Issue 2, Spring 2003, Volume 21

Issue 2, Spring 2003, Volume 21

The Kingdom of Our Lord

Andy Heer

Typically and tragically modern Christians have no concept of Ascension Sunday. Too often it is ignored, neglected, overlooked or just written off as something dead liturgical churches do. However when we consider what Scripture has to say about this important event, it is mind-boggling to think how it has been overlooked.

If there were any events in human history, which need to be commemorated as historically significant, thoughtful Christians would have to put the Ascension of Jesus Christ in the front rank. The Ascension is not to be understood as a trick of levitation, but rather as an event, which signaled the transition from the old heavens and earth to the new heavens and new earth, in which righteousness dwells. We live in a new earth because Jesus Christ was exalted to the right hand of God the Father. The old heavens and earth are passing away and the new heavens and earth are being established by the gospel (Isa 65:17-25).

Jesus Christ was crucified in weakness. He was crucified under the greatest contempt possible with people taunting him; "You saved others, save yourself." "If you are the Messiah then come down from the cross." They spit upon him, they scourged him, and they plucked out his beard, yet in that apparent defeat Jesus Christ threw down all the principalities and powers of evil. He conquered all wickedness at that moment on the cross.

The wickedness he was conquering did not understand what was happening at the time. Unfortunately many of us who have been saved by the power of the cross don't seem to understand what has happened either. We still don't seem to understand what actually took place when Jesus was crucified dead on the cross, when he was buried in the grave and when the Lord God our Father vindicated him by raising him from the dead.

In Revelation 11:15-16 we find some glorious words. I do hope Handel has heightened the meaning of this verse for you as he has for me. I can't read this verse without singing it and giving these words the glory they deserve. We see that when Jesus Christ is exalted, God the Father is worshiped. When we honor Jesus Christ, it brings us into a position of humility before God the Father. When we fall on our faces and worship God, then we are lifted up. When we humble ourselves before God, he will lift us up as a worthy bride for the bridegroom Jesus Christ.

We have to watch ourselves carefully. It is perilously easy for us to read passages like this, and then smoothly, glibly, and wrongly relegate them as carriers of some sort of "spiritual truth." And in this fatal compromise, that we treat the enthronement of Jesus Christ as though it were irrelevant to the course of human history, and to the behavior of all creatures occupying other thrones. But Scripture does not give us this report so that we may ignore the ramifications of it.

Psalm 2 tells us that when the Messiah is enthroned all he has to do is ask and it will be done. "Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession" (v 8). We know this has happened because in the Great Commission Jesus says, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Jesus is saying all authority is mine - I own the heavens and I own the earth. There is not one square inch that is not under my authority. This is not some kind of "spiritual truth" which can be separated from all other actual truth. In other words, Jesus is King in heaven and on earth.

We recognize this truth on our dates. We say 2003 AD, Anno Domini, in year of our Lord. The pagans seem to be far more aware of the significance than we Christians. That is why they have started using things like BCE-Before the Common Era. When people try to pull that garbage off, ask them why. Why is it the Common Era? Jesus Christ is the King of the World, including the foolishness we have here in scholasticism. We must be careful not to allow his reign to become irrelevant.

When the Lord ascended into heaven, this appeared to those on earth as a simple departure. "And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."" (Acts 1:9-11). Jesus will return in the same manner in which he left. His mode of departure, and the appearance of the angels, should tell us that this is an event of enormous significance. There will be a second coming. He will raise the dead. He will judge the world.

We must understand Jesus was crucified on a cross, buried in a tomb and rose to life. He has ascended into heaven to take his place on the throne. If you were standing there as one of the disciples you would have been asked by the angels, "Why are you looking up to heaven? You have some work to do. The king has taken his place. He is in session; now get to work. You must pray, preach and fulfill the Great Commission." This means through the preaching and proclamation of the gospel, the Christian faith is a religion of world conquest.

Anything less than an understanding of world conquest is a compromise of fatal significance; Jesus Christ has commanded us to go and preach the gospel to every nation. And he did not command us to go expecting that they would all reject it. He expects us to win the victory. He expects us to disciple the nations.

The significance of the ascension of Jesus is lost unless we wisely look at these things from God's perspective. The same event viewed from heavenward takes on another significance entirely. Jesus had warned about this at his trial. "But He kept silent, and made no answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." And tearing his clothes, the high priest said^, "What further need do we have of witnesses? "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death" (Mark 14:61-64).

The high priest reacted in this way because he knew his Old Testament better than most modern Christians do. He knew what Jesus was referring to by this language, and the significance of it. The high priest did not tear his robes because he understood an eschatological system developed in the nineteenth century. He was not outraged because Jesus was claiming to be able to return in some secret rapture or rebuild the temple. He was upset because he knew Jesus was identifying Himself as the Son of Man.

The language about "coming on the clouds of heaven" is taken from the book of Daniel. The assumption is this passage in Daniel is referring to the Second Coming, but it is not referring to the Second Coming, or of a coming to earth at all. It is a prophecy of the Ascension, and of the Coronation that is the result of it. "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:13-14).

When the Son of Man comes on the clouds of heaven, where does he come? He does not come to earth like some try to say in Matthew 24:30. Rather he comes to the Ancient of Days. This is clearly not a coming to earth; this is a coming to heaven.

So when the high priest asks Jesus, "Are you the son of the blessed?" Jesus responds, "I am," echoing the words of God with Moses. The kingdom and dominion that Jesus has received is an everlasting one that will not be destroyed. This was enough to make the high priest tear his robes. This is enough to make an earthly ruler who does not want to share any power or position furious.

Because Jesus Christ comes to the Ancient of Days, he is given a seat of authority and this seat of authority will have an impact and a result among the nations. This makes sense of the statement Jesus makes to the high priest, "You shall see this." Jesus did not misspeak these words He was not talking about the second coming. Jesus did not say to the high priest in the first century, two thousand years from now you will see. No, the reign and rule of Jesus Christ has already begun. This is what we see in Psalm 2. This Psalm is quoted a number of times in the New Testament. These many quotations should be abundantly clear; Jesus is reigning in the here and now.

"Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession" (Psalm 2:8). God the Father asked, "Do you want all the tribes? You can have them. Do you want all the kings of the nations? You've got them."

Why would Jesus want them? They are stubborn, disobedient and rebellious. Jesus wants the nations so that he can draw them into salvation. This is God's purpose to save the world. Those who resist will be judged. Those who submit to King Jesus will be blessed. All of us will be blessed when we acknowledge who the Lord Jesus is. The nations will be blessed when they acknowledge the Lord Jesus.

Jesus Christ is given absolute dominion and there is no wiggle room. From the Secretary General of the United Nations to the secretary of the Lions club, all authority is his. Our task is to live as if we believe it and declare it to others who pretend not to believe it.

Our task as Christians is not to go out into the world and ask the world if they would like to make Jesus Lord. Jesus doesn't have to be made Lord by anyone but God the Father. In the Ascension, Coronation and Session of Jesus Christ we see the Father has already made Jesus Lord two thousand years ago. God has made him, declared him, and established him as Lord. Our task is to declare this to the nations. We are not going out into the world trying to make it so. Instead we are going out into the world proclaiming it is so and it has been so for many years.

This means that Jesus has been given a name above every name, whether in heaven, or on earth, or under the earth. And this means that every tongue must confess him, and every knee must bow. And this means that this is what we are calling the nations to - complete obedience. This doctrine underscores the crown rights of our Lord and King Jesus Christ. His task will not be satisfied until the goal is met. The goal is every king, every nation, every tongue, every parliament, every state house, every local authority; every one acknowledging that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Fully God and fully man, he came to earth to die for the sins of the world and has secured the salvation of this world. He has now ascended into heaven and has been seated at the right hand of God the Father. He is reigning and ruling until all his enemies have been made a footstool.

The historical church has recognized this truth from the beginning. This is what got Paul and the early Christians into trouble with the Roman authorities. They were declaring "No King but Jesus!" Now look at the church today. We have drifted from our glorious heritage. Like the prodigal, we are looking longingly at the pods in the feeding trough. We need to repent and go back.

There is one stipulation - the meek shall inherit the earth. Some of the disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven to destroy the villages that were not receptive to the gospel. Jesus said we will conquer the nations another way. We will conquer the nations by declaring the gospel, by living the gospel, by submitting to the gospel. We will declare to the nations Jesus Christ is King when we live out the gospel with one another. We are to do it with confidence that it will happen. It may not happen on our timetable but we must do it. We must go. Therefore, we are told, "go ye into all the world and act like you own the place." Go because Jesus Christ is the King of the Ivory Coast. Go because Jesus Christ is King of Zambia. He is the king of the nations who have never heard. He is the king of the nations who have once submitted but have apostatized and fallen away. He is even the King of nations like ours. This is the declaration we make to the nations. The gates of hell will not stop the progress of Jesus' Kingdom. We issue them the terms of surrender, as set forth in the Word of God.

What are the means God has given us for this task? The Word, the Holy Spirit and the Supper. When we gather for worship we need to see ourselves taking another shot with the battering ram. When we pray for that end we will start hearing the wood splinter on the gates of hell. This is what we are doing here on earth. This is why when God saved us he did not immediately transport us up to heaven. God wants the power of the gospel to conquer the world. We have work to do.

The Conversion and Cleansing of Pentecost

Vic Reasoner

In The Preacher's Perspective (6:28, Sept-Dec 2002), Jack Seaney wrote an editorial entitled "Pentecost, Conversion or Cleansing?" I was asked to reply to this editorial. I want to evaluate his appeal to Scripture, his appeal to holiness scholars, and his reference to John Wesley.

1. The appeal to Scripture

The author appeals to three passages of Scripture to prove his point that the disciples were converted before Pentecost. Before looking at these three passages, I must point out that the water has already been muddied. Prior to Pentecost and the inauguration of the new covenant, the disciples were saved, their names were written in heaven, and they would have go to heaven on the same basis that any other faithful Jew under the old covenant would be saved - a faith which expressed itself through submission to the law of Moses.

Furthermore, these disciples had been converted in the sense that they now had taken an additional step of faith - they acknowledged Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.

The real question is whether they were born again before Pentecost. The new birth was not part of the old covenant. Yet the prophets declared that under the new covenant there would be greater privilege. Such passages as Joel 2:28-29; Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Ezekiel 36:25-29 anticipate the blessings of the new covenant. These blessings were not made available until the day of Pentecost.

Therefore, when we read that justification is by faith, we understand that we are no longer justified by a faith which expresses itself through obedience to the law of Moses. Instead our faith is in the finished work of Christ. Was it possible, then, for the disciples to believe on the death and resurrection of Christ before the fact? The Gospels indicate that they were still filled with doubt and unbelief, even after the resurrection.

And since all who belong to Christ have received the Spirit (Rom 8:9), how was it possible for the disciples to be born again before the Spirit was given? Under the new covenant we are added to the Church and belong to the body of Christ, through the baptism by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). Although the giving of the Spirit was prophesied by Jesus in John 20:22 (which was after his resurrection), the Spirit was not yet given until Jesus was glorified (John 7:39). I understand this glorification to be what he prayed for in John 17 and what he received after his ascension and session at the right hand of the Father.

None of the three passages cited in this article have any true bearing upon the question under discussion. In John 17 Christ prays for the sanctification of his disciples. The term "sanctify" encompasses their initial sanctification, their progressive sanctification, their entire sanctification, and their final sanctification.

Luke 5:24 declares that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins and Luke 10:20 declares that the names of the disciples were written in heaven. Revelation 13:8; 17:8 indicate that God in his foreknowledge wrote the name of every saved person in the book of life before the foundation of the world. I could argue that Jesus declared the names of the disciples were written in heaven because he knew they would be saved. However, even under the old covenant, the name of Moses was written in God's book (Exod 32:32) and according to Malachi 3:16 all who feared the Lord were written in heaven. Those whose names were written in this book were saved. Therefore the issue is not salvation from hell, but the blessings of the new covenant.

The final passage cited is Acts 15:8-9 which speaks of heart purification that had occurred, first at Pentecost, and then at the household of Cornelius. The account concerning Cornelius records that Peter preached forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43). He later reported that God had granted "repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18) and that "conversion" had taken place (Acts 15:19). Cornelius had been converted from a servant to a son.

Acts 15:8-9 declares that the same experience which Cornelius received also is what happened at Pentecost. And according to Titus 3:5 regeneration is cleansing and the renewal of the Holy Spirit. Leo Cox, who is cited in this article, wrote concerning initial sanctification

At the same time that the new life is planted in the soul, God begins the cleansing of sin. The power of sin is broken. Man is made holy, pure, clean, but not entirely so. This cleansing work is the beginning of sanctification. It is holiness begun. It can be called initial because it is just a beginning. This new life exists where some evil is still present [John Wesley's Concept of Perfection, pp. 86-87].

2. The appeal to holiness scholars

The author also declares that such holiness scholars as Brown, Hills, Wiley, and White affirm that the persons baptized with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost were truly regenerated believers. However, the author fails to give us the exegesis of these scholars; we are simply expected to accept their conclusion. Earlier in the article the author declared that we do not judge the Bible by Wesley; instead we judge Wesley by the Bible. I agree that the Scriptures are our final authority. Therefore, if the interpretation of Wesley must be evaluated in light of Scripture, so must the opinions of Brown, Hills, Wiley, and White.

The author cites one sentence from Wiley. In its context Wiley made the comment that the baptism described in Matt 3:11-12 "is applicable to Christians only, not to sinners" [Christian Theology, 2:444]. However, the New Testament contains no command for Christians to receive such a baptism. Since we have already noticed the purifying effect of regeneration, Wiley's interpretation does not prove his point.

The author also cites Stephen S. White. In its context White argued,

Pentecost as described in Acts 2 is the answer to the great high priestly prayer of Jesus for the sanctification of His disciples (John 17). If such were not the case, we would have no reason to believe that Christ's prayer was ever answered [Five Cardinal Elements in the Doctrine of Entire Sanctification, p. 47 in Wesleyan Heritage Library].

This argument is given by White, not as a scriptural argument, but an argument from reason. Here White argues that if the prayer of John 17 was ever answered, it must have been answered at Pentecost. Of course, White begins with a restricted definition of sanctification, limiting it only to entire sanctification. But while White could see no other logical fulfillment, it is interesting that John Fletcher saw Acts 4 as the occasion when the Lord's prayer for their perfection was answered [Works, 2:631]. Therefore, White's argument is not conclusive.

3. The reference to Wesley

The author first warns us that unless we understand the evolution of Wesley's theology we may not properly represent him. However, in his Journal Wesley, then 75 years old, disclosed that his doctrine of Christian perfection had not changed in over forty years [1 Sept, 1778]. His first tract on the subject, "The Character of a Methodist," was written in 1739. In A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, written in 1777, he said that he had not added one point that he had not held 38 years earlier in "The Character of a Methodist." In fact, he said that he began this pursuit of Christian perfection in 1725 [§ 10]. The title page for A Plain Account of Christian Perfection gives the dates 1725-1777. Although Wesley did not die until 1791, his editor added these words, "It is not to be understood, that Mr. Wesley's sentiments concerning Christian Perfection were in any measure changed after the year 1777." Thus, the evolution of Wesley's doctrine has been greatly exaggerated. And Wesley did not equate Christian perfection with the baptism of the Spirit at any stage of his theological development - covering a span of over 50 years.

The author then refers to an experience which Wesley described as "waves of glory" which occurred in 1744, or six years after his Aldersgate experience. His Journal for December 23-25, 1744 does recount an experience which Leslie Wilcox connects with entire sanctification in Be Ye Holy [pp. 272-273]. The passage does not contain the phrase "waves of glory," nor does it make any association with the baptism of the Spirit or Pentecost. Therefore, when the author writes, "This is believed to have been his Pentecost," he is imposing his paradigm on Wesley's experience.

It is interesting, however, that in the Journal of Charles Wesley, the account of his new birth, which occurred May 21, 1738 (three days prior to John's Aldersgate experience) is entitled "The Day of Pentecost."

The author then cites one paragraph from John Wesley's A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. While there are many editions of this wonderful tract, the paragraph cited may be located in § 13. However, it makes no association between Pentecost or the baptism with the Holy Spirit and Christian perfection.

Thus, the author first depreciates the value of John Wesley's interpretation of Scripture, then warns us it went through an evolutionary process. Next he appeals to Wesley's teaching and finally to his experience as proof that Wesley equated Pentecost with entire sanctification. The entire attempt to first discredit Wesley, then use Wesley fails because the author fails to establish that Wesley equated Pentecost with entire sanctification.

4. Conclusion

Having failed in his appeal to Scripture, having cited holiness scholars which are inconclusive, and having misrepresented Wesley, the author then claims all who disagree with him are ignorant and that they contradict Scripture, sound doctrine, and experience. While his own scholarship is inadequate and his logic assumes the very propositions which he fails to prove, he ends by warning that those who disagree with him do not love the truth, are willing to believe a lie, and run the risk of damnation.

Thus, the editorial generates more heat than light. Failing to produce a cohesive argument, the author resorts to fear-mongering in order to prop up a doctrine which is neither Scriptural nor Wesleyan. I would suspect that the author has read very little from Wesley, but fervently hopes that such a heavy-handed rebuke to all who do not hold his opinions will distract his readers from discovering for themselves his own ineptness.

The Inadequate Historical Precedent for "Once Saved, Always Saved"

Steve Witzki

John Jefferson Davis wrote an article titled: "The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine" [Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 34:2 (June 1991)]. Three things make this article of great value. First, it was written by a well-known and highly respected Calvinist theologian. Second, it covers the key people and church groups on the topic. Third, it demonstrates that "once saved, always saved" or unconditional eternal security was not a doctrine that was taught by the ancient church, nor for that manner, by any well-known theologian before John Calvin. This doctrine is, in fact, completely foreign in the history of Christianity.

While the first extensive discussion of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is found in Augustine's Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, written around A. D. 429, Augustine believed it was possible to experience the justifying grace of God and yet not persevere to the end. Such people were not given the gift of perseverance. Augustine did believe God's elect would certainly persevere to the end, but he denied that a person could know they were in the elect and he also warned it was possible to be justified but not among the elect. Not until Calvin was unconditional election, permanent regeneration, and certitude of final perseverance all connected.

James Akin, a Catholic theologian, said in a debate with Calvinist theologian James White that no one before Calvin taught that predestination to grace automatically entails predestination to glory.

You can check that out for yourself. I did. I searched multiple books and called half a dozen Calvinist seminaries, talking to their systematic theology and church history professors, and no one could name a person before Calvin who taught this thesis. They all said Calvin was the first. I even called John Jefferson Davis, a scholar who published an article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society on the history of this doctrine, a man who is himself a Calvinist, but who has researched the history of this doctrine thoroughly, and he said Calvin was the first to teach it.

This poses a problem even for those who claim that they take their teachings exclusively from Scripture, namely, "How could a doctrine this important--if true--remain completely undiscovered for the first 1500 years of Church history and, if Jesus comes back any time soon, for three quearters of all of Church history?"

Other important doctrines have been known all through Christian history. Christians always knew, even when heretics denied it,that Jesus Christ was God. Christians always knew, even when heretics denied it, that Jesus Christ is fully man as well as fully God. And Christians always knew, even when heretics denied it, that they were saved purely by God's grace.

So when it turns out that Christians never knew that true Christians can never fall away, and then suddenly 1500 years later someone starts claiming it, one has to ask who is conveying the true teaching of the apostles and who is teaching the heresy ["Are All True Christians Predestined to Persevere?"].

Akin's remarks are accurate and problematic for Calvinist scholars. Furthermore, the Calvinist does not fare any better when one looks even more deeply into what the early Christians believed about this issue. In 1998, Hendrickson Publishers printed A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers. Under the topic heading of "Salvation," we find the question, "Can those who are saved ever be lost?" After several Scriptural passages are quoted [2 Chron 15:2; Ezek 33:12; Matt 10:22; Luke 9:62; 2 Tim 2:12; Heb 10:26; 2 Pet 2:20-21], five pages of quotes are given from the writings of early Christian leaders. These quotes give evidence that the early church did not believe in "once saved, always saved." They taught that it was possible for a genuine believer to reject God and wind up eternally separated from God in hell [pp. 586-591].

David Bercot, editor of this dictionary, also wrote a provocative book called, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? It takes today's Evangelical Church, both its lifestyle and teaching, and looks at it in the light of early Christian teaching. It is an interesting book that comes from someone who has read through the entire works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers more than once. He writes,

Since the early Christians believed that our continued faith and obedience are necessary for salvation, it naturally follows that they believed that a "saved" person could still end up being lost. For example, Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, wrote, "Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin because death shall no more have dominion over Him.. Therefore we should not be puffed up.. But we should beware lest somehow, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins but rather be shut out from His kingdom" (Heb. 6:4-6) [p. 65].

What the Christian Church historically believed about the security of the believer is not the ultimate test for determining our stance on this issue today, but the lack of historical precedent should serve as a warning. Before John Calvin, the teaching of unconditional eternal security was not a doctrine that was taught by the universal church through the centuries. Therefore, while the Scriptures are the ultimate test for truth on this issue, "once saved, always saved" teachers need to acknowledge that their doctrine is historically an anomaly. Furthermore, the brand of "once saved, always saved" teaching that tells people that they can stop believing and still be on their way to heaven (but with less rewards) is nowhere to be found in historic Christianity prior to the twentieth century.

REVIEWS

J. Matthew Pinson, ed. Four Views on Eternal Security. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

What's nice about these four views books is that they give each person 50 pages to present the best Scriptural case they can make for their position. Each contributor then has the opportunity to write a 3-10 page rebuttal to the other views. Three of the four contributors to this book I easily recognized: Michael Horton (Classical Calvinism); Norman Geisler (Moderate Calvinism); and Steven Harper (Wesleyan Arminianism). I was not acquainted, however, with Free-Will Baptist writer Stephen Ashby (Reformed Arminianism). In my opinion, it was he who presented the most biblically persuasive case for conditional security and against unconditional security. Nevertheless, his essay still has some shortcomings that need to be addressed.

Let me comment briefly on the other merits of the other essays. I believe Calvinists will be disappointed with Michael Horton's contribution. He provides the reader with only 19 pages on his position when each of the other contributors write almost 50 pages for their respective positions. Furthermore, Horton does not provide a single quote from John Calvin himself-the first major theologian to teach that it is impossible for believers to fall away. To better understand how Classical Calvinist's interpret the warning passages, the reader should consult the book, The Race Set Before Us, by Thomas Schriener and Ardel Caneday.

Norman Geisler's essay is an enlargement on the chapter he did in his book, Chosen But Free. The casual reader will notice that Geisler has relied heavily upon "proof-texting" to make his case for unconditional security. He presents the most popular version of "once saved, always saved" that is promoted by people like Chuck Swindoll, Tony Evans, and Charles Stanley. He tries to distance himself from Charles Stanley and some of the outrageous remarks he makes in his book on eternal security, but in reality, his view is essentially no different from that of Stanley's-"continued belief is not a condition for keeping one's salvation" [p. 109]. Like Stanley, Geisler argues that Christians cannot lose their salvation through sinful living. He agrees that 1 Corinthians 9:27; 2 Timothy 2:12; Hebrews 6:4-6; and 10:26-29 are warnings directed to genuine believers, but they are concerned with a believer losing out on heavenly rewards, not on losing ones salvation. Ashby correctly observes that such an interpretation for these passages "will not withstand the scrutiny of credible exegesis" [p. 128].

Steven Harper has a fine grasp of John Wesley and his teaching on eternal security. Harper demonstrates that Wesley taught conditional security and the possibility of apostasy for genuine believers from texts such as, Hebrews 6:4-6; 1 Timothy 1:19-20; and 2 Peter 2:20-22. However, he says that Wesley believed "even the kind of people described in these passages can be restored to salvation-but not apart from their maintaining a sober assessment of their true condition and making appropriate repentance" [p. 239]. I do not believe this interpretation can be exegetically defended from these passages. Nevertheless, Harper asks an important question in this debate, "how much sin can lead to the loss of salvation" [p. 239]. Wesley and Wesleyan Arminians would reply that prolonged sin in the life of a believer manifests an eroding faith in Christ and can result in the loss of salvation. It is this view that Ashby disagrees strongly with and the major problem with his otherwise excellent essay.

Ashby says, "To understand the Reformed Arminian position, we must recognize that one is not saved by quitting sinning. Nor does committing sin or failing to confess sin cause one to lose salvation" [p. 172]. All Christians would agree completely with the first statement, but it is the second statement that Ashby makes that is troubling. God's Word clearly warns believers that if they continue to participate in the same sins of the unbeliever they will share in their same destiny [1 Cor 6:9-11; Eph 5:1-12; Gal 5:16-21; compare with Rev 21:1-8, 27; and 22:14-15]. This happens to be the interpretation that Reformed Arminian Robert Picirilli arrives at in his commentary on Ephesians 5:1-7 [see Randall House Bible Commentary, "Galatians through Colossians," pp. 216-220].

Ashby's problem lies with an inadequate definition of apostasy. He writes,

There is only one way for a believer to lose salvation: a decisive act of apostasy-departing from the living God through unbelief (Heb. 3:12). If a saved individual ever rejects Christ, he or she will at that point have cast aside the God-appointed instrumental cause of salvation [pp. 182-183].

What does a decisive act of apostasy look like? What does unbelief and rejection of Christ entail in a Christian's life that results in a loss of salvation? Unfortunately, he never defines what apostasy or unbelief looks like so that we can avoid it. The Hebrew writer defined it as "sinning willfully" (10:26), and links a "an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God" (3:12), with the disobedience or sin committed by the Israelites that prevented them from entering into God's rest (3:7-19). The sins that provoked God's anger and judgment on Israel involved idolatry and sexual immorality, amongst other vices. Thus, the writer exhorts us to keep faith with God and to not follow the example of disobedience or unbelief that Israel displayed lest we fall short of entering God's final rest (Heb 4:1-11). This is consistent with what the rest of the NT says concerning the consequences for persistent sin. Why does Paul command believers to flee from sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:18) and idolatry (1 Cor 10:14)? Because those who do such things will not inherit or enter the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-11). Jesus stated the same truth,

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:44-48).

Furthermore, Ashby accused Harper of misrepresenting Wesley's view on the atonement. Ashby assumed that since Wesley recognized the element of satisfaction in the atonement, that Wesley held to penal satisfaction. Penal satisfaction holds that Christ made the payment for sin and once the believer was forgiven he could never be held liable for future sin in his life. To say that a believer could forfeit his salvation through willful sin would be double jeopardy, according to Ashby. But it is Ashby who misunderstands the Wesleyan-Armianian version of satisfaction. Richard Watson distinguished between "full satisfaction" and "full equivalency." Benjamin Field wrote that the death of Christ cannot be reduced to a commercial transaction. While his sufferings satisfied divine justice and vindicated the authority of the law, Christ did not suffer the precise amount of pain which sinners deserve to suffer. Thomas Ralston believed in the satisfaction of the justice of God, but not penal satisfaction - the exact payment of our penalty for our sins. R. S. Foster objected that "a penal satisfaction cannot be conditional." Thomas Summers explained that if Christ paid the debt, either for the elect or for the entire race, then neither repentance, faith, nor obedience could be required, fir that would be a kind of double jeopardy. W. B. Pope warned against a concept of exact compensation, since some may perish for whom Christ died, and thus he would be defrauded of his payment for them [see this discussion in the Fundamental Wesleyan Commentary on Romans, pp. 145-151].

God accepts the work of Christ an equivolent satisfaction of the just demands of his law, for all who meet the condition he has decreed - trust in the blood of Christ. But those who believe are not only declared righteous, the justified are also empowered to live a new life of victory over willful sin. Harper does represent Wesley, and Scripture, when he warns that we cannot continue in sin and still maintain justification. The faith which saves is a continuous, obedient faith which brings assurance. Ashby, on the other hand, argues that since we cannot be saved by quitting sin, we cannot be lost by continuing in sin. Wesley would call this "antinomianism."

-Steve Witzki and Vic Reasoner

Thomas Coke, Appendix to the Commentary on the Revelation. 1803. Reprinted. Salem, OH: Allegheny Publications, 2002.

At the close of Thomas Coke's 6-volume Commentary, some editions have a long Appendix at the end of his Commentary on Revelation. Here, Coke, who was writing in 1803, included much of his speculation concerning prophecy and world events. Following the calculations of George Faber, Coke expected the final overthrow of Islamic, Papal, and Infidel powers by about 1866. Coke's reference to Infidel powers was a reference to the French Revolution (1789-1799). He saw the French Revolution as a clear indication that the "great and terrible day of the Lord" was at hand. While the French Revolution as a politic movement was short lived, the humanistic Enlightment philosophy prevailed as modernism from the time of the French Revolution to the collapse of communism - 1789-1989.

Just as Revelation 13, 16:13 and 19:20 describes an unholy trinity of dragon, beast, and false prophet, so Coke believed there were three Antichrists. Faber established the beginning of Roman Catholic tyranny with the papacy of Boniface III in A. D. 606. Coke also connected the rise of Islam with A. D. 606. With this starting date of 606 Coke adds 1260 years, using the prevalent day/year formula, and Coke concluded that all three Antichrists would be overthrown by 1866. The rise of the most recent Antichrist, in the form of the French Revolution, was evidence that things could not go on much longer. By 1866 Armageddon would be fought, the conversion of the Jews would begin, and the millennium would be established by a reign of righteousness which Christ would establish on the earth.

It should be noted that Coke was not predicting the second advent of Christ by 1866. Nor do I have any problem with his analysis that the spirit of antichrist is present within Roman Catholicism, Islam, and modernism. The real problem is with his time frame. Obviously, he was wrong in his projections. Yet he was not alone. Using different dates, Clarke predicted the end of Islam in 1902 [see his comments on Daniel 12:11]. The problem is that these commentators, like all commentators of their day, took Revelation to be the chronological history of the Church written in advance. They also took the 1260 days, mentioned by both Daniel and John, as years. It was this day/year formula which led them to false conclusions. This formula was largely discredited after the Great Disappointment, when William Miller used it as a premillennialist to predict the return of Christ in 1843, then 1844.

Today the real debate is between preterists, who interpret the seventy weeks of Daniel, as well as the events of Revelation, as fulfilled in the first century and futurists, who see Daniel's seventieth week and the book of Revelation as future.

While Coke's Appendix has historical interest, it is probably the least helpful section of his Commentary. It was reprinted especially because of Coke's comments on the significance of Islam. While the early Methodists were correct in their evaluation of the spirit of Islam and in their hope that the Gospel of Jesus Christ would overthrow it, history has proven them wrong on their dates for its fall.

-Vic Reasoner

Kenneth G. C. Newport, ed. The Sermons of Charles Wesley. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

The original volume of sermons by Charles Wesley was printed after his death in 1816. However, at least seven of thirteen sermons in that volume were written by brother John. This new critical edition brings together, for the first time, a complete collection of twenty-three sermons written or preached by Charles Wesley.

Plagiarism was not the issue it is today. While it is true that possibly nine of these sermons were copied from someone else, they are written in the handwriting of Charles. He agreed with and preached these sermons and thus they represent his theology.

Sermon #8 on Ephesians 5:14, "Awake, Thou that Sleepest" and Sermon #9 on Psalm 46:8, "The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes" are also found in the Thomas Jackson edition of The Works of John Wesley, but they are actually by Charles. Seven additional sermons will also be found among the sermons of John Wesley and were copied by Charles from his brother.

This critical edition provides the following new material not found in The Works of John Wesley: