Robert Shank on Election according to Grace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

• Legacy (obituary)
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

• Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

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

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

J. D. Gallé

2015–2022

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

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

• Christian Post
  
• Christianity Today

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


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

Robert Shank on Unconditional Security: Do the Warning Passages of Scripture Serve as a Means of Infallibly Preserving Believers unto Final Salvation?

        [I]s the peril real? Are believers actually in peril of apostatizing? Some do not think so. Many apologists for the doctrine of unconditional security, in an attempt to reconcile the warning passages with their a priori doctrine, explain them as being only God’s means of ensuring that believers shall not fall away from the faith. The essence of the arguments of many is as follows: The mere fact that travelers are warned that there is a ditch alongside the road does not mean that they will fall into it. The warnings must not lead us to suppose that they will or can. God warns believers simply because, as rational beings, they are so constituted as to require motivation. He therefore appeals to their fears to keep them on the path. But the warnings do not prove that believers will fall; on the contrary, they are God's means of ensuring that they shall not fall.
        One will not read long from the advocates of the doctrine of unconditional security before encountering this “explanation” of the presence of so many urgent warnings against apostasy so obviously addressed to believers. The folly of their contention is in seen in the fact that, the moment a man becomes persuaded that their doctrine of unconditional security is correct, the warning passages immediately lose the very purpose and value which they claim for them. [A. H.] Strong quotes Dr. A. C. Kendrick on Hebrews 6:4-6: “The text describes a condition subjectively possible, and therefore needing to be held up in earnest warning to the believer, while objectively and in the absolute purpose of God, it never occurs.” But how can there be any “earnest warning” to the believer who is sufficiently “instructed” to understand that the “warning” is directed against an impossibility? How can something be subjectively possible for the person who knows it to be objectively impossible? The only possible circumstance under which the warning passages could serve the purpose and function which they claim for them would be the total rejection of the doctrine of unconditional security and inevitable perseverance.

 

Robert Shank, Life in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance, 2nd edn (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1989), pp. 164–5, emphases in original

Copyright © Robert Lee Shank, 1960, 1961, 1989. All rights reserved.

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

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

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

• Legacy (obituary)

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

Romans 5.19 and the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ: a Response to Keith Thompson

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 8 January 2015

Preface 

        The following message was originally written on 5 October 2014 and submitted for publication in the comment section on the Reformed Apologetics Ministries (RAM) website on the same date. It is a response to Keith Thompson’s online article, ‘Jesus’ Imputed Righteousness: An Exegetical Case’ (22 Jan. 2014).[1] In this piece I seek to address the following: (1) Romans 5.19 does not support the doctrine of Christ’s active obedience being imputed to believers; and (2) consequently, this verse should not be employed as a proof text in service of this teaching.
        Subsequently I revised and expanded my initial response on 7 October 2014 and attempted to post it on RAM. Ultimately neither of my messages were ‘approved’ by the owner of the site. As of 8 January 2015, no comments have been approved for publication on this particular article on RAM. One can only surmise that Thompson did not approve the following comment for any other reason than it did not accord with his personal view on the matter. Certainly no rebuttal or refutation was offered, nor did I receive a personal e-mail from Thompson briefly addressing the matter. In short, my message was conveniently ignored.
        The following piece has been revised in a few areas by the author as you see it now in its final form.


Romans 5.19 and the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ: a Response to Keith Thompson

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5.19, RSV)[2]

        Romans 5.19 must be viewed in the light of its context and not abstracted from it. In 5.12–19, Paul compares Adam’s one transgression with Jesus’ one act of obedience. In verse 12 Paul writes of the first man’s sin which led to death for the entire human race: ‘sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so [or in this way] death spread to all men’. Paul proceeds to compare and contrast the effects of Adam’s sin and Christ’s obedience in verses 15–19. He summarises his line of thought in verse 18 thus: ‘Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.’
        It should be clear that Adam’s one trespass is not being compared with Christ’s lifelong obedience to the Father in Romans 5.19. Such a view cannot be sustained contextually. Jesus’ death on the cross is surely Paul’s concern in both verses 18 and 19. The ‘one man’s obedience’ in verse 19 correlates to Jesus’ obedience to death in verse 18 (i.e. the ‘one man’s act of righteousness’).[3] The preceding verses (6–11) establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the apostle has the sacrificial death of Christ in view:

• ‘While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly’ (v. 6);
• ‘But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us’ (v. 8);
• ‘Since, therefore, we are now justified[4] by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath’ (v. 9);
• ‘For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life’ (v. 10).

Even after Paul’s comparison of Adam and Christ in Romans 5.12–21, he continues in the next section writing of Christ’s death in the context of believers’ union to him through baptism and their death to sin (6.3–11).
        In summary, we are provided no indication that Paul is concerned with the so-called ‘active obedience’ of Christ and its (purported) imputation to the account of believers in Romans 5.19.[5] Adam’s one transgression of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Eden and Christ’s obedient death on the cross in Golgotha are the two acts the apostle has in view. This is made explicit in verse 18 and the surrounding context wherein Paul focuses on the redemptive death of Jesus and its connection to believers’ reconciliation to God (vv. 6–11).[6]

Notes

        1. See <http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/01/jesus-imputed-righteousness-exegetical.html>. (Link is now broken [25 Jun. 2021].)
        2. Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptural quotations are taken from the Revised Standard Version. All emphases have been added by the author.
        3. See Philippians 2.8: ‘And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.’
        4. Or ‘declared righteous’ (dikaiōthentes). See Romans 5.9 as rendered in the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2009): ‘Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath.’
        5. While it may be argued that other Pauline texts require such an interpretation (e.g. 2 Cor. 5.21; Phil. 3.9), it is beyond the scope of this article to pursue the matter.
        6. Something is to be said for Romans 5.10b: ‘much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.’ As in 4.25, Jesus’ resurrection life is surely in view. Christ ‘was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification’ (Rom. 4.25, ESV). Though often ignored in traditional Protestant discussions of justification, the resurrection of Christ certainly plays a pivotal role in our final justification before God. The death of Jesus is not the full picture. Believers are declared righteous by the blood of Christ, and will be saved from the future wrath (Rom. 5.9b) by the resurrection life of Christ at the final judgement (v. 10c).

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: 18 September 2015 (one word altered); 14 March 2016 (added to note four); 6 October 2016 (alterations made to text in bold; altered one word in third note; minor emendation made to fourth note); 21 November 2016 (added a previously neglected full stop); 10 January 2017 (added punctuation to sixth note); 16 March 2017 (minor revisions made to preface); 24 February 2018 (converted eighteen colons to full stops; omitted a hyphen); 23 May 2019 (changed one term in n. 2); added to first note in order to indicate present brokenness of website link (25 Jun. 2021); modified one word in concluding paragraph (18 Sept. 2021).

Arminianism and the Good News of Jesus Christ

J. D. Gallé | Saturday, 7 June 2014

        In contrast with Calvinism, I believe it may be said that Arminianism is a more apt ‘nickname’ for the good news of Jesus Christ. Allow me to explain.
        Arminianism not only affirms the indiscriminate nature of the gospel call for all to repent of their sins and to turn to Christ for salvation, but also God’s love for the world, God’s desire for all persons without exception to be saved, and Christ as the expiation for the sins of the whole world (universal atonement).

“For God loved the world in this way: He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3.16, HCSB)

        Conversely, strict Calvinism’s doctrines of unconditional election to salvation (along with its corollary, unconditional reprobation), irresistible grace, regeneration preceding faith, and denial of Christ’s death for all constitute an inversion of the gospel. (This indeed was Arminius’ basic sentiment concerning the Calvinian teaching of double predestination.) The gospel is said to be indiscriminate in nature, but according to Calvinism God has already chosen beforehand those who will be elected to belief.
        Arminianism understands the universal nature of the gospel, that it is genuinely for all. The application of salvation is particular based on one’s response to the good news. Salvation is secure based on one’s present relationship with Jesus Christ, not an ‘eternal decree’ whereby God chose to unconditionally elect some to salvation and damn all others by passing them over and leaving them in their sins to perish (divine preterition). Arminianism holds that believers are elect and that faith precedes regeneration. Those who persevere in repentance and faith in the Son of God will be saved. Through God’s power believers ‘are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time’ (1 Pet. 1.5, ESV).
        Seeing as high Calvinism denies the conditional nature of salvation and the universal atonement of Christ, I find it ironic that this brand of theology is often mistaken by its advocates as being part and parcel of the good news. It is not.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018. All rights reserved.

Addendum (27 Sept. 2022).  This article was originally published on the Society of Evangelical Arminians’ website on Wednesday, 24 July 2013. See the link to the following web page:

• <https://evangelicalarminians.org/arminianism-the-good-news-of-jesus-christ>

Latest revisions: 7 April 2016 (some minor emendations were made); 17 February 2018 (converted three colons to full stops); 3 March 2018 (added a comma).