Exhortation to Salvation

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 2 August 2020

        Keep seeking the Lord Jesus Christ with all diligence until you find him. Keep beseeching the Father to draw you to his Son, without which you will be unable to come to him (Jn 6.44). He is worth everything (Lk. 9.25–33). His blood alone will cleanse you of all your sins (1 Jn 1.7, 9).  Eternal life, age-lasting life, the life of the age, is knowing God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, whom he sent (Jn 17.3). 

        Repent; turn from your sins to God. Live no longer for yourself but for Christ, the one having died and been raised for your sake (2 Cor. 5.14–15). Believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. Be immersed (i.e. baptised) in Jesus Christ and confess your allegiance to him as Lord, calling upon him for salvation (Acts 2.38; 22.16; Rom. 6.3–4; 10.9–13). You will be forgiven of all your lawless works (Rom. 4.7–8), declared righteous (Rom. 5.1), reconciled to God through the death of his Son (Rom. 5.10–11), and granted a new heart (Ezek. 36.26). You will be regenerated by the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit, adopted as a son or daughter into the family of the living God (Jn 1.12–13; 3.3, 5; 1 Cor. 12.13; 1 Pet. 1.3). You will be transferred from the dominion of Satan and darkness into the marvellous light of God and the kingdom of his Son (Acts 26.18; Col. 1.13; 1 Pet. 2.9). Wrath and destruction in the age to come will not be your lot, but incorruptible life in the new heavens and new earth in unhindered fellowship with God, the Lamb, and his holy ones when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead (Rev. 20–22).

        Never be ashamed of the Lord Jesus Christ or his gospel. Confess him before people. Be seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness principally (Matt. 6.33). Deny not the Lord Jesus. Rather, disown yourself, take up your cross, and follow him for the rest of your days (Matt. 16.24), bearing his reproach (Heb. 13.13). As the world loves the darkness and hates the Light, Jesus Christ (Jn 3.19–20; 7.7), so the world, including false religious professors, will hate you if you are one of his (Jn 15.18–19; 1 Jn 3.13).

        Keep seeking the Lord Jesus Christ with all diligence until you find him.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2020. All rights reserved.

Latest revision(s): modified scriptural abbreviations (2 Nov. 2021).

Assurance of Salvation and Justification: a Remonstrant’s Reflections

 J. D. Gallé | Monday, 2 September 2019

Who will bring an accusation against the elect of God? God is the One justifying. (Romans 8.33, BLB[1])

        The justification of persons before God – that is, the divine juridical act of declaring-righteous those who are trusting in the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead – is never subject to any doubt or debate in the mind of God. Justification is strictly God’s domain.
        Regardless of human frailty or presumption, God has determined the criteria[2] by which persons are, and will be, justified. Some individuals may doubt whether they are united to Christ. Such persons are yet uncertain that they are in the condemnation-free condition to be found solely in Christ.[3] Others, with seemingly little anxiety, may believe that they are presently in a state of justification before God, and expect the reiteration of their divine acquittal on Judgement Day.

Conclusion

        Though a thousand accusations may arise from within and without, from natural and supernatural enemies alike, for those in Christ, for those loving God,[4] the charges shall not stand. The objective truth of who is and is not (or will or will not be) justified remains unaltered. Our personal misgivings concerning our status before God, present or future, as justified or condemned, do not detract from the reality that it is God’s declaration that stands and will stand.

Notes

        1. Berean Literal Bible (2016). (This translation may be accessed by utilising the following link: <https://literalbible.com>.)
        2. Some might prefer ‘criterion’ (singular).
        3. See Romans 8.1.
        4. See Romans 8.28.

Addendum (28 Feb. 2023).  Expanding upon the (hitherto) unaddressed point of whether there is a single criterion of justification, opinion is not unanimous amongst interpreters that initial and final (eschatological) justification are based solely on faith (pistis), although this is the conventional Protestant understanding of Pauline justification.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2023. All rights reserved.

The Table of Contents for ‘Salvation: Contours of Adventist Soteriology’ (2018)

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 27 June 2019

        What follows is the table of contents for the twenty-chapter, four hundred–plus-page, multi-essay, multi-contributor volume, edited by Martin F. Hanna, Darius W. Jankiewicz, and John W. Reeve, Salvation: Contours of Adventist Soteriology (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2018).[1] The names of the various essayists and comprehensive chapter (and index) pagination are included.

Introduction (pp. ix–xiii) 

Section 1 | God’s Plan in Christ: Is Salvation for Everyone? (p. 1) 

1. History of the Relationship among Human Free Will, God’s Character of Love, and the Great Controversy | Nicholas P. Miller (pp. 3–18)
2. Love at War: The Cosmic Controversy | Norman R. Gulley (pp. 19–32)
3. Foreknowledge and the Freedom of Salvation | Martin F. Hanna (pp. 33–59)
4. Divine Election and Predestination: A Biblical Perspective | Hans K. LaRondelle and John K. McVay (pp. 61–88) 

Section 2 | The Sin Problem: Are Humans Born in Need of a Savior? (pp. 89–90) 

5. Sin and Human Nature: Historical Background | Darius W. Jankiewicz (pp. 91–117)
6. Origin of Sin and Salvation according to Genesis 3: A Theology of Sin | Jiří Moskala (pp. 119–143)
7. The Nature of Sin: Understanding Its Character and Complexity | Roy Adams (pp. 145–157)
8. The Sinful Nature and Spiritual Inability | George R. Knight (pp. 159–171) 

Section 3 | Jesus Saves: A Perfect Solution? (pp. 173–174) 

9. Historical and Theological Background of the Doctrine of Atonement | Denis Fortin (pp. 175–188)
10. Atonement: Accomplished at the Cross | Jon Paulien (pp. 189–220)
11. The Meaning of the Intercessory Ministry of Jesus Christ on Humanity’s Behalf in the Heavenly Sanctuary | Jiří Moskala (pp. 221–240)
12. At-one-ment Forever in God’s New Heaven and New Earth | Roy E. Gane (pp. 241–258) 

Section 4 | Amazing Grace: Can Believers Earn Their Salvation? (pp. 259–260) 

13. Grace: A Brief History | John W. Reeve (pp. 261–299)
14. The Grace That Comes before Saving Grace | George R. Knight (pp. 287–299)
15. The Grace That Justifies and Sanctifies | Ivan T. Blazen (pp. 301–313)
16. The Grace of Christian Perfection | Hans K. LaRondelle and Woodrow W. Whidden (pp. 315–323) 

Section 5 | Blessed Assurance: Can Believers Be Sure about Their Salvation? (p. 325) 

17. From the Apostles to Adventism: A Brief History of Assurance | Jerry Moon and Abner Hernandez-Fernandez (pp. 327–359)
18. Wind and the “Holy Wind”: Divine Assurance of Salvation | Jo Ann Davidson (pp. 361–374)
19. Assurance of Salvation: The Dynamics of Christian Experience | Woodrow W. Whidden (pp. 375–394)
20. Assurance in the Judgment | Richard M. Davidson (pp. 395–416) 

Epilogue (pp. 417–418)

Contributors (pp. 419–420)

Scripture Index (pp. 421–442) 

Subject Index (pp. 443–464)

 

Note

        1. At the time of this writing (27 Jun. 2019), neither the publisher of this volume (Andrews University Press) nor any large online book retailer, to the best of my knowledge, yet has a comprehensive table of contents listed for Salvation: Contours of Adventist Soteriology (2018), a year past its original publication date.

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019. All rights reserved.


In order to purchase a copy of AUP’s Salvation: Contours of Adventist Soteriology (2018),* see the following links:

• Andrews University Press (AUP)
• 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’.

Adam Clarke on the Universality of the Atonement

        He died for every human soul, for all who are partakers of the same nature which he has assumed; the merit and benefits of his death must necessarily extend to all mankind, because he has assumed that nature which is common to all. Nor could the merit of his death be limited to any particular part, nation, tribe, or individuals of the vast human family. It is not the nature of a particular nation, tribe, family, or individual, which he has assumed, but the nature of the whole human race; and “God has made of one blood all the nations, for to dwell on all the face of the earth,”[1] that all those might be redeemed with “one blood;” for he is the kinsman of the whole. The merit of his death must, therefore, extend to every man, unless we can find individuals or families that have not sprung from that stock of which he became incarnated. His death must be infinitely meritorious, and extend in its benefits to all who are partakers of the same nature, because he was God manifested in the flesh; and to contract or limit that merit, that it should apply only to a few, or even to any multitudes short of the whole human race, is one of those things which is impossible to God himself, because it involves a moral contradiction. He could no more limit the merit of that death, than he could limit his own eternity, or contract that love which induced him to undertake the redemption of a lost world.
        If the many, that is, all mankind, have died through the offence of one; certainly, the gift by grace, which abounds unto the many, by Christ Jesus, must have reference to every human being.[2] If the consequences of Christ’s incarnation and death extend only to a few, or a select number of mankind, which, though they may be considered many in themselves, are few in comparison of the whole human race, then the consequences of Adam’s sin have extended only to a few, or to the same select number: and if only many and not all have fallen, only that many had need of a Redeemer. For it is most evident that the same persons are referred to in both clauses of the verse. If the apostle had believed that the benefits of the death of Christ had extended only to a select number of mankind, he never could have used the language he has done here; though, in the first clause, he might have said, without any qualification of the term, “Through the offence of one, many are dead;” in the second clause, to be consistent with the doctrine of particular redemption,[3] he must have said, “The grace of God, and the gift by grace, hath abounded unto some. As, by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon some to justification. As, by one man’s disobedience, many were made sinners; so, by the obedience of one, shall some be made righteous.[4] As in Adam all die; so in Christ shall some be made alive.”[5] But neither the doctrine nor the thing ever entered the soul of this divinely inspired man.[6]

Adam Clarke, Christian Theology (repr., Salem, OH: Convention Book Store, 1967), pp. 117–8, emphases in original

Notes

        1. Acts 17.26.
        2. See Romans 5.17–19.
        3. The doctrine of particular redemption is sometimes referred to as limited atonement, particular atonement, or definite atonement. The essence of the teaching is that Christ died with the intention of securing spiritual and eschatological salvation for a portion of humankind, not the whole. According to this view, those for whom Christ died salvationally will inevitably become partakers of salvation; those for whom he did not, will not.
        4. Contra Romans 5.17–19, Berean Literal Bible (BLB): ‘For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one, how much more will those receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ! So then, just as through one trespass, it is unto condemnation to all men, so also through one act of righteousness it is unto justification of life to all men. For as indeed through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous.’
        5. Contra 1 Corinthians 15.22 (BLB): ‘For as indeed in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.’
        6. Namely Paul the apostle.  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019. All rights reserved.

David L. Allen on the Significance of the Scope of the Atonement and Properly Differentiating the Aspects of Christ’s Redemptive Work: the Intent, Extent, and Application Thereof

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 5 May 2019

        ‘Traditional’ Southern Baptist David L. Allen has written extensively on the atonement.[1] Allen demonstrates the importance of carefully distinguishing between the intent, extent, and application of Christ’s sacrificial, substitutionary death on the cross.

        Allen takes the position of a universal/unlimited scope of the atonement with particular/limited application: the number for whom Christ procured salvation via his death and the actual salvation of persons are not necessarily co-extensive (a proposition which is anathema to high Calvinists). Universalism, the doctrine that all persons without exception will eventually be saved (via ante- or post-mortem acceptance and meeting the conditions of the gospel proclamation), is thereby denied.
        In contrast with strict/high Calvinists, Arminians, non-Calvinists, and moderate (i.e. Amyraldian, four-point) Calvinists alike affirm that the extent of the atonement encompasses the whole of humankind (universal/unlimited atonement). Without equivocation, then, according to this view, it may be said that Jesus Christ has died for all.

        Differences amongst Arminians and Amyraldians emerge, however, when the intent of the atonement is taken under consideration.

        As regards the application of the atonement, for those who have heard the proclamation of the good news, strict Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that the benefits of Christ’s atonement are applied exclusively to those who respond in faith. High Calvinists are unique in their insistence that Christ did not die in a salvational sense for the non-elect (or ‘reprobate’); rather, they believe that the scope of the atonement is restricted to a portion of humankind, not humankind as a whole (particular/limited atonement).
         As regards the significance of the extent of the atonement, I personally am of the opinion that the query ‘For whom did Christ die?’ is worthy of serious consideration and should not be relegated to the heap of impractical, conjectural footnotes of theology (of which there surely are more than a few).[2]

Notes

        1. See David L. Allen, ‘The Atonement: Limited or Universal?’, in idem and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-point Calvinism (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), pp. 61–108; David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016); idem, ‘Commentary on Article 3: The Atonement of Christ’, in David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Hardwood (eds), Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of  “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), pp. 55–65; David L. Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019); and, most recently, idem, ‘A Critique of Limited Atonement’, in David. L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), pp. 71–127.*

        2. See the final chapter, ‘Why Belief in Unlimited Atonement Matters’, in Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, pp. 765–91, for reasons explaining why this is so.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2026. All rights reserved.

Addendum (6 Jan. 2023).  For blog articles written by the forenamed author wherein issues relating to Calvinistic soteriology are addressed, see the link to the following web page:

• https://drdavidlallen.com/category/calvinism/
  

* 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: converted a portion of par. 1 to n. 1; converted a portion of par. 3 to n. 2; altered the phrase ‘the number for whom Christ died’ to ‘the number for whom Christ procured salvation via his death’ in par. 1 (8 Sept. 2019); made technical alterations in nn. 1 and 2; added ‘inclusive of’ to par. 2 (28 Jul. 2021); slightly modified n. 2 (1 Aug. 2021); added italics in a few places, added to and expanded/revised text in a few places (4 Oct. 2021); added a hyphen to one term in par. 1 (29 Oct. 2021); assorted emendations made (2 Feb. 2022); added a paragraph break (11 Aug. 2022); added two citations to n. 1 (6 Jan. 2023); slightly modified title of article (11 Jan. 2026).

The Principal Point of Contention between Arminian and Calvinistic Soteriologies

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 5 April 2019

        The key difference between Arminian/non-Calvinistic and Calvinistic soteriologies is whether salvation is conditional in nature. Concerning God’s interactions or dealings with humankind, in high Calvinistic theology there is only the appearance of conditionality.
        It is true that Calvinists agree with Arminians that all people without exception are to be urged to repent and believe in the good news of Jesus Christ for salvation. However, in strict Calvinistic theology, the very ‘conditions’ for attaining deliverance from the future wrath, namely repentance and faith, are (1) unconditionally and exclusively bestowed on those individuals whom God has pre-chosen for salvation, and (2) withheld from the rest of humankind. It is impossible, therefore, that the former group will fail to be saved (i.e. the elect), and impossible that the latter group will fail to be lost (i.e. the reprobate, non-elect).
        Such thought is at utter variance with Arminian theology, which maintains that God has not determined which specific individuals will positively respond to the grace of God proffered through the glad tidings of salvation in Jesus Christ. Consequently, any particular human being’s failure to obey the gospel cannot find its origin in an eternal, unconditional divine decree of reprobation.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2022. All rights reserved.

Latest revision(s): modified punctuation in one place (2 Feb. 2022).

Salvational Security: a Remonstrant’s Ruminations on John 10.27–30

J. D. Gallé | Wednesday, 13 March 2019

v. 27    “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

 
v. 28    “And I give them eternal life, and never shall they perish to the age, and never will anyone seize them out of My hand.

v. 29    “My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all, and no one is able to seize them out of the Father’s hand.

v. 30    “I and the Father are one.” 

(John 10.27–30, Berean Literal Bible[1])

        Believers, here identified in John’s Gospel as Christ’s sheep, are those persons hearing and following the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, God’s only-begotten Son. The sheep of Christ are promised eschatological salvation and spiritual pasture (vv. 9, 10b). He is the virtuous shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (vv. 11, 15, 17–18).

        Conversely, the spiritually blind leaders of the day, namely the Pharisees,[2] are likened by Jesus to thieves and robbers who kill and destroy (vv. 1, 8, 10a); strangers whom the sheep will not listen to or follow (vv. 5, 8b); and cowardly hirelings who flee at the sight of a wolf, leaving the sheep entrusted to their care to fend for themselves (vv. 12–13).
        The Father and the Son, unified in the divine essence, are unified also in their purpose to guard believers. Those who are hearing and following Jesus Christ are safe in their hands. They cannot and will not be captured or stolen away by any external person or force: human or angelic, visible or invisible, natural or supernatural.
        But seeing, however, as spiritual safety is only to be found under the watchful care of the Good Shepherd, if one were to cease hearing and following Christ, s/he would no longer be a sheep belonging to him, and thus forfeit all of the benefits associated with being in a positive relationship with him.
        The possibility of an individual who had once been united to Christ subsequently breaching that union is not left unconsidered in the Gospel of John. Employing horticultural imagery, the Lord himself explicitly states, ‘“If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers. They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned”’ (15.6, CSB[3]).

Conclusion

        The good news is that the hearers and followers of Jesus are his sheep, and they will assuredly never perish whilst in his hand. The danger is that we lose Christ, not Christ lose us. We need not distrust God, but ourselves. Salvational security is not to be discovered in an unknowable, hidden divine decree of unconditional election or the incapacitation of believers’ wills to forsake Christ and reclaim the world.[4] Rather, security of salvation rests ultimately upon God’s promise of redemption in Christ Jesus: ‘“Everyone believing on Him will not be put to shame”’ (Rom. 10.11).

Notes

        1. Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural references in this article are taken from the Berean Literal Bible (2016). (This translation may be accessed by utilising the following link: <https://literalbible.com>.)
        2. See John 9, especially verse 40. John 10 contains a discourse following the religious leaders’ denunciation and casting out of the synagogue a man who had been born visually impaired but miraculously granted sight by the Lord Jesus. This unjust repudiation of the (formerly) blind man from fellowship in the synagogue was a result of the religious leaders’ rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth (see Jn 9.22).
        3. Christian Standard Bible (2017).

        4. Contra Calvinistic theology, which denies the resistibility of divine grace in the conversion of the elect from conception (initial salvation) to completion (final salvation).

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

Latest revisions: minor grammatical correction made in par. 3 (8 May 2021); altered conjunction in n. 2 (19 Oct. 2021); slightly emended n. 2 (26 Dec. 2021); added one comma in par. 1; slightly modified par. 2 and n. 2; added n. 4; altered punctuation in one place in par. 6; modified one phrase in par. 6 (12 Feb. 2022); modified the formatting for opening scriputral citation (18 Sept. 2022).

John C. Lennox on High Calvinism’s Misconstrual of the Extent of the Atonement

        It is a serious matter to deny the plain teaching of Scripture in the interests of maintaining a theological paradigm, or to try to get round it by special pleading that Christ’s death brings some kind of non-specific temporal benefit to all, or that God has different kinds of love for the elect and non-elect. To say to people, as some do, that Christ died for them in some vague unexplained sense, rather than telling them that Christ died for their sins and that they may be saved by trusting him, is not only insulting to the intelligence, it is insulting to the message of the cross.

John C. Lennox, Determined to Believe? The Sovereignty of God, Freedom, Faith, and Human Responsibility (Oxford, UK: Monarch Books, 2017 / Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), pp. 179–80

Copyright © John C. Lennox, 2017. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase a copy of Lennox’s Determined to Believe? (2017),* see the links to the following websites:

• Monarch Books (Lion Hudson)
  
• Zondervan (HarperCollins Christian Publishing)
  
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• 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’.

F. Leroy Forlines on Faith as a Gift of God

        Faith is not some substance that exists outside of us that is to be given to us. It is an experience that must take place within us. That is the only way we can have faith. Faith is a gift in the sense that God gives to us the aid that is necessary, without which we could not exercise faith. It is not a gift in the sense that it is not an exercise of our own personality.

F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2011), p. 258

Copyright © F. Leroy Forlines, 2011. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Forlines’ Classical Arminianism (2011),* 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’.

The Principled, Authentic Christian

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 15 March 2018

        The principled, authentic Christian abstains from worldly, secular music. S/he eschews sporting events, the cinema (i.e. the movie theatre), pubs, and the consumption of alcoholic drinks. S/he is not adorned with jewellery and/or immodest, ostentatious attire. Lastly, s/he avoids chewing gum in congregational settings amongst fellow believers.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2018. All rights reserved.

René A. López on Faith as a Gift of God

        [I]f faith is a gift from God, then people should be asking God for regeneration before they can believe. But such a request is completely foreign to the Scriptures. […] Numerous verses call for people to believe, that is, to exercise personal faith (e.g., John 1:12–13; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; Acts 16:31; see also Eph. 2:8; Rom. 3:21–22, 25–26, 28; and 4:3–6). […]
        Another problem with the faith-is-a-gift view relates to sanctification. According to advocates of this view[,] true believers will never fail to live godly lives. This is because God, having infused them with faith, guarantees their sanctification throughout their lives. However, this diminishes the seriousness of the commands of Scripture for believers to pursue holiness. […]
        If faith is a gift, then many commands in Scripture that exhort, command, prompt, and warn believers to live obediently become superfluous because the ultimate end of infused faith guarantees the sanctification of believers without their involvement. Followed to its logical conclusion[,] the gift-of-faith view lessens the urgency of putting forth effort to obey scriptural exhortations. (p. 275)

        The assumption that people are spiritually unresponsive and thus unable to exercise faith for salvation does not stand up to biblical scrutiny. Since faith is never considered a work in the Scriptures, God need not endow individuals with faith in order to avoid a merit-based salvation. Instead, the Bible presents faith for salvation as a human response much like that of a beggar holding out his hand for food. Passages that supposedly teach the gift-of-faith view do not, on careful examination, support that view. (p. 276)

René A. López, ‘Is Faith a Gift from God or a Human Exercise?’, Bibliotheca Sacra 164 (Jul.–Sept. 2007)[1]

Copyright © Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007. All rights reserved.

Note

        1. For the full article, see René A. López, ‘Is Faith a Gift from God or a Human Exercise?’, Bibliotheca Sacra 164 (Jul.–Sept. 2007): 259–76, <https://www.dts.edu/download/publications/bibliotheca/BibSac-Lopez-IsFaithAGiftfromGodoraHumanExercise.pdf>.  (Regrettably, as from no later than Saturday, 18 September 2021, the aforementioned link is broken, thus no longer providing access to López’s article.)  —J. D. Gallé

The Remonstrants on the Nature of Faith: Simon Episcopius Expounds upon Salvational Faith

        [K]nowledge alone of the divine will does not suffice for true and saving faith, or understanding of all the concepts [which] are contained in the gospel. For this is possible without assent and trust. Indeed, it really is in the demons, and in many of the ungodly and unbelieving. Nor indeed is it any assent whatever, namely sudden, perfunctory, implicit, brutish or blind, ungrounded in reason and yielded without judgment. For this by itself, taken alone, is not saving, nor can it ever sufficiently move the will to any rational and free obedience. And therefore [assent] is not rarely found in those who live little like Christians, but it must be entirely firm and solid, strengthened by the command of a deliberate will.[1]

        Finally, assent which is faithful and obedient is called faith, not just an absolute confidence of special mercy, almost as if already secured, namely, by which I believe that my sins are already forgiven me (for this is not the essential form which constitutes justifying faith, but only a certain additional consequent[;] indeed it necessarily presupposes saving faith itself, as its prerequisite condition), but by which I firmly establish that it is impossible that I should escape eternal death and to the contrary obtain eternal life by any other means than Jesus Christ, and in any other way than by that prescribed by him. And hence this has always had joined to it our debt of new obedience to Jesus Christ, that is, not some sterile purpose of obeying or feelings without effect, but which continually brings forth of itself true and actual obedience itself.

Simon Episcopius,[2] ‘On faith in Jesus Christ’, in Mark A. Ellis (trans. and ed.), The Arminian Confession of 1621, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2005), pp. 78–9

Copyright © Mark A. Ellis, 2005. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Ellis’ The Arminian Confession of 1621 (2005),* see the links to the following websites:

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

Notes

        1.  In order to enhance readability, I have added a paragraph break (not found in the original). 

        2.  Simon Episcopius (1583–1643), protégé of Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), is attributed as the author of the Arminian/Remonstrant Confession of 1621 (i.e. the ‘Confession or Declaration of the Pastors which in the Belgian Federation are called the Remonstrants, on the principle articles of the Christian Religion’). See Ellis, ‘Introduction’, in Tbe Arminian Confession of 1621, p. ix, par. 2. Ellis’ translation of the confession is from Latin to English. (As an aside, the Dutch names of Episcopius and Arminius are Simon Bisschop and Jakob Hermanszoon [respectively].)  —J. D. Gallé

Revisions:  Emended the title of post on Saturday, 30 October 2021; added a note on Saturday, 28 September 2024.

* 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 E. Picirilli on the Nature of Discipleship

        To be a disciple means to repent and believe the gospel and so to enter the Kingdom of God. It means to declare sincerely that one is a follower of Jesus, learning from Him. It means one must renounce all other competing allegiances and values and submit to His Lordship as the one who will teach the will of God. It means applying that teaching to one’s own life and so bringing forth “fruit worthy of repentance.” It means giving the word of God a favorable hearing and keeping it. In short, this means leaving, following, and learning.
        And this is what it means to be a Christian.

Robert E. Picirilli, Discipleship: The Expression of Saving Faith (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2013), p. 38, emphases in original

Copyright © Robert E. Picirilli, 2013. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Picirilli’s Discipleship: The Expression of Saving Faith (2013),* see the links to the following websites:

• Randall House Publications
• Barnes & Noble
• 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’.

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).

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).

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).

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).