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

Losing Everything

J. D. Gallé | Tuesday, 1 December 2015

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

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

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

Note

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

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


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

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

J. D. Gallé | Tuesday, 3 November 2015

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

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

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

Conclusion 

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

Notes

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

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


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

Arminianism, Universal Atonement, and Universal Salvation

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 23 August 2015

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

The universality of atonement and the conditionality of salvation 

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

The potentiality of universal salvation 

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

The condition of those outside Christ 

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

Conclusion 

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

Notes

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

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

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

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


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

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

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 13 August 2015

Preface

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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


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

Theological Knowledge and Pride

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 31 July 2015

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

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

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

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 26 June 2015

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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