only hope for obtaining salvation and the mercy of God.

Conclusion

        God has sent Christ to save his wayward creation from the wrath that is to come. Jesus came to deliver those who believe on him from the power and penalty of sin. The message of this good news is to be proclaimed to the ends of the earth until the King returns in glory with his angels at the end of the age to judge the living and the dead. Until the day of his visitation (i.e. the parousia), all are called to repentance towards God and faith towards Jesus Christ.

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (2 Cor. 5.14–15, ESV)

        The only question that remains is this: who will respond to the call?

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021. All rights reserved.

Latest revisions: minor emendations made to paragraphs four and five (2 Jul. 2016); omitted two words in par. 2 (15 Apr. 2017); converted one colon to a full stop; altered headings ‘The conditionality of salvation’ to ‘Salvational conditionality’, and ‘The benefits of Christ’ to ‘Christ’s redemptive work: appropriation and application’ (21 Feb. 2018); altered one letter from upper case to lower case (14 Nov. 2019); added emphases in par. 1 moved heading for one paragraph to another; added one word in par. 1; altered one word in par. 2 (10 Dec. 2021).

Richard Watson on John 3.16–18 and the Impossibility of a Limited Atonement

        “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.” Now, if the world here means the elect world, or the elect not yet called out of it, then it is affirmed that “whosoever,” of this elect body, believeth should not perish; which plainly implies, that some of the elect might not believe, and therefore perish, contrary to their doctrine.[1] This absurd consequence is still clearer from the verses which immediately follow. John iii, 17, 18, “For God sent not his Son into the world, to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already.” Now here we must take the term “world,” either extensively[2] for all mankind or limitedly[3] for the elect. If the former, then all men “through him may be saved,” but only through faith: he therefore, of this world that believeth may be saved; but he of this world that believeth not is condemned already. The sense here is plain and consistent; but if, on the other hand, we take “the world” to mean the elect only, then he of this elect world that “believeth not is condemned;” so that the restricted interpretation necessarily supposes, that elect persons may remain in unbelief, and be lost. The same absurdity will follow from a like interpretation of the general commission. Either “all the world” and “every creature,” mean every man, or the elect only. If the former, it follows, that he of this “world,” any individual among those included in the phase, “every creature,” who believes, “shall be saved,” or, not believing, “shall be damned:”[4] if the latter, then he of the elect, any individual of the elect, who believes, “shall be saved,” and any individual of the elect who believes not, “shall be damned.” Similar absurdities might be brought out from other passages; but if these are candidly weighed, it will abundantly appear, that texts so plain and explicit cannot be turned into such consequences by any true method of interpretation, and that they must, therefore, be taken in their obvious sense, which unequivocally expresses the universality of the atonement.[5]

Richard Watson, Theological Institutes: Or, a View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity, 2 vols. (New York, NY: Lane & Scott, 1850), 2.291–2, emphases in original

Notes

        1. ‘[T]heir doctrine’, namely strict or high Calvinism’s doctrine of limited atonement. This teaching is commonly referred to as particular (or definite) atonement by its proponents. According to the doctrine of limited atonement, Christ died in a salvational sense exclusively for those God unconditionally elected for salvation prior to the creation of the world. High Calvinistic theology denies that the non-elect (or ‘reprobate’) were ever intended to be made partakers of Christ’s benefits. In simple terms, strict Calvinists deny that Christ died for all persons without exception because God never intended to save the non-elect.
        Limited atonement is closely linked to the doctrine of unconditional election to salvation. Calvinists believe that those who are not saved were unconditionally reprobated (i.e. foreordained to damnation) from eternity as a result of God’s inscrutable, eternal decree.
        2. That is, universally, inclusively.
        3. That is, exclusively, particularly.
        4. Mark 16.15–16 (see also Matt. 28.19–20; Lk. 24.46–47; Acts 1.8).
        5. In the quotation above, it should be evident that Watson seeks to refute a strict Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement by demonstrating its absurdity in the light of scriptural texts such as John 3.16–18 and Mark 16.15–16. The form of argumentation Watson utilises here is referred to as the argumentum ad absurdum (argument to absurdity) or reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021. All rights reserved.

Addendum (27 Sept. 2022; 29 Aug. 2023).  As from 2018, Lexham Press have published a non-facsimile reprint of Methodist Richard Watson’s significant, nineteenth-century work of systematic theology, Theological Institutes.* Watson’s Theological Institutes is the first systematic theology to have been written from a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective.

        My sole criticism of Lexham Press’ reprint is that, considering the retail price they are commanding for their printed edition, the two volumes ought to be hardbound in format rather than paperback. Nevertheless, in order to view or purchase the aforementioned two-volume set, see the links to the following websites:

• Lexham Press
  
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon
  

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.


Latest revisions: 16 November 2016 (added a comma in n. 1); 17 February 2018 (converted seven colons to full stops); 19 and 28 February 2018 (minor emendations); 22 May 2019 (slightly modified nn. 2 and 3); altered one word in first note (23 Jun. 2021); slightly altered scriptural abbreviations in n. 4 (19 Nov. 2021); altered one word in n. 1 (8 Dec. 2021).

I. Howard Marshall on Limited Atonement and Penal Substitution

        Despite such statements in classical documents as that Christ “made a full perfect and sufficient oblation for the sins of the whole world” (Book of Common Prayer), and the clear declaration of the New Testament that “Christ gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim. 2:6), there have been some attempts to tie the doctrine of penal substitution to a doctrine of limited or particular atonement; some scholars hold that penal substitution can be defended only on the basis that Christ acts as substitute only for those who are actually saved by his death rather than being a saviour who makes an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) in accordance with the desire of God that all might be saved (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4–6; 2 Pet. 3:9). Otherwise, it is argued, in the case of those who are not saved, God would have demanded the penalty twice, once from Christ and once from themselves when they suffer the penalty of disobedience. […][1]
        However this objection is without any force because it assumes a kind of mathematical equivalence between the death of Christ and the penalty due to sinners; there is nothing unjust about penalizing offenders who refuse to accept the offer of an amnesty. […] The doctrine of penal substitution is not part of a package which also contains as essential the concepts of particular election[2] and limited (or definite) atonement. “None need perish; all may live, for Christ has died” (Sanders, W. In The Methodist Hymnbook [London: Methodist Conference Office, 1933], No. 315). Sadly, however, it is not inevitable that all will respond positively when the gospel news is sounding.

I. Howard Marshall, Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2007), pp. 62–3 n. 45[3]

Copyright © Divinity School of Chung Chi College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Marshall’s Aspects of the Atonement (2007),* see the links to the following websites:

• Paternoster (Authentic Media)
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. ‘[T]he penalty of disobedience’ being the final punishment of the unrepentant, whether conceived of in terms of endless torment or final annihilation.
        2. That is, unconditional election to salvation. The corollary doctrine is unconditional reprobation. High Calvinistic theology maintains that God unconditionally chose which specific individuals would be saved and damned prior to the creation of the world. This doctrine is commonly referred to as double predestination.
        3. The pagination of the paperback edition (ISBN-13: 978-1-84227-549-8) of Aspects of the Atonement differs from the hardback edition (ISBN-13: 978-1-60657-024-1) . In the hardback edition the above quotation may be found on pp. 70–1.  —J. D. Gallé

Addendum.  Ian Howard Marshall (1934–2015) died on Saturday, 12 December 2015, aged eighty-one.

• Wikipedia

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

F. Leroy Forlines on the Assurance of Salvation

        John 10:28, 29 gives the Christian strong grounds to stand on. In Christ he has eternal life and will never perish. When a person is saved, he is baptized into Christ’s body; and as long as he is in Christ, he has eternal life and will never perish. This is what we have in Christ, and we are also promised that no one can take us out of Christ. Salvation is a personal matter between the believer and Christ. No outsider can, in any way, take the believer out of Christ. If he is ever taken out, it will be an act of the Father as husbandman, as is set forth in John 15:2, and that only on the grounds of not abiding in Christ (John 15:6). To be in Christ means to have eternal life, and no outside force nor combined forces can take us out of Christ.
        Another ground of security is that God will not cast us out at the least little thing we do. We are saved by faith and kept by faith. We are lost, after we are once saved, only by shipwreck of faith.
        This view, as we have given it, gives a person all the assurance he needs to have joy. It does not keep him in fear of constant falling; yet, at the same time, he is aware of the fact that it is possible to fall. It also keeps salvation on a faith basis instead of mixing it with works. It is not just a line of reasoning, but has the support of the Scriptures.

Leroy Forlines, The Doctrine of Perseverance (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 1986),[1] pp. 17–8, emphasis in original

Copyright © Randall House Publications, 1986. All rights reserved.

Note

        1. Unfortunately, this booklet is currently out of print. For further reading on the assurance of salvation from Arminian perspectives, see Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), pp. 375–87; idem, Set Free! What the Bible Says about Grace (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2009), pp. 295–316*; F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2011), pp. 350–3; and Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2002), pp. 197–208 (repr. in idem, Understanding Assurance and Salvation [Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2006], pp. 1–20).  —J. D. Gallé

        * Jack Cottrell’s twenty-first chapter in idem, The Faith Once for All, ‘Assurance of Salvation’, is essentially the same as, although not identical to, the fifteenth chapter, ‘Assurance of Salvation’, in Jack Cottrell, Set Free! (as noted by Cottrell himself in idem, Set Free!, p. 295 n. 1).

Addendum (24 Sept. 2022).  Franklin Leroy Forlines (1926–2020) died on Tuesday, 15 December 2020, aged ninety-four.

• Helwys Society Forum
• Tribute Archive (obituary)
  

Latest revisions: 2 January 2017 (emended pagination for one volume in note); 25 December 2017 (converted an en rule to a colon); 28 February 2018 (slightly modified note); added to note (8 Mar. 2022).

Jack Cottrell on Faith as a Gift of God

        Some mistakenly conclude that Eph 2:8 says faith is a gift: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” This is disproved, though, by the rules of Greek grammar. The Greek word for “faith” (pistis) is feminine in gender; the pronoun referring to the gift (“that,” touto) is neuter. If it were referring back to faith, it too would be feminine in form. (There is no word in the Greek corresponding to the pronoun “it.”) This verse actually shows that faith is not a gift since grace and faith are carefully distinguished. We are saved by grace, as God’s part; but through faith, as our part, as distinct from the grace given. Faith is not a gift of grace and the result of regeneration; it is a response to grace and a prerequisite to regeneration.

 

Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), p. 200, emphases in original[1]

Copyright © The College Press Publishing Company, 2002. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Cottrell’s The Faith Once for All (2002),* see the links to the following websites:

• College Press Publishing Company
• The Christian Restoration Association
  
• Christianbook
• Amazon 

Note

        1. Jack Cottrell briefly interacts with other scriptural texts sometimes purported to teach that repentance (Gk: μετάνοια, metanoia) and faith (Gk: πίστις, pistis) are ‘gifts of God’ in idem, The Faith Once for All, pp. 199–200. The aforementioned section also may be found in idem, Set Free! What the Bible Says about Grace (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2009), pp. 227–9. (To visit Jack Cottrell’s official website, see the following link: <https://www.jackcottrell.com>.)  —J. D. Gallé

Addendum (20 Sept. 2022).  Jack Warren Cottrell (1938–2022) died on Friday, 16 September 2022, aged eighty-four.

• Fitch Denney Funeral Home
• Jack Cottrell (official website)

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

F. Leroy Forlines on the Sovereignty of God in Salvation: Upon Whom Does God Desire to Demonstrate His Mercy in Romans 9.15?

        When we read in Rom. 9:15 that God will have mercy and compassion on whomever He wills, it behooves us to ask: On whom does God will to show mercy and compassion? Once it is decided that the mercy and compassion under consideration is that shown in salvation, the answer is easy.

        God told Isaiah whom He wanted to have mercy on when He said, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy [italics mine] upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (55:7).
        We certainly do not have to list an array of references from the N.T. in order to identify those to whom God wishes to give the mercy of salvation. Let's take the answer given by Paul and Silas to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:30,31).
        When God chooses the one who believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior to show his mercy in salvation, He is choosing whom He wills. Such a decision can in no way be viewed as a decision that God is forced to make. The whole idea of salvation was God’s idea from the outset. He could have chosen to have left the whole human race in sin without offering salvation had He chosen to do so. He planned to provide and offer salvation to lost mankind long before (in eternity past) man felt the pangs of being lost. It was not even in response to man’s pleading (much less demanding) that God chose to offer redemption.
        The provision of salvation through the death and righteousness of Christ was totally God’s idea and totally God’s provision. It came about as a result of His own free acts. The decision to offer salvation on the condition of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior originated with God and no one else. The decision to commission believers to take the gospel into the world was God’s decision, not man’s. The decision for the Holy Spirit to work in men's hearts in connection with the preached Word was God’s decision.
        The whole plan of salvation from beginning to end is the work and plan of God. God is in charge. When salvation is offered on the condition of faith in Christ, that in no way weakens the words, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” God’s sovereignty is fully in control in this view.

 

F. Leroy Forlines, Romans, ed. Robert E. Picirilli, The Randall House Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 1987), p. 268, emphases and square brackets in original

Copyright © F. Leroy Forlines, 1987. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Forlines’ Randall House Bible Commentary on Romans,* see the links to the following websites:

• Randall House Publications
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Addendum (24 Sept. 2022).  Franklin Leroy Forlines (1926–2020) died on Tuesday, 15 December 2020, aged ninety-four.

• Helwys Society Forum
• Tribute Archive (obituary)

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Conditional Immortality: an Interchange

J. D. Gallé | Monday, 11 May 2015

Preface

        What follows is a recent interchange I had online with a fellow believer on the topic of conditional immortality. The exchange is slightly abridged from its original form. I have made a few minor revisions to my response below.


Conditional Immortality: an Interchange

Linda D. Gabriel: I did not read this whole book [Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2011)], because frankly, I didn’t want to waste my time. From the parts of the book that I have read, Rob Bell often sounds a lot like the serpent in the Garden of Eden who said to Eve, “Did God really say…?” I have one question for Mr. Bell: What Bible are you reading?

J. D. Gallé: To be fair, the majority of the Christian world does not believe that anyone truly dies, but everyone lives for ever: some in everlasting torment, others in everlasting bliss. In other words, the majority of Christians believe that the final ‘death’ of the wicked, in actuality, is everlasting life in suffering. The serpent in Genesis cast doubt on God’s word that the disobedient will die. How is it, then, that (according to the conventional view) everyone lives for ever?

Gabriel: I’m not exactly sure I’m following if you side with Bell or not. Here’s the thing: no one lives forever in a physical mortal body, but the soul is immortal and will spend eternity somewhere — with God, or separated from God and in torment. This is the part that Bell doesn't seem to agree with. Man did in fact die when Adam sinned in the Garden — died spiritually, and introduced physical death into the world as well as a part of the curse of sin. Thus every man is “born dead” and will remain spiritually dead unless God gives him spiritual life — hence the term “born again.”

Gallé: The warning of death for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 2.17 cannot be taken in a purely ‘spiritual’ sense. Unless you are willing to argue that we are to understand the tree of life in some strange, esoteric sense, the threat of death is best understood as the reversal of life, the return to non-life, non-consciousness. After the first man’s transgression, Adam is told that he will return to the dust from which he came by the Creator (Gen. 3.19). In the light of the creation account of Genesis 1–3, to say that death is a return to non-life and a form of de-creation fits well with the narrative. Yahweh banishes Adam from the garden of Eden in order that he may not become immortalised in his fallen state. We are not left to infer as to how this is accomplished. Without having access to the tree of life, the death of the first man is made a certainty (Gen. 3.22–24; 5.5; Rom. 5.12; 1 Cor. 15.21–22). Immortal human life is linked with a positive relationship to God and is thus derivative; it is not an innate human quality as a result of creation or being made in the image of God. You will search in vain in the Genesis account for the notion that humans possess immortal souls or spirits (or, I might add, anywhere in the entirety of Scripture).

Gabriel: Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man as being very unique from all other creation: God breathed into man, and he became a living soul.

Gallé: I am not denying the unique role of humankind in the economy of God’s creation as recounted in the Genesis narrative. The notion I am contending against is that Genesis provides us any indication that humans have been given immaterial, immortal souls that will survive the body after death. I do not believe such a reading can be sustained. The term nephesh is used throughout Genesis to refer to animal life (Gen. 1.20, 21; 2.19; 9.10) as well as human life (2.7; 12.5). Not once is it used in Genesis to refer to disembodied life, human or animal.

Gabriel: I believe that Scripture teaches that when Adam sinned against God in the Garden, he brought physical death into the world and would himself experience death. (Obviously he didn’t drop down dead on the spot.) See Romans 5:12; Eph. 2:1; Romans 6. But whereas before he sinned he had a spiritual relationship with God, after he sinned this relationship was cut off and Adam became spiritually dead in his relationship with God. In many places it talks about man being dead in sin, and that only by the Spirit can a person be made alive. This again is obviously speaking about a person who is physically alive, but not spiritually. I think if I am understanding you correctly, we agree on this point.

Gallé: In choosing to eat of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve breached their relationship with the Creator by their disobedience. I suppose one may refer to their resulting alienation from God as a kind ‘spiritual death’ if he or she wishes, but I personally do not find the terminology particularly helpful. The death our first parents were warned of was physical in nature. We are provided no indication in Genesis that there is (or will be) any survival of the person’s consciousness after death. Death involves the dissolution of the entire person and his/her relationship with the environment, animal life, human life, and God. This, in my view, is what makes the believer’s future hope of participating in the resurrection life of Jesus Christ at his return so pivotal. Even believers will not be made immortal until the second advent of Christ (see 1 Cor. 15.50–55).

To reiterate what I stated earlier, death will inevitably result when persons are alienated from God; immortality is conditioned upon a positive relationship with the Creator. The two are inseparable.

Gabriel: But it sounds like you’re saying that if a person is not saved/does not have a relationship with God/is without Christ when he dies, then he ceases to exist.

Gallé: I have defined death in terms of a return to non-life and non-consciousness, yes.

Gabriel: How do you explain Heb. 9:27, where it says it is appointed unto man once to die, and then judgment?

Gallé: Read Hebrews 9.27 and 28 (ESV): ‘And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.’ I do not believe the context will bear out the notion that persons are immediately judged upon death. Christ first came as a purification offering for sins (see Heb. 1.3b), but when he returns he will come for the final salvation of his people. From the perspective of the dead it will be as though no time has elapsed when they are raised to judgement.

Gabriel: How can a person who is dead stand before God to be judged?

Gallé: The righteous and the unrighteous alike will be raised and judged according to their works. These two resurrection events, the resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust, will not occur prior to the return of Christ. I am not certain whether the unrighteous will be raised and judged at the second advent of Jesus or after a literal one thousand year millennial reign of Christ and the saints. That said, it is certain that the righteous dead will be raised to immortal life at the parousia.

Gabriel: [1] And Jesus himself taught about hell, [2] and the wicked going to a place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” To what was he referring then?

Gallé: (1) It is undoubtedly true that Jesus taught his disciples of a future day of judgement prior to his final ascension. The term Gehenna (i.e. ‘hell’) primarily occurs in Matthew (5.22, 29–30; 10.28; 18.9; 23.15, 33); seven of its twelve occurrences in the New Testament are found in Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus refers to the Gehenna of fire (tēn geennan tou puros) in Matthew 18.9 (cf. 5.22) interchangeably with the aiōnion fire (to pur to aiōnion) in Matthew 18.8 (cf. 25.41). In the light of the future judgement scene depicted in Matthew 25.31–46, we must understand that no one will be cast into the aiōnion/Gehenna of fire prior to the final judgement (Matt. 25.41).

(2) The phrase ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ occurs six times in Matthew (8.12; 13.42, 50; 22.13; 24.51; 25.30) and once in Luke (13.28). For a detailed exposition of the seven ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts, see Kim Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus: Gehenna, Hades, the Abyss, the Outer Darkness Where There Is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), pages 175–233. I do not maintain that the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ expression is to be understood as the infliction of externally imposed pain, nor do I believe that it carries the sense of ongoing duration.

Addenda

Addendum A (n.d.).  Scriptural quotations marked ‘ESV’ are taken from the English Standard Version, 2011 anglicised text edition.

Addendum B (10, 24 Apr. 2023). For noteworthy literature supporting the conditional immortality of humankind and the ultimate extinction of the faithless and evildoers from both biblical and theological perspectives, see my relevant Amazon Idea List by visiting the following web page*:

• Annihilationism: Eschatological Punishment (‘Hell’) as the Eventual Extirpation of the Unvirtuous

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2023. All rights reserved.

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website or via my Amazon Idea Lists. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.


Latest revisions: 1 November 2016 (modified and added two citations to brackets); 13 January 2017 (added hyphenation to three terms and converted brackets to commas in one place); 7 February 2017 (added a comma in one place; added hyphenation to one term); 24 February 2018 (altered title ‘Conditional Immortality: An Exchange’ to ‘Conditional Immortality: An Interchange’; converted thirty colons to full stops; altered abbreviation ‘pp.’ to ‘pages’); altered one word in preface (12 Jul. 2021); altered one scriptural abbreviation (23 Nov. 2021); updated web-page link for Addendum B (19 Nov. 2024).

Robert E. Picirilli on Faith as a Gift of God

        [Jacobus] Arminius freely represented faith as the gift of God and magnified the “acts of Divine grace” that “are required to produce faith in man.” He lists the divine decrees thus: “(1) It is my will to save believers. (2) On this man I will bestow faith and preserve him in it. (3) I will save this man.” (Subsequently, he clarifies “bestow faith” as “administer the means for faith.”) In spite of all I have said above,[1] then, I do not finally object to saying that faith is the gift of God.
        But if that terminology is to be used, one must clarify exactly what it means, as follows:

1. The capacity to believe is from God.
2. The possibility of believing is from God.
3. The content of belief—the gospel truth—is from God.
4. The persuasion of truth which one believes is from God.
5. The enabling of the individual to believe is from God.

        But the believing itself can finally be done by no one other than the person called upon to believe the gospel, and that will to believe savingly is the free decision of the individual. If calling faith “the gift of God” is meant to depreciate that, then I must deny the terminology. Since it is not Biblical terminology in the first place, perhaps it is best to discard it.
        Had it been important to indicate that salvation is to faith, that faith itself is part of the effects of salvation rather than a condition for salvation, one can think of numbers of ways the New Testament writers, and Jesus Himself, might have expressed that. Instead, […] the New Testament everywhere presents faith as the condition for salvation that man must meet.

Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2002), p. 167, emphases in original 

Copyright © Robert E. Picirilli, 2002. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Picirilli’s Grace, Faith, Free Will (2002),* see the links to the following websites:

• Randall House Publications
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Note

        1. For the author’s full(er) discussion on the concept of faith as a gift of God, see Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, pp. 165–7. Also, see Picirilli’s discussion on the relationship between ‘pre-regenerating grace’ (i.e. prevenient, divine enabling grace), human depravity, and salvational faith in the context of classical Arminian theology in Grace, Faith, Free Will, pp. 149–59.  —J. D. Gallé

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Robert Shank on Election according to Grace

        Certainly all agree that Romans 11:5f. posits that the election is not of works, but of grace. But this does not establish that election is unconditional. Rather, it only establishes that election is not conditioned on works. That election is conditioned on faith is clearly affirmed in the Scriptures. Consider the following propositions:

Romans 11:6 says in effect, Not of works, but of grace.
Romans 4:1-5 says, Not of works, but of faith.
The Bible nowhere says, Not of faith, but of grace.
Romans 4:16 says, By faith, so that by grace.
Ephesians 2:8 says, By grace, through faith.

Consider Romans 4:16: “Therefore [justification] is of faith, that it might be by grace.” So decisive is this verse that we may well observe it in another translation: “[That is why it] depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace” (RSV). The contention that faith as a condition nullifies grace, often urged by Calvinists, collapses at this point. Paul affirms precisely the opposite: faith, as a condition, establishes grace and its sine qua non[1] as a modus operandi.[2] “By grace … through faith.”
        It may be argued that God, acting in grace, need not have posited any condition whatever for election. At least this may be argued dialectically (though not ethically, in view of (1) the witness of the Scriptures to the moral nature of God, His economy, and His kingdom[,] and (2) the fact that faith has been posited as a condition). But the issue is not what God could do, but rather what God has done and does do, as disclosed in the Scriptures. We have earlier observed that the Bible contains many categorical affirmations positing faith as a positive factor in man of which God takes account in salvation. The many emphatic affirmations are confirmed by Romans 4:16 and also by Romans 11:7,14,17-24, which passage establishes that the election of individual men is not unconditional and is predicated on faith, as we have observed.

Robert Shank, Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1970), pp. 125–6, emphases and square brackets in original

Copyright © Robert Lee Shank, 1970, 1989. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Shank’s Elect in the Son (1989),* see the links to the following websites:

• Bethany House (Baker Publishing Group)
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. A sine qua non (Latin) is an essential condition or requirement.

        2. A modus operandi (Latin) is a particular way or method of doing something.  —J. D. Gallé

Addendum.  Robert Lee Shank (1918–2006)  died on Monday, 16 October 2006, aged eighty-eight.

• Legacy (obituary)
  

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

William G. MacDonald on Calvinism’s Obfuscation of the Gospel

        Attempts to make individualistic election the absolute of a theological system finally succeed in doing so by backing away from the contingencies of grace for the certainties of decrees that people are helpless against. God’s love for the whole world is then called into question, and it becomes easy to conceive of him as a potentate like the Muslim God, who loves most to impose his will, and whose identity and image are conceptualized totally apart from Christ.
        Moreover, it is a distortion of the doctrine of election to claim that God's will pertaining to salvation still remains a mystery after he has “made known to us the mystery of his will” (Eph. 1:9), and after “God has revealed it [his secret wisdom, hidden since time began][1] to us by his Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:7–10). It is theological tyranny of the worst kind (because it distorts God’s image and Word) to assert that lying behind the open gospel of the grace of God there exists more important but inaccessible, supersecret [sic] knowledge never revealed to anyone during this age. This “mystery” is alleged to be the composite of billions of eternal decrees by which God determined exclusively within himself and absolutely what he willed to become of every human being one at a time before he created them, assigning a destiny of damnation to the overwhelming majority, and grace to certain others, all the while keeping two things secret: (1) what is in his nature that kept all his decrees from going in the same direction and (2) who the lucky ones actually are.
        The God revealed in Christ can afford to lavish the riches of his grace on his church “with all wisdom and understanding” (Eph. 1:8). He knows how important it is for us as children to know that the adoption is valid and we are chosen to be holy sons and daughters with the certainty that adheres in Christ’s [sic] being the chosen one. And in response to our faith in Christ we are marked with the seal of his ownership, the Holy Spirit, promised in the Old Testament when the mystery was still on, and given now as the initial confirmation of election. It comes after faith (Eph. 1:11–14).
        A certain man who believed that election remains a mystery today and that God’s will in election is inscrutable, once announced to me strange words, that no one, except a person of his theological background, would ever think of saying: “I will love God always,” he said, “even if it should turn out in the end that his eternal decree was to send me forever to hell.” There was no place for Christ in this statement, and not even Christ’s cross had any bearing on the haunting question of his destiny. Whether out of fear or self-deception, he “loved” one who might be fooling him as to his real intentions for him. It seemed that he considered the quality of the love he professed for God superior to any his kind of God might have for him. Others have not been so charitable toward such an unpredictable will-over-love God as that.
        But our only concern should be this: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom. 8:35). It is ultimately a faithless question, arising out of false presuppositions about God, to ask, “Am I elect?” Faith focuses on Christ, and asks oneself only if one is trusting Christ fully and is therefore obedient to him (2 Cor. 13:5). Our election, like “every spiritual blessing,” is secure “in Christ.” We should not try to look beyond him.

William G. MacDonald, ‘The Biblical Doctrine of Election’, in Clark H. Pinnock (ed.), The Grace of God and the Will of Man (1989; repr., Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1995),[2] pp. 224–6, emphases in original

Copyright © Clark H. Pinnock, 1989. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase the multi-contributor, multi-essay volume, The Grace of God and the Will of Man (1989),* see the links to the following websites:

• Bethany House (Baker Publishing Group)
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. The parenthetical elaboration contained in square brackets is in the original.

        2. Prior to its republication by Bethany House Publishers in 1995, this volume was originally entitled The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1989).  —J. D. Gallé

Addendum (21 Sept. 2022).  William G. MacDonald (1917–2007) died on Tuesday, 25 December 2007, aged ninety.

• Wikipedia

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Latest revisions: 19 November 2015 (note revised); 14 April 2016 (minor corrections made to citation); added one note, namely n. 1; converted what was formerly n. 1 to n. 2 (10 May 2022).

Clark H. Pinnock on Perseverance, Conditional Security, and Apostasy

        I cannot pretend that the open view of God is very appealing at this point [namely its doctrine of perseverance]. It may make sense of the biblical exhortations and it may follow from a personal model of salvation[,] but it does not appeal to our self-interest. From a biblical and theological point of view, eternal security is the first petal of Calvinism’s TULIP that should fall; from the point of view of self-interest it is surely the last. Cheap grace has appeal. There is in the flesh a desire for security apart from reciprocity born of a lack of trust in God. On the other hand, our experience of the struggles of the life of faith mesh with the open view of perseverance.[1] It is not the experience of a done deal. We who have the Spirit groan inwardly as we wait for the redemption of God (Rom. 8:23). […] (p. 170)

        For some, it is inconceivable that a believer may fail to be saved in the end. How could God’s purpose for a person be thwarted in this a way? They reason that if the Spirit awakened them to faith, why would they be allowed to perish? The answer is that God respects his covenant partners and does not override their freedom. Believers can be confident about persevering – perseverance in being faithful to the divine Lover who upholds us by his unwavering faithfulness [sic] – but must not ignore obstacles to their persevering. Apostasy is not a hypothetical danger: the risk is a real one, even though God does not want it and works against it. Our desire for security can be a carnal thing, the wanting of an ironclad guarantee apart from the proper source of security, Jesus Christ. (p. 171)

Clark H. Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness, Didsbury Lectures, 2000 (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001)

Copyright © Clark H. Pinnock, 2001. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover (2001; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2019),* see the links to the following websites:

• Wipf & Stock (Wipf and Stock Publishers)
  
• Christianbook
  
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Note

        1. What Pinnock (1937–2010) refers to as ‘the open view of perseverance’ is virtually synonymous with any Arminian or non-Calvinistic doctrine of conditional security. The only significant difference lies in openness theology’s understanding of God’s foreknowledge (or lack thereof).

        Open theists typically maintain that human libertarian choices, by their very nature, are unknowable – even to God. Proponents of the open view agree with Arminians in that they believe God has granted humans a limited amount of freedom that is libertarian or contra-causal in nature (at least for the present age). Yet, contrary to any traditional or classical understanding of Arminianism, a distinctive mark of openness theology lies in its rejection of the notion that God possesses exhaustive knowledge of the future.† From a practical standpoint this means that, according to the open view, God presently does not (and cannot) know with certainty who will comprise the full company of the saved and condemned before the day of judgement.
        It is often maintained by open theists that, in order for God to possess an absolute, infallible, or certain knowledge of all future events, he would have to have foreordained all things exhaustively. Oddly, in maintaining this sentiment, openness advocates find themselves in agreement with theological determinists such as Calvinists, who altogether deny human libertarian freedom and uphold exhaustive divine determinism instead.

        †  For example, one leading theologian of the open view of God, namely Gregory A. Boyd, has argued that the future itself is non-existent and, apart from any future actions God has unilaterally determined to bring about, not knowable in any definite sense. See idem, ‘The Open-theism View’, in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (eds), Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), pp. 13–47. 

J. D. Gallé

2015–2022

Note copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.

Addendum (21 Sept. 2022).  Clark H. Pinnock (1937–2010) died on Sunday, 15 August 2010, aged seventy-three.

• Christian Post
  
• Christianity Today

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.


Latest revisions: 19 November 2015 (note revised in a few places); 30 April 2016 (minor emendations made to title and note); 4 October 2016 (minor note emendations); 10 January 2017 (added hyphenation to one term); 19 February 2018 (minor emendations); 26 February 2018 (removed broken link); revised and updated website links (22 Jun. 2021); added one word and initial to par. 4 [as from 29 Jun. 2022; formerly par. 3] of note (20 Nov. 2021); slightly modified par. 4 [as from 29 Jun. 2022; formerly par. 3] of note (11 Feb. 2022); added a comma in par. 2 (formerly a part of par. 1); added a paragraph break (29 Jun. 2022).