Does ‘Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth’ Denote Ongoing Suffering in the Synoptic Gospels?

J. D. Gallé | Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Preface

        The following article, ‘Does “Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth” Denote Ongoing Suffering in the Synoptic Gospels?’ (4 Oct. 2016), is a revised/reworked, expanded, and retitled version of my earlier piece, ‘Does “Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth” Denote Suffering in Scripture?’ (16 Jan. 2015).


Does ‘Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth’ Denote Ongoing Suffering in the Synoptic Gospels?

        For the best and most detailed exposition of the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts that I am presently aware of, see Kim Papaioannou’s recently published work on the doctrine of final punishment as set forth in the Synoptic Gospels, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus (2013).[1] As it turns out, the phrase does not indicate what Robert Peterson and fellow traditionalist interpreters typically assume that it does: externally inflicted pain experienced by the unrighteous in ‘hell’ throughout eternity. Rather, it is an expression intended to denote the acute, internal emotional response of those finally excluded from the kingdom of heaven/God (Lk. 13.28; cf. Matt. 8.12).

        Throughout Scripture, when a person or group is said to gnash or grind his/her/their teeth at another, it invariably denotes a hostile, wrathful response directed against a perceived party of injury or offence (see Ps. 112.10; Acts 7.54). It does not signify the external imposition of suffering, pain, or torment that will be undergone by the unjust in Gehenna.[2, 3] Weeping likewise arises from a negative psychological state, stemming from sadness or despair. The lost will be be grieved beyond measure (weeping) and enraged at God and Christ for not inheriting the kingdom (gnashing their teeth). Any physical suffering the unrighteous may undergo as a result of divine retribution being meted out on them on the day of judgement is not the point being emphasised in these texts.
        Lastly, it must be noted that not one of the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts (Matt. 8.12; 13.42, 50; 22.13; 24.51; 25.30; Lk. 13.28) provides any warrant or expectation that this response will carry on unendingly.[4] How long the activities of wailing and teeth-gnashing are to continue is not a factor under consideration in these passages. Even so, Peterson insists on reading everlasting torment into these texts largely due to his unwillingness to re-examine the one foundational assumption underlying his entire study on the nature of final punishment: universal human immortality. For this reason Peterson is left with no choice but to define the scriptural language of death and destruction in such a way that the supposition of general immortality is left unscathed.[5] Unfortunately, much of Peterson's argumentation is circular in nature and his exegesis suffers greatly on key texts as a result.[6]

Conclusion

        Firstly, in the Synoptic Gospels the expression ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ specifically pertains to the visceral, emotional response of the unrighteous following their banishment or removal from the heavenly kingdom. These two emotions are grief and anger (or rage). The response of the excluded is one that issues from an internal state: a state of mental distress resulting from their great disappointment in being rejected from the kingdom of heaven/God. The phrase is not used with reference to any external infliction of pain or suffering that the unrepentant may experience as remuneration for their sins on Judgement Day. Bodily torture is not in view.
        Secondly, in respect of duration, the seven ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ passages are silent regarding how long the wicked will endure their condition of psychological misery.[7]
        Thirdly and finally, in the light of the foregoing considerations, none of the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts located in the Synoptics can be used as positive support for the teaching of endless torture. These passages should therefore no longer be employed by adherents of the conventional view of ‘hell’ as proof texts for eternal, conscious punishment.

Notes

        1. 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), pp. 175–233. See also idem, ‘Shedding Light on the Outer Darkness: A Fresh Look at the Language of Hell’, Ministry: International Journal for Pastors vol. 84, no. 9 (Sept. 2012): 19–22, <https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2012/09/shedding-light-on-the-outer-darkness>.

        2. Contra Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995), pp. 51, 164–5, 167–8; idem, ‘The Foundation of the House: Scripture’, in Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), pp. 139, 159.
        3. This common misunderstanding and misapplication of the expression ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ has been observed by Edward William Fudge (‘A Conditionalist Response to Traditionalism’, in idem and Peterson, Two Views of Hell, pp. 197–8):

Peterson asserts that “Scripture repeatedly explains the effect of hellfire on those cast into it; it brings great pain” (p. 139). As proof he refers to Jesus’ mention of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Like all traditionalists, Peterson reads into this language the meaning he needs to prove. He completely ignores the Bible’s own usage of “gnashing of teeth”—a phrase consistently indicating great anger.

        4. As noted in Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell, pp. 190, 240–1. See also David J. Powys, ‘Hell’: A Hard Look at a Hard Question: The Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testament Thought, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1997 / Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), p. 283.
        5. That is, metaphorically, paradoxically, counter-intuitively.
        6. See, for example, Peterson’s treatment of Matthew 3.12; 10.28; 13.40; John 3.16, 36; 2 Peter 2.6; 3.6–7, 9; and Jude 7 in Hell on Trial and Two Views of Hell. (For complete references of the two aforementioned titles, see n. 2 above.)
        7. Nevertheless, we do find evidence in one pericope indicating that the weeping and gnashing of teeth will – rather, must – come to an end: Jesus’ exposition of the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13.36–43). As the tares will be bundled and burned up at the time of harvest, so it will be in the case of the unrighteous at the close of the age (v. 40). Contrary to the conventional view, the imagery of fire and consumption strongly suggest destruction, not preservation in torment.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.

Addendum.  Readers are encouraged to consult the literature cited in this article. See especially note 1 (above).

Latest revisions: 1 November 2016 (altered one word in n. 7); 5 November 2016 (altered ‘Jesus’s’ to ‘Jesus’ ’ in n. 7); 17 January 2017 (converted ‘InterVarsity Press’ to ‘IVP Academic’ for citation in n. 2; hyphenated one term); 3 April 2017 (minor emendations made to some references); 12 July 2017 (added three commas); 25 December 2017 (converted an en dash to a colon in n. 4); 19 January 2018 (all colons dividing chapters and verses of scriptural references have been converted to full stops); 23 February 2018 (some scriptural citations abbreviated [e.g. ‘Matt.’ to ‘Mt ’]; added brackets to n. 3; replaced ‘and’ with ampersand in n. 4); 24 February 2018 (removed a hyphen in one place); 11 May 2019 (replaced ‘e.g.’ with ‘for example’ in n. 6); 23 May 2019 (replaced ‘I.e.’ with ‘That is’ in n. 5; altered preposition in n. 6); added further detail to n. 1 (18 Sept. 2021); altered scriptural abbreviations (31 Oct. 2021); emended n. 6 (25 Feb. 2022); slightly emended citation in n. 3 (13 Aug. 2022); emended n. 1 (7 Sept. 2022); reverted a portion of n. 2 to its earlier, original form (26 Sept. 2022).

The Promise of a Complete Table of Contents for ‘The Promise of Arminian Theology’ (2016)

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 8 September 2016

        What follows is the table of contents for the recently released festschrift, Matthew Steven Bracey and W. Jackson Watts (eds), The Promise of Arminian Theology: Essays in Honor of F. Leroy Forlines (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2016).[1] Included are the names of the various essayists and comprehensive chapter pagination.

Introduction: Celebrating a Hero of the Free Will Baptist Faith | Matthew Steven Bracey (pp. 1–4)

Part 1[2]: Prolegomena 

1. The Theological Method of Forlines | Andrew Ball (pp. 7–25)
2. Worldview and Culture in the Thought of Forlines | Phillip T. Morgan (pp. 27–51) 

Part 2: Understanding the Gospel 

3. Election and the Influence and Response Model of Personality | Kevin L. Hester (pp. 55–80)
4. Forlines’s Theology of Atonement and Justification | Jesse F. Owens (pp. 81–100)
5. Sanctification and Spirituality | Barry Raper (pp. 101–120)
6. Leaving Jesus: Forlines’s View of Conditional Perseverance | David Outlaw (pp. 121–139)
7. Forlinesean Eschatology: A Progressive Covenantal Approach | Matthew McAffee (pp. 140–170) 

Part 3: Ethics, Culture, and the Church 

8. Building a Forlinesean Ethic | W. Jackson Watts (pp. 173–197)
9. Confronting Secularism | Matthew Steven Bracey (pp. 199–222)
10. Communicating the Gospel: The Church’s Mission and Ministry | Christopher Talbot (pp. 223–245)
11. Understanding and Helping People | Edward E. Moody, Jr (pp. 247–266) 

Part 4: Personal Tributes 

F. Leroy and Fay Forlines: A Tribute to Our Parents | James Forlines and Jon Forlines (pp. 269–275)
F. Leroy Forlines as a Colleague and Friend | Robert E. Picirilli (pp. 277–283)
F. Leroy Forlines as Mentor | J. Matthew Pinson (pp. 285–290) 

Conclusion: Forlines and the Future | W. Jackson Watts (pp. 291–293) 

Acknowledgments | Matthew Steven Bracey and W. Jackson Watts (p. 295) 

Contributors (pp. 297–300) 

Subject and Name Index (pp. 301–311)

 

Notes

        1. The occasion for this post arose for the simple reason that, at the time of this writing (7 Sept. 2016), I have been unable to locate either a preview or a table of contents for The Promise of Arminian Theology on the publisher’s website (Randall House) or any other major online book retailer in North America (e.g. Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Christianbook). The information contained in this post will be useful for prospective purchasers of this volume.
        2. I have taken it upon myself to replace Roman numerals with Arabic numerals. (As an aside, this volume [disappointingly] contains endnotes rather than footnotes.)

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2016. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase a copy of Bracey et al. (eds), The Promise of Arminian Theology (2016),* 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’.

Is Salvation about Hell-avoidance? A Response to Gregory A. Boyd

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 16 June 2016

        In an endnote from The Myth of a Christian Religion (2009), Gregory Boyd writes:

Many today embrace the erroneous view that getting “saved” is about avoiding hell.[1] The biblical concept of salvation is not about avoiding the consequences of sin (hell) but about being freed from the sin that leads to those consequences. It’s about being empowered to walk in a Kingdom way that leads to eternal life, not death.[2] This is why the New Testament speaks of salvation as something that has happened, is happening, and will happen.[3, 4]

        What is presented here is a rather obvious case of a false dichotomy. Human salvation consists of both the deliverance from the power and consequence(s) of sin. In other words, it is a case of both-and, not either-or. As Boyd and I are in basic agreement on salvation entailing deliverance from sin’s power, it is upon the latter point that I will dwell: salvation is from the penalty of sin.

Jesus on salvation from Gehenna

        Jesus solemnly warns of the adverse eschatological fate awaiting those who fail to take even extreme measures to overcome the stumbling block of indulging in illicit lust (i.e. covetousness): they will be cast into Gehenna (Matt. 5.29–30). (Elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus defines Gehenna as a place where soul/life and body are destroyed [10.28].) Jesus tells his hearers that it is better for an individual to have a single member of his or her body perish (an eye, a hand) than to lose his or her entire person in Gehenna (the ‘whole body’, 5.29–30). This is one instance where Jesus attempts to motivate those who would be his disciples to obedience by taking the necessary precautions to avoid the negative outcome (i.e. consequence[s]) of sin.[5] Persevering disciples of Jesus will be saved from Gehenna; the unrighteous will not (see 18.8–9; 25.41).

Paul on salvation from the wrath of God

        Other NT evidence corroborates the truth that an integral aspect of salvation is deliverance from sin’s penalty. For example, Paul states that God’s wrath is already present in some way against those who persist in unrighteousness, ungodliness, idolatry, and suppression of the truth of God as sovereign Creator (Rom. 1.18–32). For those who abuse the kindness of God and fail to respond in repentance in the present age, the day of judgement will be a day of wrath (2.4–5). ‘There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek’ (v. 9).[6] For those who ‘do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury’ (v. 8). Conversely, having been declared righteous by the blood of Christ, believers will be saved from the future wrath (5.9). An integral aspect of salvation, then, is the avoidance of the negative divine judgement against sin.[7]

Notes

        1. With regard to the nature of future punishment (i.e. ‘hell’), since 2008 or earlier Boyd has apparently adopted the position of annihilationism. See Gregory A. Boyd, ‘The Case for Annihilationism’ (19 Jan. 2008): <https://reknew.org/2008/01/the-case-for-annihilationism>.

        In an earlier publication, Boyd attempted to advance a kind of hybrid between endless, conscious punishment and final annihilation. See idem, ‘A Clash of Doctrines: Eternal Suffering and Annihilationism’ and ‘A Separate Reality: Hell, das Nichtige and the Victory of God’, in Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), pp. 319–37 and 338–57. In the end, Boyd’s former attempt at amalgamating endless torture and final annihilation resulted in a variation of the conventional view.
        2. It is not entirely clear whether Boyd intends ‘death’ to be taken in a literal or metaphorical sense. If the former, this would comport well with the doctrine of final annihilation.
        3. I believe Boyd is essentially correct that human salvation may be properly distinguished in three tenses: past (initial), present, and future (final, eschatological).
        4. Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Religion: Losing Your Religion for the Beauty of a Revolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), p. 218 n. 1 (par. 1), emphases in original. To visit Boyd’s website, see <https://www.reknew.org>.
        5. In another place, Jesus stresses both positive and negative sides of eschatological judgement in terms of (positively) entering life/the kingdom of God or (negatively) being cast into the Gehenna of fire (Mk 9.43, 45, 47; cf. Matt. 18.8–9).
        6. All scriptural quotations are taken from the English Standard Version.
        7. That negative outcome culminating in death (see Rom. 6.23a).

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.

Latest revisions: 19 June 2016 (one sentence slightly emended); 16 September 2016 (minor emendations made to par. 5; one note added); 18 September 2016 (n. 7 revised); 2 October 2016 (minor emendations); 6 October 2016 (minor revision made to reference in n. 5); 15 January 2017 (omitted a term in par. 3; added ‘in Matthew’s Gospel’ to brackets in par. 4; added capitalisation to one term in par. 5 [i.e. ‘Creator’]; 3 April 2017 (minor emendations made to some references); 21 April 2017 (added ‘s’ to the URL code in n. 4); 26 February 2018 (minor editorial revisions); 26 May 2019 (inserted comma in n. 1); added italics for emphasis in par. 1 (18 Oct. 2021); made assorted, minor modifications to n. 1 (19 Nov. 2021); modified one word in n. 6 (21 Feb. 2022).

Jacobus Arminius on the Alleged Authority of the Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church

        The Roman Pontiff[1] is not the head of the church; and because he boasts himself of being that head, the name of “Anti-christ” on this account most deservedly belongs to him.

 

Jacobus Arminius, ‘Disputation LIII: On the Head and the Marks of the Church’, in The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, London edn, 3 vols. (repr., Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1986), 2.418

Note

        1. In our present time, the Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church is more commonly referred to simply as ‘the Pope’. —J. D. Gallé

Merrill F. Unger on Spiritual Warfare: Withstanding the Assaults of the Enemy

        It is perilous to ignore the adversary.[1] The apostle Paul recognized that. “We are not ignorant of his schemes” (2 Corinthians 2:11; NASB),[2] he declared. It is equally hazardous not to stand against the enemy. The apostle realized that fact, too. “Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore” (Ephesians 6:13-14; NASB).
        No one can stand firm against the powers of darkness who does not know his position and resources in Christ and the deceptive schemes of the foe he faces. Christ’s glorious salvation and our triumph in Him form the splendid scenery that is always brightly silhouetted against the somber background of Satan and demonic activity.
        Those who imagine that they can triumph in Christ and not encounter satanic conflict deceive themselves. If they do not experience warfare, either their “triumph” is phony or their position in Christ is purely imaginary.[3] They are parading in the sphere of darkness, but somehow they are mistaking it for the realm of light.
        To be delivered from the foe you must know and face the foe. You must claim the efficacy of the blood of Christ and the power of His name. You must face the foe in the light of what you are in Christ and what He has done for you. […] (p. 188)[4]

        [R]ecognition of demonic activity with bold confrontation of the powers of darkness is necessary to be set free. Ignorance of Satan’s devices and theoretical armchair interpretations of Scripture that simply do not jibe with authenticated human experience hinder rather than help the ministry of deliverance.
        Today a new and subtle device of Satan is springing up to distract saints from facing the foe. Because of the flood of anti-occult literature from the evangelical camp that perhaps discloses in some quarters an unhealthy preoccupation with Satan and demonic powers, some believers are falling into another satanic trap. They are loathe to [sic][5] hear anything at all about the powers of darkness. At best, they shy away from facing the full implications of the scriptural teachings on the subject.
        This is just as truly the snare of the devil as fanatical occupation with the powers of darkness. If we are going to be delivered, we must face the enemy squarely. We dare not ignore him even if he appears under the masquerade of supposed biblical orthodoxy that sets arbitrary limits to his sway over a sinning saint where such limitations do not really exist.[6] (pp. 189–90)

Merrill F. Unger, What Demons Can Do to Saints (1977; repr., Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1991)

Copyright © The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1991. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Unger’s What Demons Can Do to Saints (1977),* see the links to the following websites:

• Moody Press (Moody Publishers)
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. Namely Satan (Gk: Σατανᾶς, Satanas).
        2. Scriptural quotations labelled ‘NASB’ are taken from the New American Standard Bible (1977 text edition).
        3. That is to say, such persons are deluded or self-deceived; they are not, in actuality, united to Christ by faith.
        4. Believers must ground their identity completely in the person of Jesus Christ, placing their confidence fully in Christ’s redemptive work, specifically his sin-cancelling death on the cross. Satan is not intimidated by human beings – least of all sinful human beings – nor is he disposed to respond to any authority other than the Lord Jesus Christ.

        5. Rather, they are loath to (i.e. reluctant; unwilling) hear of anything concerning the powers of darkness.

        6. It is not uncommon for conservative Christians to radically underestimate the level of damage that Satan can inflict in the lives of believers who do not walk circumspectly before the Lord and persist in wilful sin.  —J. D. Gallé

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

Addendum.  Merrill Frederick Unger (1909–1980).

• Kregel
  

* 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: 17 May 2016 (made correction of typographical error in par. 7); 15 April 2017 (altered punctuation in a few places in the notes); 17 and 27 February 2018 (minor textual modifications; altered title); added a note and shifted fifth note to sixth (16 May 2021); removed a comma in note (6 Oct. 2021); added a link concerning the author (Unger) (18 Nov. 2021); expanded nn. 1 and 5 (19 Aug. 2022).

The Boasting of a Vapour: Temporal Preoccupation and the ‘Sin of Omission’ in James 4.13–17

J. D. Gallé | Wednesday, 4 May 2016

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”—yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. 

(James 4.13–17, ESV*)

        The creator–creature distinction is implicit throughout James 4.13–17. As is common in wisdom literature, James rebukes human pride and presumptuousness. The remedy to this improper attitude is proper humility before God (see vv. 6, 10) and sober recognition of God’s sovereignty (v. 15). The imperative is that humans live in humble acknowledgement of their mortality and the tenuous nature of existence. Verse 14 is crucial: ‘you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.’ By contrast, God is immortal and ultimately sovereign over all human and creaturely affairs. Nothing whatever can occur apart from the decree or permission of God.

        What James is condemning is preoccupation with the temporal or transient (i.e. living primarily for the here and now), not planning or making provision for the future per se (see also Matt. 6.19–34). If I may employ a Johannine expression, ‘the pride of life‘ (1 Jn 2.16) that James speaks of leads humans to exclude consideration of God in their day-to-day affairs. Far from being a morally neutral area, humans living their lives for their own pleasures and pursuits without any thought of God is arrogant and evil (v. 16). Failure to humble oneself and acknowledge God and his sovereignty (not merely in abstraction, but in one’s personal life) is specifically the ‘sin of omission’ that James has in mind in verse 17.

Note

        * English Standard Version (2001–2016).

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

        

Addendum.  The above piece was originally written on Saturday, 2 January 2016. It has only been very slightly revised as you see it now in its present form.


Latest revisions: 16 November 2016 (converted ‘cf.’s to ‘see’s in brackets); 17 February 2018 (converted five colons to full stops); altered one scriptural abbreviation (20 Nov. 2021); added note (16 Aug. 2023).

Terry L. Miethe on Ephesians 2.8 and Faith as a Gift of God

        The classic text, used by Calvinists, to support the assertion that even faith must be given to men by God is Ephesians 2:8, which says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God.” But in the Greek text of this passage there is only one pronoun, not two; and that pronoun does not agree grammatically with the word “faith.” The pronoun is neuter in gender, while the word “faith” is feminine. According to all grammatical rules, the gift cannot be faith! What is referred to in this passage is God’s gracious gift of salvation, which none can merit.

Terry L. Miethe, ‘The Universal Power of the Atonement’, in Clark H. Pinnock (ed.), The Grace of God and the Will of Man (1989; repr., Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1995),[1] p. 77

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

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

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

Note

        1. This volume was originally published by Academie Books, entitled The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1989), and republished by Bethany House Publishers in 1995.  —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’.

Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell on Ephesians 2.8 and Faith as a Gift of God

        [H]ow do individuals enter (and remain) in the redeemed community of God’s people? We enter by faith: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith” (Eph 2:8). All agree that God’s salvation requires a believing human response to God’s gift of grace. But not all agree on the nature of this faith, especially on how faith itself arises. Calvinists are quick to point to other verses where an exact description of faith’s origin appears to be provided: “through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8, emphasis added).
        If faith is not our doing but God’s gift, then the well-known features of Calvinism fall into place. Those who “have faith” have been given faith by God, and those who don’t have faith have not been given faith by God. By this view, faith becomes a function of divine causation operating according to the individual electing will of God.
        But the terms (faith, this, it) that seem so clearly linked in English are not so neatly connected in Greek. The English ear largely depends on word order for making sense of language, and so automatically presumes that this (which “is not from yourselves”) must obviously refer back to faith, since faith immediately precedes this in the word order of the text. But Greek, being an inflected language, actually depends on “tags” that are attached to words for guiding the reader. If our writer had desired readers to connect faith directly to this, these two words should have matched each other as grammatically feminine. We find, however, that this, being neuter in gender, likely points us back several words earlier—to the idea of salvation expressed by the verb. Accordingly, we should read the text with a different line of connections as follows: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this [salvation is] not from yourselves, [this salvation] is the gift of God.”[1]

Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 77, emphases and square brackets in original[2, 3]

Copyright © Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, 2004. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Walls and Dongell’s Why I Am Not a Calvinist (2004),* see the links to the following websites:

• InterVarsity Press
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. For further refutations of the strict Calvinistic understanding of faith as a gift of God, see Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), pp. 199–200 (this section may also be found in idem, Set Free! What the Bible Says about Grace [Joplin, MO: College Press, 2009], pp. 227–9); Samuel Fisk, Election and Predestination: Keys to a Clearer Understanding (1997; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), pp. 32–6; Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, 2nd edn (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2001), pp. 188–99; and Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2002), pp. 165–7.
        2. For the Calvinistic counterpart to this volume, see Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, Why I Am Not an Arminian (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004). See also Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011); and Michael Horton, For Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).
        3. To visit Jerry L. Walls’ website, see <https://www.jerrylwalls.com>.  —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’.

Norman L. Geisler on Philippians 1.29 and Faith as a Gift of God

Philippians 1:29 

        “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him[,] …” This is taken [by strict or high Calvinists] to mean that faith is a gift of God to certain persons, namely, the ones who are elect.[1]

Response
        There are several indications here that Paul had no such thing in mind. First, the point is simply that God has not only provided us with the opportunity to trust Him but also to suffer for Him. The word “granted” (Greek: echaristhe) means “grace” or “favor.” That is, both the opportunity to suffer for Him and to believe on Him are favors with which God has graced us. Further, Paul is not speaking here of initial faith that brings salvation but of the daily faith and daily suffering of someone who is already Christian. Finally, it is noteworthy that both the suffering and the believing are presented as things that we are to do. He says it is granted for “you” to do this. It was not something God did for them.[2] Both were simply an opportunity God gave them to use “on the behalf of Christ” by their free choice.

Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, 2nd edn (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2001), p. 190[3, 4]

Copyright © Norman L. Geisler, 1999, 2001. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase the third edition of Geisler’s Chosen but Free (2010),* see the links to the following websites:

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

Notes

        1. That is, persons God unconditionally elected to salvation prior to the creation of the world. In strict Calvinism, repentance and faith are considered divine ‘gifts’ wbicb are bestowed on pre-chosen individuals (‘the elect’) and withheld from others (‘the reprobate’ or ‘non-elect’).
        Being foreordained to eschatological ruin (endless torment or final annihilation), the non-elect remain in unrepentance and unbelief ‘totally unable’ to respond positively to the gospel call for salvation in Jesus Christ throughout the duration of their temporal lives. The non-elect possess neither the will nor the desire to truly seek the forgiveness of their sins through faith in Christ and pursue holiness. In strict Calvinistic thought, the ultimate cause as to why any human should fail to embrace Jesus as Lord and Saviour lies in God’s sovereign decree to unconditionally damn a portion of humankind for his glory. This is believed to be in accordance with the ‘secret’, inscrutable will of God.
        2. That is, the saints in Philippi (see Phil. 1.1b).
        3. Originally published in 1999, Geisler’s Chosen but Free is presently in its third edition with an altered subtitle. See Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will, 3rd edn (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2010). For a high Calvinistic response to Geisler’s work, see James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler’s Chosen but Free, 2nd rev. edn (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2008).
        4. Rightly or wrongly (and I believe the latter to be the case), throughout his volume, Chosen but Free, Geisler refers to his particular soteriological understanding as ‘moderate Calvinism’.  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2016, 2021, 2023. All rights reserved.

Addendum (24 Sept. 2022).  Norman Leo Geisler (1932–2019) died on Monday, 1 July 2019, aged eighty-six.

• Legacy
  
• Norman Geisler (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’.


Latest revisions: 7 April 2016 (one note added; minor emendations made to note one); 18 September 2016 (minor emendations made to notes); 27 September 2016 (punctuational alteration made to n. 4); 17 February 2018 (assorted minor emendations); emended n. 4 (6 Oct. 2021); minor emendations made to n. 1; added a comma in n. 4 (8 Apr. 2023).

Robert P. Lightner on Limited Atonement and the Arbitrary Hermeneutic Employed by High Calvinists

        The question is, “Is it scripturally and logically sound always to restrict every usage of the words ‘all,’ ‘whosoever’ and ‘world’ when they occur in a salvation context?” This is precisely what the limited redemptionist[1] always does and must do. There may not be a single exception if the limited viewpoint is to stand. The basis for this restriction rests upon the fact that in some instances, which are unrelated to the work of Christ on the cross, the words are thus restricted. But is this a valid reason for always restricting them in salvation passages? We say “no,” and we say it emphatically. Chafer[2] has observed how strange some of these passages sound when translated as the limited redemptionist must interpret them. “ ‘God so loved the elect, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever [of the elect] believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ 2 Corinthians 5:19 would read: ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the elect unto Himself.’ Hebrews 2:9 would read: ‘He tasted death for every man of those who comprise the company of the elect.’ 1 John 2:2 would read: ‘He is the propitiation for our [the elect] sins: and not for our’s [sic][3] only, but also for the sins of those who comprise the world of elect people.’ John 1:29 would read: ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the elect.’ ”[4]
        We might add two more: “For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost [of the elect]” (Luke 19:10) and “Christ died for the ungodly [of the elect]” (Rom. 5:6). In all honesty we must ask, “Why did not these writers say what they meant? If they meant elect people, why not say that since those who will never be saved are also lost and ungodly?”
        Strange words these are! The only way in which these expressions can be so interpreted is by forcing the Scripture into a strict Calvinistic mold. But the Scripture will not thus be browbeaten. Instead of Scripture referring to the elect as the “world,” which would be necessary to the limited viewpoint, it is emphatic in distinguishing the elect from the world. Is not this what Christ meant when He said, “I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:19)?[5, 6]
        Added to the impossibility of thus restricting the word “world” to the world of the elect (the Scripture seems clearly to distinguish the elect from the world), are the absurdities and self-contradictions of such an interpretation.
        Let us follow through with the limited view and interpretation of the word “world” in such a simple and familiar passage as John 3:16. If “world” means the elect only, then it would follow that he “of the elect” that believeth may be saved and he “of the elect” that believeth not is condemned (cf. John 3:18). This absurdity would contradict the most basic point of Calvinism, namely, that God has elected from eternity past certain individuals and that they alone will be saved. Whoever heard of elect people being damned, and yet that is precisely what the limited interpretation leads to in John 3:16-18 when the limited concept is followed through.[7, 8]
        The problem with the limited redemptionist is that, instead of accepting the testimony of Scripture of an atonement which was provisional for all and dependent for the bestowal of its benefits upon personal appropriation by faith, he insists that the mass of universal passages must be forced into agreement with the few limited ones.[9] (pp. 69–70, emphases in original)

        Rather than allowing each individual context to determine the meaning of universal terms such as “all,” “world,” “whosoever,” “every man,” etc., strict Calvinists approach the Bible with a theological conviction which restricts every single occurrence of universal terms in a salvation context. No explanation is given why the same words are understood in a restricted sense in salvation passages and not in others. Why does not “world” mean “world of the elect” when it is used in relation to Satan’s ministry (John 12:31; 14:30)? Or in Christ’s high priestly prayer (John 17), a prayer which some insist teaches limited atonement, how is it that “world” no longer means “world of the elect”? Seemingly, the only explanation to be given for these arbitrary and inconsistent meanings is to be found in the strict Calvinistic insistence that Christ did not die for all men. Being convinced of that, the limited redemptionist proceeds to defend his position by narrowing the meaning of words wherever the normal and literal meaning would contradict his premise. (p. 109)

 

Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement, 1st edn (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1967)[10, 11] 

Copyright © Regular Baptist Press, 1967. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Lightner’s The Death Christ Died (1998),* see the links to the following websites:

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

Notes

        1. Lightner uses the label ‘limited redemptionist(s)’ to refer to persons who subscribe to the doctrine of limited (or ‘definite’) atonement. Limited atonement is a theological view held by strict or high Calvinists which understands Christ’s death to be intended in a salvational sense for a limited portion of humankind (i.e. those persons unconditionally elected to salvation prior to the creation of the world). This concept is contrary to the doctrine of unlimited/universal atonement: the view that Christ died for all persons without exception.
        2. Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), classical dispensationalist.
        3. The text should rather read ‘ours’ (first-person possessive pronoun), not ‘our’s’.
        4. Lightner cites Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1950), 3.203–4.
        5. The full scriptural text reads as follows: ‘“If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you”’ (Jn 15.19, NKJV).
        6. Lightner evidently understands Jesus’ words in John 15.19 as referring to election to salvation. However, a better understanding of this text is that vocational (rather than salvational) election is in view. If that is the case, it matters little whether the election to service of the apostles is conditional or unconditional in nature, as personal salvation is not at issue. See Jack W. Cottrell, ‘Responses to Bruce A. Ware’, in Chad Owen Brand (ed.), Perspectives on Election: Five Views (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2006), pp. 59–60.
        7. These last two sentences read with greater precision with the modifier ‘unconditionally’ affixed alongside the term ‘elected’. For example, ‘This absurdity would contradict the most basic point of Calvinism, namely, that God has unconditionally elected from eternity past certain individuals and that they alone will be saved. Whoever heard of unconditionally elected people being damned? And yet that is precisely what the limited interpretation leads to in John 3:16–18 when the limited concept is followed through.’
        8. In this paragraph Lightner echoes Methodist Richard Watson’s sentiments regarding the concept of limited atonement being imposed on the various universalistic texts in Scripture. See Richard Watson, Theological Institutes: Or, a View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity (New York, NY: Lane & Scott, 1850), 2.289–93. (For a sample of this writing, see ‘Richard Watson on John 3.16–18 and the Impossibility of a Limited Atonement’, <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com/2015/05/richard-watson-on-john-31618-and.html>.
        9. See Matthew 1.21; John 10.15; Acts 20.28; Galatians 3.13; Ephesians 5.25. For those zealous to restrict the scope of the atonement, Galatians 2.20 may be taken as limiting the salvational intent of Christ’s death on the cross to the apostle Paul alone.
        10. The first edition of Lightner’s The Death Christ Died (cited above) has long been out of print. See instead Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Biblical Case for Unlimited Atonement, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1998).
        11. Lest I should be accused of misrepresentation, it should be noted that Lightner is not an Arminian, but a ‘moderate’ (i.e. four-point) Calvinist: he rejects conditional election to salvation and the resistibility of divine grace in conversion. That said, his work is useful for illustrating the exegetical folly of the various high Calvinistic attempts to limit the extent of Christ’s sacrificial death to a portion of humankind.  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2022. All rights reserved.

Addendum (24 Sept. 2022).  Robert Paul Lightner (1931–2018) died on Friday, 3 August 2018, aged eighty-seven.

• The Dallas Morning News (obituary)
  
• Voice | Dallas Theological Seminary
  

* 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: 4 April 2016 (one typographical error corrected in par. 7; emendations made to nn. 1, 6, 7, and 8); 1 May 2016 (one typographical error corrected in par. 7); 18 September 2016 (minor emendations made to n. 11); 1 November 2016 (punctuational alteration made in n. 11); 10 January 2017 (altered one term in n. 8); 29 January 2017 (made a minor punctuational alteration in n. 7); 19 February 2018 (assorted emendations made to notes); 28 February 2018 (minor editorial revisions); 22 May 2019 (revision to n. 11); emended one word in n. 1 (26 Jan. 2022).

Jacobus Arminius on Those Whom Christ Calls to Himself

        Christ says that he came not to call to repentance ‘the righteous’, that is, those who esteemed themselves as such, but ‘sinners’,  that is, those who owned themselves, or who, on his preaching, would own themselves to be of that description (Matt. 9.13). Christ calls to himself those who are fatigued, weary, heavy-laden, and oppressed with the burden of their sins (Matt. 11.28), but drives away from him those who are proud and puffed up with arrogance on account of their own righteousness (Lk. 18.9).[1]

 

Jacobus Arminius, ‘A Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans’, in The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, London edn, 3 vols. (repr., Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1986), 2.592

Note

        1. In order to bring the text to better conformity with modern English orthographical standards, I have taken it upon myself to alter the punctuation in a few places and updated the scriptural references from Roman to Arabic numerals.  —J. D. Gallé