|
Issue 1, Spring 2001, Volume 19
FREE
GRACE OR FORCED GRACE?
Steve Witski
In his well known sermon
"Free Grace," John Wesley said that the "grace or love of God, whence
cometh our salvation, is FREE IN ALL, AND FREE FOR ALL" [Works, 7:373]. In this sermon he responded directly to the
Calvinist teachers of the day that taught that God’s loving grace is not free for all
but irresistibly forced on only some — the elect.
Wesley believed that the Scriptures did not support such a teaching.
Just as in Wesley’s day,
Calvinists today teach that God’s grace is not free for all but forced on only some. Some of my Calvinist brothers would object to me
using the word "force" to describe the irresistible working of God’s grace
on the hearts of the elect. Yet, it seem to
me that I am justified in using such a word since Calvinists use the equivalent of it in
their writings. This will become clearer as
one moves through the article.
Calvinists typically appeal to
the irresistible grace of God from John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the
Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul says that this
verse "teaches at least this much: It is not within fallen man’s natural ability
to come to Christ on his own, without some kind of divine assistance" [Chosen by
God, p. 68]. Wesley can be seen to be in
complete agreement with Sproul’s statement when he writes, "Natural free-will,
in the present state of mankind, I do not understand; I only assert, that there is a
measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, together with that supernatural
light which ‘enlightens every man that cometh into the world’" [Works,
10:229-30].
Wesley taught that divine
assistance was absolutely necessary for any person to come to Christ in faith. This gracious assistance comes before or
prevenient to any movement of man towards God. Mankind
is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ in his fallen condition without God
first taking the loving and redemptive initiative.
The disagreement between
Calvinists and Arminians would be over the meaning of the word draw in John 6:44;
whether this divine drawing or assistance is irresistible or resistible, and whether it
extends to all people as John 12:32 suggests, or just to some people. We need to keep in mind that there is a huge
difference between being irresistibly compelled or forced to believe in
Christ and being graciously enabled to believe.
Sproul’s position is
obvious from his following words: "Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament defines it [draw] to mean to compel by irresistible superiority. Linguistically and lexicographically, the word
means ‘to compel’ " [Chosen by God, p. 69; Grace Unknown, p.
153]. He goes on argue for this meaning by
appealing to two additional texts: James 2:6
and Acts 16:19. He points out that both of
these texts translate the Greek word helkuo as "drag" and therefore John
6:44 cannot mean woo or lovingly persuade as some Arminians argue [p. 70].
Another Reformed theologian
Loraine Boettner would be in agreement with Sproul as seen in how he inserts the following
words in John 6:44: "No man can come unto me except the Father that sent me draw
[literally, drags] him" [The Reformed Faith, p. 11].
Calvinist Robert W. Yarbrough
sets forth the same argument that Sproul does but in more detail. He writes,
"Draw" in 6:44
translates the Greek helkuo. Outside
John it appears in the New Testament only at Acts 16:19: "they seized Paul and Silas
and dragged them into the marketplace. . . . " John’s
Gospel uses the word to speak of persons being drawn to Christ (12:32), a sword being
drawn (18:10), and a net full of fish being hauled or dragged to shore (21:6,11). The related form helko appears in Acts
21:30 ("they dragged him from the temple") and James 2:6 ("Are they not the
ones who are dragging you into court?"). It
is hard to avoid the impression that John 6:44 refers to a "forceful attraction"
in bringing sinners to the Son ["Divine Election in the Gospel of John," in Still
Sovereign, p. 50, fn. 10].
There are a couple of problems
with both Yarbrough’s and Sproul’s approach to understanding draw in John 6:44. First, their procedure of looking at helkuo
is an example of a word-study fallacy known as "word-loading." This occurs when a person takes a meaning of a
word in one context and then seeks to apply that same meaning into a different context. They both do this when they appeal to the use of helkuo
in James 2:6, Acts 16:19 and other places, as justification for understanding John 6:44 as
meaning drag or force.
Secondly, while Yarbrough does
not cite from any reference work to support his conclusions, Sproul at least cites one, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament (TDNT). After
investigating "Big" Kittel’s definition for myself, I was surprised to find
that it did not agree with Sproul’s definition of draw. Albrecht Oepke comments that in John’s
usage of helkuo "force or magic may be discounted, but not the supernatural
element" [TDNT, 2:503]. Yet for
Sproul’ s definition to hold up, John’s usage must mean to compel or force. When I turned to find out what "Little"
Kittel (the one-volume abridged edition of Kittel’s massive ten volume work) had to
say on "draw," I was shocked at what it had to say in comparison to
Sproul’s dogmatic assertions. Here is
the entire comment as translated and abridged by Geoffrey Bromiley:
The basic meaning is "to
draw," "tug," or, in the case of persons, "compel." It may be used for "to draw" to a place
by magic, for demons being "drawn" to animal life, or for the inner influencing
of the will (Plato). The Semitic world has
the concept of an irresistible drawing to God (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff.; Jer. 29:26; Hos.
9:7). In the OT helkein denotes a
powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love. This is the point in the two important passages in
Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of
force or magic. The term figuratively
expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all
(12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The
apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be
taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic [p. 227].
What? The compulsion is not automatic? But this is exactly what Sproul and other
Calvinists argue that helkuo means in John 6:44 — God literally and
irresistibly compels, drags, or forces the elect to come to Christ. Yes, helkuo can literally mean drag,
compel, or force in certain contexts (John 18:10; 21:6,11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; and
James 2:6), but it is not the lexical meaning for the context of John 6:44, nor for that
manner, John 12:32. Sproul confidently states
that "linguistically and lexicographically, the word means to compel," but where
is the citation of all the lexical evidence to support this statement?
The Lexical Meaning for the
Word "Draw" in John 6:44 and 12:32
I have surveyed every
available Lexicon, Exegetical Dictionary, and Greek-English Dictionary, that I could find
in bookstores, Seminaries, and College libraries available to me. Here is a sampling of the evidence:
• A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, says helkuo
is used figuratively "of the pull on man’s inner life. . . . draw,
attract J 6:44" [Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, p. 251].
•
The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, states that helkuo is
used metaphorically "to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44;
12:32" [William Mounce, p. 180].
• The Greek-English
Lexicon to the New Testament has, "met., to draw, i.e. to attract,
Joh. xii. 32. Cf. Joh. vi. 44" [W.J. Hickie, p. 13].
• The Analytical
Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F.
Miller says, "figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw,
attract (JN 6.44)" [p. 144].
• Calvinist
Spiros Zodhiates, in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, says, "Helkuo is used of Jesus on the
cross drawing by His love, not force (Jn. 6:44; 12:32)" [New Testament Lexical
Aids, p. 1831].
I
could cite at least eight more reference works but it is unnecessary because not a single
one of them defines draw in John 6:44 as "compel or force." Clearly, R.C. Sproul has not done his homework. Without warrant or justification, he has appealed
to a single source that does not even support his Calvinist conclusions. He has, knowingly or unknowingly, ignored the
overwhelming lexical evidence that militates against his reformed theology. To further compound his error, he has committed a
basic word study fallacy in attempts to bolster his dogmatic assertions. It is surprising to find a philosopher and
theologian of his caliber committing such obvious errors in his work. Calvinism relies heavily upon this erroneous
understanding of draw to support their doctrines of predestination and irresistible grace. Yet, they are left without any lexical
justification for their view.
Let us review the last few
comments on the word draw from "little" Kittel:
There is no thought here of
force or magic. The term figuratively
expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all
(12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The
apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be
taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic.
What is rather ironic in all
of this discussion is that the above definition coincides beautifully with the
Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace
— a doctrine that R.C. Sproul denies that the Bible teaches [pp. 123-125]. Wesleyan-Arminians believe that divine grace works
in the hearts and wills of every person to elicit a faith response or as Thomas Oden
states so well, "God’s love enables precisely that response in the sinner which
God’s holiness demands: trust in God’s own self-giving" [The
Transforming Power of Grace, p. 45].
God’s prevenient or
assisting grace is morally drawing all people to Himself (John 12:32). This gracious working of God does not compel or
force anyone to believe but enables all to respond to God’s commands to turn
away from sin in repentance, and towards the Savior Jesus Christ in faith. Thus, with all the strength of Calvinism,
salvation can be ascribed completely to God, but without denying genuine human
responsibility that Calvinism does.
What is also ironic is that
Wesley’s understanding of "draw" in his Explanatory Notes Upon the New
Testament is fully in agreement with the lexical evidence that we have already
witnessed. He says of John 6:44: "No man can believe in Christ , unless God
give him power. He draws us first by good
desires, not by compulsion, not by laying the will under any necessity; but by the strong
and sweet, yet still resistable, motions of His heavenly grace" [pp. 328-329].
I would like to note that
several times in Wesley’s teachings we see him dispelling this notion that God uses
irresistible grace to force or compel people to believe in Christ. I would like to first mention those instances in
Wesley’s Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament and then those in his Works.
Jesus said in Matthew
16:24-25, "If any man be willing to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up
his cross, and follow me." Wesley
replied to these words with. . . "None is forced; but if any will be a Christian, it
must be on these terms. Let him deny
himself, and take up his cross— A rule that can never be too much observed"
[Explanatory Notes, p. 83]. At the
end of the Parable of the Great Banquet in
Luke’s gospel Jesus said, "And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into
the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be
filled" (14:23). To this Wesley
replied, "Compel them to come in — With all the violence of love, and the
force of God’s Word. Such compulsion,
and such only, in matters of religion, was used by Christ and His disciples" [Explanatory
Notes, p. 258]. Paul’s argument
found in Acts 17:24-28, that God has revealed Himself through His creation and
providential care so that people "would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and
find him," is interpreted by Wesley as meaning:
"The way is open; God is ready to be found; but He will lay no force
upon man" [Explanatory Notes, p. 465]. When
Paul defended himself before King Agrippa in Acts chapter twenty-six he said these words,
"Consequently, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision [of
Christ on the road to Damascus]" (vs. 19). Wesley
commented, "I was not disobedient — I did obey; I used that power (Gal.
i. 16). So that even this grace whereby St.
Paul was influenced was not irresistible" [Explanatory Notes, p. 501]. In response to the familiar words found in 1
Timothy 2:3-4 Wesley says, ". . . willeth all men to be saved. It is strange that any whom He has actually saved
should doubt the universality of His grace! Who
willeth seriously all men--Not a part only, much less the smallest part. To be saved--Eternally. This is treated of, verses 5-6. And, in order thereto, to come
— They are not compelled. To the
knowledge of the truth — Which brings salvation" [Explanatory Notes,
pp. 774-775]. In Revelation chapter two Jesus
says that he gives a false prophetess in the Church of Thyatira "time to repent"
yet, "she does not want to repent of her immorality" (vs. 21). Wesley ’s notes read, "And I gave her
time to repent — So great is the power of Christ!
But she will not repent — So, though repentance is the gift of
God, man may refuse it; God will not compel" [Explanatory Notes, p. 948].
In the sermon, "The
General Spread of the Gospel," Wesley
responds to a gentlemen concerning the idea that God acts irresistibly upon the souls of
men. He writes,
You know how God wrought in your
own soul, when he first enabled you to say, "The life I now live, I live by faith
in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." He did not take away your understanding; but
enlightened and strengthened it. He did not
destroy any of your affections; rather they were more vigorous than before. Least of all did he take away your liberty; your
power of choosing good or evil: He did not force
you; but, being assisted by his grace, you, like Mary, chose the better
part. Just so has he assisted five in
one house to make that happy choice; fifty or five hundred in one city; and many
thousands in a nation; —without depriving any of them of that liberty which is
essential to a moral agent [Works, 6:280].
In Wesley’s sermon
"On the Wedding Garment," taken from Matthew 22, he concludes his message by
saying:
The God of love is willing to
save all the souls that he has made. This he
has proclaimed to them in his word, together with the terms of salvation, revealed by the
Son of his love, who gave his own life that they that believe in him might have
everlasting life. And for these he has
prepared a kingdom, from the foundation of the world.
But he will not force them to accept it; he leaves them in the hands of
their own counsel; he saith, "Behold, I set before you life and death, blessing and
cursing: Choose life, that ye may live."
[Works, 7:317].
In "Predestination Calmly
Considered," Wesley argues that God’s free and assisting grace is far more in
line with the wisdom and plan of God to save sinners than through irresistible grace. He says,
how gloriously does the
manifold wisdom of God appear in the whole economy of man’s salvation! Being willing that all men should be saved, yet
not willing to force them thereto; willing that all men should be saved, yet not as trees
or stones, but as men, as reasonable creatures, endued with understanding to discern what
is good, and liberty either to accept or refuse it" [Works, 10:232].
Wesley goes on to say that God
accomplishes this wise plan by enlightening mens understanding concerning good and evil
and by convicting them of his sin when they violate their God given conscience. He adds that God also "gently moves their
will, he draws and woos them, as it were, to walk in the light" [Works,
10:232-33]. God, in his wisdom, proceeds in
this way "to save man, as man; to set life and death before him, and then persuade
(not force) him to choose life" [Works, 10:233]. With God graciously moving is this way men are
held responsible for their response to His loving grace. Since
God has taken these gracious initiatives toward fallen man to redeem him, Wesley said God
could rightly reply, " ‘What could I have done for’ you (consistent with my
eternal purpose, not to force you) ‘which I have not done?’ " [Works,
10:233]
This is indeed a wise and
marvelous plan by a sovereign God to save sinners. Wesley
has explained well that a sovereign God does not "force one into everlasting
glory," and another "into everlasting burnings" for such an action would be
entirely inconsistent with the character of God our righteous and just Governor
["Thoughts Upon God’s Sovereignty," Works 10:362-363].
To be an Arminian is to be as
Wesley has said — a lover of free grace. All
people partake of God’s free and enabling grace.
Therefore, God can justly grant eternal life or eternal death depending on how
people use their grace enabled freedom. Calvinism
do not have the word "draw" from John 6:44 to use in their favor to teach their
doctrines of predestination and irresistible grace. On
the other hand, Wesleyan-Arminians have the lexical evidence in their favor to teach that
the "grace or love of God, whence cometh our salvation, is FREE IN ALL, AND FREE FOR
ALL." Let us, in the power of God’s
Spirit, powerfully proclaim this biblical truth in our churches today.
JOHN FLETCHER ON THE
HOLY SPIRIT’S POWER IN THE NEW BIRTH
Joseph D. McPherson
It should never be forgotten
that the third person of the triune God is involved in the whole scheme of man's
salvation. The following references from John
Fletcher's writings remind us that a miraculous and powerful work of the Holy Ghost is
involved in the new birth of every penitent who believes wholeheartedly in Christ Jesus. Notice that each passage or paragraph below is
taken from different parts of Fletcher's written works but continue the same theme.
"And O! what will thy believing, enlarged heart experience
'in that day of God's power,' and thy spiritual birth!
Christ, 'the true light of the world, the eternal life of men, coming
suddenly to his temple,' and filling it with the light of his countenance, and the power
of his resurrection! Christ 'shedding abroad
in thy' ravished 'soul, the love of thy heavenly Father,' thy bitterest enemies, and all
mankind! In a word, 'the Holy Ghost given
unto thee!' Or, 'Christ dwelling in thy heart by faith,'" John 1:4; 1 John 5:12;
Romans 8:15; 5:5; Galatians 1:16;
Ephesians 1:13; 3:17 [Works,
3:335].
"But the immediate worker
of regeneration is the Spirit of God, which our blessed Lord obtained for us by the merits
of his death. In this respect true Christians are said by Christ to be born of the Spirit;
and St. Paul calls regeneration 'the renewing of the Holy Ghost'" [Works,
4:136].
"Yes, you shall be
baptized by the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins, and justified freely by faith"
[Works, 4:115].
"That they [the 120 at
Pentecost and Cornelius together with his household] should be baptized with the Holy
Ghost and spiritual fire, was not extraordinary, since it is the common blessing which can
alone make a man a Christian, or confirm him in the faith" [Works, 4:287].
"[The three thousand on
the day of Pentecost] received the gift of the Holy Ghost, whose office it is to manifest
the Son" [Works, 4:305].
"Christ receiveth
sinners; he undertaketh their whole concern; he giveth not only repentance, but remission
of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. He
creates them anew: his love first makes the bride, and then he delights in her" [Works,
4:258].
The Apostle Paul reminds us
that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). Both early Methodists and early Wesleyan
Methodists were convinced that just as it took a great work of God's Spirit to cleanse the
soul from all inbred sin in entire sanctification, so also must the Holy Ghost's mighty
power be the means of bringing a dead soul to life in the new birth. They saw in the New Testament a holistic view of
the Holy Ghost's work in the human heart, beginning with justification and regeneration
and continuing unto entire sanctification. Further
increases in holiness were then to be sought throughout life as one lived in the Spirit. Such is God's unique work of salvation in this
Holy Ghost dispensation.
ARMINIUS, THE
SCAPEGOAT OF CALVINISM
Vic Reasoner
John Wesley observed that
"to say, 'this man is an Arminian,' has the same effect on many hearers, as to say,
'This is a mad dog'" [Works, 10:358]. Richard
Watson wrote that Arminius is accused of introducing corruptions into the Christian
church, which he probably never thought of and which certainly have no place in his works
[Theological Dictionary, p. 41].
Christopher Ness in An
Antidote Against Arminianism, first published in 1700, called Arminianism "the
last and greatest monster of the man of sin, the elixir of Anti-Christianism; the mystery
of the mystery of iniquity, the spawn of Popery, and the varnished offspring of the old
Pelagians."
In his commentary on Romans,
Richard Haldane wrote, "It is hatred to the sovereignty of God that influences the
Arminian."
Robert C. Harbach wrote,
"Arminianism is that rejected error which has become the most insidiously
devised heresy ever to lay claim to biblical support."
Harbach complained that Calvinists are the most hated people in the universe
because they alone stand for the truth. In
contrast, he defines Arminianism as everything he rejected, including Universalism,
Romanism, and Pelagianism.
Louis Berkhof frequently
lumped Arminians and heretics, such as Pelagius or Socinian, together without
distinguishing the beliefs of the Arminian position.
This amounts to guilt by association. Grant
Osborne wrote,
One of the tragedies of our
current situation in evangelicalism is the emotive code-words or labels which we attach to
certain positions and which enable us to automatically reject the totality of that
position on the basis of the label. One of
the worse of these ‘code-words’ is ‘semi-Pelagian’ which means
automatically that the position is a-biblical, and that the data within need not be
studied further. To many strong Calvinists
any Wesleyan-Arminian position is automatically ‘semi-Pelagian.
Arminius is sometimes blamed
for almost leading the Reformation off course. Carl
Bangs characterized this view as, "Calvinism came in, Arminius nearly ruined it, and
the Synod of Dort restored it."
First, let us look at the man
who has been so maligned and then look at his teachings which have been misrepresented. Jacob Hermansz was a Dutch theologian of the late
sixteenth century. We know him by his Latin
name, Jacobus Arminius. In 1582 James
Arminius arrived in Geneva to study under Calvin's son-in-law, and successor, Theodore
Beza. Beza had made the Calvinistic position
more rigid and had taught supralapsarianism — that the decrees of election and
damnation came prior to the decree to create man.
The fact is that the early
Dutch reformers were not Calvinists when they overthrew Catholicism in 1566. When James Arminius was installed as pastor in
Amsterdam in 1587, Calvinism was not in control. Arminius
had the reputation of being a brilliant preacher, a gifted Bible exegete, and a humble and
dedicated Christian. His expositional
preaching drew large crowds.
As the city was opened to
trade, new merchants arrived bringing in Calvinism and only toward the end of his fifteen
year tenure as pastor did Calvinism become strong enough to create problems for Arminius.
Two ministers from Delft had
debated Dirck Coornhert, a Catholic humanist, and as a result felt it was necessary to
modify Beza's rigid position. In 1589 they
published a book which did so. As a former
student of Beza, Arminius was asked to defend his teacher, although there is no evidence
to suggest that Arminius had ever accepted the position of Beza. There had always been a diversity of opinion among
Dutch theologians. However, the influx of
Calvinistic teaching was growing.
Arminius faced a crisis of
conscience and he responded with integrity. He
concluded that supralapsarianism made God the author of sin. No one could refute his scholarship, but preachers
began to openly attack him from the pulpit. His
words were twisted out of context and his enemies tried to destroy his influence.
In 1603 Arminius moved to
Leiden to become professor of theology at the university.
He was considered the greatest scholar of his day and taught until his death in
1609. He was the first ever to receive the
Doctor of Divinity degree from the University of Leiden.
Even at Leiden he was under attack from the Calvinist, Francis Gomarus. Finally, Arminius asked for a public hearing, but
he died before the synod convened. He was
about 49 when he died, and his death was probably hastened by the stress he was under.
After his death, 42 of his
followers wrote their manifesto, the Remonstrance, in 1610.
In 1618-9 the Synod of Dort was convened and adopted a high Calvinistic statement
which included the supralapsarian position of Beza. Although
it was Arminius who had called for an open forum, there were 130 Calvinists present and 13
Remonstrants who were prisoners of the state and were given no vote. "The Remonstrants were at a disadvantage from
the very start, and were summoned as defendants. They
were denied seats in the council, and were treated throughout as accused parties."
Simon Episcopius, the
successor of Arminius, delivered a speech of two hour length, so logical and magnanimous
that it moved many hearers to tears. Yet the
Synod of Dort condemned Arminianism as heretical and as a result some 200 Remonstrant
ministers were ousted from their pulpits. Some
were banished and persecuted until 1625.
Arminianism reintroduced the
spirit of tolerance to the Church. The early
Arminians were well educated and held strong convictions, but they displayed a different
spirit. They had no animosity toward those
who disagreed with them; they only asked that their views be permitted to exist.
There were theologians in
England who taught the essence of what Arminius taught before Arminius. After the restoration of Charles II in 1660,
Arminianism held great influence within the Church of England. Over time, however, the Arminians became the more
liberal party in the church. In seventeenth
century England the Latitudinarians were considered Arminian. In the eighteenth century the term was associated
with Socinianism. It was not until the
Wesleyan Reformation that the pure doctrine of Arminius was restored and the tendencies of
Pelagianism and Unitarianism removed. John
Wesley published the first popular account of the life of Arminius in English and this
came in the first issue of The Arminian Magazine in January, 1778.
Having looked at the life, the
spirit, and the influence of Arminius, I conclude that we should hold him in the highest
regard. John Fletcher concluded that among
the theologians who endeavored to steer their doctrinal course between the Pelagian
shelves and the Augustinian rock, "none is more famous, and none came nearer the
truth than Arminius" [Works, 2:281]. But
what about his doctrines which are misrepresented? [to be continued in the Fall issue]
REVIEWS
THEOLOGICAL
ACCUSATION BY ASSOCIATION
An article in the Jan-Feb,
2001 issue of The Voice of the Nazarene leveled the charge of "heresy"
against Dr. A. J. Smith, Pastor Robert L. Brush, and Bishop E. O. Jones. It is obvious from the article that the author
did not understand what these men were actually teaching.
We recently reprinted Dr.
Smith’s greatest work, Bible Holiness.
In the research I did in preparation for my introduction, I spared no effort in
interviewing those who knew Dr. Smith and in gathering up the material he wrote. While I never met him, I came to the conclusion
that Dr. Smith was a man of God who was one of the first to sound the alarm that the
modern holiness movement was not Wesleyan. While
Dr. Smith has been repeatedly misrepresented in The Voice of the Nazarene, anyone
who would take the time to read his book would readily see that he has a thorough grasp of
Wesleyan doctrine. In order to make his work
more accessible, we are offering the new edition of Bible Holiness at the reduced
price of $5 postpaid or three copies for $10.
While Bishop Jones is not the
editor of Faith in the Future, his article entitled "First and Second Blessing
Holiness" is a brilliant insight into the Wesleyan understanding of salvation. Anyone who has taken any time at all to look at Faith
in the Future would soon realize that the magazine regularly prints articles on entire
sanctification. However, Jones argues in this
article that holiness begins at regeneration.
Jones does nothing more than amplify the words of John Wesley, "A Christian is
so far perfect as not to commit sin. This is
the glorious privilege of every Christian; yea, though he be but a babe in Christ"
["Christian Perfection, Sermon #40, 2.20-21].
It is a misrepresentation of
both Jones and the Crusaders Church, which he oversees, to conclude that because they
contend that the new birth does something that they are teaching it does everything.
Again, this was the burden of
Robert L. Brush in his article "The Myth of the ‘Carnal Christian.’"
Although Brush is neither the editor of The Arminian Magazine nor does the article
even spell Arminian properly, those are only indicators that perhaps the writer has
rushed to preserve orthodoxy without being sure of his facts.
James Arminius declared that
"a regenerate man, one who is placed under grace, is neither carnal, nor so
designated in the Scriptures" [The London Edition of Works, 2:513-516].
John Fletcher taught that the
remains of the carnal mind still cleaves to imperfect Christians, but that the term
"carnal" without any qualification refers to either unawakened or awakened
sinners [Works, 2:540-547]. Adam
Clarke defined "carnal" as the epithet of an unregenerate man. Clarke declared that "carnal" cannot be
applied to any Christian after his conversion [Commentary, 6:86]. Joseph Benson explained that
"carnal" described "a state of death and enmity against God." Benson said that any commentator who supposed that
Paul was describing his own state, or the state of any regenerated person in Romans 7,
"must be under a great mistake" [Notes, 5:62].
According to Romans 8:6 to be
carnally minded is death. A born-again
Christian has the remains of the carnal mind, but has been set free from its control. Wesley taught that sin remained, but did not
reign. None of the men who were falsely
accused wrote that regeneration cleanses the heart from the sinful nature. However, they would all agree that the new birth
gives a sufficient measure of victory over that sinful nature that the new Christian is
enabled to live above willful sin.
To label their writings as
Zinzendorfism is to introduce a "red herring" argument; an accusation which
distracts from the real issue. Although
Nicholas Ludwig von Zinsendorf (1700-1760), taught that we are as holy as we will ever be
when we are regenerated, that teaching has been consistently rejected by all who are
Wesleyans. Although nearly a page is
devoted to the discussion of a historical situation in which a segment of the holiness
movement was led astray by the same Zinsendorf position that there was no further need for
cleansing after justification, that is not the position of any of the three men accused by
name of heresy. The real issue is this:
does regeneration produce victory over sin?
Secondly, to raise the issue
of the disciples experience at Pentecost is not germane to the discussion. It is faulty logic to claim that if the disciples
were not entirely sanctified at Pentecost, they were never sanctified. John Fletcher, for example taught that at
Pentecost thousands were wonderfully converted and clearly justified. The chaff of selfishness and sin began to
be burned. "Some time after, another
glorious baptism, or capital outpouring of the Spirit, carried the disciples of Christ
farther into the kingdom of grace which perfects believers in one" [Works,
2:631]. Does the fact that Fletcher
equated the entire sanctification of the disciples with Acts 4:31-33, instead of Acts 2,
mean that he was also heretical?
Proverbs 17:15 warns that it
is an abomination to condemn the innocent. Not
only did the author falsely condemn three holy men, he ends the article with a heretical
statement. He declared that to teach you
received the Holy Ghost when born again is false doctrine.
When Dr. Smith wrote of three errors in the popular holiness movement, he
identified the second error as the teaching that "the Holy Spirit does not come into
the heart of the penitent at the new birth, but later when one is entirely
sanctified." Smith proceeded to quote
first from Romans 8:9, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of
his." Then he quoted from Charles
Wesley’s sermon, "Awake, Thou That Sleepest." In this sermon Charles Wesley declared "he is
antichrist whosoever denies . . . that the indwelling of the Spirit of God is the common
privilege of all believers." Victory
over sin in the life of the regeneration is possible only through the indwelling Holy
Spirit. It is that same abiding Spirit which
leads the believer on to Christian perfection. Without
the enabling grace of God, wrought through the Holy Spirit, we are not nor can we ever
become a Christian.
Ironically, The Voice of
the Nazarene magazine has become a major distributor of early Methodist teaching
through their promotion of CD-ROMs. Yet the
magazine blatantly contradicts the very teachings it seeks to propagate. James warned that those who teach will be judged
more strictly (3:1). Those who write to
explain the truth of God’s Word will be held to a higher standard. Yet James also conceded that we all stumble
in many ways. James is not excusing sin; he
is simply declaring that no one knows it all. However,
it seems that the author of this article is guilty of a far more serious blunder than are
the men he has accused. When the blind lead
the blind, a whole movement can end up in the ditch.
WHAT LEFT
BEHIND LEFT OUT
The Left Behind
series of books has sold 36 million copies. Last
year both #7 and #8 in the series debuted each as the #1 best-selling fiction book. In its first five years the Left Behind
series generated a quarter of a billion dollars in revenue.
Now the movie Left Behind is at the theater and Christians are
strongly encouraged to go and support a Christian movie.
As usual, the modern church world is better at marketing than at getting the
message right. Here are 4 biblical concepts
which are left out of the Left Behind message:
1. The Conditional
Nature of Covenants
By
rejecting their Messiah, Israel was cut off from their covenant with God (Rom 11:20). Tim LaHaye, the theologian behind Left Behind,
believes that covenants are unconditional. If
God will keep his promises, even when we break faith, then the believer’s security is
unconditional. However, many Arminians who
would not accept the previous premise, have not thought through the teaching that Israel
will always be the people of God, regardless of their response to Christ.
The teaching of Romans 11:26
is that all Israel will one day acknowledge Jesus as the Christ and be saved, not
that they have always been God’s people even while they rejected their Messiah. When that day of salvation comes they will be
baptized by the Spirit into the one body of believers which is comprised of both Jew and
Gentile (1 Cor 12:13). However, while they
persist in their unbelief, they are not the people of God.
God’s people are his Church. God
has one Church, Christ has one body, and the Holy Spirit baptizes believers into that one
body.
However, the view has been
made popular that God has two peoples: Israel and the Church. God’s relationship with Israel is based upon
his old covenant promises, while God’s relationship with the Church is based upon the
new covenant. We cannot understand future
prophecy if we misunderstand present realities.
There are not two plans of salvation.
The old covenant is null and void. There
is only one way of salvation and it is through faith in the work of Christ. Christ, in his atoning work, also broke down the
barrier between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14-16).
To revert back to the old covenant would dishonor the finished work of
Christ.
However, the Left Behind
series is based upon the premise that God has two peoples and two plans. Christ failed at his first coming to establish a
Jewish kingdom, so the Church was inaugurated as a parenthesis in God’s original
plan. Thus, Christ is expected to return
secretly at any moment and rapture out the Church. Then
God will revert back to his original plan of establishing a Jewish kingdom on earth. After a seven-year period of Jewish tribulation,
Christ is expected to return a third time to set up that kingdom. While the events portrayed in the Left
Behind series happen during that seven-year period, this sequence of events cannot be
established from Scripture. Their projection of future events is a logical
necessity based upon their unproven assumptions.
2. The Great
Tribulation is a past, not a future event (Matt 24:21).
The
period of the Great Tribulation is the struggle between the kingdom of darkness and the
kingdom of light. When that light shines
into the darkness, the darkness will attempt to overpower it but will fail (John 1:5). Therefore, the struggle ensues at the point in
time when God ’s kingdom invades this world.
The Left Behind crowd
believes the struggle will be in the near future because they believe the kingdom was
postponed. But the kingdom was not
postponed. Christ accomplished his mission
(John 19:30). They misunderstood his mission. It was not to establish a Jewish kingdom,
but a universal, spiritual kingdom.
The kingdom of God was near at
the time of his birth and it was established at the time of his death, resurrection, and
session. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at
Pentecost was the verification that his kingdom was established. Since the kingdom came in the first century,
the struggle occurred in the first century. Specifically,
the great tribulation was the siege of Jerusalem between A. D. 67-70. The historical record of Josephus describes
the fulfillment of the prophetic warnings given by Jesus in Matthew 24.
Daniel foretold of 70 sevens,
or a 490-year period of time, in which the temple would first be rebuilt, the Messiah
would enter the temple, and then the temple be destroyed.
The only way the Left Behind crowd can fit a future tribulation period into
that well-defined window of time is to force a gap of seven years between the 69th and 70th
week. That means that the gap is over four
times longer than the original period outlined by Daniel.
It also means that they have stretched Scripture to the point of breaking.
3. Christ was victorious on the cross.
Satan
was defeated at the cross (Col 2:14-15) and the preaching of the cross binds Satan.
Ultimately all things will be reconciled unto him and he will have dominion in everything
(Col 1:18, 20). The universal atonement of
the last Adam not only counteracts the sentence of death brought by the first Adam, but
the victory of Christ is superabundant, restoring much more than was lost through Adam
(Rom 5:20). While everyone will not be
saved, the race, as a whole will be redeemed (Rom 11:32).
Therefore, our optimism is an
expression of our faith. This kingdom will
fill the whole earth (Dan 2:35, 44). In the
14th century, John Wycliffe, the "morning
star of the Reformation," ended his Confession with the words, "I believe
that in the end the truth will conquer."
There have always been those
who either opposed Christ or set themselves up in place of Christ. Even in the first century John said "many
antichrists have come" (1 John 2:18). No
future antichrist, no political beast, nor even the man of sin, will ever control the
world because God gave this world to Christ at the time of his resurrection (Psalm 2:7-8;
Acts 13:33).
Carnal men have more faith in
a future antichrist than they have in the victory of Christ. The Left Behind series feeds this misplaced
faith by portraying the rise and universal reign of antichrist. It will never happen.
I object to the fear-mongering
of this PG-13 movie. If people are not
convicted over their sin, you cannot scare them into the kingdom. God has not given his children the spirit of fear
(Rom 8:15) and I refuse to raise my children with an apocalyptic worldview. I want them to have faith for the future, not to
live in fear of some international conspiracy which will result in a cataclysmic
Armageddon.
The gospel of Jesus Christ
will fill the world and displace the bondage of Satan.
While Satan cannot change the decisive defeat he received at the cross, he has
temporarily succeeded in stealing honor which is due Christ alone by getting the modern
church to produce books and movies which overinflate the significance of antichrist. We have no king but Christ.
4. No one will be left
behind when Christ returns.
The
movie begins with the disappearance of Christians. All
that is left behind is their clothes. Some
family members express concern that they may be walking around naked. Then for the next half hour the rest of the world
tries to figure out what has happened as life for them goes on. Although millions will suddenly disappear, the
Christian influence upon this world amounts to the sum total of car wrecks Christians
cause as they are raptured from the cars they are driving.
Jesus did teach that at his
coming one would be taken and the other left (Matt 24:40-41; Luke 17:34-36). While the believers dead and alive will go
out to meet the Lord as he returns (Matt 25:6), there will be no interval of seven years
until Christ comes a third time to judge those left behind.
When Christ returns in the
movie there is no trumpet sound. But
according to 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thess 4:16-17 when Christ returns a trumpet blast will
literally raise the dead. The Bible teaches
that at his glorious return all the dead, both saved and unsaved will be raised and we
will all stand before his judgment seat. This
truth is revealed in John 5:28-29; Rom 14:10-12; 2 Cor 5:10, and Rev 20:13. Those found to be listed in the Book of Life will
enter into heaven. Those not found in the
Book of Life will then be cast out into the regions of hell. But rest assured, no one will be left behind.
Watching the movie Left
Behind will never make you an authority on eschatology.
The crowd which contributed to this phenomenal-fictional series of books has a
consistent track record of being wrong on their predictions of future events. The only thing they have learned from their false
prophecies is to repackage them as fictional literature.
During this brief moment of success, they are quick to add that while the plot and
characters of Left Behind may be fictional, it is based upon the foundation of
biblical scholarship. The truth is that Left
Behind is wholly fictional and without biblical foundation. It is based upon a view of the future which
was unknown to the Church until it was first presented in 1830. While the Left Behind series reflects one
more desperate attempt to sell dispensationalism, it is actually the Word of God which Left
Behind left out.
DISTORTING THE
TEACHINGS OF HISTORIC METHODISM
The
Entire New Testament on Holiness is advertized as a concise
collection of the comments of John Wesley and Adam Clarke on the subject of Perfect Love
in the New Testament. Schmul Publishing
Company just reprinted this compilation by John C. Capehart, which was first published in
1923.
Part One is entitled "Baptism with the Holy Ghost." Although Capehart compiled twenty pages of
comments by Wesley and Clarke on the baptism with the Holy Spirit, in not one instance did
they ever equate it with perfect love, entire sanctification, or Christian perfection. That connection was made by the American holiness
movement. Although such a connection existed
in the mind of the editor, this is just another instance of an editor imposing his
suppositions upon the author.
Part Two is entitled "Sanctification."
It contains a fifty-seven page collection of comments on texts which, for the most
part, contain the word "sanctification." The
editor gave no consideration to whether the context dealt with initial, progressive,
entire, or final sanctification. Apparently
the editor failed to understand Wesley’s comment that the term sanctification
refers to those who are justified unless it is qualified by another word such as
"wholly" or "entirely."
Part Three is entitled "Holiness." It
is a ninety-three page assortment of comments on biblical texts dealing with either
holiness begun or perfected. Disregarding the
context of such passages as Romans 6 and 1 John 3:9, the doctrinal of initial
sanctification, and statements by Wesley that "a Christian was so far perfect as not
to commit sin," holiness is confined to the second blessing.
Part Four is entitled "Perfection" and although these comments pertain
most directly to the editor’s purpose, this is the shortest section containing only
eighteen pages.
Ironically, Clarke himself complained that many interpret the very text of
Scripture in light of their own preconceived doctrine.
See his comments on Rom 12:6, where he was critical of those for whom the analogy
of faith means nothing more nor less than their own creed.
The practice Clarke criticized was the mode of operation followed by this editor. Therefore, the chief value of the book under
review is that it states the views of John C. Capehart.
It falls into the same category of books such as Wesley on Perfection
edited by J. A. Wood in 1921, in which Wood omits the sections of Wesley’s writings
which did not agree with his theology. For
example, chapter eight is entitled "Sanctification Instantaneous, by Faith, and Not
by Growth in Grace." Wood simply omitted
Wesley’s teaching on progressive sanctification and misrepresented his teaching by
only stating one side of the issue. It was
during this same time period that many began to "improve" on the teachings of
the founders. More recently Ralph Earle did
the same thing with Clarke ’s Commentary [see "The Earle & Clarke
Exposition," Spring 1994].
The holiness movement has been fed edited versions of what early Methodism actually
was for so long that they really do not know the teachings of those who are claimed to be
their founders. Those who desire to know what Wesley and Clarke taught should consult the
primary sources.
|
