Let's examine what Arminian theology is from an Arminian and not the typical twisted view espoused by Calvinists.
The Five Arminian Articles of Remonstrance
I.That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His Son, before the foundations of the world were laid, determined to save, out of the human race which had fallen into sin, in Christ, for Christ's sake and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on the same His Son and shall through the same grace persevere in this same faith and obedience of faith even to the end; and on the other hand to leave under sin and wrath the contumacious and unbelieving and to condemn them as aliens from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36, and other passages of Scripture.
II.That, accordingly, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that He has obtained for all, by His death on the cross, reconciliation and remission of sins; yet so that no one is partaker of this remission except the believers [John 3:16; 1 John 2:2].
III.That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself and by himself think nothing that is good � nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is, above all else. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through His Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding, affections and will and in all his faculties, that he may be able to understand, think, will, and perform what is truly good, according to the Word of God [John 15:5].
IV.That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit [Acts 7 and elsewhere passim].
V.That those who are grafted into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby been made partakers of His life-giving Spirit, are abundantly endowed with power to strive against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to win the victory; always, be it understood, with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ assisting them in all temptations, through His Spirit; stretching out His hand to them and (providing only that they are themselves prepared for the fight, that they entreat His aid and do not fail to help themselves) propping and upbuilding them so that by no guile or violence of Satan can they be led astray or plucked from Christ's hands [John 10:28]. But for the question whether they are not able through sloth or negligence to forsake the beginning of their life in Christ, to embrace again this present world, to depart from the holy doctrine once delivered to them, to lose their good conscience and to neglect grace--this must be the subject of more exact inquiry in the Holy Scriptures, before we can teach it with full confidence of our mind.
____________________________________
When we examine historical records of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, these are the writers of the first 300 years of the Early Church, some of which were the direct personal disciples of John the Apostle and Paul, we find some interesting things.
1) All of the ideas and concepts and theology of what we call Arminian Theology today can be found in the Early Church. This is what was handed down by the Apostles to their Disciples. This is irrefutable.
2) What we cannot find are any of the ideas, concepts and theology of Calvinism, not a one. None of them! Nothing of what John Calvin taught can be found prior to St. Augustine. Even "Perseverance of the Saints" was a new invention of Calvin. Prior to the 1500s Once Saved Always Saved simply did not exist. It is a man made theology.
Where there is access to a good theological library or to the old editions of worthy religious books, there are, in this anti-intellectual age, few professing Christians who avail themselves of the privilege of exploring the subject of �The Sovereignty of God.� How few have ever read a book bearing such a title! One must make a rather exacting search to find material comprehensively treating the� entire scope of this field � the whole counsel of God, the doctrine of Predestination in its two parts: election and reprobation. For though in the �making of many books there is no end� (Eccl. 12:12), yet this truth is made gradually to disappear and at length be forgotten. This is due to a determined decline from what is both Calvin�s and the Church�s Calvinism. This becomes evident when sovereign reprobation, if not expunged altogether from popular literature, is removed from its rightful place of prominence next and subordinate to election, and is relegated to a mere footnote or appendix. Repugnant to �the flesh� (Gal. 5:17) it is; but no mere appendage to holy Scripture. It is an integral part of the fundamental principle of that system of truth taught in the Bible and known as the Reformed Faith.
In the interest of that Faith it is much more than in good taste once again to place this Gospel nicknamed �Calvinism� before the public. For the true church always fulfills its obligation to do so. The true church over against the false church is readily identified by its distinctive marks: the pure preaching of the Word of God, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the maintaining of good order in life and worship. Such a church is no hypocritical church. It stands, as the truth does, antithetically to the lie. The truth is, �our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased� (Ps. 115:3). The lie is, �Yea, hath God (so) said?� (Gen. 3:1). The truth is God�s thesis. The truth is also God�s antithesis to the lie. Calvinism is the eternal truth. Arminianism has always been an inveterate lie. The motive, therefore, for publishing these fundamentals of the .faith is not, contrary to the spirit of the times, to secure premature �decisions� for, or unintelligent acceptance of the Christian position; but to proclaim the Word of truth, leaving conversion and salvation, which are impossible as well to the eloquent preacher as the pleading evangelist, to the sovereign will of God and the power of the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 2:4, 5).
DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY
1. ARMINIANISM is that rejected error which has become the most insidiously devised heresy ever to lay claim to Biblical support. Its allure and popular appeal arise from its subtle flattery of depraved human nature, and in its apparent Scripture basis. In loud tones it pretends to the sovereignty of God. �He sovereignly controls all creation, universal nature and the whole of mankind; His supremacy pertains to all things, everywhere. Nothing escapes His surveillance and all-pervading control. �The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good� (Prov. 15:3). It includes our lives; for �in Him we live.� It embraces our actions, for �in Him we move.� It extends to our very being, for in Him �we have our being� (Acts 17:28). We devise our own plan, but the Lord �directeth our steps� (Prov. 16:9). Yet His superintendency is so exercised that God is not the ordainer of sin, but only by His providence permits it. Neither does He coercively prevent it, and thus infringe upon man�s free will and responsibility. Indeed, in that province God does not allow His sovereignty to interfere; for He has created and maintains man�s free will inviolate. Hence Joseph says of the crime of his wicked brethren, �But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive� (Gen. 50:20). In the spiritual realm, God tenders His primary will that men be saved by obedience to the covenant of works (Gen. 3). When man broke that covenant, He, according to His ultimate will, employed an emergency plan�the Cross�that men be saved by compliance with the conditions: �except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish� (Lk. 13:3,5).� Here is the lie fostered that man takes central position at the hub of the universe. Man is almighty man!
CALVINISM has for its first principle, �In the beginning God!� He is the center of the universe. �For of Him, and thru Him, and to Him are all things: to whom be glory for ever! Amen� (Rom. 11:36). In the realm of creation, nature and providence, absolutely nothing occurs without God�s appointment; but He works all things according to the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11). Nothing happens by chance, but by the direction and ordination of our gracious heavenly Father. �My counsel shall stand and I will do all My pleasure: . . . yea, I have spoken, and I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it� (Is. 46:10,11). Also God does more than merely to permit evil: He gives the power to perpetrate it: �Thou couldest have no power against Me, except it were given thee from above� (Jh. 19:11), for �power belongeth unto God� (Ps. 62:11). Further, He sovereignly determines beforehand that the evil shall be done according to His eternal counsel: �for of a truth against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before (�foreordained,� ASV) to be done� (Acts 4:27f). Though Joseph�s brethren did wickedly sell him into Egypt, it is nevertheless true that it was not they, but God who sent him there; for it was God who ordered their evil act /Gen. 45:8). The principle, of Scripture is that evil rulers and their wicked actions come to pass by His ordination. �The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men� (Dan. 4:17). �The powers that be,� though the most degraded, �are ordained of God� (Rom. 13:1). The evil of war also is God�s work: �For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might destroy them utterly, and �that they might have no favor, but that He might destroy them� (Josh. 11:20). In fact, man acts only when activated by God. �In Him we live and are moved� (Gr., passive). So that we cannot turn to what is right unless God turn us. �Turn Thou us unto Thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned� (Lam. 5:21). A man�s heart indeed does devise his way, �but never independently of God�s control. For his very thoughts and words come by the sovereign operation of God upon his heart. �The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue are from the Lord� (Prov. 16:1). �Man�s goings are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way?� (Prov. 20:24), i.e., by his own would-be autonomous way? God�s will alone is absolutely free; and man�s will is always subject to His. �And all the inhabitants of the ear.th are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and who can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou?� (Dan. 4:35). God is equally as sovereign in the field of grace. Here His mercy is free, never suspended upon conditions required beforehand, as for example, that man should repent, or use the light of nature aright. No unregenerate man can or does live up to the light of nature (Rom. l:20f; 8:8); and repentance is a gift of free grace (2 Tim. 2:25; Acts 11:18). Finally, the saying death of Christ was designed chiefly for the praise and glory of God, not merely as a means to rescue souls from hell. �To the praise of the glory of His grace,� �that we should be to the praise of His glory,� and, the whole of �redemption (is) unto the praise of His glory� (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). �Unto you (God�s elect people only) ... a Saviour . . . (Why? primarily for man�s betterment? No!) Glory to God in the highest!� (Lk. 2:11, 14). The highest truth of Scripture is that God in His eternal purpose seeks His own glory God is God!
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
2. ARMINIANISM, however, under its breath croons the siren song of man�s essential goodness. Man is only �very far gone from original righteousness,� not really nor utterly dead in sin, nor destitute of all powers to spiritual good, but is wounded, badly corrupted, and left half dead (Lk. 10:30). Though he be totally depraved, yet he remains a free moral agent, and can still hunger and thirst after righteousness and life (Matt. 5:6); he can believe (Acts 16:31), if he will; he can will and choose, or not to will and not to choose Christ, and all manner of good which may be offered to him: �How often would I have gathered thy children . . . and ye would not� (Matt. 23:37), and, �Choose you this day whom ye will serve� (Josh. 24:25). Therefore the initial grace of God is not that almighty power whereby He raises us out of death into life; but is only a gentle advising whereby God does not produce the consent of man�s will; but merely proposes that consent to the will, and leaves man to comply and convert himself: �Save yourselves from this untoward generation� (Acts 2:40). Man, therefore, after the Fall not only has power to do good, but can so resist God (Acts 7:51, but see under �Irresistible Grace�) that he can entirely prevent his (conditional) regeneration, since it is in his power to be regenerated or not. For first before regenerating grace can work efficaciously in man�s new birth, the will of man must first move, and determine to comply with the conditions of regeneration, e.g., �I have set before you life and death . . I therefore choose life ...� (Deut. 30:19). To be sure, God must give the grace to conform to the prescribed prerequisites, as we ourselves can do nothing. Nevertheless regeneration is a work of God in harmony with the free agency of man and performed on conditions required of man. �As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God� (Jh. 1:12).
CALVINISM confesses the Scripture truth that man is wholly gone from original righteousness, has in his sinful flesh �no good thing� (Rom. 7:18), and that �there is none righteous, no, not one� (3:10). Man, though physically (half or all) alive, is totally depraved, totally deprived of all spiritual ability, �dead thru trespasses and sins� (Eph. 2:l-3), and this death passed upon all men (Rom. 5:12). �We ourselves had the sentence of death within ourselves� (2Cor. 1:9). Calvinism alone takes man�s spiritual death seriously. For man is dead, not merely half-dead; he is drowned, not simply drowning. By the Fall man lost all power unto good, or to better himself. He is �wise to do evil, but to do good he has no knowledge� (Jer. 4:22). He can do no good when it is his nature only and continually to do evil (Jer. 13:23). Freedom of will for fallen man is the ability to act according to his nature. What is his nature? One totally corrupt; for �the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? I the Lord search the heart� (Jer. 17:9, 10). His �carnal mind is enmity against God. It is not subject to the law of God; neither indeed can be. So then, they that are in the flesh (unregenerate nature) cannot please God� (Rom. 8:7, 8). This being true, unregenerate man cannot and will not believe. �Ye believe not� (Jh. 5:38), �How can ye believe . . . ?� (5:44), and, �they could not believe� (12:37, 39). And we never will until �we believe according to the working of the strength of His power� (Eph. 1:19); for we �believe thru grace� alone (Acts 18:27), i.e., our believing is the result �of the operation of God� (Col. 2:12). Why is this? Because faith is the gift of God, an exotic something, not something native to man. Not all men have it: when Paul speaks of �they which are of faith� (Gal. 3:7), he implies that some are not of faith: �all men have not faith� (2Thess. 3:2). Again, why? Faith is �the grace given� (Rom. 12:3, 6), not to all, but �was once delivered unto the saints� (Jude 3). Furthermore, in regeneration and the receiving of faith, man is passive, as an infant in physical birth (and has all done to it and for it�no cooperation!), and as in the initial work of salvation. Then it is not �save yourselves,� but as in the original, �be saved� (aorist passive), and indicates that God permanently makes alive the sinner dead in trespasses and sins. Then he acts and lives God-ward. Thus the �receiving� and �believing� are acts of the regenerated who already �were born of God� (Jh. 1:12, 13), and so believed as born again, and because regenerated. It is never true that one believes, and so is for that regenerated; but is regenerated so that one may and does believe: �he that heareth . . . and believeth . . . hath eternal life� (5:24). Why he hears and believes is because he �hath passed out of death, into life� (Gr.). He had to be in life before he could believe! For believing is evidence of regeneration.
The other texts Arminians appeal to under this heading must not be made to say what they do not say. First, the will of man can never disappoint or checkmate the will of God. Christ does not say, �I would have gathered you, and you would not.� Nor, �I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not.� Nor even, as some force the text to say, �I would have gathered thy children, and they would not.� But �I would have gathered thy children, and ye would not.� That plainly does not teach that the children Christ would gather were unwilling to be gathered, but rather that the �generation of vipers� were not willing that they should (Matt. 23:13, 15)! Of the two wills here, the finite will of �ye would not,� and the infinite �I would,� the latter never fails, and the former is always subservient to the latter. Secondly, it is Arminian philosophy, not Scripture truth, which exhorts us to make a decision between Christ or some other alternative. Scripture allows no other: it is Christ or nothing! Moses does not bid us either to choose life or death. His precept is �choose life!� This is further borne out by the fact that Joshua did not give sinful Israel a choice between Jehovah and idols. Instead, since it seemed evil to them to serve the Lord, preferring either the gods of their fathers �or the gods of the Amorites,� it was in severe denunciation (not �invitation�) that they heard, �choose you this day whom ye will serve . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! . . . Ye cannot serve the Lord� (Josh. 24:14, 15,19).
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
3. ARMINIANISM pretends to believe the doctrine of election. �Election is of such persons as believe and persevere in faith.� For God has chosen the act of faith as a condition of salvation, which condition is a prerequisite unto the final establishment of man�s election: �repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ� are everywhere presented as the conditions. If then, some men do not fulfill the conditions, they may possibly have an election unto faith, but not an election unto salvation. They may once have had faith, but unless they also fulfill the condition of perseverance, they at last are lost: �lest . . . when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway (reprobated)� (1Cor. 9:27). Thus their election can be unto a justifying faith, without being a decisive election unto salvation. For it is necessary to �give diligence to make your calling and election sure� (2Pet. 1:10). God elects believers, it is contended, because He foresaw their faith, their holiness, obedience and turning to Him in final perseverance. These good qualities, therefore, do not have their source in sovereign, immutable election; they are not fruits of election; nor is election the cause of all our fruitfulness; but the performing of these as conditions are the cause of the election. Where we do read, �as many as were ordained to eternal life believed� (Acts 13:48) we are to understand that it means, �as many as believed to eternal life were ordained.� Or, if the familiar word-order be retained, we are to understand �ordained� to mean, �those who were ready� (Twentieth Century N.T.), or �those disposed, i.e., �those who felt led to exercise faith.� Arminianism takes the basic virtues of salvation and makes them previously necessary causes of election, foreseen as being fulfilled by the finally faithful.
CALVINISM maintains with Scripture that the Lord chose us not because we were holy, but �He hath chosen us in Him . . . that (in order that) we should be holy� (Eph. 1:4); not because He foresaw our obedience, but we are �elect . . . unto obedience� (1Pet. 1:2); nor because He foresaw our faith, for �God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, thru . . . belief� (2Thess. 2:13). The effect of election is that none believe except those ordained to eternal life, chosen to faith and to every saving good. The word �ordained� pertains to the eternal, sovereign counsel of God. According to that counsel it means, �to place�: �as many as were placed to eternal life believed,� i.e., to be placed in such a way as to be rooted in and invested with eternal life; it means �to give�: �as many as were given to eternal life, i.e., those under the dominion and ownership of eternal life believed. And since the word is a passive verb (�had been ordained�), it implies that a word omitted is to be understood. That word can be nothing else but �Lord,� which appears in the first part of the text. �As many as had been ordained� � by whom? by the Lord! It is not man�s act, but God�s. �I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen� (Jh. 13:18), for, �ye did not choose Me, but I chose you, and ordained you� (15:16). Our election does not depend upon anything in us, but upon His own sovereign ordination. From God�s point of view, if is absolutely and eternally firm and sure. Our diligence cannot make His decree any more secure; but; rather, furnishes us with the comfort and joy which knowledge of election affords (1Thess. 1:4). God�s election guarantees that none of His elect can be fatally deceived (Matt. 24:24); that none can perish (Jh. 10:27ff.) nor be lost (6:39). God Himself is omniscient, omnipotent and never changes (Mal. 3:6). Therefore it is impossible that His election be changed, recalled, disturbed or disannulled. Nor can the elect be cast away by God (Is. 41:9). They are cast away by men (Jh. 6:37 with 9:34); and sometimes, because of their sins, they bring reproach upon the Gospel, and so are blamed and disapproved by men, enough, perhaps, to become useless in the Lord�s service. But even if an elect person should have a fear that he may become a reprobate, still he is not, nor can he ever be. Scripture does not contradict (Jh. 10:28, 35c). As to all God�s people, their names were forever written in heaven (Lk. 10:20), and He unconditionally promises that He will not blot out their name from that record (Rev. 3:5).
REPROBATION
4. ARMINIANISM bitterly repudiates the doctrine of sovereign reprobation. It is this point which raises the most controversy, and where we meet with the most serious and violent agitation. It is precisely at this point that the carnal mind has the greatest difficulty in submitting itself to the confines of the Word of God, and of bowing to the incomprehensible counsel of God. When we ask, What of the fact that there are certain angels and men who were not �ordained to eternal life�?�, the answer often given is that �God never sends anyone to hell, for His cross bars the way thence, so that the damned send themselves there, as a result of treading the cross underfoot: �who hath trodden under foot the Son of God,� (Heb. 10:29). Indeed, for the sake of that cross God does not determine by an indisputable will to leave anyone in the Fall of man, nor to pass by or leave anyone in the state of sin and condemnation. For �God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance� (2Pet. 3:9); but cf. this under Limited Atonement). Then it cannot be absolute predestination which determines the reason why God sends the gospel to one people and not to another, but rather because one is better and worthier than the other to whom the gospel is not sent: �But seeing ye put it (the gospel) from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles� (Acts 13:46). Why is one consigned to perdition while another is not? Not as the result of an arbitrary partiality: �there is no respect of persons with God,� (Rom. 2:11); but rather because one is good and the other bad; the one became a believer, and the other remained an unbeliever: for �some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not,� (Acts 28:24); or the one is obedient and the other rebellious. Cf. �Come, ye blessed . . . For I was an hungered and ye gave Me meat,� etc., with �Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire . . . For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me no meat,� etc., Matt. 25:34f, 41f). If all this be so, �reprobation� is no decree, nor is it included in the decree of God, for wicked men reprobate themselves; and some of the elect can and do perish, regardless of any decree of God.�
CALVINISM declares that we know only so much about reprobation as God has seen fit to reveal, but that it is important we do know that much. The Bible teaches that the elect are by nature just as wicked, depraved and worthy of damnation as the reprobate: �Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord� (Am. 9:7). Yet the Lord had chosen the Israel of God (Gal. 66:16), and rejected the rest. For there is a personal election of some to salvation (2Thess. 2:13). There must, then, be other persons who are not elected to salvation. God has not appointed His elect unto wrath: �For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ� (1Thess. 5:9). There must, it follows, be others who are appointed to wrath, and to fatal stumbling: for Christ is �a stone of stumbling ...to them which stumble at the Word, being disobedient; whereunto also they were appointed� (1Pet. 2:8). There are some God gave to Christ: �all that the Father giveth Me� (Jh. 6:37); there are others He did not give to Christ: �I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me� (17:9). There are some whose names were written in the book of life (Re. 21:27); there are others �whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world� (Re. 17:8). To some �it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them (that are without, Mk. 4:11) it is not given� (Matt. 13:11). There are some whose welfare we are to seek (Neh. 2:10); there are others concerning whom Christ commands, �Let them alone� (Matt. 15:14). Cf. Jer. 14:11; 7:16. Some are made accepted in Christ (Eph. 1:6); others, �natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed . . . and shall utterly perish� (2Pet. 2:12). But it is altogether out of place to object here that �God is no respecter of persons.� For if He were, no one would be saved ! All would be damned; for all sinned. It is not so amazing that God saves �whom He will� as that He saves any! But this is not to present the complete picture. As Judge, God has respect to no man�s person, and so can do no less than to conclude all under sin (Gal. 3:22). But as Savior, he makes men to differ (1Cor. 4:7); He distinguishes by �distinguishing mercy� one person from another. This is evident from the free dispensings of His grace. �The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect� (Gen. 4:4, 5).
Furthermore, it is only the reprobate who are such children of disobedience that they judge themselves unworthy of eternal life; they make a covenant with death (Is. 28:15). To that disobedience they were sovereignly appointed (1Pet. 2:8), and that self-adjudged unworthiness is their actual state and condition to which they were of old (from eternity) ordained (Jude 4). Hence, �Art Thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God . . . ? we shall not die. O Lord, Thou hast ordained them for judgment� (Hab. 1:12). Concerning that �we� God says, �You only have I known (loved) of all the families of tile earth� (Am. 3:2). Here is reference to the Divine, eternal foreknowledge which is not synonymous with prescience or mere knowledge beforehand. �To foreknow� means to love from eternity. �God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew� (Rom. 11:2). This love of God to the believer is the ground of the believer�s love to Him. �I know (love) My sheep, and am known (loved) of Mine� (Jh. 10:14). But of the rest Christ denounces, �I never knew (loved) you� (Matt. 7:23). Not even before the universe came into being did He know them � He never knew them! �For our God is a consuming fire� (Heb. 12:29). Every plant which He has not planted shall be uprooted (Matt. 15:13), and for the reason that it was not the Divine purpose to engraft them into Christ or plant them as trees in His garden. This makes clear the fact that God is not only sovereign in His goodness, but also in His severity (Rom. 11:22), and that His sovereignty is absolute and independent: �He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth� (9:18). The hardened ones are so because He willed to harden them; He wills to show the power of His wrath upon them; they had not been prepared unto glory (as were the vessels of mercy), but are vessels made unto dishonor, �vessels of wrath fitted to destruction� (Rom. 9:21-23).
Consequently, why some are gifted with faith (and all good works) by God in time, and some are. not so gifted, is determined by God�s eternal decree. And that decree does not have chief reference to the Fall of man, or even to the sins of the reprobate. For it was made, �the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil� (Rom. 9:11). Rather, the decree has primary reference to the sovereign good pleasure and will of God, �who worketh all things (including reprobation) after the counsel of His own will� (Eph. 1:11). Election is the main object of the eternal purpose of God. The Fall and reprobation are subservient to that main object. �The Lord hath made all things for Himself (for His own purpose); yea, even the wicked for the day of evil� (Prov. 16:4).
LIMITED ATONEMENT
5. ARMINIANISM supposes that the Atonement of Christ is �not according to a certain and definite decree to save some, but was made according to a general, conditional offer of grace which God desired to make to all men absolutely and indiscriminately who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth� (1Tim. 2:4). But, being conditional, the death of Christ does not infallibly secure the salvation of anyone. The word �atonement� is not to be understood in the sense that it makes salvation actual, but that it merely provides a possible salvation for the whole human race: �and He is the propitiation (provided remedy) for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world� (1Jh. 2:2). This possibility remains even for the so-called reprobate: cf. Cain � �if thou doest not� well, sin (a sin-offering) lieth at the door� (Gen. 4:7). In its extent, therefore, the atonement is universal: He died for all the ungodly; the gospel being for �whosoever,� �whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,� (Acts 2:21). God loves everybody; He can hate nobody (Jh. 3:16). The preaching of the gospel is grace for all who hear; for �gospel� means �good news�; but if the gospel provides salvation for the elect only, it cannot be good news to those for whom no possible provision of salvation has been made. This being so, the cross must be outfitted like a blank check, providing universal redemption, payable to the endorser, merely for his endorsement, which in turn completes the stipulated terms of the atonement.� By reason of this the final effectuation of election and salvation depends upon the free will of man. As a result, all or none may be saved! �Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?� (Lam. 1:12) is so understood as that it may be anything to anybody.
CALVINISM sponsors the Biblical doctrine of particular atonement, which does more than to render salvation possible, but secures the actual salvation of those for whom Christ died; and He died for those the Father gave to Him (Jh. 17:2, 12). In the same manner, that death is not for a vague, general �whosoever,� but for �whosoever believeth� (3:16); and they only believe who were ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). This implies that the �whosoever shall call� must be the called according to His purpose and grace (2Tim. 1:9). Notice then, when the Scripture says that Christ died for the ungodly (Rom. 5:6), it does not say that He died for all the ungodly. Where the word �all� does appear in connection with the atonement of Christ, it has a meaning limited by the context. The arm of the Lord is not revealed to all (Is. 53:1). Why not? because the Lord had sovereignly determined to harden and blind the rest so that they could not believe (Jh. 12:37-40). In 1Cor. 15:22 (Rom. 5:18) �All� means all in Christ; otherwise the Arminian will prove more than he wants to prove. In 1Tim. 2:4 it is all classes of men. So with the word �any.� Cf. 2Pet. 3:9, �The Lord is not slack concerning His promise (which is never made to the reprobate), as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.� God is longsuffering to us (His elect); and is not willing that any of us should perish. Who are the �any�? the �us�? According to the context, the �beloved� of v. 1, the �beloved� of v. 8. He is not willing that any of His beloved should perish. So He is longsuffering over them. But take �any� in the unqualified, absolute sense,� and the text is made to contradict other Scripture, where, for example, it says that God is �willing to show His wrath� upon he �vessels of wrath,� and cause them under that wrath to end in destruction (Rom. 9:22). However, it is different with His �beloved.� They shall never perish. Another distinction is to be noted In the word �world.� Did Christ die for the whole world of men without exception? N3, but for the world of �whosoever believeth� (Jh. 3:16); for the world which has its sin actually and really �taken away� (1:29). The Lamb loves that world; He takes away its sin. But of the wicked world it is said, �your sin remaineth� (9:14). Their sins lie (crouch) at their own door, to pounce on them like a roaring lion, dragging them down to the pit of hell. For them the sin-offering and intercession of Christ are not, not for the whole world of all mankind; but only for those the Father gave Him (17:9). But assuming He did die for absolutely the whole world, why does He not pray for it? �I pray for them; I pray not for the world.� The truth of the matter is that there is an elect world, a world with its sin removed (1:29), and a �world of the ungodly� (2Pet. 2:5). Teach, however, that Christ died for all the sins of all men, and the following results: God demands the penalty for sin twice! � once at the hands of His Son who paid it all, and again at the hands of those for whom He died (now in hell, themselves paying that already cancelled debt!). But Christ lays down His life exclusively for the sheep. To the rest He says, �Ye are not of My sheep� (Jh. 10:15, 26). He does not lay down His life for them. Nor will it do to say that God originally intended to save all. For from the beginning it was not so: Gen. 3:15. At the first, God put enmity between the children of God and the children of the devil. From the first, the cross divided all men into these two separate companies. Clearly, the cross was never intended to save the serpent�s brood. For the cross sovereignly maintains the ordained enmity against the serpent�s seed. And though temporal gifts flow from the cross, they are not a blessing, but a curse to that reprobate seed: �the curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked; but He blesseth the habitation of the just. Surely He scorneth the scorners, but giveth grace unto the lowly� (Prov. 3:33f). The gospel itself must be and is to them a curse (2Cor. 2:15f), not a blessing. They �are perishing� (Gr.) because the cross is not saving to them (1Cor. 1:18). From this it should be plain that God does not love all without exception. Did God love Pharaoh (Rom. 9:17)? Did He love the Amalekites (Ex. 17:14ff)? Did He love the Canaanites (Deut. 20:16)? the Ammonites and Moabites (23:3)? Does He love the workers of iniquity (Ps. 5:5)? Does He love the vessels of wrath (Rom. 9:22)? Did He love Esau (Rom. 9:13)? Does He love �the people against whom He hath indignation for ever� (Mal. 1:4)? What is the central purpose of the cross? To �save His people (and them only) from their sins.�
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
6. ARMINIANISM insists that man can and does often resist Divine grace (Acts 7:51); that the gospel does not present impossibilities to the sinner, but where God commands, there man is able to obey. For the Lord gives every sinner the ability to believe, then expects the sinner by his free will to exercise faith and consent to the terms of salvation. Sinners can therefore accept or reject the offer of grace at their pleasure, since it obviously is of him that willeth and of him that runneth (holds out). God does His part for man�s salvation, in fact, has done all He can for man without destroying his free agency. So that God, frequently, in His great efforts to save man is displeased with Himself and the results He finally obtains. He sets His heart on the sinner to deliver him, and, as it were, labors till the going down of the sun to deliver him (Dan. 6:14). Why He sometimes experiences this lack of success in accomplishing the attempted deliverance is because He has created man with a will sovereign in its own right: �wherefore say My people, �We are lords (sovereigns); we will come no more unto Thee�� (Jer. 2:31). For this reason God�s counsel can be annulled and rendered ineffectual by the perverse wills of impenitent sinners: �I have called and ye have refused; I have stretched out My hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all My counsel, and would none of My reproof� (Prov. 1:24, 25). The unavoidable inference is that it remains in man�s power to be regenerated or not, to be converted or to continue unconverted. And since man has such power to choose or refuse, it may very well happen that all the works of grace which God uses to convert man may be so opposed, the Holy Spirit so resisted that his salvation is prevented, though it was originally possible.
CALVINISM rejoices in the truth that saving grace is irresistible. God does not save any against their will, it is true. Nevertheless �it is not of him that willeth� nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy� (Rom. 9:16). The counsel of God as to its precepts the wicked do invariably and consistently disregard. But the counsel of God as to its eternal purpose, which embraces sin itself in its Divine plan, is incapable of being set at nought. �For who hath resisted His will� (9:19)? Man�s will is always subservient to God�s sovereign will. God is always Almighty God! Therefore they who did resist the Spirit, did not resist the Spirit in them, for they were devoid of the Spirit. But that resistance is to the Spirit in the prophets, and in the ministers of the Lord; it is resistance to the external calls and reproofs thru the preaching of the Word. But when the Spirit is in men in His grace of conversion, and so acts with a will to convert, He thus makes them willing, and turns them forever to Himself. �Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power� (Ps. 110:3). Unregenerate men may and will refuse and repudiate God�s Word all they please, disregard His admonitions years on end, but when the time comes for God�s counsel to be fulfilled in their conversion, then God�s mercy at the precise moment decreed shall invincibly overcome their obstinancy, causing them to gladly trust and obey Him. �Thou shalt arise and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favor her, yea, the set time, is come� (Ps. 102:13). What more conclusive testimony that never by free will (Jh. 1:12, 13; Rom. 9:16; Zech. 4:6) are we saved, but by God�s irresistible power (Eph. 1:19) working in us a new heart, removing hardness (and unwillingness), and inscribing God�s law in our heart (Ezek. 36:26f)! The dead sinner does not open his heart to the Lord Jesus Christ and let Him come in to save. That is an idea prominent in Arminian hymnology, but is nowhere in Scripture. Christ must first open the heart (Acts 16:4), and then the heart receives Him. Christ �must first come to the sinner, so that the sinner may come to Him. God gives the elect to Christ in eternity. That guarantees that in time, they �shall come� to Him (Jh. 6:37). Man, of himself, has not the ability to come to Jesus, will not come (Jh. 5:40), and cannot will to come until the Father draw him (6:44). God giving the new heart causes the renewed sinner to walk in His ways. How else can a heart of stone open to Him ? How can a heart that is enmity against God be willing for Him to improve it? But, assume that the power of God�s saving grace can be baffled, and God must be supposed to will that all men be saved, yet nevertheless it must finally be, not as He wills, but as they will! However, the truth remains that grace saves those who are �the called according to His purpose� � saves with an almighty power � for they must be saved with an everlasting salvation!
PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS
7. ARMINIANISM wrests Scripture to teach that it is possible for the true believer to fall from the grace of salvation (Gal.5:4); and that each believer is provided with sufficient ability to persevere and preserve himself, if only he will: (�And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life,� Jh. 5:40). If all depends on the choice of man�s will, whether he will persevere or not. (This denies everything thus far so irrefutably declared!) The error continues: not only is it possible that believers fatally and finally fall, sin unto death, and be eternally lost, but indeed, may often fall, be often recovered, yet in the end be lost to God. �Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God� (Heb. 3:11). There is, then, no such thing in this life as certainty of eternal security, nor assurance of perseverance: �Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil ? . . . And began every one of them to say unto Him, Is it I, Lord?� (Jh. 6:70; Matt. 26:22).
CALVINISM is strong in the Divine Word that no true believer can ever fall from Christ and salvation. For He promises. �I give unto them (the sheep) eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand. My Father which gave them Me is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of My Father�s hand� (Jh. 10:28ff). This promise is made unconditionally to God�s people. It is not qualified by any additions of �ifs,� �buts,� �perhaps,� �maybes,� etc., but is to be understood in its plain unencumbered, unequivocal sense. God�s covenant is equally sure. In that covenant He swears that He will never leave His people, and will so keep them that they shall never forsake Him: �I will make an everlasting covenant with them, and I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from Me� (Jer. 32:40). So our salvation, and our remaining in that salvation in no way depends on us, or on our feeble will. Yet we are confident of this very thing (not of our doing, but) that He who hath begun a good work in us will perform and perfect it unto the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6). We trust not in our own strength (we have none!), but in His power to keep us from falling and to present us faultless before Him! And when the elect do fall, the Lord raises them up (Prov. 24:16). So that He is faithful, who will not suffer us to perish, but will establish us, and keep from evil (2Thess. 3:3). Of this the believer may be certain, and have the assurance of faith now and forever, even though, within the organism of the church, there are some who depart from God in unbelief. But the elect �are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul� (Heb. 10:39). �The righteous shall hold on his way,� and as God has promised, he shall never depart from that way; but rather he shall become �stronger and stronger� (Job 17:9). The believer remains a believer; he does persevere to the end, not by human effort, but by the power of God; which power is exerted on his behalf not for any worthiness in him, but for the sake of the Lamb who alone is worthy! He, meanwhile and always, belongs unto Jesus his faithful Saviour �who shall also confirm you unto the end blameless, in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ� (1Cor. 1:8).
CONCLUSION
The truth is never popular. We are, however, not concerned with what is popular, but with what is right The truth of Scripture is one thing. What men would like to be true is another. The question is, Are we willing to be bound by the Word of God? no matter what the cost? Too few are willing to be that self-denying. The hatred of the natural mind against God is such that though a man be shrewd, intelligent, and able to see the arguments on both sides, yet he will not admit the fundamental doctrine of absolute sovereign grace to be true; or, if he know it to be true, still he refuses to receive it If an angel from heaven were to stand before him. and declare that God redeems both objectively and subjectively only His elect people, and that Christ Jesus prays not for the world, but only for those the Father gave Him, such a (natural) man will not, cannot believe it. This whole system of truth is contrary to the old nature; it is the opposite to what men think to be in agreement with justice and experience. So that the many who hate this doctrine are always ready to oppose it Therefore also comprehended under the brand of Arminianism are the following evil forms of the same proud heresy: Universalism, Romanism, Pelagianism (naturalism), Socinianism (modernism), Amyraldianism (synergism), Baxterianism (hypothetical redemption), New School Presbyterianism (religious humanism), etc. Calvinists, then, are the most hated people in the universe! We know this from Scripture, reports, history and personal experience.
But this does not change the eternal purpose of God. For �the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His� (2Tim. 2:19). Suppose every preacher in the U.S.A., or in the world speaks the very opposite to these points! That means, humanly speaking, we are in a very, very unpopular minority. But, with God and His truth on our side, or rather we being of His side are on the side of the majority! Finally, it is our calling to preach that which God has clearly revealed. We cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard.
ANOTHER difficult question that shrouds the doctrine of predestination is the question of how our sinful nature can be inherited from Adam. If we are born with a fallen nature, if we are born in sin, if we are born in a state of moral inability, how can God hold us responsible for our sins?
We remember that original sin does not refer to the first sin but to the result of that first sin. The Scriptures speak repeatedly of sin and death entering the world through �one man�s transgression.� As a result of Adam�s sin, all men are now sinners. The Fall was great. It had radical repercussions for the entire human race.
There have been many attempts to explain the relationship of Adam�s fall to the rest of mankind. Some of the theories presented are quite complex and imaginative. Three theories, however, have emerged from the list as the most widely accepted. The first of these I will call the Myth Theory of the Fall.
THE MYTH THEORY OF THE FALL
The myth theory of the Fall, as the name suggests, holds that there was no factual, historical fall. Adam and Eve are not considered historical persons. They are mythological symbols drawn to explain or represent the problem of man�s corruption. The story of the Fall in the Bible is a kind of parable; it teaches a moral lesson.
According to this theory the first few chapters of Genesis are mythological. There never was an Adam; there never was an Eve. The very structure of the story suggests parable or myth because it includes such elements as a talking serpent and such obviously symbolic objects as the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The moral truth communicated by the myth is that people fall into sin. Sin is a universal problem. Everyone commits sin; no one is perfect. The myth points to a higher reality: Everyone is his own Adam. Every person has his own private fall. Sin is a universal human condition precisely because every person succumbs to his own private temptation.
The attractive elements of this theory are important. In the first place, this view absolves God entirely of any responsibility for holding future generations of people responsible for what one couple did. Here, no one can blame their parents or their Creator for their own sin. In this scheme, my fallenness is a direct result of my own fall, not of someone else�s.
A second advantage of this view is that it escapes all need to defend the historical character of the beginning chapters of the Bible. This view suffers no anxiety from certain theories of evolution or from scientific disputes about the nature of creation. The factual truth of a myth never needs to be defended.
The disadvantages of this view, however, are more serious. Its most crucial failing is that it actually offers nothing by way of explanation for the universality of sin. If each one of us is born without a sinful nature, how account for the universality of sin? If four billion people were born with no inclination to sin, with no corruption to their nature, we would reasonably expect that at least some of them would refrain from falling. If our natural moral state is one of innocent neutrality, we would statistically expect that half of the human race would remain perfect. I grant that to� account for one innocent person�s fall presents an enormous intellectual problem. But when we compound that difficulty by the billions of people who have fallen, the problem becomes several billion times more difficult. We also grant that if one person created in the image of God could fall, then it is indeed possible that billions can likewise fall. It is the statistical probability here that is so astonishing. When we think of one person falling, that is one thing. But if everybody does it, without exception, then we begin to wonder why. We begin to wonder if man�s natural state is all that neutral.
The standard reply of the advocates of the myth view is that people are not universally born in an idyllic environment like Eden. Society is corrupt. We are born into a corrupt environment We are like Rousseau�s "innocent savage� who is corrupted by the negative influences of civilization.
This explanation begs the question. How did society or civilization get corrupt in the first place? If everyone is born innocent, without a trace of personal corruption, we would expect to find societies that are no more than half corrupt. If birds of a feather flock together, we might find societies where all the corrupt people band together and other societies where no evil is present. Society cannot be a corrupting influence until it first becomes corrupt itself. To explain the fall of an entire society or civilization, one must face the difficulties we have already pointed out.
In another one of Jonathan Edwards�s famous works, his treatise on original sin, he makes the important observation that because the sin of man is universal, even if the Bible said nothing about an original Fall of the human race, reason would demand such an explanation. Nothing screams more loudly about the fact that we are born in a state of corruption than the fact that we all sin.
Another thorny question that arises concerns the relationship of sin and death. The Bible makes it clear that death is not �natural� to man. That is, death is repeatedly said to have come into the world as a result of sin. If that is so, how do we account for the death of infants? If all men are born innocent, with no innate corruption, God would be unjust to allow as yet unfallen babies to die.
The mythological view of the Fall must also face the fact that it does radical violence to the teaching of Scripture. The view does more than merely interpret the opening chapters of the Bible as non-factual. In so doing the view sets itself in clear opposition to the New Testament view of the Fall. It would take intellectual gymnastics of the most severe sort to argue that the Apostle Paul did not teach a historical Fall. The parallels that he draws between the first Adam and the second Adam are too strong to allow this, unless we argue that in Paul�s mind Jesus was also a mythological character.
We grant that the Genesis account of the Fall has some unusual literary elements in it. The presence of a tree that does not follow the pattern of normal trees follows certain images of poetry. It is proper to interpret poetry as poetry and not as historical narrative. On the other hand, there are strong elements of historical narrative literature in Genesis 3. The setting of Eden is located in chapter 2 in the midst of four riverheads, including Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel (or Tigris), and Euphrates.
We know that parables can be set in real historical settings. For example, the parable of the Good Samaritan is set in the geographical context of the road to Jericho. Therefore the mere presence of real historical rivers does not absolutely demand that we identify this section of Genesis �as historical narrative.
There is another element of the text, however, that is more compelling. The account of Adam and Eve contains a significant genealogy. The Romans, with their penchant for mythology may have no difficulty tracing their lineage to Romulus and Remus, but the Jews were surely more scrupulous about such matters. The Jews had a strong commitment to real history. In light of the vast difference between the Jewish view of history and the Greek view of history, it is unthinkable that Jewish people would include mythological characters in their own genealogies. In Jewish writing, the presence of genealogy indicates historical narrative. Note that the New Testament historian, Luke, includes Adam in the genealogy of Jesus.
It is much easier to account for a real tree serving as a focal point of a moral test and thereby being called a tree of the knowledge of good and evil than it is to accommodate genealogy to a parable or a myth. This of course could be done if other factors demanded it. But no such factors exist. There is no sound reason why we should not interpret Genesis 3 as historical narrative and multiple reasons why we should not treat it as parable or myth. To treat it as history is to treat it as the Jews did, including Paul and Jesus. To treat it otherwise is usually motivated by some contemporary agenda that has nothing to do with Jewish history.
THE REALIST VIEW OF THE FALL
Remember the famous television series from the 1950s called �You Are There�? It took viewers, through the magic of television, to famous historical scenes. But in fact no electronic device has yet been invented to transport us back in time, H. G. Wells notwithstanding. We live in the present. Our only access to the past is through books, artifacts of archaeology, and the memories of ourselves and of others.
I remember teaching a course on the Bible that involved a brief study of Roman soldiers. I mentioned the Roman standard that carried the initials SPQR. I asked if anyone knew what those letters stood for. A dear friend who was in his seventies piped up, �Senatus Populus Que Romanus, �The senate and the people of Rome.�� I smiled at my friend and said, �You are the only person in this room old enough to remember!�
None of us is old enough to carry memory images of the fall of Adam. Or are we? The realist view of the Fall contends that we are all old enough to remember the Fall. We should be able to remember it because we were really there.
Realism is not an exercise in a Bridey-Murphy kind of reincarnation. Rather, realism is a serious attempt to answer the problem of the Fall. The key concept is this: We cannot morally be held accountable for a sin committed by someone else. To be accountable we must have been actively involved somehow in the sin itself. Somehow we must have been present at the Fall. Really present. Hence the name Realism.
The realist view of the Fall demands some kind of concept of the preexistence of the human soul. That is, before we were born, our souls must have already existed. They were present with Adam at the Fall. They fell along with Adam. Adam�s sin was not merely an act for us; it was an act with us. We were there.
This theory seems speculative, perhaps even bizarre. Its advocates, however, appeal to two pivotal biblical texts as warrant for this view. The first is found in Ezekiel 18:2-4:
What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
�The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children �s teeth are set on edge?�
As I live, says the Lord God, you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.
Later in this chapter, Ezekiel writes:
Yet you say, �Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?� Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:19, 20).
Here the realist finds a definitive text for his case. God clearly declares that the son is not held guilty for the sins of his father. This would seem to pose serious difficulties for the whole idea of people falling �in Adam.�
The second pivotal text for realism is found in the New Testament Book of Hebrews:
Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him (Hebrews 7:9, 10).
This text is part of a lengthy treatment by the author of Hebrews concerning the role of Christ as our Great High Priest. The New Testament declares that Jesus is both our king and our priest. It labors the fact that Jesus was from the line of Judah, to whom the royal kingdom was promised. Jesus was a son of David, who also was of the line of Judah.
The priesthood of the Old Testament was not given to Judah, but to the sons of Levi. The Levites were the priestly line. We normally speak, therefore, of the Levitical priesthood or the Aaronic priesthood. Aaron was a Levite. If this is so, how could Jesus be a priest if he was not from the line of Levi?
This problem vexed some ancient Jews. The author of Hebrews argues that there was another priesthood mentioned in the Old Testament, the priesthood of the mysterious figure named Melchizedek. Jesus is said to be a priest of the order of Melchizedek.
This lengthy portion of Hebrews is not satisfied, however, merely to prove that there was another priesthood in the Old Testament besides the Levitical priesthood. The major point of the argument here is that the priesthood of Melchizedek was superior to the priesthood of Levi.
The author of Hebrews rehearses a bit of Old Testament history to prove his point. He calls attention to the fact that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, not Melchizedek to Abraham. Melchizedek also blessed Abraham; Abraham did not bless Melchizedek. The point is this: In the relationship between Abraham and Melchizedek it was Melchizedek who served as the priest, not Abraham.
The key thought to the Jew is cited in verse 7: �Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better.�
The author of Hebrews continues to weave the thread of his argument. He argues that, in effect, the father is superior to the son. That means that Abraham is ahead of Isaac in the patriarchal pecking order. In turn, Isaac is ahead of Jacob, and Jacob ahead of his sons, including his son Levi. If we carry this out, it means that Abraham is greater than his great-grandson Levi.
Now if Abraham is greater than Levi and Abraham subordinated himself to Melchizedek, then it means that the priest Melchizedek is greater than Levi and the entire line of Levi. The conclusion is clear. The priesthood of Melchizedek is a higher order of priesthood than the Levitical priesthood. This gives supreme dignity to the high priestly office of Christ.
It was not the chief concern of the author of Hebrews to explain the mystery of the fall of Adam with all this. Yet he says something along the way that the realists jump on to prove their theory. He writes that �Levi paid tithes through Abraham.� Levi did this while he was �still in the loins of his father.�
The realists see this reference to Levi doing something before he was even born as biblical proof for the concept of the preexistence of the human soul. If Levi could pay tithes while he was still in the loins of his father, that must mean that Levi in some sense already existed.
This treatment of this passage of Hebrews begs the question. The text does not explicitly teach that Levi really existed or preexisted in the loins of his father. The text itself calls it a �manner of speaking.� The text does not demand that we leap to the conclusion that Levi �really� preexisted. The realists come to this text armed with a theory they did not find from the text and then read the theory into the text.
The argument from the text of Ezekiel also misses the point. Ezekiel was not giving a discourse on the fall of Adam. The Fall is not in view here. Rather, Ezekiel is addressing the commonplace excuse that men use for their sins. They try to blame someone else for their own misdeeds. That human activity has gone on since the Fall, but that is about all this passage has to do with the Fall. In the Fall Eve blamed the serpent, and Adam blamed both God and Eve for his own sin. He said, �The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate� (Gen. 3:12).
Ever since, men have tried to pass the buck of their own guilt. Still, the realists argue, a principle is set forth in Ezekiel 18 that has bearing on the matter. The principle is that men are not held accountable for other people�s sins.
To be sure, that general principle is set forth in Ezekiel. It is a grand principle of God�s justice. Yet we dare not make it an absolute principle. If we do, then the text of Ezekiel would prove too much. It would prove away the atonement of Christ. If it is never possible for one person to be punished for the sins of another, then we have no Savior. Jesus was punished for our sins. That is the very essence of the gospel. Not only was Jesus punished for our sins, but his righteousness is the meritorious basis for our justification. We are justified by an alien righteousness, a righteousness that is not our own. If we press Ezekiel�s statement to the absolute limit when we read, �The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself,� then we are left as sinners who must justify themselves. That puts us all in deep weeds.
To be sure, the Bible speaks of God�s �visiting� the iniquities of persons on the third and fourth generations. This refers to the �fallout� or consequences of sin. A child may suffer from the consequences of his father�s sin, but God does not hold him responsible for his father�s sin.
The principle of Ezekiel allows for two exceptions: the Cross, and the Fall. Somehow we don�t mind the exception of the Cross. It is the Fall that rankles us. We don�t mind having our guilt transferred to Jesus or having his righteousness transferred to us; it is having the guilt of Adam transferred to us that makes us howl. We argue that if the guilt of Adam had never been transmitted to us then the work of Jesus would never have been necessary.
THE FEDERAL OR REPRESENTATIVE VIEW OF THE FALL
For the most part, the federal view of the Fall has been the most popular among advocates of the Reformed view of predestination. This view teaches that Adam acted as a representative of the entire human race. With the test that God set before Adam and Eve, he was testing the whole of mankind. Adam�s name means �man� or �mankind.� Adam was the first human being created. He stands at the head of the human race. He was placed in the garden to act not only for himself but for all of his future descendents. Just as a federal government has a chief spokesman who is the head of the nation, so Adam was the federal head of mankind.
The chief idea of federalism is that, when Adam sinned, he sinned for all of us. His fall was our fall. When God punished Adam by taking away his original righteousness, we were all likewise punished. The curse of the Fall affects us all. Not only was Adam destined to make his living by the sweat of his brow, but that is true for us as well. Not only was Eve consigned to have pain in childbirth, but that has been true for women of all human generations. The offending serpent in the garden was not the only member of his species who was cursed to crawl on his belly.
When they were created, Adam and Eve were given dominion over the entire creation. As a result of their sin the whole world suffered. Paul tells us:
For the creation was subjected to futility not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now (Romans 8:20-22).
The whole creation groans as it awaits the full redemption of man. When man sinned, the repercussions of the sin were felt throughout the whole range of man�s domain. Because of Adam�s sin, not only do we suffer, but lions, elephants, butterflies, and puppy dogs also suffer. They did not ask for such suffering. They were hurt by the fall of their master.
That we suffer as a result of Adam�s sin is explicitly taught in the New Testament. In Romans 5, for example, Paul makes the following observations:
�Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin� (v. 12).
�By the one man�s offense many died� (v. 15).
�Through one man�s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation� (v. 18).
�By one man�s disobedience many were made sinners� (v. 19).
There is no way to avoid the obvious teaching of Scripture that Adam�s sin had dreadful consequences for his descendents. It is precisely because of the abundance of such biblical statements that virtually every Christian body has composed some doctrine of original sin linked to the fall of Adam.
We are still left with a big question. If God did in fact judge the entire human race in Adam, how is that fair? It seems manifestly unjust of God to allow not only all subsequent human beings but all of creation to suffer because of Adam.
It is the question of God�s fairness that federalism seeks to answer. Federalism assumes that we were in fact represented by Adam and that such representation was both fair and accurate. It holds that Adam perfectly represented us.
Within our own legal system we have situations that, not perfectly but approximately, parallel this concept of representation. We know that if I hire a man to kill someone and that hired gunman carries out the contract, I can justly be tried for first-degree murder in spite of the fact that I did not actually pull the trigger. I am judged to be guilty for a crime someone else committed because the other person acted in my place.
The obvious protest that arises at this point is, �But we did not hire Adam to sin in our behalf.� That is true. This example merely illustrates that there are some cases in which it is just to punish one person for the crime of another.
The federal view of the Fall still exudes a faint odor of tyranny. Our cry is, �No damnation without representation!� Just as people in a nation clamor for representatives to insure freedom from despotic tyranny, so we demand representation before God that is fair and just. The federal view states that we are judged guilty for Adam�s sin because he was our fair and just representative.
Wait a minute. Adam may have represented us, but we did not choose him. What if the fathers of the American republic had demanded representation from King George and the king replied, �Of course you may have representatives. You will be represented by my brother!� Such an answer would have spilled even more tea in Boston Harbor.
We want the right to select our own representatives. We want to be able to cast our own vote, not have somebody else cast that vote for us. The word vote comes from the Latin votum which meant �wish� or �choice.� When we cast our vote, we are expressing our wishes, setting forth our wills.
Suppose we would have had the total freedom to vote for our representative in Eden. Would that have satisfied us? And why do we want the right to vote for our representative? Why do we object if the king or any other sovereign wants to appoint our representatives for us? The answer is obvious. �We want to be sure that our will is being carried out. If the king appoints my representative, then I will have little confidence that my wishes will be accomplished. I would fear that the appointed representative would be more eager to carry out the wishes of the king than my wishes. I would not feel fairly represented.
But even if we have the right to choose our own representatives, we have no guarantee that our wishes will be carried out. Who among us has not been enticed by politicians who promise one thing during an election campaign and do another thing after they are elected? Again, the reason we want to select our own representative is so that we can be sure we are accurately represented.
At no time in all of human history have we been more accurately represented than in the Garden of Eden. To be sure, we did not choose our representative there. Our representative was chosen for us. The one who chose our representative, however, was not King George. It was almighty God.
When God chooses our representative, he does so perfectly. His choice is an infallible choice. When I choose my own representatives, I do so fallibly. Sometimes I select the wrong person and am then inaccurately represented. Adam represented me infallibly, not because he was infallible, but because God is infallible. Given God�s infallibility, I can never argue that Adam was a poor choice to represent me.
The assumption many of us make when we struggle with the Fall is that, had we been there, we would have made a different choice. We would not have made a decision that would plunge the world into ruin. Such an assumption is just not possible given the character of God. God doesn�t make mistakes. His choice of my representative is greater than my choice of my own.
Even if we grant that indeed we were perfectly represented by Adam, we still must ask if it is fair to be represented at all with such high stakes. I can only answer that it pleased the Lord to do this. We know that the world fell through Adam. We know that in some sense Adam represented us. We know that we did not choose him to be our representative. We know that God�s selection of Adam was an infallible selection. But was the whole process just?
I can only answer this question ultimately by asking another question � one the Apostle Paul asked. �Is there unrighteousness in God?� The apostolic answer to this rhetorical question is as plain as it is emphatic. �God forbid!�
If we know anything at all about the character of God, then we know that he is not a tyrant and that he is never unjust. His structure of the terms of mankind�s probation satisfied God�s own righteousness. That should be enough to satisfy us.
Yet we still quarrel. We still contend with the Almighty. We still assume that somehow God did us wrong and that we suffer as innocent victims of God�s judgment. Such sentiments only confirm the radical degree of our fallenness. When we think like this, we are thinking like Adam�s children. Such blasphemous thoughts only underline in red how accurately we were represented by Adam.
I am persuaded that the federal view of the Fall is substantially correct. It alone of the three we have examined does justice to the biblical teaching of the fall of man. It satisfies me that God is not an arbitrary tyrant. I know that I am a fallen creature. That is, I know that I am a creature and I know that I am fallen. I also know that it is not God�s �fault� that I am a sinner. What God has done for me is to redeem me from my sin. He has not redeemed me from his sin.
Though the federal representational view of the Fall is held by most Calvinists, we must remember that the question of our relationship to Adam�s fall is not a problem unique to Calvinism. All Christians must struggle with it.
It is also vital to see predestination in light of the Fall. All Christians agree that God�s decree of predestination was made before the Fall. Some argue that God first predestinated some people to salvation and others to damnation and then decreed the Fall to make sure that some folks would perish. Sometimes this dreadful view is even attributed to Calvinism. Such an idea was repugnant to Calvin and is equally repugnant to all orthodox Calvinists. The notion is sometimes called �hyper-Calvinism.� But even that is an insult. This view has nothing to do with Calvinism. Rather than hyper-Calvinism, it is anti-Calvinism.
Calvinism, along with other views of predestination, teaches that God�s decree was made both before the Fall, and in light of the Fall. Why is this important? Because the Calvinistic view of predestination always accents the gracious character of God�s redemption. When God predestines people to salvation he is predestinating people to be saved whom he knows really need to be saved. They need to be saved because they are sinners in Adam, not because he forced them to be sinners. Calvinism sees Adam sinning by his own free will, not by divine coercion.
To be sure, God knew before the Fall that there would most certainly be a Fall and he took action to redeem some. He ordained the Fall in the sense that he chose to allow it, but not in the sense that he chose to coerce it. His predestinating grace is gracious precisely because he chooses to save people whom he knows in advance will be spiritually dead.
One final illustration may be helpful here. We bristle at the idea that God calls us to be righteous when we are hampered by original sin. We say, �But God, we can�t be righteous. We are fallen creatures. How can you hold us accountable when you know very well we were born with original sin?�
The illustration is as follows. Suppose God said to a man, �I want you to trim these bushes by three o�clock this afternoon. But be careful. There is a large open pit at the edge of the garden. If you fall into that pit, you will �not be able to get yourself out. So whatever you do, stay away from that pit.�
Suppose that as soon as God leaves the garden the man runs over and jumps into the pit. At three o�clock God returns and finds the bushes untrimmed. He calls for the gardener and hears a faint cry from the edge of the garden. He walks to the edge of the pit and sees the gardener helplessly flailing around on the bottom. He says to the gardener, �Why haven�t you trimmed the bushes I told you to trim?� The gardener responds in anger, �How do you expect me to trim these bushes when I am trapped in this pit? If you hadn�t left this empty pit here, I would not be in this predicament.�
Adam jumped into the pit. In Adam we all jumped into the pit. God did not throw us into the pit. Adam was clearly warned about the pit. God told him to stay away. The consequences Adam experienced from being in the pit were a direct punishment for jumping into it.
So it is with original sin. Original sin is both the consequence of Adam�s sin and the punishment for Adam�s sin. We are born sinners because in Adam all fell. Even the word fall is a bit of a euphemism. It is a rose-colored view of the matter. The word fall suggests an accident of sorts. Adam�s sin was not an accident. He was not Humpty Dumpty. Adam didn�t simply slip into sin; he jumped into it with both feet. We jumped headlong with him. God didn�t push us. He didn�t trick us. He gave us adequate and fair warning. The fault is ours and only ours.
It is not that Adam ate sour grapes and our teeth are set on edge. The biblical teaching is that in Adam we all ate the sour grapes. That is why our teeth are set on edge.
In the first century AD, the church was well-connected to its Jewish roots, and Jesus did not intend for it to be any other way. After all, Jesus is Jewish and the basis of His teaching is consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. In Matthew 5:17-18 He states: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Before the First Jewish Revolt in AD 66, Christianity was basically a sect of Judaism, as were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.
Separation between Judaism and Christianity began as a result of religious and social differences. According to David Rausch in his book, A Legacy of Hatred, there were several contributing factors: 1) the Roman intrusion into Judea, and the widespread acceptance of Christianity by the Gentiles, complicated the history of Jewish Christianity; 2) the Roman wars against the Jews not only destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem, but also resulted in Jerusalem's relinquishing her position as a center of Christian faith in the Roman world; and, 3) the rapid acceptance of Christianity among the Gentiles led to an early conflict between the Church and Synagogue. Paul's missionary journeys brought the Christian faith to the Gentile world, and as their numbers grew, so did their influence, which ultimately disconnected Christianity from its Jewish roots.
Many Gentile Christians interpreted the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem as a sign that God had abandoned Judaism, and that He had provided the Gentiles freedom to develop their own Christian theology in a setting free from Jerusalem's influence. Could it be He was showing us that Temple worship was no longer necessary as His Holy Spirit now resides in us (I Cor. 6:19), not in the Holy of Holies? After the Second Jewish Revolt (AD 133-135) put down by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, theological and political power moved from Jewish Christian leaders to centers of Gentile Christian leadership such as Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. It is important to understand this change, because it influenced the early Church Fathers to make anti-Jewish statements as Christianity began to disconnect itself from its Jewish roots.
As the Church spread far and wide within the Roman Empire, and its membership grew increasingly non-Jewish, Greek and Roman thought began to creep in and completely change the orientation of Biblical interpretation through a Greek mindset, rather than a Jewish or Hebraic mindset. This would later result in many heresies, some of which the Church is still practicing today.
Once Christianity and Judaism began to take separate paths, the chasm became wider and wider. Judaism was considered a legal religion under Roman law, while Christianity, a new religion, was illegal. As Christianity grew, the Romans tried to suppress it. In an attempt to alleviate this persecution, Christian apologists tried in vain to convince Rome that Christianity was an extension of Judaism. However, Rome was not convinced. The resulting persecutions and frustration of the Christians bred an animosity towards the Jewish community, which was free to worship without persecution. Later, when the Church became the religion of the state, it would pass laws against the Jews in retribution.
The antagonism of the early Christians towards the Jews was reflected in the writings of the early Church Fathers. For example, Justin Martyr (c. AD 160) in speaking to a Jew said: "The Scriptures are not yours, but ours." Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. AD 177) declared: "Jews are disinherited from the grace of God." Tertullian (AD 160-230), in his treatise, "Against the Jews," announced that God had rejected the Jews in favor of the Christians.
In the early 4th century, Eusebius wrote that the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures were for Christians and not the Jews, and the curses were for the Jews. He argued that the Church was the continuation of the Old Testament and thus superseded Judaism. The young Church declared itself to be the true Israel, or "Israel according to the Spirit," heir to the divine promises. They found it essential to discredit the "Israel according to the flesh" to prove that God had cast away His people and transferred His love to the Christians.
At the beginning of the 4th century, a monumental event occurred for the Church, which placed "the Church Triumphant" over "Vanquished Israel." In AD 306, Constantine became the first Christian Roman Emperor. At first, he had a rather pluralistic view and accorded Jews the same religious rights as Christians. However, in AD 321, he made Christianity the official religion of the Empire to the exclusion of all other religions. This signaled the end of the persecution of Christians, but the beginning of discrimination and persecution of the Jewish people.
Already at the Church Council in Elvira (Spain) in AD 305, declarations were made to keep Jews and Christians apart, including ordering Christians not to share meals with Jews, not to marry Jews, not to use Jews to bless their fields, and not to observe the Jewish Sabbath.
Imperial Rome, in AD 313, issued the Edict of Milan, which granted favor to Christianity, while outlawing synagogues. Then, in AD 315, another edict allowed the burning of Jews if they were convicted of breaking the laws. As Christianity was becoming the religion of the state, further laws were passed against the Jews:
� The ancient privileges granted to the Jews were withdrawn.
� Rabbinical jurisdiction was abolished or severely curtailed.
� Proselytism to Judaism was prohibited and made punishable by death.
� Jews were excluded from holding high office or a military career.
These and other restrictions were confirmed over and over again by various Church Councils for the next 1,000 years.
In AD 321, Constantine decreed all business should cease on "the honored day of the sun." By substituting Sunday for Saturday as the day for Christian worship/rest, he further advanced the split. This Jewish Shabbat/Christian Sunday controversy also came up at the first real ecumenical Council of Nicea (AD 325), which concluded Sunday to be the Christian day of rest, although it was debated for long after that. Overnight, Christianity was given the power of the Imperial State, and the emperors began to translate the concepts and claims of the Christian theologians against the Jews and Judaism into practice. Instead of the Church taking this opportunity to spread its Gospel message in love, it truly became the Church Triumphant, ready to vanquish its foes.
After 321, the writings of the Church Fathers changed in character. No longer was it on the defensive and apologetic, but aggressive, directing its venom at everyone "outside of the flock," in particular the Jewish people who could be found in almost every community and nation. During this period, we find more examples of anti-Jewish bias in Church literature written by church leaders:
� Hilary of Poitiers (AD 291-371) wrote: "Jews are a perverse people accursed by God forever."
� Gregory of Nyssa (died AD 394), Bishop of Cappadocia: "the Jews are a brood of vipers, haters of goodness..."
� St. Jerome (AD 347-407) describes the Jews as "... serpents, wearing the image of Judas, their psalms and prayers are the braying of donkeys."
At the end of the 4th century, the Bishop of Antioch, John Chrysostom (Golden Tongued), the great orator, wrote a series of eight sermons against the Jews. He had seen Christians talking with Jewish people, taking oaths in front of the Ark, and some were keeping the Jewish feasts. He wanted this to stop. In an effort to bring his people back to what he called, "the true faith," the Jews became the whipping boy for his sermon series. To quote him, "the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it is also a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. No Jew adores God... Jews are inveterate murderers, possessed by the devil, their debauchery and drunkenness gives them the manners of the pig. They kill and maim one another..." One can easily see that a Judeo-Christian who wanted to hold on to his heritage, or a Gentile Christian who wanted to learn more about the parent faith of Christianity, would have found it extremely difficult under this pressure. Chrysostom further sought to separate Christianity totally from Judaism. He wrote in his 4th Discourse, "I have said enough against those who say they are on our side, but are eager to follow the Jewish rites... it is against the Jews that I wish to draw up my battle... Jews are abandoned by God and for the crime of deicide, there is no expiation possible."
Chrysostom was known for his fiery preaching against what he saw as threats to his flock, including wealth, entertainment, privilege and outward adornment. However, his preaching against the Jewish community, which he believed had a negative influence on Christians, is inexcusable and blatantly anti-Semitic in its content. Another unfortunate contribution Chrysostom made to Christian anti-Semitism was to hold the whole Jewish people culpable for the killing of Christ.
In the fifth century, the burning question was: If the Jews and Judaism were cursed by God, then how can you explain their existence?
Augustine tackled this issue in his "Sermon Against the Jews." He asserted that even though the Jews deserved the most severe punishment for having put Jesus to death, they have been kept alive by Divine Providence to serve, together with their Scriptures, as witnesses to the truth of Christianity. Their existence was further justified by the service they rendered to the Christian truth, in attesting through their humiliation, the triumph of the Church over the Synagogue. They were to be a "Witness people" - slaves and servants who should be humbled.
The monarchs of the Holy Roman Empire thus regarded the Jews as serfs of the chamber (servi camerae), and utilized them as slave librarians to maintain Hebrew writings. They also utilized the services of Jews in another enterprise - usury, or money-lending. The loaning of money was necessary to a growing economy. However, usury was considered to endanger the eternal salvation of the Christian, and was thus forbidden. So, the church endorsed the practice of lending by Jews, for according to their reasoning, their Jewish souls were lost in any case. Much later, the Jewish people were utilized by the Western countries as trade agents in commerce, and thus we see how the Jewish people found their way into the fields of banking and commerce.
So, by the Middle Ages, the ideological arsenal of Christian anti-Semitism was completely established. This was further manifested in a variety of precedent-setting events within the Church, such as Patriarch Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, expelling the Jews and giving their property to a Christian mob. From a social standpoint, the deterioration of the Jewish position in society was only beginning its decline. During this early period, the virulent judeo- phobia was primarily limited to the clergy who were always trying to keep their flocks away from the Jews. However, later, the rank and file, growing middle class would be the main source of anti-Semitic activity.
The result of these anti-Jewish teachings continued onwards throughout Church history, manifesting itself in such events and actions as the Crusades, the accusation of communion host desecration and blood libel by the Jews, the forced wearing of distinguishing marks to ostracize them, the Inquisition, the displacement of whole Jewish communities by exile or separate ghettoes, the destruction of synagogues and Jewish books, physical persecution and execution, the Pogroms. Ultimately, the seeds of destruction grew to epic proportions, culminating in the Holocaust, which occurred in "Christian" Europe.
Now, I�m sure that they were not wrong about everything, however, all of us who call ourselves Christians can clearly see (at least I hope we can) that the early church fathers missed it (BIG TIME) in their theology about the Jews. The argument �What we cannot find are any of the ideas, concepts and theology of Calvinism, not a one. �� Is an extremely faulty argument. That would be like saying the early church fathers theology was to disregard, hate, and kill the Jews so we must hold to this theology instead of allowing the Holy Spirit do what He does teach us and lead us into all righteousness.
Please quote your source of this article. There is a great deal of error and I bet you have not checked out the ECFs to see if what was quoted is accurate and taken in the right context.
Sounds pretty close to me. The catholic church is a direct result of roman influence. It was Satan's greatest triumph. I just think it's kinda scary that most Christians don't question where some of their doctrines have come from. A lot of them think that an old guys fresh from the catholic ranks have all the truth they need. God's church was plunged into darkness for a very long time, and I just wanna know...when God calls His people to "come out of Babylon" in the last days...what do you think He's calling them out of? What/who is Babylon? Error? Catholic error? Guess we'll just have to wait and see. My church is not exempt either. Hopefully we'll all hear the call.
The Early Church Fathers ..."Ante-Nicene" are NOT of the Roman Catholic Church. These are the men of God who existed PRIOR to the RCC. Some of these men were the direct personal disciples of John the Apostle and Paul. Think about that for a moment.
There is a lot of very bad information concerning these men that has been written and many misquotes and quotes taken out of context. I know because I actually read what they, the ECFs, actually wrote and have compared someone's supposed quote and commentary of them which after investigating it found them to be very wrong in their claims.Sometimes it is obvious that they are intentionally misleading people. That is sad and shameful. What is just as sad are those who blindly believe what others claim the ECFs say without verifying the facts. Christians need to learn to be Bereans.
If you have e-sword bible program you can download them for free and even do word searches.
I am not for or against either of these theologies. I�m quite sure they are both right in some points and both wrong in some points. I think we will all be amazed when we get to heaven and God reveals to ALL of us where we missed it and be pleased when He shows us where we got it right. But it is always a good thing to �argue� the Scripture; it has done one of to things for me I either become stronger in what I believe or the Holy Spirit will show me that I have missed it and God changes my mind.
Passover is the first of the seven annual festivals celebrated by the Jewish people and is considered to be Israel's foundational feast upon which the other six feasts that follow simply build upon. Passover, a feast which commences Israel's religious year, is often referred to as the Feast of Unleavened Bread because only unleavened bread was eaten during the seven days immediately following Passover.
While the Jewish people have celebrated Passover annually since the time of Moses, in reality, there was only one Passover. It occurred almost 3500 years ago down in Egypt. It was there, at that time, that a lamb was sacrificed, and the blood was applied to each doorpost and lintel. When done in faith and in obedience to God's command, that home was "passed over" by the death angel and the firstborn was spared. All subsequent observances over the centuries were memorials of that one and only first Passover. Jesus (Yeshua) was crucified during the Passover event. He and His disciples ate a Passover meal together on the eve of His death. During this meal Jesus said, "This is my body," and "this cup is the new testament in my blood" (Luke 22:7, 19-20). All of those lambs sacrificed down in Egypt (one per household) pointed to the one true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Writing to the Corinthians, the apostle Peter noted for all of time, "Christ, our passover (Lamb), is sacrificed for us" (I Corinthians 5:7).
The following day, on the fifteenth of the Hebrew month of Nisan, God appointed another festival. This feast would last seven days and be called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. On the first night, and again on the seventh, there was to be a time of convocation (meeting) between God and man. The Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 23:15; Deuteronomy 16:16) is often called Passover because only unleavened bread was eaten during these seven days immediately following Passover (Exodus 12:15-20; 13:6-8; Deuteronomy 16:3-8). Unleavened bread reflected the fact that the Israelites had no time to put leaven in their bread before their hasty departure from Egypt; it was also apparently connected to the barley harvest (Leviticus 23:4-14). The Lord Christ Jesus was crucified on the cross at Golgotha on the day of Passover. He was then buried in a newly hewn tomb donated by Joseph of Arimathea. However, unlike all other corpses, the body of Jesus (Yeshua) would not decay in the grave. There would be no decomposition of His body, no, none indeed. God the Father would not "allow thine Holy One (His Son Jesus) to see corruption (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27). The Feast of Unleavened Bread proclaims that Christ's physical body would not experience the ravages of death while in the grave; for He was sanctified (set apart) by God the Father.
The third feast occurs on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread; it is called the Feast of Firstfruits. Barley, which is the first crop to be planted in winter, is now beginning to ripen for its spring harvest. The first sheaf or firstfruits of the harvest is subsequently cut, and, in a carefully prescribed and meticulous ceremony, is presented to the Lord. The Lord's acceptance of the firstfruits is a pledge on His part of a full harvest to come. Following the ascension of Jesus into heaven, major doctrinal errors began to creep up in churches. Most notable, some people at the Church in Corinth began to spread the false Hellenistic belief called gnosticism. Gnosticism rejects the concept of a physical resurrection; therefore it rejects the physical resurrection of Christ. Enter the apostle Paul onto the scene. The Corinthians' thesis was this: There is no bodily resurrection, only immortality of the soul. Paul then responded, if there is no bodily resurrection, then Christ was not raised from the dead. If these gnostics were correct, the implications would be devastating: Paul had a lying problem, their faith was in vain, their loved ones who had died in Christ had perished, and they were of all men most miserable. Fortunately, the apostle Paul "saved the day" when he issued a triumphant response to combat this erroneous statement: "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them that slept" (I Corinthians 15:20). Paul had in mind the first sheaf (firstfruits) of the barley harvest (Leviticus 23:10). When God accepted the firstfruits, they became the guarantee that the rest of the crop would indeed be harvested, for Jesus (Yeshua) himself is the "first fruits" (I Corinthians 15:23). Although a number of people mentioned the Bible were resurrected from the dead (including Jairus' daughter and Lazarus), they simply died again in due season. However, Jesus was the first to be resurrected from death and the grave, never to die again. He alone is the "Firstfruits."
The Feast of Weeks, also known as Harvest (Exodus 23:16), Shavuot (Hebrew), the Day of Firstfruits (Numbers 28:26), or Pentecost, was a festival of joy and thanksgiving celebrating the completion of the harvest season. It was the second major feast in which all able-bodied Jewish males were required to attend (the other two being Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles). It was celebrated as a sabbath with rest from ordinary labors and the calling of a holy convocation (Leviticus 23:21; Numbers 28:26). Essentially a harvest celebration, the term weeks was used to describe the time period from the grain harvest to the barley harvest and finally to the wheat harvest. It is called the Feast of Weeks because God specifically told the sons of Jacob that they were to count seven sevens of weeks (seven complete weeks) from Firstfruits (Leviticus 23:15; Deuteronomy 16:9), and then on the "morrow" this fourth feast was to be observed (Luke 23:16). Seven sevens of weeks are forty-nine days. Add one additional day ("on the morrow"), and it brings the total number of days to fifty. This fourth feast was to occur precisely fifty days after Firstfruits (Christ's resurrection). Therefore, the feast was given the name "Pentecost" (Acts 2:1) which means "fifty."
On this occasion, the children of Israel were not to simply bring the firstfruits of the wheat to the Temple (as they brought the firstfruit of the barley at the Feast of Firstfruits), but rather two loaves of bread. These two loaves were specifically commanded to be made with fine flour and baked with leaven (Leviticus 23:17), and they were to be used as a "wave offering" for the people. These two loaves, however, could not be eaten until after the ceremony was completed (Leviticus 23:14; Joshua 5:10-11) and could not be placed on the altar due to its leaven content. In addition to the wave offering, two lambs, one young bull, and two rams were to be offered as burnt offerings before the Lord (Leviticus 23:15-22; Numbers 28:26-31). The feast was concluded by the eating of communal meals to which the poor, the stranger, and the Levites were invited.
The Feast of Weeks is a symbolic festival which pointed to the coming of the Holy Spirit and the birthday of the Church. The Son of God arose from the grave on Firstfruits. He then spent forty days with His disciples in post-resurrection ministry (Acts 1:3). Immediately after forty days, Jesus informed them that it was necessary that He leave them and ascend to His Father in Heaven (in order to apply the benefits of His once and for all sacrifice). However, He told His disciples that they would not be left abandoned and comfortless. He would then send them His Holy Spirit who would come alongside to help in His absence (John 14:16-17).
The disciples were commanded to tarry at Jerusalem until He came (Acts 1:4), and they knew exactly how long they would have to wait. The coming of the Holy Spirit would occur on the next Jewish holiday - a festive time when Jews from different countries were to be in Jerusalem to celebrate the completion of the harvest season. This annual feast was none other than Shavuot or the Feast of Weeks. The disciples waited as they were commanded; however, their wait was not long - only ten days. And then it happened. The Spirit of God descended on those first-century believers.
The two loaves which were brought to the Temple represented both Jew and Gentile; however they became one in Christ with the advent of the Spirit's coming. Writing to the Ephesian believers, Paul said" "For he is our peace, who hath made both (Jew and Gentile) one, and have broken down the middle wall of partition between us ... to make in himself of two (Jew and Gentile) one new man, so making peace" (Ephesians 2:14-15).
There was to be leaven in those two loaves, for the Church had not yet been glorified. During this age, there is still sin within the Church. Messiah Yeshua (the head) is unleavened. On the other hand, the Church (the body) still has leaven within her. Therefore, leaven was to be included in those two loaves. The Feast of Trumpets is the first of the fall feasts. The Jewish people call this feast Rosh Hashanah, which literally means "Head of the Year," and it is observed as the start of the civil year (in contrast with the religious year which starts with Passover) on the Jewish calendar.
Jesus tells us in John 17:16-19 that we have a practical progressive sanctification of our present life by the application of the truth of God�s Word. The word �sanctify� in verse seventeen means �to consecrate, or to set apart persons or things to God� (Ex. 28:41; 29:1, 36; 40:13; 1 Thess. 5:23, etc). The Holy Spirit uses the Word to do His work within the believer. Let�s distinguish between the sanctification by the Holy Spirit within us at the beginning of God�s work of salvation in our souls, and the everyday application of God�s word in the Christian�s life. We are in the need of daily sanctification by the truth of God�s Word. This is a progressive work that will go on in our lives until we are presented perfect in Christ at His second coming. The Word of God sanctifies us as we study, meditate, memorize and apply its truths to our daily life. The Holy Spirit uses it to make us aware of sin, confess it and repent. He takes the Word and reveals God�s perfect will for our lives. We grow in His grace through the knowledge of His truth. As we yield in obedience to His truth, we are sanctified by the truth. Jesus prayed to His Father, �For this sake I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth� (John 17:19). Jesus was already set apart to God. Indeed, He was sinless. However, the night before His death on the cross He was dedicating Himself �that they too may be truly sanctified.� Literally, He said, �sanctified in truth.� Jesus� death eternally separated believers to God and His kingdom, and God�s truth is the means of their daily sanctification. �Sanctify them in truth; Your Word is truth� (v. 17). Just as Jesus was set apart for special use, so are the believers. �The truth� is communicated in the �Word.� As we hear the Word, we comprehend the truth and obey it. This changes our values, our lifestyle, and a behavioral change takes place. We are changed in our everyday practice. As we daily appropriate God�s Word we are sanctified by it. We are set apart to God and changed in the way we live so that we bring honor and glory to the Father. Jesus told His disciples, �Now are you clean through the word which I have spoken unto you� (John 15:3). God set us apart to Himself when He saved us. As we grow in Christ we experience more and more sanctification. We are progressively set apart to God as we grow in our faith, and love for God more than the desire of the world. This being set apart daily comes as the Holy Spirit applies God�s word to our everyday experiences. The Holy Spirit enables us to obey God�s Word.
We were made clean through the Word at the new birth. As we obey the Word of God daily the defilement is washed out of our lives. This is the practical and progressive sanctification that is seen in Ephesians 5:25-27 as Jesus sanctifies and cleanses His church. As the believer makes himself available to the Holy Spirit he is changed from the inside out. The Word of God has the liberty in the heart of the Spirit-controlled Christian to displace sin and replace in its place the righteousness of God. The blood of Christ cleanses the believer from actual sin. Every born again Christian does pursue holiness until the second coming of Christ. At that time He will change these bodies of humiliation and make them like His glorious body. When that happens we shall have reached our goal and become absolutely, perfectly holy and sinless forever. It is our responsibility to apply the word of God daily in the power of the Holy Spirit. It does not come automatically. For example, to abstain from sexual immorality requires the exercise of self-discipline enabled by the Holy Spirit. God�s perfect will is that His people be holy (1 Thess. 3:13). �For this is the will of God, your sanctification� (1 Thess. 4:3). The context deals with sexual immorality; however, the truth can be applied to any area of our lives. �For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification� (v. 7). Paul has in mind the progressive sanctification of his readers whereby they are conformed to the image of Christ in daily experiences. God�s purpose is for the Christian to live separated lives in purity of mind and body. A holy life demonstrates God�s supernatural power at work in a believer�s life. A holy walk involves a right relationship with God.
I have taken the hyssop � the blood of the Lamb and applied it over the doorpost of my heart. In Exodus 12:23 the Lord will pass over the door (that had the blood applied) and will not allow the destroyer to enter your house and slay you. To pass over then, operates as to protect or stand guard. The Lord Himself will block the entry of the destroyer. He will be a protective covering over all His people, who applied the blood. There security is in His presence, Security in His Blood. And by the His great grace, the power of the Holy Spirit I am being brought from glory to glory, not sinless but sinning less, looking forward to His second coming then I (we all will) be sinless.
Walter, this statement is confusing to me. Please explain it and your resource: "When we examine historial records of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, these are the writers of the first 300 years of the Early Church, some of which were the direct personal disciples of John the Apostle and Paul, we find some interesting things."
1) All of the ideas and concepts and theology of what we call Aeminian Theology today can be found in the Early Church. This is what was handed down by the Apostles to their Disciples. This is irrefutable."
I'm confused in the above therefore my question to you , Walter is: What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that Arminian Theology influenced the writings of the Early Chruch as in Paul and John and the apostles of the first century church? Maybe I'm off course here, so help me out... According to what I've found, the ante nicene church fathers came AFTER the apostles and they were the one taught by the apostles, and influenced their writings, because the ante-nicene fathers did start writing until somewhere around the last part of the first sentury to the 2nd century. Also, are you saying Arminian Theology was around during the time of John and Paul and the other disciples/apostles and when they started the first church, and did their first century writings?...
Here is something that I found and makes sense to me:
Answer: The early church fathers fall into three basic categories: apostolic fathers, ante-Nicene church fathers, and post-Nicene church fathers. The apostolic church fathers were the ones like Clement of Rome who were contemporaries of the apostles and were probably taught by them, carrying on the tradition and teaching of the apostles themselves. Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred, and Clement took over from Linus. Both Linus and Clement of Rome, therefore, are considered apostolic fathers. However, there appear to be no writings of Linus that have survived, while many of the writings of Clement of Rome survived. The apostolic fathers would have largely passed from the scene by the beginning of the second century, except for those few who might have been disciples of John, such as Polycarp. The tradition is that the apostle John died in Ephesus around A.D. 98.
The ante-Nicene fathers were those who came after the apostolic fathers and before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. Such individuals as Iraenus, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr are ante-Nicene fathers.
The post-Nicene church fathers are those who came after the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. These are such noted men as Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine; Chrysostom, called the �golden-mouthed� for his excellent oratorical skills; and Eusebius, who wrote a history of the church from the birth of Jesus to A.D. 324, one year before the Council of Nicea. He is included in the post-Nicene era since he did not write his history until after the Council of Nicea was held. Other post-Nicene fathers were Jerome, who translated the Greek New Testament into the Latin Vulgate, and Ambrose, who was largely responsible for the Emperor Constantine�s conversion to Christianity.
So, what did the early church fathers believe? The apostolic fathers were very concerned about the proclamation of the gospel being just as the apostles themselves proclaimed it. They were not interested in formulating theological doctrine, for the gospel they had learned from the apostles was quite sufficient for them. The apostolic fathers were as zealous as the apostles themselves in rooting out and exposing any false doctrine that cropped up in the early church. The orthodoxy of the message was preserved by the apostolic fathers' desire to stay true to the gospel taught to them by the apostles.
The ante-Nicene fathers also tried to stay true to the gospel, but they had an additional worry. Now there were several spurious writings claiming to have the same weight as the established writings of Paul, Peter, and Luke. The reason for these spurious documents was evident. If the body of Christ could be persuaded to receive a false document, then error would creep into the church. So the ante-Nicene fathers spent a lot of their time defending the Christian faith from false doctrine, and this led to the beginnings of the formation of accepted church doctrine.
The post-Nicene fathers carried out the mission of defending the gospel against all kinds of heresies, so more and more the post-Nicene fathers grew interested in methods of defending the gospel and less interested in transmitting the gospel in a true and pure form. Thus, they began to fall away from the orthodoxy which was the hallmark of the apostolic fathers. This was the age of the theologian and endless discussion on arcane topics such as �how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.�
The early church fathers are an example to us of what it means to follow Christ and defend the truth. None of the early church fathers were perfect, just as none of us are perfect. Some of the early church fathers held beliefs that most Christians today consider to be incorrect. What eventually developed into Roman Catholic theology had its roots in the writings of the post-Nicene fathers. While we can gain knowledge and insight by studying the early church fathers, ultimately our faith must be in the Word of God, not in the writings of early Christian leaders. Only God�s Word is the infallible guide for faith and practice.
Recommended Resource: Day by Day with the Early Church Fathers by Hendrickson Publishers.
This page is also available in: Espa�ol, Portugu�s
Related Topics:
What were the Christian crusades?
What occurred at the Council of Nicea?
What happened in the intertestamental period?
What were the Dark Ages?
What is the Apostles' Creed?
Return to:
GotQuestions.org Home
Verse of the Week
"Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth."
1 John 3:18
Ante-Nicene Fathers
The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325
Volume I. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus
Also available: text.zip
Volume II. Fathers of the Second Century
Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria
Also available: text.zip, hermas.rtf
Volume III. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian
Three Parts: I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical
Also available: text.zip
Volume IV. The Fathers of the Third Century
Tertullian Part IV; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen
Also available: text.zip
Volume V. The Fathers of the Third Century
Hippolytus; Cyprian; Caius; Novatian; Appendix
Also available: text.zip
Volume VI. The Fathers of the Third Century
Gregory Thaumaturgus; Dinysius the Great; Julius Africanus; Anatolius and Minor Writers; Methodius; Arnobius
Also available: text.zip
Volume VII. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
Volume VIII. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages
Also available: text.zip
Volume X. Recently Discovered Additions to Early Christian Literature; Commentaries of Origen
The Gospel of Peter, The Diatessaron of Tatian, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Visio Pauli, The Apocalypses of the Virgin and Sedrach, The Testament of Abraham, The Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, The Narrative of Zosimus, The Apology of Aristides, The Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen's Commentary on John, Books I-X, Origen's Commentary on Mathew, Books I, II, and X-XIV
Also available: text.zip
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
St. Augustine Volumes
Volume I. Prolegomena: St. Augustine's Life and Work, Confessions, Letters
Also available: text.zip
Volume II. The City of God, Christian Doctrine
Also available: text.zip
Volume III. On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises
Also available: text.zip
Volume IV. The Anti-Manichaean Writings, The Anti-Donatist Writings
Also available: text.zip
Volume V. Anti-Pelagian Writings
Also available: text.zip
Volume VI. Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels
Also available: text.zip
Volume VII. Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies
Also available: text.zip
Volume VIII. Expositions on the Psalms
Also available: text.zip
St. Chrysostom Volumes
Volume IX. On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies on the Statutes
Also available: text.zip
Volume X. Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew
Also available: text.zip
Volume XI. Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans
Also available: text.zip
Volume XII. Homilies on First and Second Corinthians
Also available: text.zip
Volume XIII. Homilies on the Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon
Also available: text.zip
Volume XIV. Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews
Also available: text.zip
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
Series II
Volume I. Eusebius: Church History from A.D. 1-324, Life of Constantine the Great, Oration in Praise of Constantine
Also available: text.zip
Volume II. Socrates: Church History from A.D. 305-438; Sozomenus: Church History from A.D. 323-425
Also available: text.zip
Volume III. Theodoret, Jerome and Gennadius, Rufinus and Jerome
Also available: text.zip
Volume IV. Athanasius: Select Writings and Letters
Also available: text.zip
Volume V. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises; Select Writings and Letters
Also available: text.zip
Volume VI. Jerome: Letters and Select Works
Also available: text.zip
Volume VII. Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen
Also available: text.zip
Volume VIII. Basil: Letters and Select Works
Also available: text.zip
Volume IX. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus
Also available: text.zip
Volume X. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters
Also available: text.zip
Volume XI. Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian
Also available: Edited HTML version; text.zip
Volume XII. Leo the Great, Gregory the Great
Also available: text.zip
Volume XIII. Gregory the Great II, Ephriam Syrus, Aphrahat
