 Soteriology The Doctrine of Salvation by William Dicks
All Scripture
quotations, except those noted otherwise are from the New American Standard
Bible copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by
The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
3. Election: The basis of our salvation 3.4 What does the New Testament teach on predestination 3.5 Objections to the Biblical doctrine of
Election 3.5.2 Election is inconsistent with the free agency of
man 3.5.3 Election
precludes unbelievers from believing 3.5.5 Election
contradicts the universalistic passages of salvation 3.5.6 Election
discourages exertion on our part 3.6 Interesting passages: Man’s “free will” 3.7 Interesting passages: Universalistic
salvation 3.8 Interesting passages: The words of Jesus 3.9 Interesting passages: God’s choice 4. Calling: The invitation to salvation 4.2 The components of the call 4.3 The importance of the
call 5. Regeneration:
New life from God 5.2 Regeneration precedes faith 6. Conversion:
Away from sin toward Christ 7. Justification:
Legal pardon 9. Sanctification:
Growth toward Christlikeness 9.1.2 Increases
throughout life 9.2 Co-operation in sanctification 10. Baptism and
infilling of the Holy Spirit 10.1 Toward a better understanding of this
“baptism” 10.1.1 Traditional
Pentecostal understanding 10.1.1.1 Disciples born-again before Pentecost 10.1.1.2 Jesus commanded His disciples to wait for the
promise 10.1.1.3 All Christians should ask for a baptism in
the Holy Spirit 10.1.1.4 Scripture supports the second experience 10.1.2 The
meaning of “baptism” in the Holy Spirit 10.1.2.1 1 Cor 12:13: A
Pentecostal explanation 10.1.2.2 1 Cor 12:13: A non-Pentecostal explanation 10.1.2.3 What is the “baptism” in the Holy Spirit? 10.2 Being “filled” with the
Holy Spirit 10.2.2 What do
we make of this? 10.2.3 Be filled with
the Holy Spirit!
The doctrine of salvation is the central message of Scripture. The Bible is the story of God’s revelation of Himself in terms of His saving acts toward man.
Man had hardly fallen when God promised deliverance from the hold of sin.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you
shall bruise him on the heel. (Gen 3:15
The entire Old Testament anticipates the coming of Jesus Christ, while
the New Testament recorded that event and gave us its meaning. Man had fallen and could not out of himself come back to God. His fall
was complete, and so the salvation provided – not merely potentially but
actually – had to be complete.
To this problem of unity [of nature and grace] of which we have
been speaking, the Reformation gave an entirely opposite answer from that of
the Renaissance. It repudiated both the Aristotelian and the Neoplatonic
presentation. What was the Reformation answer? It rejected the old and growing
humanism in the Roman Catholic Church, and it rejected the concept of an
incomplete Fall resulting in man’s autonomous intellect and the possibility of
a natural theology which could be pursued independently from the Scriptures.
The Reformation accepted the biblical picture of a total Fall. The whole man
had been made by God, but now the whole man is fallen, including his intellect
and will. Only God was autonomous.
This was true in two areas. First of
all, there was nothing autonomous in the area of final authority. For the
Reformation, final and sufficient knowledge rested in the Bible – that is,
Scripture alone, in contrast to Scripture plus anything else parallel to the
Scriptures, whether it be the Church or a natural theology. Second, there was
no idea of man being autonomous in the area of salvation. In the Roman Catholic
position there was a divided work of salvation – Christ died for our salvation,
but man had to merit the merit of Christ. Thus there was a humanistic element
involved. The reformers said that there is nothing man can do; no autonomous or
humanistic religious or moral effort of man can help.
The Reformers saw mankind as totally fallen, and thus in great need of salvation. For further reading on the state of man read the study Anthropology and Hamartiology.
Man’s total depravity can be seen on our televisions, in our newspapers, magazines, music and what to day is called art. One of the greatest pointers toward man’s depravity today is the homosexual agenda. Homosexual argumentation is wholly based on non-moral terms. According to them it is an alternative lifestyle and merely a matter of one’s sexual orientation.
At the heart of the argument is the notion that one’s sexual behavior is not a matter of choice. Homosexual tendencies are determined by genetic, not environmental causes—or so the argument goes—and therefore homosexuality cannot be inherently immoral. But in the first place, researchers have not been able to establish that homosexual tendencies have any genetic causes. Even if such a cause could be established, however, would that alter the fact that God’s Word declares homosexuality to be immoral? Humanistic psychopathology has been attempting for years to blame all sorts of sinful behavior—alcoholism, drug addiction, habitual criminality, and sexual perversion—on genetic causes. That whole line of argument misses the obvious point that Scripture clearly teaches we are all born utterly sinful. Everyone has an inborn tendency to sin. That does not release us from the guilt of sinful actions.
And what is the next “alternate lifestyle” or “sexual orientation” to be legitimized? Sadomasochism—sex mixed with brutality? Bestiality—sex with animals? Necrophilia—sex with corpses? Or perhaps pedophilia—sex with children?
You might
be shocked to know that homosexual pedophiles already have an advocacy group:
NAMBLA—“National American Man Boy Love Association.” NAMBLA’s slogan is “Sex by
eight, before it’s too late.”
MacArthur gives more examples of how the homosexual agenda has influenced society as far as judicial levels.
In his first year as president of
the United States of America, Bill Clinton appointed as much as seventeen (17)
homosexuals and gays to public office and then splashed out on a breakfast
reception as a celebration.
Man is totally depraved in his nature.
Man’s intellect has been darkened to such an extent that he simply cannot
understand the things of God. Why can the natural man—the man without
Christ—not welcome the things of God? First, the things of God “are foolishness to” to the natural
man (1 Cor 2:14
[7] because the mind set on the flesh
is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it
is not even able to do so, [8] and those who are in the flesh cannot please
God. (Rom 8:7-8
The will of man is not even able to set itself on the things of God. Why
can the will of man not break free by itself from its servitude to sin and take
that much-needed step to God?
The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately corrupt; who can understand it?
(Jer 17:9
As for you, you were dead in your
transgressions and sins (Eph 2:1
Read more about man’s “free” will and man’s enslavement to sin in my
article called Who’s
Free: God or "Man"? A study on the "choices" of man in
salvation.
What is the basis of our salvation? Understand that I am not asking what are the results of our salvation? What or Who instigates our salvation? It is here that we tackle the subject of election. Election can be seen as a subsection of predestination, which in the Reformed sense is broader, since it includes election—for believers—and reprobation—for unbelievers.
Election is seen differently by differing groups. Here are the views of some. Foreknowledge
and election are not inconsistent with free agency. The elect were chosen to
eternal life, upon condition that God foresaw that in the perfect exercise of
their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the gospel.
As Finney wrote here, the Arminian view of election is squarely based on God’s foreknowledge. Finney, however, does show the illogical notions of many Arminians. Finney writes:
[God]
must have had all the reasons He ever will have for election, from eternity,
because He always has had all the knowledge of all events that He ever will
have; consequently He always or from eternity chose in respect to all events
just as He always will. There never can be any reason for change in the Divine
mind, for He never will have any new views of any subject. The choice which
constitutes election, then, must be an eternal choice.
A page later Finney contradicts himself:
4. The
election of some is no bar to the salvation of others. 5. Those who are not
elected may be saved, if they will but comply with the conditions which they
are able to do.
Then, one more page later he writes:
that the
only reason why the non-elect will not be saved is, because they pertinaciously
refuse salvation.
If God, as Finney testifies, “always has had all the knowledge of all events that He ever will have,” then did God not see those non-elect that Finney says might be saved if they just “comply with the conditions which they are able to do?” Isn’t it simple double-speak when he then goes back to say that there is a “reason why the non-elect will not be saved?” Finney, in effect, says that election is based on God’s foreknowledge—which is eternal and perfect, or He is not God—and that the non-elect can still get saved if they keep to the rules, but they just won’t. What kind of election does God do here.
The general Arminian view is as follows: First, election is a sovereign act
of God even though God did not have to elect anyone. Second, in an act of grace
He chose those who were totally undeserving. Third, election was in Christ and based on the merits of
Christ. Fourth, God chose those He knew would believe in Christ. Appeal for the
merits of this point is made to Rom 8:29-30
This [Tit
2:11 According to Barth God primarily elected Jesus Christ. Secondarily, God elected the community and lastly, the individual. The final conclusion to Barth’s idea of election is that Christ is the elect One, and all that are in Christ are therefore elect. All that an individual then needs to do is accept the Elect One, and will be part of the elect. According to this view, God elects unconditionally. There is absolutely nothing in man that merits God’s choice. Berkhof outlines the attributes of election as follows:
In the Calvinistic View the Ordo Salutis—order of salvation—is as follows:
It is quite inescapable that there are several passages in the New Testament that seem to affirm very clearly that God beforehand ordained those who would be saved.
When the Gentiles heard this, they
began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been
appointed to eternal life believed. (Ac 13:48
Luke writes this almost in passing, as if this was the most natural thing
to write. He seemed to be at ease with the fact that some are appointed to
eternal life.
[28] And we know that in all things
God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to
his purpose. [29] For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to
the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
[30] And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified;
those he justified, he also glorified. (Rom 8:28-30
On this verse Arminians tend to believe that this verse speaks of a
predestination to a certain privilege—being “conformed to the likeness of”
Christ—and not to salvation. However, that notion does not fit squarely into
this passage, since those who are said to be predestined are still not children
of God, as Paul speaks of predestination here before any calling or
justification.
[11] for though the twins were not
yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according
to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
[12] it was said to her, THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER. [13] Just as it is
written, JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED. (Rom 9:11-13
The choice of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with anything either of
the two had done, whether works or faith.
Even within the nation of Israel there were two distinct groups: the elect and the rest.
What then? Israel failed to obtain
what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, (Rom
11:7
God’s choice of us as believers was made in eternity past while we were
yet a glimpse in the eye of God.
[4] just as He chose us in Him before
the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In
love [5] He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself,
according to the kind intention of His will, [6] to the praise of the glory of
His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Eph 1:4-6
There are more passages that speak
of our predestination or election to salvation (1 Thes 1:4-5
Grudem
The
essential difference between them is that Fatalism has no place for a personal
God. Predestination holds that events come to pass because an infinitely wise,
powerful, and holy God has so appointed them. Fatalism holds that all events
come to pass through the working of a blind, unintelligent, impersonal,
non-moral force which cannot be distinguished from physical necessity, and
which carries us helplessly within its grasp as mighty river carries a piece of
wood.
God’s act of election was not impersonal or mechanistic. God’s love was the driving force to the saving of the elect.
[5] In love He predestined us to
adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind
intention of His will, [6] to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He
freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Eph 1:5-6
Scripture in no way sees us as mechanistic in our responses, in fact, we
are invited many times to do as the Lord wants for us (Mt 11:18
Does the doctrine of election deny all gospel invitations that appeal to our will to make a choice whether to respond to the gospel or not? This doctrine is fully able to accommodate the concept of us having a voluntary choice whether to follow Christ or not. What is a voluntary choice? It is a choice of what we want to do and what we decide to do. Yet, in everyday life, do we genuinely make absolute voluntary choices? I propose that we are unable to make absolute voluntary choices. We are daily influenced by advertising on TV, radio, in newspapers, by opinions of those we respect and also by those we fear or feel inferior to. We grapple daily with choices. Each influence on our lives has a bearing as to the next choice. There just is no thing such as an absolute voluntary choice. We may think that we have made absolute voluntary choices, but all the years we have lived up to this day have influenced us to make the choice we have just made.
In the same way, God can sovereignly move upon our desires that it can still be understood as a real choice. The fact that God created us also gives Him divine right to ordain those choices as real choices. God therefore causes us to choose Christ voluntarily.
While the
act remains that of the individual, it is nevertheless due more or less to the
predisposing agency and efficacy of divine power exerted in lawful ways. This
may be illustrated to a certain extent in the case of a man who wishes to
construct a building. He decides on his plan. Then he hires the carpenters,
masons, plumbers, etc., to do the work. These men are not forced to do the
work. No compulsion of any kind is used. The owner simply offers the necessary
inducements by way of wages, working conditions, and so on, so that the men
work freely and gladly. They do in detail just what he plans for them to do.
His is the primary and theirs is the secondary will or cause for the construction
of the building. We often direct the actions of our fellow men without
infringing on their freedom or responsibility. In a similar way and to an
infinitely greater degree God can direct our actions. His will for the course
of events is the primary cause and man's will is the secondary cause; and the
two work together in perfect harmony.
The Bible nowhere allows us to say
that unbelievers had no chance to believe. The rejection of the gospel by
unbelievers is cited by the Scriptures as the reason for the damnation of the
non-elect. The Scriptures never blame the decrees of God, but only man (Jn 5:40
He who believes in Him is not judged;
he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in
the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jn 3:18
On the other hand, how can the created being blame the One that created
it. The potter has absolute command of the clay, and can make with it what it
wants.
[20] On the contrary, who are you, O
man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why
did you make me like this, will it? [21] Or does not the potter have a right
over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and
another for common use? [22] What if God, although willing to demonstrate His
wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared
for destruction? [23] And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon
vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, [24] even us, whom He
also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Rom
9:20-24 Humans have this warped idea that all should be fair. If you buy a birthday gift for one child that costs $100, then you should buy $100 gifts for each of your children for their birthdays. Life does not work like this. It would be much better to get something for each child that suits that child at that specific time in that child’s life.
When we look at the parable that
Jesus told about the owner of the vineyard that went out at different times of
the day to get labourers for his vineyard, then we find out what is fair (Mt
20:1-16
[13] ‘Friend, I am doing you no
wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? [14] Take what is yours and
go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. [15] Is it not
lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious
because I am generous?' (Mt 20:13-15
What would be perfectly fair for God
is not to save anyone. This was His actions with the angels who sinned (2 Pet
2:4). Those angels who sinned He cast “into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment.”
They did not get a second chance. The fact is, that if God saves any at all, it
shows His grace goes “far beyond the requirements of fairness and justice.”
You may say that it is not fair for God to create people He knew would
sin and be eternally condemned; people He did not intend to save. Paul
demonstrates the answer to this very objection to election in Romans 9
[18] So then he has mercy on whomever
he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. [19] You will say to me then,
"Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" [20] But who are you, O man, to answer back
to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like
this?" [21] Has the potter no
right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use
and another for dishonorable use? [22]
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has
endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of
his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
[24] even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the
Gentiles? (Rom 9:18-24
As Creator, God has rights of His own to make with what is His what He desires.
We are the creatures, and ultimately we have no basis from which to accuse the
Creator of any unfairness or injustice. Justice would have demanded the death
of all!
If God ultimately decided to create
some creatures to be saved and others not to be saved, then that was his
sovereign choice, and we have no moral or scriptural basis on which we can
insist that it was not fair.
According to this objection, election
contradicts the universalistic passages of Scripture that say that God wants
all to be saved. This would include passages like 1 Tim 2:4
In the Reformed view—that of the author—a common solution would be that these verses explain God’s revealed will—God’s desire as to what He wants us to do—and not God’s hidden will—God’s plans as to what will actually happen. What these passages reveal to us is that God invites and commands all to repent, but they do not reveal what the rest of Scripture already revealed to us… God’s secret decrees as to who will be saved.
Many Arminians, at this point, will
scoff at the concept of the paradoxical notion of two divine wills concerning
salvation. However, they never do answer the question as to why all are not
saved. The fact that all are not saved,
must prove to Arminians that God wills
certain things more strongly than He wills the salvation of all mankind.
According to their idea of the ordo
salutis, God wills to keep the
free will of man intact more than He wills to save anyone. This also sets up
a two-will dichotomy in the mind of God. Even though God wills to save all mankind (1 Tim 2:5-6
Calvinists and Arminians agree that Scripture reveals to us what God wants us to do, and that is that we need to repent and accept the invitation to salvation. However, on either side it must be acknowledged that there is something apart from salvation of all mankind that God has given higher importance to. To the Arminian it is man’s free will, and to the Calvinist it is God’s own glory.
Arminians are the first to say concerning universalistic passages, that all means all. In this regard I believe they simply do not want to look at the context of the word. A text without a context is a pretext.
In like
manner the word "all" is unmistakably used in different senses in
Scripture. In some cases it certainly does not mean every individual; e. g., of
John the Baptist it was said, "And there went out unto him all the country
of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river
Jordan, confessing their sins," Mark 1:5
The word “all” is sometimes used to
teach—especially the Jews who wanted to exclude the Gentiles from
salvation—that the gospel is for the Gentiles as much as for the Jews. The Jews
of Jesus’ time, especially the Pharisees, held to an extreme form of
exclusivism, and saw Gentiles as dogs, unclean and common. It was not lawful
for a Jew to have any dealings with a Gentile (Jn 4:9
When it is said that Christ died
"not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world," I John
2:2
Sometimes the term "world"
is used when only a large part of the world is meant, as when it is said that
the Devil is "the deceiver of the whole world," or that "the
whole earth" wonders after the beast, Rev. 13:3
Even in our own daily lives do we use the term world to mean a certain context, whether it means the business world, the world of technology, the educational world or perhaps the political world. We rarely use the term “world” to mean every individual in the world!
This objection, that election discourages any motives toward any exertion on our part for the salvation of mankind, does not take into account all of Scripture. Why should we even bother preaching the gospel if God has already chosen who will be chosen anyway? This question is itself its own answer. The ends are not determined without the means. The end is salvation and the means the preaching of the gospel. Perhaps no one in Scripture has preached election with greater fervour than the apostle Paul, yet no one has preached the gospel with more fervour than he did.
[9] if you confess with your mouth
Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you
will be saved; [10] for with the heart a person believes, resulting in
righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [11]
For the Scripture says, WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED. [12]
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of
all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; [13] for WHOEVER WILL CALL ON
THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED. [14] How then will they call on Him in whom
they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?
And how will they hear without a preacher? [15] How will they preach unless
they are sent? Just as it is written, HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO
BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS! [16] However, they did not all heed the good
news; for Isaiah says, LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? [17] So faith comes
from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. (Rom 10:9-17
The believing faith of the elect does not come apart from the preaching
of the gospel, since “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of
Christ.” The gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who
believes.” (Rom 1:16
To read more about man’s so-called
“free will” at this time, read the article Who’s
Free: God or "Man"? A study on the "choices" of man in
salvation at the section called Man’s
Enslaved Will. One quote from it will suffice for now.
When we look at the Scriptural witness of man’s heart and his ability to choose God over evil, we have to conclude that man is evil and has no ability to choose God over evil. We see this witness in the Old and New Testaments. [39] For this reason they could not
believe, for Isaiah said again, [40] HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED
THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR
HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM. (Jn 12:39-40
The Arminian position here would most likely be based on verse 37:
Even after Jesus had done all these
miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. (NIV)
The Arminian’s response to this verse would be that God holds us
responsible for not believing, therefore our salvation is obviously in our own
hands. However, the fact that they “would not believe in him” has nothing to do
with their own “willingness” so to speak. Verse 40 is a clear Scriptural
passage that directly gives the reason for their unbelief. God has “HAS BLINDED
THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART” so that they would NOT believe.
The assumption [by the Arminian] is
that if God commands all men everywhere to repent, then that must mean that all
men everywhere are morally neutral creatures with free wills who are not
enslaved by sin. But this does not follow. God commands all men everywhere to
love Him with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, but sin does not allow
any of the fallen sons of Adam to do so. But a natural man does not accept the
things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot
understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (1 Cor 2:14
There are clearly two parallel statements in this verse separated by the
word “and.” It can be represented as follows:
But a natural man {the subject of
the argument} {First
statement} does not accept the things of the
Spirit of God, {Why not?} for they are foolishness to him; {reason} {Second
statement} and he cannot understand them, {Why not?} because they are spiritually
appraised. {reason}
The two statements in this passage
are parallel to each other and to make any sense out of them, they need to be interpreted
in light of each other. First, the natural
man finds the “things of
the Spirit of God” to be foolishness; and second, the natural man “cannot understand” the “things of the Spirit of God” “because they are
spiritually appraised.” So, the natural
man cannot understand the “things of the Spirit of God” because
he simply is not spiritual. [43] Why do you not understand what I
am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. [44] You are of your father
the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father… [47] He who is of God
hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are
not of God. (Jn 8:43-44, 47
Jesus here, again, states that word of inability. Jesus portrays the Jews that they cannot hear His word and they do
not understand it. Why can they not
hear His word? It is stated quite simply by Jesus. They are not
of God! Arminians will turn this concept of Jesus on its head by saying that if
you act upon what you hear, you will come to belong to God. However, this is
not what Jesus is saying here. Jesus directly says that those who are of God
will hear Him and those who are not of God will not hear Him. You do not hear
Jesus, act and then belong to God. No! You belong to God, hear and then act.
The regenerating work of God in the natural man must occur first to bring him
to spiritual life and then he will hear. [10] as it is written, THERE IS NONE
RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; [11] THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO
SEEKS FOR GOD; (Rom 3:10-11
This passage is too direct to even bother with an explanation. It speaks
for itself. [7] because the mind set on the flesh
is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it
is not even able to do so, [8] and those who are in the flesh cannot please
God. (Rom 8:7-8
What does this passage say? The “mind set on the flesh is hostile toward
God” and “those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Why is the
unregenerate man hostile to God and why can he not please God? The unregenerate
man “it does not subject [himself] to the law of God.” Why does he not subject
[himself] to the law of God?” Scripture is very clear about the inability of man.
He “is not even able to do so!” The unregenerate man cannot subject himself to the commands of God. Man cannot will to do what pleases God. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the
prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather
your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and
you were unwilling. (Mt 23:37
Did Jesus here mean every individual in Jerusalem when He mentioned
Jerusalem? Who was He talking to? We need to ascertain the context of this
passage to find out what Jesus meant. Before Jesus introduced this passage He
was lambasting the leaders of the Jews promising them judgment. Chapter 23 of
Matthew
When Jesus then said “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and
stones those who are sent to her,” who did Jesus mean Jerusalem to be? Arminians are quick to assume that Jerusalem represents individual Jews who
are capable of resisting the will and work of Christ. In the context of this
passage Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders and it is to them that the
passage refers. The prophets were sent to the leaders. These same leaders also
killed the prophets. In this passage of Matthew Jesus actually differentiate
between those He was speaking to and their “children.” It was the “children”
Jesus wanted to gather together. This passage does not refer to all individual
Jews, but the Jewish leaders.
The Jewish leaders were the unwilling ones, not the ones Jesus wanted to
gather.
[1] FIRST of all, then, I urge that
entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all
men, [2] for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil
and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. [3] This is good and acceptable in
the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to
the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God, and one mediator also
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave Himself as a ransom for
all, the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Tim 2:1-6
The key to any passage is its context. The phrase “all men” appears for
the first time at the end of verse 1, and its meaning is unmistakable. Paul is
not encouraging us to pray for every individual without exception. Verse 2
starts with what Paul meant when he wrote this passage. Why did Paul instruct us
to pray “for kings and all who are in authority?” While Paul was writing this,
the Christians were a persecuted group. This persecution was at the instigation
of those in positions of power and authority. So, it is quite obvious why Paul
would instruct Timothy to pray for those in authority, since, if they were
turned from their stance toward Christians, there would be peace.
The point to make here is that when Paul instructs us to pray “for kings
and all who are in authority,” he is speaking of kinds or classes of men. Paul
uses this pattern of writing many times when he uses the phrase “all men.”
This, for instance, can be seen in the way Paul writes in Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared,
bringing salvation to all men (NASB)
Paul clearly means all kinds of
men. The context of this passage clearly refers to different kinds or classes
of men (older men, older women, young women, young men and bondslaves).
In the same way, the “kings” and those who are in authority represent different
classes of men.
Therefore, when we read that God “desires all men to be saved,” we need
to be consistent in our understanding of the context and acknowledge that the
“all men” here also refer to all kinds
or all classes of men, whether they
are kings or people in authority. Why should we pray that all men, even kings and those in
authority be “saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth?” There is only
one way of salvation and anyone without
the knowledge of that truth cannot be saved. There is only “one mediator also
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for
all.”
If we take all men in verse 4
to mean every individual person, does it also mean that Christ is mediator for
every individual person? If this was the case, then it has to follow that
Christ fails His mediatory work every
time someone frustrates Christ’s work by his free will. Does Christ mediate for all, but fail to save all?
Is the ransom in verse 6 a saving
ransom or a non-saving ransom? If the
ransom of Christ is really made for all and it is actual, then all men would be
saved. However, we need to remain consistent with the meaning of “all men,” and
understand that even here it means all
kinds or all classes of men. The
context has not changed, so the meaning is the same. [3] Know this first of all, that in
the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own
lusts, [4] and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the
fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of
creation. [5] For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the
word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water
and by water, [6] through which the world at that time was destroyed, being
flooded with water. [7] But by His word the present heavens and earth are being
reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
[8] But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the
Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. [9]
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient
toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
[10] But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will
pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and
the earth and its works will be burned up. [11] Since all these things are to
be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct
and godliness, [12] looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God,
because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements
will melt with intense heat! [13] But according to His promise we are looking
for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. (2 Pet 3:3-13
|
