-->

31 May 2015

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:



* 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).

28 May 2015

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:


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.



* 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’.

20 May 2015

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.



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).

16 May 2015

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:


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.



* 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’.

11 May 2015

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:


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



* 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*:


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).

01 May 2015

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:


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’.