The Will of God is Necessity (Helpless, Hopeless, yet Unpitiable)
"The Will of God is Necessity" (Institutes II.xxiii.8)
(Helpless, Hopeless, yet Unpitiable)
Born blind and reprobate
Hell can be my only fate
Heaven reserved for those God chose
Why I have no chance, God only knows
Born blind and deaf to the gospel of grace
To my life, Christ in His death hid His face
For God so loved the world, that Jesus died only to save some
How can this be a gracious offer that disingenuously bids me to come?
Born blind and dead from my mother's womb
I am to glorify God by my certain doom
God has arranged and disposed of me at His pleasure
He has created me as an object of His wrath and not His treasure
Born blind in sin, I did not ask to be born
Unlike Paul for his brethren, For me God does not mourn
I have been chosen for hell in the secret counsel of His all-encompassing decree
When I am gone, there will be no memory of me
----------
Man was created in the image and likeness of God. Obviously this is not talking about physical features. Men are able to love with agape love, even sinners and publicans! (Matt 5:46; Luke 6:32 SEE GREEK) Men reason, do moral and just things, even not having the Mosaic or any God-given written law:
Rom 2:14-15
... for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
Can you notice here that they "by nature" do the things in the law? This is due to the moral image and likeness of God in which they were created in.
Man has the constitutional ability to believe. Do you not believe things? Is every belief a conviction imposed by God? Man has the communicable attributes of God! We are fearfully and wonderfully created and endowed by our Maker! The false doctrine of total inability to believe Christ's message is a teaching straight from the pit.
Christ died for sinners. He took the barrier of sin out of the way. Why is there such elaborate testimony to how one receives eternal life, by faith in Christ, if this is impossible? There can be no good answers.
With Paul, I say to sinners:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!" (Acts 16:31)
But the soteriology of a Calvinist goes like this:
Lam 3:26
It is good that one should hope and wait quietly
For the salvation of the LORD.
The majority of humanity will be waiting in vain. God is pleased to desroy them; the have been created to be damned.
Yes, the reprobate will be waiting in vain.
The Bible conclusively shows that unregenerate man seeks God. I see that noone is willing to pose any arguments against the plain and normal reading of Cornelius and the Bereans.
Acts 10:1-3, 4
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius! ...Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God."
Acts 17:10-12
Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed.
Acts 17:26-28
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth... so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
God draws all men:
John 1:7-9
This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
Witnesses do one thing: seek to persuade others of their testimony. Jesus is the true light which gives light to everyone coming into the world. If man is in darkness Christ is the Light.
John 12:31-32
"Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."
Jesus has been lifted up. He is the light. Men can resist the light. Men can resist the drawing.
John 16:7-9
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Jesus went to heaven and sent the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is now here and is convicting the WORLD of sin, righteousness, and judgement. The Holy Spirit has a convicting ministry, Jesus is drawing all men to Himself, Jesus is the Light the True Light shining to every man in the world.
Heb 4:12
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The Word of God is supernatural unto conviction, persuasion, and being convinced. The word of God, in conjunction with the Spirit of God, in conjunction with the Son of God, in conjunction with the image and likeness of God, in addition to the drawing of Jesus to all men, in light of God's invititation to all men, in lieu of Christ's death for all men, in observance of God's desire that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth...
In light of the examples of Cornelius and the Bereans...
Oh. What about preaching the gospel and persuasion?
Some seem to deny that there is any soul winning or persuading men as to the gospel. Why do it when they are unable to hear and respond apart from sovereign regeneration and Irresistable Grace imposed? If one must be regenerated and then made to believe, then persuading someone as to the truth of the gospel really doesn't have a purpose in evangelism; preaching it seems pointless (men can't understand, are unable to hear and respond). There is no persuading or convincing the unregenerate sinner and it really would be a waste of time to do so.
I guess those who believe such doctrine could merely be content to give a short gospel message and see if God is going to do his trick and "effectually call" his elect.
Why answer the questions of an unbeliever or seek to persuade them? They can't understand apart from imposed religion! Imagine, a Calvinist trying to persuade an unbeliever. Why would he act contrarily to his most sacred doctrines? What would provoke them to answer the questions of a dead man? Why would they seek to persuade one who does not have ears to hear? If God uses the gospel to effect regeneration in His elect, why do Calvinists waste their time in many extra words trying to convince others of the gospel in their presentations? These synergistic pleas are superfluous and their time could be better spent trying to find God imposing regeneration on His elect, rather than wasting time on the helpless and doomed reprobate!
If after a very brief gospel message the person does not respond, well either 1) he is elect and God is not ready to effectually call him with His irresisitable grace imposition at this time or 2) he is unelect, reprobate, bound to glorify God by frying for eternity. Either way, persuasion is meaningless for it is falling on deaf, totally inable ears. Why don't they just go on to the next one to see if they are elect and if God is ready to effectually call them by irresistible grace imposed? Why do they wax eloquent, as if their synergistic pleas could be regarded? It is disingenuous!
2 Cor 5:19-21
God... has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Imagine imploring and beseeching a deaf and blind person with your heartfelt speech. What use is it? This goes against all God given reason.
The deductionistic doctrines of Traditionalism are not biblical. Their arguments with their many prooftexts are a hodge-podge of special pleading and illegitamate totality and identity transfers. Not one clear scripture bears them out. The Traditionalist first got his doctrine from his theological deduction, then looked to the scriptures for support. There is not a single, clear passage stating that the gospel message, that enjoins the whole world to believe on Christ for eternal life, cannot be believed by humanity apart from God's sovereign forceable imposition. Not ONE PASSAGE states such a thing!
But passage after passage shows that not only do we see men being given the legitamate responsibility to believe, we see them seeking after God and being persuaded!
How can God make someone responsible for that which he cannot do?
That is like throwing an infant in the fires of Molech for not being able to change his own diaper.
Paul expended himself for Christ doing exactly this: disputing and persuading in the attempt to win people to Christ. As soon as he was converted, Paul "confounded the Jews...at Damascus proving that this is very Christ..."(Acts 9:22). Everywhere he went Paul "disputed...in the synagogue...and in the market daily..." (Acts 17:17). The last chapter of Acts tells us that even under house arrest in Rome, Paul was still at it: "...there came many to him, ... to whom he expounded... persuading them concerning Jesus..." (Acts 28:23).
1 Cor 9:16, 19-22
...woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!...
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law(not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
The only way that a Traditionalist can emulate Paul here is to spurn the deadly flower of his theology.
Rom 10:1
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved
Antonio da Rosa
Lakeside, CA
(Helpless, Hopeless, yet Unpitiable)
Born blind and reprobate
Hell can be my only fate
Heaven reserved for those God chose
Why I have no chance, God only knows
Born blind and deaf to the gospel of grace
To my life, Christ in His death hid His face
For God so loved the world, that Jesus died only to save some
How can this be a gracious offer that disingenuously bids me to come?
Born blind and dead from my mother's womb
I am to glorify God by my certain doom
God has arranged and disposed of me at His pleasure
He has created me as an object of His wrath and not His treasure
Born blind in sin, I did not ask to be born
Unlike Paul for his brethren, For me God does not mourn
I have been chosen for hell in the secret counsel of His all-encompassing decree
When I am gone, there will be no memory of me
----------
Man was created in the image and likeness of God. Obviously this is not talking about physical features. Men are able to love with agape love, even sinners and publicans! (Matt 5:46; Luke 6:32 SEE GREEK) Men reason, do moral and just things, even not having the Mosaic or any God-given written law:
Rom 2:14-15
... for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
Can you notice here that they "by nature" do the things in the law? This is due to the moral image and likeness of God in which they were created in.
Man has the constitutional ability to believe. Do you not believe things? Is every belief a conviction imposed by God? Man has the communicable attributes of God! We are fearfully and wonderfully created and endowed by our Maker! The false doctrine of total inability to believe Christ's message is a teaching straight from the pit.
Christ died for sinners. He took the barrier of sin out of the way. Why is there such elaborate testimony to how one receives eternal life, by faith in Christ, if this is impossible? There can be no good answers.
With Paul, I say to sinners:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!" (Acts 16:31)
But the soteriology of a Calvinist goes like this:
Lam 3:26
It is good that one should hope and wait quietly
For the salvation of the LORD.
The majority of humanity will be waiting in vain. God is pleased to desroy them; the have been created to be damned.
Yes, the reprobate will be waiting in vain.
The Bible conclusively shows that unregenerate man seeks God. I see that noone is willing to pose any arguments against the plain and normal reading of Cornelius and the Bereans.
Acts 10:1-3, 4
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius! ...Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God."
Acts 17:10-12
Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed.
Acts 17:26-28
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth... so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
God draws all men:
John 1:7-9
This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
Witnesses do one thing: seek to persuade others of their testimony. Jesus is the true light which gives light to everyone coming into the world. If man is in darkness Christ is the Light.
John 12:31-32
"Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."
Jesus has been lifted up. He is the light. Men can resist the light. Men can resist the drawing.
John 16:7-9
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Jesus went to heaven and sent the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is now here and is convicting the WORLD of sin, righteousness, and judgement. The Holy Spirit has a convicting ministry, Jesus is drawing all men to Himself, Jesus is the Light the True Light shining to every man in the world.
Heb 4:12
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The Word of God is supernatural unto conviction, persuasion, and being convinced. The word of God, in conjunction with the Spirit of God, in conjunction with the Son of God, in conjunction with the image and likeness of God, in addition to the drawing of Jesus to all men, in light of God's invititation to all men, in lieu of Christ's death for all men, in observance of God's desire that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth...
In light of the examples of Cornelius and the Bereans...
Oh. What about preaching the gospel and persuasion?
Some seem to deny that there is any soul winning or persuading men as to the gospel. Why do it when they are unable to hear and respond apart from sovereign regeneration and Irresistable Grace imposed? If one must be regenerated and then made to believe, then persuading someone as to the truth of the gospel really doesn't have a purpose in evangelism; preaching it seems pointless (men can't understand, are unable to hear and respond). There is no persuading or convincing the unregenerate sinner and it really would be a waste of time to do so.
I guess those who believe such doctrine could merely be content to give a short gospel message and see if God is going to do his trick and "effectually call" his elect.
Why answer the questions of an unbeliever or seek to persuade them? They can't understand apart from imposed religion! Imagine, a Calvinist trying to persuade an unbeliever. Why would he act contrarily to his most sacred doctrines? What would provoke them to answer the questions of a dead man? Why would they seek to persuade one who does not have ears to hear? If God uses the gospel to effect regeneration in His elect, why do Calvinists waste their time in many extra words trying to convince others of the gospel in their presentations? These synergistic pleas are superfluous and their time could be better spent trying to find God imposing regeneration on His elect, rather than wasting time on the helpless and doomed reprobate!
If after a very brief gospel message the person does not respond, well either 1) he is elect and God is not ready to effectually call him with His irresisitable grace imposition at this time or 2) he is unelect, reprobate, bound to glorify God by frying for eternity. Either way, persuasion is meaningless for it is falling on deaf, totally inable ears. Why don't they just go on to the next one to see if they are elect and if God is ready to effectually call them by irresistible grace imposed? Why do they wax eloquent, as if their synergistic pleas could be regarded? It is disingenuous!
2 Cor 5:19-21
God... has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Imagine imploring and beseeching a deaf and blind person with your heartfelt speech. What use is it? This goes against all God given reason.
The deductionistic doctrines of Traditionalism are not biblical. Their arguments with their many prooftexts are a hodge-podge of special pleading and illegitamate totality and identity transfers. Not one clear scripture bears them out. The Traditionalist first got his doctrine from his theological deduction, then looked to the scriptures for support. There is not a single, clear passage stating that the gospel message, that enjoins the whole world to believe on Christ for eternal life, cannot be believed by humanity apart from God's sovereign forceable imposition. Not ONE PASSAGE states such a thing!
But passage after passage shows that not only do we see men being given the legitamate responsibility to believe, we see them seeking after God and being persuaded!
How can God make someone responsible for that which he cannot do?
That is like throwing an infant in the fires of Molech for not being able to change his own diaper.
Paul expended himself for Christ doing exactly this: disputing and persuading in the attempt to win people to Christ. As soon as he was converted, Paul "confounded the Jews...at Damascus proving that this is very Christ..."(Acts 9:22). Everywhere he went Paul "disputed...in the synagogue...and in the market daily..." (Acts 17:17). The last chapter of Acts tells us that even under house arrest in Rome, Paul was still at it: "...there came many to him, ... to whom he expounded... persuading them concerning Jesus..." (Acts 28:23).
1 Cor 9:16, 19-22
...woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!...
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law(not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
The only way that a Traditionalist can emulate Paul here is to spurn the deadly flower of his theology.
Rom 10:1
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved
Antonio da Rosa
Lakeside, CA
posted by Antonio at 12:18 PM
24 Comments:
Good stuff, Antonio.
The Exclusive Brethren hold that regeneration may occur some time before conversion. What do you make of the theory that Cornelius might have been regenerate before his conversion? Obviously, I do not find this convincing. I just wondered how you would respond to that idea.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
I think I'll print this article and frame it. May I have your permission to republish this as needed?
Antonio,
Excellent!! Keep up the good work!
Wow! Where to start?
Matthew, great question. You see, we must take the text itself at face value.
Acts 11:13-17
3 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, 'Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?
----------
Cornelius was not saved prior to hearing the words of the gospel message. The Spirit was given to him when he believed.
Peter says "words by which" Cornelius and his family would be saved. The Spirit and salvation did not come until the word was spoken and Cornelius believed.
It reminds me of the only place in the Bible where it explicitly says how one comes to faith; that it comes as a passive result of hearing the word of God:
Rom 10:17
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Or how about Paul:
Gal 3:2
This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Notice he doesnt say "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the sovereign imposition of God?"
Antonio
Antonio,
Excellent Posting!
You really brought the Scriptures to bear on this Traditionalist idea that has taken on a life of its own.
Jodie
Bhder,
May I observe that the Scriptures say they were disciples of Jesus not believers. They followed him for a while and then stopped following Him.
Warmly,
Jodie
Jodie said:
"May I observe that the Scriptures say they were disciples of Jesus not believers. They followed him for a while and then stopped following Him.
This is interesting, typically I've heard this distinction made by "Free-Gracers", but not this way. In other words, the Free-Gracer typically sees salvation, and discipleship as two separate categories--although inter-related relative to relationship with Jesus Christ. What I'm struggling to say ;), is that in those passages that appear to imply that someone has lost their salvation--the Free-Gracer might respond that the text was referencing discipleship and loss of reward; rather than losing one's salvation in that instance.
I do not choose to afix to myself a label, but if I did, "Free Grace" would come closer than any other.
The "poem" was great and very persuasive.
Good stuff. I need to come back and read this more thoroughly. It's good to read someone who can clearly think through the fallacies of the calvanists. They seem to only confuse me. Thanks.
Antonio,
Well put! I have the same probelms with these odd doctrines as you do. Senseless.
This line made me laugh (and I think I feel a little guilty about that).
That is like throwing an infant in the fires of Molech for not being able to change his own diaper.
Yes. If we are unable, then how can we be held accountable? The scripture states that we are accountable:
2 Thessalonians 2:12
... and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son..
You say:
If God uses the gospel to effect regeneration in His elect, why do Calvinists waste their time in many extra words trying to convince others of the gospel in their presentations?
I have wondered this same thing myself. You know that the traditionalists say that they find evangelism to be more enthralling with this doctrine because they know that some will believe. I guess you could just hope that you talk to one of the elect so that you have the opportunity to behold the inevitable regeneration of that one, for God's glory.
I think this doctrine is very unhelpful to the Christian's view of the world. (the whole world, not just the world of the elect). I am not accusing any Calvinist of thinking this ... but ... if I were a Calvinist, I think I would have trouble looking at the lost. I would be wondering if they were hopelessly doomed, walking corpses, as they like to say. It would make me sick. In fact ...
Also - I agree with what Joe said about the Free Grace label.
BTW,
I have seen this poem of yours before ... in a comment, I believe. ;~)
over here ....
Antonio, thanks for your answer. A good response, but I would point out that Exclusive Brethren separate conversiona nd reception of the Holy Spirit.
Brian,
thankyou for quoting the Word of God. It is wonderful that we have all, by grace, come to recognise its authority and power.
Funnily enougth, I have read that verse quite a few times before.
If you do not know how I interpret that verse, why dont you have a think about how someone who does not hold to Calvinism might interpret it.
May the Lord richly bless you both
Matthew
Casey,
thank you for your comments. You may use my words for whatever you like, even to line your bird cage (as some Calvinists would like to).
Brian,
you are wrong, read the Greek Bible. Sinners and Tax-collectors "agape" love each other.
Ten cent,
The faith is the man's, the Holy Spirit convicts the whole world. I don't see what the problem is. Man can harden himself or seek God and consider the gospel message.
It is man's faith, the Holy Spirit is essential. He convicts the whole world.
Rose,
I appreciate your agreement.
When Calvinists look at the clear passages of Cornelius and the Bereans, they must twist and contort them to fit their theology. Rather than taking their theology from the Bible, they use their deductive, presuppositional theology to interpret the Bible.
Kristi,
I really appreciate you coming around. You are a very interesting young lady and I really enjoy your blog. You grace me here!
Nate, have fun in Dallas, and tell Zane I said hi!
Antonio
Bobby,
Those disciples that Brian and Jodie refer to could be either have been saved or unsaved, in my position. mathetes (disciple) is a learner who followed his master and his teachings.
Those disciples who left didn't lose their salvation if they had it. Some may have been saved, others not.
They were offended with Christ's sayings so therefore they left. This in and of itself does not prove that they were unsaved. They text does not say, and it is not within John's purpose to disclose such.
Disciples of rabbis in that time followed their masters from town to town, place to place, learning. These people, whether saved or unsaved, fit that bill (until they left).
That they left doesn't prove that they were unsaved or lost their salvation.
That John called them "disciples" reveals to me that they had been following Jesus for at least a "length" of time.
Antonio
Spurious or Secret Saints? John 2:23-25
by Bob Wilkin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. 24But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, 25and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.
These three verses are seemingly simple and straightforward: Some people in Jerusalem believed in Jesus, yet He didn't commit Himself to them. The verses are simple and straightforward for those who understand the purpose of John's Gospel and a theme he uses throughout the book: the secret believer motif. These verses become extremely difficult to those who fail to take these into account.
The Verdict of Most Commentators: Spurious Saints
Commentators almost all take the view that the believers mentioned in John didn't truly believe in Jesus. This, of course, is a bit puzzling. How can a person believe in Jesus and yet not believe in Jesus? It would seem that if a person didn't believe in Jesus, then he shouldn't be called a believer. Certainly John shouldn't tell us that they "believed in His name" if they didn't.
Here are some representative explanations by commentators about those who "believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did":
Many trusted in his name; i.e., because of the manner in which his power was displayed they accepted him as a great prophet and perhaps even as the Messiah. This, however, is not the same as saying that they surrendered their hearts to him. Not all faith is saving faith (William Hendriksen, John, p. 127, italics his).
believed in His name. This expression in 1:12 describes a faith that is adequate; here seemingly it is not (Raymond E. Brown, John, p. 126, italics his).
Sadly, their faith was spurious, and Jesus knew it (D. A. Carson, John, p. 184).
Compare 1:12 and 8:30, note. In this place the phrase seems to imply the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, but such a Messiah as Him for whom they looked, without any deeper trust (for the most part) in His Person (v. 24)" (B. F. Westcott, John, p. 45).
Problems with the Spurious Saints View
These statements are remarkable! Westcott contends, and Hendriksen thinks it conceivable, that those in question believed in Jesus as the Messiah, yet they don't think these people believed so as to have eternal life. This flies in the face of the purpose statement of John's Gospel: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31).
Brown recognizes the inconsistency between his understanding of this phrase in 1:12 and here. However, he gives no explanation for the inconsistency. How could John write in 1:12 that "those who believe in His name" are "children of God" and yet here speak of people who "believed in His name" and yet did not become children of God?
Carson says that their faith was spurious; yet he gives no evidence to sustain his view. However, in an interesting way, he does deal with the problem of the use of the same phrase in 1:12. Perhaps seeing this problem coming, Carson indicated in his discussion of 1:12 that there was no blanket promise there:
The entire expression does not guarantee that those who exercise such faith are genuine believers (see comments on 2:23-25); but at its best, such faith yields allegiance to the Word, trusts him completely, acknowledges his claims and confesses him with gratitude. That is what it means to 'receive' him" (John, pp. 125-26).
Where in John do we find faith defined as "allegiance," "acknowledg[ing] his claims," and "confess[ing] him with gratitude"? Nicodemus heard none of this. Nor did the woman at the well or the other Samaritans from Sychar. Nor did the man born blind, or Martha, or anyone else in John's Gospel.
Dr. Carson has reversed the analogy of faith! Rather than going to a clear passage like 1:12 and understanding other parallel passages in light of it, he goes to a more difficult passage and allows his understanding of it to determine his understanding of 1:12.
The Secret Saints View
There are two reasons why such commentators adopt this believing-unbeliever interpretation. Both are better explained under the secret saints view, which I will explain in a moment. First, the Greek word translated commit in v. 24 is the same as believed in v. 23. "Many believed [episteusan] in His name…but Jesus did not commit [episteuen] Himself to them." This is thought by many commentators to suggest, if not demand, that those who believed in His name didn't really believe in His name. They reason that if they had really believed in His name, then Jesus would have committed Himself to them.
Second, the text indicates that they believed "when they saw the signs which He did." This is viewed as being less than saving faith. Support is often drawn from our Lord's remark to Thomas in 20:29 where He pronounces a blessing on those "who have not seen and yet have believed."
A failure to understand the secret believer motif results in a failure to understand the Gospel itself. The Gospel of John is not merely about how one can be saved. The one who believes in Jesus receives the life of God, a life which is full of potential. In order to grow and mature in this life, one must walk in fellowship with Christ and become one of His "friends": "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you" (15:14).
Jesus only commits (or entrusts) Himself to those who obey Him (John 14:21). Openly confessing one's faith in Christ is a central aspect of obedience. The Gospel of John tells of people who believe in Jesus and yet who are afraid of the Jewish leaders and who keep their faith in Him secret. Compare 12:42-43 and 19:38.
There was a great deal of pressure, especially in Jerusalem, to keep secret one's belief that Jesus was the Christ. This pressure was so great that when Jesus restored the sight of a man in Jerusalem who had been blind since birth, his parents were unwilling even to mention that Jesus had been the One who did it "because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed that if anyone confessed that He was the Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue" (9:22).
John doesn't come out directly and indicate what it was about these new believers that led Jesus not to commit Himself to them. However, he does make the problem clear. Jesus "knew what was in man" (2:25). The word man forms an unmistakable bridge between 2:23-25 and 3:1ff, "Now there was a man…" (3:1).
Nicodemus illustrates the problem these men had. Nicodemus is the ultimate example of the secret believer in John. That he first came to Jesus "by night" is mentioned not once, but three times in the Fourth Gospel (3:2; 7:50; 19:39). Precisely when Nicodemus comes to faith in Christ is not made clear in John. Most likely it happened the very night he came to Jesus and the Lord told him that he would be "born again" if he believed in Him for eternal life (see 3:1-21).
Facing the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus slightly cracks the door on his faith in Christ (John 7:45-52). While he doesn't openly confess his belief, he does challenge his fellow rulers regarding their judgment of Jesus, and receives a stinging rebuke for his efforts (8:52). After the crucifixion, Nicodemus is there with Joseph of Arimathea, openly claiming Jesus' body for burial (19:38-42). John clearly indicates that Joseph was "a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews." The fact that Nicodemus and Joseph are linked together in the text indicates that Nicodemus himself had also been a secret disciple of Jesus.
Even before these new believers of v. 23 had done anything, Jesus knew what was in them. He knew they were or would be afraid to confess Him for fear of the Jews. He knew that they weren't ready to be His friends. They weren't worthy to learn more about the Father and about following Jesus. Therefore, Jesus "didn't commit Himself to them." This has nothing to do with eternal life. Nowhere in John or in the entire NT is there any suggestion that only those whom Jesus commits Himself to have eternal life. In fact, this verse clearly shows the opposite, that Jesus doesn't commit Himself to all believers.
The objection that this faith was a result of the miraculous signs Jesus did during Passover in no way puts down their faith. The reason John included signs in His book was to lead people to faith in Christ (20:31). While there is a special blessing on those who believe without seeing attendant signs (20:29), this in no way invalidates the faith that results from signs (see Hodges, "Untrustworthy Believers," Bibliotheca Sacra (April-June 1978), pp. 141-43). If that were the case, then John certainly would not have included any signs in his book!
Application: Don't Be a Secret Saint
Rather, John is encouraging his readers to confess their faith in Christ openly so that our Lord will commit Himself to them. While all believers have life, fullness of life is only possible as we obey Christ. And, confessing our faith in Christ is an essential element in obedience. Only trustworthy believers enjoy intimate friendship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
If My comments were truly demeaning and belittling to you, then I apologize. And perhaps I should not enter into discussion with you if you are one to take humor between three friends as seriousness and attmept to draw from it conclusions that are not present.
If you had gotten to know me before you cast judgement that I was attempting to demean or belittle you in my assertion that your beliefs were 'pagan' or 'horrid', then you would have known that I was only kidding in my labeling it so. Both Kristi and Kc knew this, and strangely that is who the comments were directed at.
Yes, I do believe that it was God willing and working within me to commune with my friends through discussion, of which I would love to engage you within.
Brian,
you are acting and writing irrationally and not seeking to be instructed by the Bible, but using your theology and own thoughts on such matters to interpret the Bible:
kai yap oi amaptoloi
-- -- -- ---------
even for the sinners
tous agapwntas
---- ---------
the ones loving
autous agapwsi
------ -------
them love
"For even the sinners love (agape) the ones loving (agape) them" (Luke 6:32)
Has anyone ever heard of the "technical language fallacy", see D.A. Carson in his book "Exegetical Fallacies"
Hey Bobby,
no.
Tell us about it and tell me how I did it! :)
Antonio
I read D.A. Carson with a grain of salt, seeing that he makes many exegetical errors himself.
I guess those who believe such doctrine could merely be content to give a short gospel message and see if God is going to do his trick and "effectually call" his elect.
Unfortunately this is exactly the point that I have seen many (not all) Calvinists arrive at. They lose their passion for the lost and become very mechanical in their presentation of the Gospel.
I enjoyed this article.
I don't think you're doing it, Antonio, necessarily. It's basically illegitmate totality transfer. When a particular word, such as agape, sarx, etc. becomes so identified with a particular theological concept (i.e. agape--godly unconditional love)that every time it is used it "must" be being used with that connotation; which isn't true--i.e. I know you know, Antonio, context and usage determines meaning. I thought I would bring this up since the current discussion between you and Brian, and others seems to be revolving around this word. i.e. see the interchange between Jesus and Peter in Jn 21--this illustrates how usage determines meaning. In other words, depending on context, phileo could mean what agape is typically understood to mean.
I'm sure Carson does make exegetical errors--but most likely it's because, as you know, exegesis is a process of making various interpretive decisions--even at the syntactical level. I would think that his supposed errors are made because his interpretive decisions are driven by a particular a priori theological construct--that causes him to decide to interpret on way rather than another--just like you and me--and the Calvinists ;).
That's kind've why I think this back and forth between you and the Moorheads of the world will never end. I think much of intepretation is based on prior committments to their interpretive tradition. That's why I think to effectively cause pause and question on the other "side" (Calvinist or Arminian) there needs to be an elucidation of what in fact is serving as the informing tradition which causes Moorhead to be a Calvinist, you a Free-Gracer, me a qualified Lutheran (in my soteriological understanding), etc.
This issue is deeply rooted in historical theology and those roots must be exposed, if there is ever to be any denoument to this particular topic. It seems to me that the exchange of scripture, at this point, doesn't accomplish much, unless we realize that we indeed do have our own intepretive tradition. Until we recognize this reality, every side will continue to imbue scripture with their tradition thus making the two indistinguishable. The consequence being no space or room for Christian dialogue--just the accusation of one side being saved and the other hopelessly deceived. This does not seem fruitful or Christian to me.
Susan: "...(because the Spirit obiously isn't convicting the whole world)..."
I do believe the world is being "convicted" and that is why they fight Christianity so hard. Why do you think that some people get so mad when you do preach the gospel to them? I think it is because they are convicted and they are fighting the Spirit tooth and nail. How can someone be convicted if God isn't drawing them?
Antonio, I'm not sure what Free-Grace is, but it does seem to be more in line with what I believe the bible teaches. (I've only read this one post).
one word
"synergism"
uhh please from here on out carve out every scripture with believe as if it is the only reference In the bible to saving faith. Ok i guess i can go live like i want now, thanks for the pass. I believe no i can live like i want. Who needs fruit.
Scare us with dirty words, if you please. Synergism is fine by me.
Have you thought about the implications of the fact that the Bible identifies believing as the one condition of receiving eternal life?
Has Antonio actually said that you can live how you want?
Has he said that fruit does not matter?
Do you want to engage in intelligent discussion or do you prefer to pour out scorn and ridicule?
Post a Comment
<< Home