Reformed Baptist Bobby Gilpin has started blogging again after a bit of a break. For my previous interactions with articles from his old blog, Mormonism Investigated, authored by himself and other contributors, see:
He recently posted an article here arguing for a Reformed Baptistic understanding of monergism and using such as the theological foundations of his critique of LDS theology. While I am not going to do a full rebuttal of the entire article, I do wish to use some comments he made as a "springboard" to the discussion of monergism vs. synergism and other theological presuppositions Gilpin and other Calvinists have (to understand Bobby's theological perspective, one should read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, a "Reformed Baptistic" version of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, the subordinate standard of faith for Presbyterians)
Mormonism is completely and utterly man centered, the church and God, exist for the good of man. I think true Christianity is God centered, and I see in these sessions a faith and a God that is completely man centered.
Elsewhere, Bobby wrote, after quoting Isa 48:9-11 and Ezek 36:21-23:
I don’t know how the part I put in bold there could be any more foreign to Mormonism, when would the God of Mormonism ever say that? It just would not happen, the God of Mormonism is an exalted man helping His spirit children get to their own exaltation as He did, the God of the Bible is Holy, Exalted, Unique, and put’s His Name above all else.
We will now examine these claims, as well as their Reformed theological presuppositions, in some detail.
The problem with Reformed theology is that it privileges (albeit, in an eisegetical manner) certain passages that seem to stress God's glory (which Latter-day Saints do not have a problem with) while ignoring the overall synergistic nature of salvation and God's interaction with humanity. As one of many texts that stress God's glorification in uniquely LDS Scripture note the following:
The Bible is both God-centered and Man-centered
The problem with Reformed theology is that it privileges (albeit, in an eisegetical manner) certain passages that seem to stress God's glory (which Latter-day Saints do not have a problem with) while ignoring the overall synergistic nature of salvation and God's interaction with humanity. As one of many texts that stress God's glorification in uniquely LDS Scripture note the following:
And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things--where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever; Before whose throne all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever . . . And to God and the Lamb be glory, and honor, and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (D&C 76:92-93, 119)
In trying to stress the sovereignty of God, Reformed theology has not only over-emphasised such (similar to how Roman Catholicism has over-emphasised Mary in her role in the economy of salvation), it has also made God an impotent deity who cannot allow genuine free-will among humans to accomplish His goals. Notice the following confession from a well-known and respected Reformed author:
If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay waste all the grand and glorious plans that God has made and promised to us. If a grain of sand in the kidney of Oliver Cromwell changed the course of English history, so our maverick molecule could change the course of all redemption history. Maybe that one molecule will be the thing that prevents Christ from returning. (R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God [rev ed.; Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986], 16).
Consider the following text which really encapsulates the synergistic nature of God and the problematic nature of Sproul's statement and the theology thereof:
Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts; Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord. (Zech 1:3; cf. Zech 3:7; Mal 3:7; John 6:40).
The Hebrew term translated as “turn” is שׁוב; the LXX translates it as επιστρεφω; both these terms in the Hebrew OT and LXX refers to turning back to God/repentance. (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:33, 35) as well as Yahweh turning back to His people/averting His wrath against sin (e.g., Zech 1:16). In this verse, and many other texts, God turning back to His people is contingent upon his people turning back to Him, not vice versa, showing that genuine free-will is part-and-parcel of the “salvation formula,” not mere compatibilist freedom. The conception of deity one finds with "Mormonism" is a potent deity who allows people to have genuine free-will to accept or reject the gospel, and yet will be victorious at the end of times; the Calvinist understanding of God is an impotent, blasphemous deity, who calls everyone to repentance and yet actively withholds the ability to all but a small few the ability to come to faith, and such is required so he can achieve his goals. One concept is a truly sovereign concept of God; the other is not.
Such a theme is found elsewhere in the writings of Old Testament prophets, including Hosea and Joel, who use similar language to Zechariah. Let me quote from the New American Standard Version (1995 update), a conservative Protestant translation (emphasis added):
Return (שׁוב; επιστρεφω), O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. (Hos 14:1)
"Yet even now," declares the Lord, "Return (שׁוב; επιστρεφω) to Me with all your heart, and with fasting, weeping, and mourning; and rend your heart and not your garments." Now return (שׁוב; επιστρεφω) to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness and relenting of evil. (Joel 2:12-13)
One favourite Old Testament example that argues against Reformed theology is that of Phinehas in Psa 106:30-31. For background on Phinehas, we have to turn back to Num 25 in which some of the men of the Israelite camp were engaging in cultic sexual intercourse with Moabite and Midianite women (e.g., Num 25:2-3, 6), resulting in God commanding Moses to kill them (Num 25:4), resulting in 24,000 who died in the plague (Num 25:9). In defiance of this divine command, and Israelite man brought a Midianite woman to his tent, more than likely to engage in such cultic sexual intercourse. Phinehas, a priest, saw this happen and took the following action:
And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israelite into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. (Num 25:7-8)
Not only did Phinehas’ actions propitiate the wrath of God, but the psalmist, recounting the incident in Num 25 (Psa 106:28), and the meritorious act of Phinehas, wrote:
Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations.
There has been no end of scrambling by Reformed apologists to answer this. One response is to dismiss this text as relevant simply because Paul did not appeal to it (this is the “response” by James White in his book The God Who Justifies and in his 2000 debate versus Catholic apologist, Robert A. Sungenis [available online here]). A similar response comes from Reformed author, John Murray:
For if he [Paul] had appealed to Psalm 106:31 in the matter of justification of the ungodly, then the case of Phinehas would have provided an inherent contradiction and would have demonstrated justification by a righteousness and zealous act . . .Genesis 15:6 is dealing with justification, as Paul shows. Psalm 106:31 is dealing with the good works which were the fruit of faith. (John Murray, Commentary on Romans vol. 1 p. 131 as cited by Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 228)
Sungenis (Ibid., 229-30) answers this charge rather cogently:
Murray’s claim that Paul’s quoting of Ps 106:31 would have “created a contradiction” is only true if one’s theology predisposes one to view Abraham’s crediting of righteousness as a forensic imputation — a mere considering of righteousness that is not inherent — rather than as a manifestation of infused righteousness inherent within the individual and appearing at a specified time. Murray’s theological presupposition forces him to put Paul in the dubious position of having purposely to ignore the only other time the phrase “credited with righteousness” is used of an individual in Scripture (Ps 106:31) just to prove a point and avoid a contradiction in his own theology. In fact, the only thing, according to Murray, that saves Paul from contradiction is Paul’s deliberate refusal to bring Ps 106:31 into the discussion. Though Murray makes a valiant attempt to salvage his own theology, he inadvertently puts Paul at odds with Scripture. This is a highly untenable situation in biblical hermeneutics since it has long been accepted by responsible theologians that Scripture is one cohesive whole which does not contradict itself. It also puts Paul at odds with himself, since it was he, inspired by the Holy Spirit, who quoted incessantly from obscure Old Testament passages — for example, Paul’s quote from the obscure passage of Hk 2:4 in Rm 1:17 — to prove to his audience what was not immediately obvious about the gospel and its relationship to the old covenant. Moreover, it was Paul himself who said that “All Scripture was inspired and profitable for teaching...” (2Tm 3:16), Ps 106:31 presumably included. Murray’s words, “For if he had appealed to Ps 106:31...then the case of Phinehas would have provided an inherent contradiction...” show the desperate lengths faith alone theologians will go to protect their presupposition. Can we imagine Paul ever teaching someone not to appeal to a certain Scripture — a Scripture that is so intimately related to the topic at hand — because it would contradict one’s interpretation of another Scripture? In the annals of biblical revelation, there is no such suggestion ever made by any of the sacred writers. Moreover, Murray’s claim that the work of Phinehas was merely the “fruit of faith,” does not offer him an escape from the clear language of Ps 106:31. If he can claim that Paul could not have used Ps 106:31 to prove his point about justification in Romans 4, then he must also admit that the Psalmist chose the wrong terminology to describe Phinehas’ righteousness, since under Murray’s hypothesis the specific words “credited with righteousness” may only refer to imputed righteousness. Murray cannot have it both ways, that is, he cannot, on the one hand, say that the language of Ps 106:31 is so strong toward teaching justification by works that Paul was forced to ignore the verse to avoid a contradiction, and, on the other hand, say that Ps 106:31 refers only to the fruit of faith but not justification proper. In the first suggestion he attempts to make the verse very strong, in the latter suggestion he attempts to make it very weak. Both cannot be true. Hence, someone is wrong, either the Psalmist or Murray. The evidence is against Murray, since his position argues from silence whereas the language of Ps 106:31, like the language of Gn 15:6, is clear and unambiguous. The Holy Spirit, through inspiration, assigns the work of Phinehas the same justifying nomenclature that is given to Abraham, i.e., “credited with righteousness.” Granted, Paul has a major point to make in Romans 4 concerning the crediting of righteousness to Abraham, but Paul sets the context of Romans 4 in opposition to the concept of legal obligation and the incessant boasting of the wayward Jews, not in opposition to God-glorifying and grace-prompted works such as those done by Phinehas. In effect, Murray’s error exposes the false notion in Protestant thought which understands work only as the qualifier of faith, rather than as an independent virtue which when added to faith has power to justify under the grace of God. Hence, the “inherent contradiction” Murray predicted is merely a contradiction in his own theology.
In addition, in these texts, there is no distinction in this text of those who are called to repentance and those that God will grant repentance thereto. However, according to most Calvinists, historical and modern, while the call to repentance is for everyone without distinction, only those who were elect in the eternal past will be granted the ability to repent.
In his 2010 debate with Roman Catholic apologist Robert A. Sungenis, James R. White, another Reformed Baptist, was questioned thusly during the cross-examination portion of a debate on predestination:
Robert Sungenis: Does God call the whole human race to repentance?
James White: Yes, God calls all men, everywhere, to repent; that's Acts chapter 17.
Robert Sungenis: Okay. Does God give only certain people the ability to repent?
James White: Yes; His elect. (beginning at the 1:38:53 mark)
Such is just one of the many internal inconsistencies of Reformed theology that, ultimately, makes God a play-actor.
Chapters 32-33 of the book of Exodus is a very potent example of (1) God changing his mind and (2) God’s personal nature. Let us look at it in point by point format:
1. God determines to destroy all of Israel for worshipping the golden calf.
2. Moses pleads with God to relent, reiterating the promise to Abraham and the potential mockery from Egypt.
3. God rescinds His threat to destroy all of Israel, yet punishes the leading perpetrators.
4. Moses spends 40 days prostrate and fasting to appease God for Israel’s sin.
5. Although temporarily appeased, God refuses to go with the Israelites through the desert, because they are so “stiff-necked” he “might destroy them on the way.”
6. Moses pleads again with God to change His mind.
7. God changes His mind and decides to go with them.
8. God then remarks on the intimate relationship He has with Moses as the basis of His decision to change His mind.
9. God confirms this intimate relationship by showing Moses part of His actual appearance.
Another Old Testament text that further proves our point is that of Amos 7:1-6:
Many critics of such a perspective will appeal to texts such as Mal 3:6 to the effect that God does not change his mind, and, furthermore, such texts that speak of God changing His mind (e.g., Gen 6:6) are to be relegated as mere “anthropomorphisms.” Notwithstanding, such an approach is based on eisegesis. The context of Mal 3:6 specifies that God’s unchangeability refers only to His unchanging character to forgive if the sinner repents, not that God cannot change His mind about previous decisions or about contingencies that arise in accordance with man’s free-will decisions (cf. Jer 18:7-10).
Other passages which indicate that God “does not change” (e.g., Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Psa 110:4; Jas 1:17) refer only to God’s inability to lie, take back an oath He made, tempt one to sin, or reverse decisions based on a capricious whim, since these would be adverse to His divine character (see passages where God promises to change His mind if the future free-will actions of man resulting in their repentance--Mal 3:7; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9, etc).
Indeed, elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah, we see this explicated:
It is common for many Calvinists to cite Rom 9 as definitive evidence of Reformed soteriology. One common text that has been used in favour of this theology is Rom 9:22:
1. God determines to destroy all of Israel for worshipping the golden calf.
2. Moses pleads with God to relent, reiterating the promise to Abraham and the potential mockery from Egypt.
3. God rescinds His threat to destroy all of Israel, yet punishes the leading perpetrators.
4. Moses spends 40 days prostrate and fasting to appease God for Israel’s sin.
5. Although temporarily appeased, God refuses to go with the Israelites through the desert, because they are so “stiff-necked” he “might destroy them on the way.”
6. Moses pleads again with God to change His mind.
7. God changes His mind and decides to go with them.
8. God then remarks on the intimate relationship He has with Moses as the basis of His decision to change His mind.
9. God confirms this intimate relationship by showing Moses part of His actual appearance.
Another Old Testament text that further proves our point is that of Amos 7:1-6:
This is what the Lord God showed me: he was forming locusts at the time the latter growth began to sprout (it was the latter growth after the king's mowings). When they had finished eating the grass of the land, I said, "O Lord God, forgive me, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!" The Lord relented concerning this, "It shall not be," said the Lord. That is what the Lord God showed me: the Lord God was calling for a shower of fire, and it devoured the great deep and was eating up the land. Then I said, "O Lord God, cease, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!" Then the Lord relented concerning this, "This also shall not be," said the Lord God. (NRSV)
In this passage, God is said to have relented (alt. change his mind [Hebrew: נחם Greek: μετανοέω]) from punishing Israel due to the intercession of Amos (cf. Exo 32-33 for a similar event where, based on Moses’ intercession, God relents from His promise to destroy the Israelites due to their idolatry). The plain meaning of this passage is that God changed His mind and did not engage in play-acting nor can this be relegated to a mere anthropomorphism. As one recent author on God’s contingent foreknowledge wrote:
First, not only did the Lord change his mind, but he affirmed his intention by verbalizing it (e.g., “’This shall not be’ said the Lord”). Hence, if one attempts to fictionalize this event, one must also fictionalize Amos’ recording of God’s own words, which, as the saying goes, means that Amos put words into the mouth of God that God did not actually say.
Second, the narrative gives us two contrasting actions of God in a cause-and-effect relationship: (1) God has already formed the locusts to destroy the vegetation, and (2) God stops the forming of the locusts and does not destroy the vegetation. Hence, if an exegete were to claim that God’s verbalized decision that occurs in between the cause-and-effect sequence of event #1 and event #2 is fictional (i.e., the statement “’This shall not be’ said the Lord” did not occur), it essentially requires that the whole narrative becomes fiction. In other words, the Lord’s changing of mind is an integral part of the natural sequence of events in the historical narrative, without which the Lord’s initial forming of the locusts to eat the vegetation and Amos’ plea to stop the forming would be superfluous or causes without effects. (Robert Sungenis, The Immutable God Who Can Change His Mind, The Impassable God Who Can Show Emotion [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2016], 37-8)
Many critics of such a perspective will appeal to texts such as Mal 3:6 to the effect that God does not change his mind, and, furthermore, such texts that speak of God changing His mind (e.g., Gen 6:6) are to be relegated as mere “anthropomorphisms.” Notwithstanding, such an approach is based on eisegesis. The context of Mal 3:6 specifies that God’s unchangeability refers only to His unchanging character to forgive if the sinner repents, not that God cannot change His mind about previous decisions or about contingencies that arise in accordance with man’s free-will decisions (cf. Jer 18:7-10).
Other passages which indicate that God “does not change” (e.g., Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Psa 110:4; Jas 1:17) refer only to God’s inability to lie, take back an oath He made, tempt one to sin, or reverse decisions based on a capricious whim, since these would be adverse to His divine character (see passages where God promises to change His mind if the future free-will actions of man resulting in their repentance--Mal 3:7; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9, etc).
Even the Calvinist's favourite metaphor of God being the potter and humanity being the clay does not support monergism, but actually supports synergism (James R. White wrote a volume in response to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free, and called it The Potter's Freedom, showing just one example of its popularity within Reformed circles). How so? Take chapter 18 of the book of Jeremiah as a whole. This metaphor of God’s relationship to His people is used in vv. 4-6:
The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him. Then the word of the Lord came to me: Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. (NRSV)
However, only by ignoring (1) the totality of the Bible (e.g., the texts discussed above) and (2) the rest of this chapter in Jeremiah, can one be able to absolutise this pericope to support the popular Reformed reading thereof. In the verses immediately following this text, we read the following which again highlights the dynamic relationship between God’s will and the free-will actions of human beings:
At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer 18:7-10, NRSV)
Robert B. Chisholm, currently the department chair and senior professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote the following in a paper Making Sense of Prophecy: Recognizing the Presence of Contingency, presented at the ETS Far West Regional Meeting, April 2007:
The Lord sent Jeremiah to the potter’s house for an object lesson (vv. 1-2). As the potter shaped his pot according to a specific design, the clay was not pliable, so the potter reshaped it into a different type of pot (vv.3-4). Just as the potter improvised his design for the uncooperative clay, so the Lord could change his plans for Israel (vv. 5-6). If the Lord intends to destroy a nation, but it repents when warned of impending doom, the Lord will relent from sending judgment (vv. 7-8). Conversely if the Lord intends to bless a nation, but it rebels, the Lord will alter his plan and withhold blessing (vv. 9-10). God announces his intentions, but a nation’s response can and often does impact God’s decision as to what will actually take place. (p. 3)
The footnote for the above text (p. 3 n. 6) reads thusly:
By making room for human response, God does not compromise his omniscience (defined in the classical sense), sovereignty, and immutability. God fully knows what will transpire because he has decreed the future. But this decree, by God’s sovereign decision, accommodates the choices and actions of creatures to whom he imparts a degree of freedom. It also makes room for God to respond to these choices and actions. This relational flexibility is a corollary of his immutability, which encompasses his just and compassionate nature.
Commenting on Jer 18:7-10, Richard L. Pratt, himself a Calvinist (Presbyterian), so he would agree with Bobby Gilpin with respect to TULIP and other issues, wrote:
Several elements in this passage point to its categorical nature. First, each sentence begins with an emphatically general temporal reference. The expressions “at some time” (rg`), “and at some other time” (wrg`) emphasize that Yahweh’s words apply to every situation. No particular circumstances limit the protases. Second, the anarthrous expression “any nation or kingdom” (`l gwy w`l mmlkh) also points to the categorical nature of the policy. Yahweh’s responsiveness applies to all nations. Third, these verses describe the two major types of prophetic prediction: judgment (Jer 18:7-8) and salvation (Jer 18:9-10). In terms of form critical analysis, all prophetic oracles gravitate in one or both of these directions. Referring to these two major directions of all predictions underscores the categorical nature of the dynamic described here.
The universal perspective of Jeremiah 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions. Sincere repentance had the potential of effecting every unqualified prophecy of judgment. Flagrant disobedience had the potential of negating every unqualified prophecy of prosperity.
A survey of Scripture reveals that the descriptions of God’s reactions in Jeremiah 18 are only representative. Yahweh reacted to human responses in many different ways. At various times, he completely reversed (Am 7:1-9), postponed (e.g. 1 Kgs 21:28-29; 2 Kgs 22:18-20), mollified (e.g. 2 Chr 12:1-12) and carried through (2 Sam 12:22-23) with predictions. Yahweh exercised great latitude because his responses were situation specific, appropriate for the particularities of each event. nevertheless, a basic pattern was always at work. The realizations of all unqualified predictions were subject to modification as Yahweh reacted to his people’s responses. (Richard L. Pratt, Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions: An Inaugural Address Presented to the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary, pp. 14-15)
Commenting on Jer 18:7-10 and its surrounding context, Lawrence Boadt wrote:
The key to this illustration does not lie in the potter’s patient reuse of the raw clay but in the implied thread that God may change his attitude toward Israel. If the nation has not worked out as a “covenant-of-Moses vase,” for example, he may have to do something else with it. The image ends in v. 6 with the simple application that Israel is the clay in the hands of Yahweh. No more really needs to be said. The idea of a God who creates humans from clay can be found in some of the oldest myths of the Near East. In Egypt the ram good Khnum appears on reliefs shaping little humans on a potter’s wheel, and the Babylonian Atra Hasis epic describes a creation in which Mami, the mother goddess, nips off lumps of clay (made up of the flesh and blood of a god) and has gods and goddesses fashion them into human shape (Atra Hasis I:189-20). Israel knew this kind of myth and used its language for the account of creation in Gen 2:7. But Jeremiah warns that God can just as readily begin again. (Lawrence Boadt, Jeremiah 1-25 [Old Testament Message vol. 9; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1982], 139)
If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings. (26:3)
And said unto them, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, unto whom ye sent me to present your supplication before him; If ye will still abide in this land, then will I build you, and not pull you down, and I will plant you, and not pluck you up: for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you. (42:9-10)
So we see that the metaphor of the potter and the clay cannot be absolutised in the way that many Reformed apologists are wont to.
The book of Jeremiah itself records the following prophecy given by the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah (the "70-year prophecy"):
Assuredly, thus said the Lord of Hosts: Because you would not listen to My words, I am going to send for all the peoples of the north -- declares the Lord -- and for My servant, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all those nations roundabout. I will exterminate them and make them a desolation, an object of hissing -- ruins for all time . . . This whole land shall be a desolate ruin. And those nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. When the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation and the land of the Chaldeans for their sins -- declares the Lord -- and I will make it a desolation for all time. (Jer 25:8-9, 11-12, 1985 JPS Tanakh)
For thus said the Lord: When Babylon's seventy years are over, I will take note of you, and I will fulfill to you My promise of favor -- to bring you back to this place. For I am mindful of the plans I have made concerning you -- declares the Lord -- plans for your welfare, not for disaster, to give you a hopeful future. When you call Me, and come and pray to Me, I will give heed to you. You will search for Me and find Me, if only you seek Me wholeheartedly. I will be at hand for you -- declares the Lord -- and I will restore your fortunes. And I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places to which I have banished you -- declares the Lord -- and I will bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you. (Jer 29:10-14, 1985 JPS Tanakh)
As Christopher M. Hays notes:
So, Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would conquer Judaea and rule the Israelites and their land for seventy years, after which God promised to restore them. But did things turn out as planned? Not exactly. The Old Testament is littered with texts trying to account for the way in which subsequent history did not line up with Jeremiah’s timeline. Initially, the biblical authors needed to explain why the exile began to wind down too early; then, they had to reverse their tactics and explain why restoration from exile was taking too long; and finally some of them just threw up their hands and denied that the prophesied restoration was ever even inaugurated (however abortively or impartially). In short, the Hebrew Bible seems a veritable cacophony of voices trying to explain why things did not turn out as Jeremiah had prophesied. (Christopher M. Hays, “Prophecy: A History of Failure?” in Christopher M. Hays, ed. When the Son of Man Didn’t Come: A Constructive Proposal on the Delay of the Parousia [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016], 23-58, here, p. 26, italics in original)
While Hays’ entire essay should be read, as one example of the reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s original prophecy by Ezra-Nehemiah, he writes:
[The editor of Ezra-Nehemiah has to] explain why the restoration from exile had been so sluggish! Even seventy years after the invasion of Judea, things still hadn’t come together as Jeremiah had prophesied. Jeremiah 29:10-14 (cf. 25:11-12) promised that after the seventy years God would return the Israelites from exile and restore their fortunes. But it is not as if all the Israelites had returned to the Promised Land by the time the Temple had been rebuilt. Only a portion of the Israelite population hobbled back to Judaea under Cyrus’s decree (Ezra 2:1-65). When Ezra’s ministry began around 458 BCE, a solid 130 years into the exile, he was still only leading a modest contingent of Israelite exiles to Jerusalem (see Ezra 8:1-20), and even then, their travel required the gracious permission of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-28). A dozen years after that, Nehemiah undertook his ministry (Neh. 2:1-10), and he too lamented that the exile was far from over (Neh. 1:1-11). Thus, in about 446 BCE, some 141 years after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, Nehemiah was still in Persia; the walls of Jerusalem lay in ruins; and those who had supposedly escaped captivity remained “in great trouble and shame” (Neh. 1:3). To compound matters, Nehemiah the governor of Judah, Nehemiah’s predecessors had been exploiting and oppressing the Israelite residents. To put it mildly, the restoration of Israel after seventy years that Jeremiah promised had proven an overstatement; God’s “plans to prosper them and not to harm them” (Jer. 29:11) were not coming to pass as advertised.
So, the editor of Ezra-Nehemiah had to back-pedal. Although he wanted to read the prophecy of Jeremiah as being fulfilled in more-or-less literal, chronological terms, he was obliged to see 515 BC as the beginning of a fulfillment that remained quite incomplete even seventy additional years later. The editor of the book, summoning a pitiably quixotic optimism, seemed to hope that, with men such as Ezra and Nehemiah at the helm, Israel might steer a course toward complete restoration. (Ibid., 28-29, comment in square brackets added for clarification)
Commenting on another example of a biblical prophet reworking Jeremiah's prophecy, James L. Kugel wrote:
Such is further proof of the contingent nature of biblical promises and prophecies.
Daniel the Re-interpreter
Certainly the best biblical example of the tendency of later prophetic figures to reinterpret the existing Scripture is found in the book of Daniel. Daniel relates that on one occasion he “consulted the books concerning the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD that had come to Jeremiah the prophet, were to be the end of Jerusalem’s desolation, seventy years” (Dan 9:2). This introduction in itself is surprising. The book of Jeremiah does indeed report that the prophet had said that in seventy years, the Babylonians would be punished and Israel’s fortunes would be restored (Jer 29:10; cf. 25:12)—and this, give or take a few years, is exactly what happened. So what was Daniel consulting the books for? Seventy years are seventy years. But then the angel Gabriel appears and informs Daniel on the real meaning of Jeremiah’s promise: he didn’t mean seventy years, but seventy groups of seven years apiece, making for a total of 490 years:
While I was still speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, setting my supplication before the LORD my God on my God’s holy mountain—while I was still in the midst of praying, the “man” Gabriel, whom I had seen in the earlier vision, was sent forth in flight and reached me at the time of the evening offering. He spoke to me enlighteningly and said: “Daniel, I have come to you now to give you insight and knowledge. A the start of your prayer, a word went out, and I have come to tell it . . . Seventy groups of seven years have decreed for your people and your holy city. (Dan 9:20-24)
As we have seen above, the notion of 490 years exactly was not unique in Second Temple Judaism, and the reason is not hard to find. Biblical law stipulates that the jubilee year is to come around once every forty-nine years (Lev 25:8); the number 490 is simply one jubilee multiplied by ten (which comes out to be the same as Daniel’s seventy “weeks of years” that is, the seventy units of sevens in Dan 9:24). So it came about that 490 years also appears here and there as a mega-unit of time in the Dead Sea . . .In any event, this last-cited passage from Daniel recalls a number of themes already seen above: (1) the prophets of old (in this case, Jeremiah) had prophesied, but them themselves didn’t understand the hidden message of their prophecies; (2) this in turn reflects the fact that most prophets are actually long-range predictors, their predictions having to do with times far distant from their own; (3) an angel (here, Gabriel) is needed to explain the significance of ancient prophet’s (here, Jeremiah’s) words . . .thereby also turning his book into yet another collection of long-range predictions, some of which had already occurred or where coming to pass in his own time. (James L. Kugel, The Great Shift: Encountering God in Biblical Times [New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017], 252-53)
It is common for many Calvinists to cite Rom 9 as definitive evidence of Reformed soteriology. One common text that has been used in favour of this theology is Rom 9:22:
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.
Many Reformed apologists use this verse as alleged biblical proof that God predestines people to salvation as well as reprobates others to damnation, as opposed to "preterition," wherein God is active only in election; passive in damnation. Commenting on Rom 9:22 and Paul’s shift from the active voice in v. 21 (ποιῆσαι “made” [in reference to vessels “unto honour”) to passive voice (κατηρτισμένα "fitted" [used of vessels “prepared for destruction”), Sungenis noted:
The words, “prepared for destruction” are from the Greek words, κατηρτισμενα εις απωλειαν using the perfect, passive, participle of καταρτιζω which is normally understood as “perfected” (Mt 21:16; Lk 6:40; 1Co 1:10; 1Pt 5:10); “mended” (Mt 4:21); “formed” (Hb 11:3). The perfect tense can be translated “having been formed” or “having been made.” This verb could also be in the middle voice which would be translated, “having made themselves for destruction.” Whether middle or passive, this word is in contrast to the words “prepared in advance” (Greek: προητοιμασεν) in Rm 9:23 which is in the Greek active voice, denoting that God initiated the preparation for glory but did not necessarily take part in those who were “prepared for destruction.” Calvin ignores the distinction in the Greek voice, instead, attributing to God an active role in preparing the vessels of wrath for destruction. 1Pt 2:8 uses the phrase, “which is also what they were destined for” from the Greek aorist, passive ετεθησαν which normally refers to placement or appointment. Calvin likens this passage to his view of Romans 9 in which “Pharaoh is said to have been put into the position of resisting God, and all unbelievers are destined for the same purpose” (Calvin’s Commentary, op. cit., 1 Peter, p. 264). In like fashion, some have attempted to use Jude 4 to teach supralapsarianism by the KJV translation, “who were before of old ordained to this condemnation.” However, the Greek verb translated “ordained” by the KJV is the word, προγεγραμμενοι which should be translated “having been written before.” (Robert Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone, 432 n. 553)
However, when one examines the underlying Greek of this verse, one will find that the phrase translated as "fitted to destruction" is κατηρτισμενα, which is the perfect passive participle form of καταρτιζω, "to mend/fit/perfect." The use of the passive voice refutes the idea that God takes an active role in reprobation.
A related verse is that of John 1:12:
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.
Both ελαβον ("received") and πιστευουσιν ("believe") are in the active voice, denoting the personal decision of the individual, as opposed to the passive which would mean that they were made (by God's infallible decree, a la Reformed theology) to receive and believe.
Commenting on the words used for man’s (active) seeking after God, thus refuting Total Depravity, Robert Sungenis wrote:
Paul uses three different words to describe man’s quest for God: The first word, ζητειν (“to seek”), is the ordinary word the New Testament uses for seeking God (e.g., Mt 6:33; 7:7-8; Lk 12:31; 17:33; Rm 2:7; Cl 3:1), and is used here as an infinitive of purpose, i.e., it is the purpose of God for men to seek him. The second word, ψηλαφησειαν (“reach out for him”), appears three other times in the New Testament in reference to feeling or touching God or Jesus (e.g., Lk 24:39; Hb 12:18; 1Jn 1:1). The third word, ευριεν is the ordinary word for “find.” Both ψηλαφησειαν and ευριεν are optative verb forms through which Paul is expressing a clear and distinct expectation from men. Paul reinforces this expectation by καιγε ου μακραν απο ενος εκαστου ημων υπαρχοντα (“though he is not far from each one of us”) preceded by the strong conditional ει αρα γε (“so that” or more emphatically “if then” or “if therefore” (as αρα γε is used in Mt 7:20; 17:26), and by the strengthened και with the addition of γε to read “even being not far from each one of us”). Also, the expectation of each individual to seek God, not merely men as a group seeking God, is made emphatic by Paul’s addition of “each one of us.” (Robert Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone, 398 n. 483)
The New Testament uses ελκυω in 6 places and its cognate ελκω in two places. Of the former, John 18:10; 20:6, 11 and Acts 16:19 in the sense of “dragging” a person or object. Other verses use it in a different sense. In John 12:32, Jesus says that he will draw all men to him, not that he will drag all men to him. Rather, a universal drawing it denoted by the use of “all” (Greek: παντας), and this is reinforced by the previous verse as Jesus twice refers to the whole “world.” The implication is that as the whole world is judged and its prince, Satan, driven out, Jesus will then draw all men to him. Since it is well-known that not all men in the world come to Jesus, then the “drawing” in John 12:32 certainly cannot be viewed as “irresistible” or God “coercing” men to come to him. Similarly, according to lexical sources, such as Bauer, Liddel and Scott, and other sources, ελκυω can mean “to drag” or “to draw.”
The LXX frequently uses the Greek word ελκυω. The uses include Deuteronomy 21:3-4 in which an animal is led, not dragged, to a certain location; Nehemiah 9:30 as “to bear long”; Job 20:38 as “to bring”; Ecclesiastes 2:3 as “to excite”; Song of Solomon as “to entice”; Jeremiah 38:3 as “to draw out of love.” the cognate ελκυω can mean “a movement to” as used in Ecclesiastes 1:5; “to lift up” as in Isaiah 10:15 or “to rush forth” as in Daniel 7:10, showing that the word does not have the connotation that Reformed theologians want to read into ελκυω.
I choose John 6, as many modern Calvinists, such as James R. White in his debates against John Sanders (Arminian Open Theist) and Denis Potter (LDS philosopher) cite it as “proof” of their theology; as we have seen, it is not the case. In v. 40, we read of God’s desire for all people to come to faith in Christ, revealing the dynamic relationship between God’s drawing and our free-will. One cannot separate one from another as many theologians want to do (such results in one having their proof-texts to support their position, ignoring other texts that, exegetically, are just as convincing as their own “favourite passages.”) One must avoid such an approach, as it only leads to eisegesis as best; a distorted gospel at worse.
Now, I am sure some will raise texts, such as Eph 2:1, that speak of unregenerate people being "dead in sin," a favourite "proof-text" for Total Depravity. It is true that Eph 2:1 (and parallel texts in Rom 6:2 and Col 2:13) speaks of unregenerate man being “dead” in their sins. However, to read into this, as the author does, total depravity is eisegesis when one investigates the various ways Scripture uses the metaphor of spiritual death. For example, the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 portrays an image of spiritual death precisely opposite the Reformed concept. The story’s main concern is to illustrate the initial spiritual salvation of an individual (as opposed to the physical resurrection in the story of Lazarus). Hence, we see a context in which the New Testament author’s meaning of spiritually “dead” can be gleaned much more appropriately. In the story of the Prodigal Son, the son leaves the father’s house with his share of the wealth. After squandering the wealth, the son finally comes to his senses and returns by his own free will to the father. The father, in turn, greets his son with compassion and invites him back into the home. This sequence of events becomes very significant in our present discussion on the meaning of the metaphor “dead” since the father describes the son’s return specifically in Luke 15:23 as, “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.” Not without significance, verse 32 repeats verbatim the father’s description of his son’s return: “. . . for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” In light of the fact that the son himself came to his senses and subsequently made his way home, Jesus’ use of the metaphor “dead” to describe the father’s understanding of the son’s previous spiritual state connotes a state, not of “total depravity,” but rather of cooperation by the son with the father’s will. Moreover, since the story of the Prodigal Son is surrounded by other parables in Luke 15-16 which illustrate the nature of initial salvation (e.g., “The Lost Sheep” in Luke 15:1-7; “The Lost Coin” in Luke 15:8-10 and “The Shrewd Manager” in Luke 16:1-3), the medley of parables does far more to help us understand the extent and limitations of this spiritually "dead" state.
That Total Depravity is contrary to the Bible can be seen in many texts. For instance, consider how Latter-day Saints, as well as other groups, are often attacked for expecting potential converts to display godly attitudes before being baptised and confirmed members of the Church. LDS teaching on this point is summed up in the fourth Article of Faith:
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion of the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
In Matt 3:8, recording the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees, the KJV reads:
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.
The Greek of this text reads:
ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας.
Literally, John is commanding the people “to do” (ποιεω) works that are “worthy” of repentance. The Greek adjective translated as “worthy” is αξιος. In New Testament soteriological contexts, it is always used to describe the reality of someone or something; it is not a mere legal declaration; in other words, something is counted/considered worthy because they/it are intrinsically worthy. We can see this in the Gospel of Matthew itself:
Nor scrip for your journey, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy (αξιος) of his meat. And into whateoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who it is worthy (αξιος); and there abide till ye go thence . . .And if the house be worthy (αξιος), let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. (Matt 10:10-11, 13)
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy (αξιος) of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy (αξιος) of me. (Matt 10:37-38)
Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy (αξιος). (Matt 22:8)
We can also see this in the verb form of this adjective (αξιοω) and its usage in the New Testament. Speaking of Christ and his worthiness, we read the following:
For this man was counted worthy (αξιοω) of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. (Heb 3:3)
Not only are there important soteriological implications of this, but also anthropological, as it calls into question the Reformed/Calvinistic belief of Total depravity (the “T” of the TULIP).
While it is true that others than God the Father are spoken of in exalted language (see Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology for a full discussion thereof), such does not detract from the glorification of God as the telos of such is that of the glorification of God Himself. Speaking of how the Father is the ultimate recipient of any glory and worship the Son receives, Reformed Baptist Tony Costa wrote the following about the Carmen Christi (the Christological hymn in Phil 2:6-11):
[Phil 2:5-11’s depiction of the exalted Jesus] does not replace God or take worship from God. God is worshipped through the worship of the exalted Jesus. The worship which is given to the exalted Jesus does not usurp the worship of God, nor does it rival the worship of God; it rather complements the worship of God and facilitates it. Paul thus includes the exalted Jesus within Christian worship. The eschatological grande finale for Paul is the ultimate and universal glorification of God which God has purposed to be achieved through the worship of the exalted Jesus. The importance and centrality of the risen Jesus in relation to Christian worship, which I have argued from the beginning of this study, is evident here. God cannot be ultimately and maximally glorified according to Paul, without, or apart from, the exalted Jesus. Paul thus sees worship from a teleological perspective as fulfilled in the ultimate expression of honor that is given to God by the entire cosmos, through the agency of the exalted Jesus. (Tony Costa, Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters [Studies in Biblical Literature vol. 157; New York: Peter Lang, 2013], 249)
LDS scholar, Blake Ostler, wrote something similar to Costa:
It is extremely significant that Paul interpreted what appears to be the most intensely “monotheistic” text in the Old Testament to refer to two divine beings, God and the Lord. In Romans 10:9, Paul also interprets Isaiah 45:23 as a reference to two figures: “for if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The confession is that Christ is Lord, but he is raised from the dead by another, God. This confession that Jesus is Lord, as in Philippians 2:10-11, appears to be dependent on Isaiah 45:23. The Septuagint (LXX) of Isaiah 45:23 reads: “By myself I swear,/righteousness shall go out of my mouth,/ my words will not be frustrated,/that to me every knee shall bow/ and every tongue confess to God.” The speaker is Yahweh (Isa. 45:18), but he speaks of God (Elohim) in the third person. When Paul quotes this same text in Romans 14:11, he exploits the distinction between the first-person speech of the Lord with that addressed to God in the third person: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God” (emphasis mine). Paul sees in this text two divine subjects, which he emphasizes by adding the explanatory gloss “says the Lord,” to specify it is the Lord who is speaking that that there is another God, to whom the confession is made. This text is used, like Psalm 110 and Daniel 7, because it permits a reading that refers to two divine figures.
We thus see a pattern emerging in early Christian exegesis. Texts which refer to the Lord and permit a reading that distinguishes the Lord from God are adopted to explain the relationship between the one God, the Father, and the Lord, the Son. Similarly, it appears that the notion there are two divine beings lies behind Paul’s midrashic interpretation of Isaiah 45:18-25 in Philippians. Isaiah 45:25 LXX can also be read as referring to two divine figures. The Hebrew text of Isaiah 45:25 contains both the name of God, Yahweh, which is always replaced by “Lord” when it is read out loud, and a word for God, Elohim. However, the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 45:25 also can be read to refer to two divine figures, the Lord and God. Jesus is equated with the reference to “Lord” as in the reading of Psalm 110, and the reference to God is read as a reference to God the Father: “They shall be justified by the Lord (κυριου = Yahweh), and in God (τω θεω = Elohim) all the seed of the sons of Israel will be glorified.” It is significant that, while Paul substitutes “Jesus” for “Lord” in his genuine letters more than fifty times, he never replaces “Jesus Christ” or “Lord” where “God” (Elohim, El, or ho theos) appears in the underlying Hebrew or Septuagint texts. Paul sees “Elohim” as a reference to the one God, but references to “the Lord” or “Yahweh” can refer to Jesus Christ. The reason for such a distinction is fairly evident. The name of “the Lord” is given to Christ. However, the name Elohim is not connoted in the title “Lord” that is given to Christ by the Father.
In any event, kingship monotheism is maintained because the honor that is given to Christ by bowing the knee to him and confessing that he is lord ultimately redounds “to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 2:11). Just as recognizing the agent or mediator of a benefactor also constitutes recognition and honor given to the benefactor, so bowing the knee to confess Christ ultimately honors the Father. The distinction between the Father and Jesus Christ is maintained clearly because Christ as a mortal is exalted by the power of God the Father. The Father “gives” the divine name that properly belongs to the Father to Christ. Christ becomes the servant who obeys the Father by undergoing death. Further, any confession that Jesus is Lord is ultimately to the honor of the Father. Any notion that Jesus Christ is somehow “included within the unique identity of the one God,” the Father, must overlook all of these essential distinctions and misses entirely the ways such honorific titles as “Lord” and the reception of the name function in a culture of honor and shame. Christ is the recipient of honor; the Father is the one who honors. The Father exalts; Christ is exalted. The Father gives; Christ receives. While the Father and the Son share the same name, glory, exaltation, and honor, Christ is not seen as identical with the one God, the Father. The identities of giver and receiver are clearly differentiated. (Blake T. Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], 140-42)
The same can be said about the glory and other rewards received by mere mortals, too, though not to the same degree as that of Jesus. Consider John 17:22:
The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one. (NRSV).
The Father and Son are glorified as a result of the glorification of those given to the Son by the Father. Far from detracting from God's "name," glory, and honour, such results in an increase thereof.
This was the same John who not only wrote John 6:44, but also the following pericope:
This was the same John who not only wrote John 6:44, but also the following pericope:
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true. You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. (John 5:31-34, NIV)
In this pericope, Jesus is appealing to the witness of him by his cousin, John the Baptist, as a tool to bring about the salvation of his Jewish listeners. Further, in this text, v. 34 uses a subjunctive “that you may be saved” (ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε). Ινα is a “purpose clause” in Greek and the verb σωζω here appears in second person plural subjunctive passive form σωθητε. This cannot be a jussive subjunctive (grammatical mood of verbs for issuing orders/commands) within the context; instead, it is connotative. This being the case, it serves to refute TULIP, as it presents the Jews Jesus is addressing as having the ability to accept or reject the gospel, that grace can be resisted, and that salvation is conditional, not unconditional and strictly predestined.
Commenting on this text, Marianne Meye Thompson wrote the following:
Jesus turns first to invoke the witness of the Baptist (vv. 33-35). From the beginning of the Gospel, John “has born witness” (memartyrēken) and “bears witness” (martyrei, 1:15; cf. 5:32) to Jesus as the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the one on whom the Spirit has descended, the one sent by God (5:36-37; cf. 3:26-27). Ironically, while people “were willing” (ēthelēsate, 5:35) to rejoice in John’s light, they are not willing (ou thelete, 5:40) to come to Jesus, even though John was a lamp that was lit and went on shining precisely so that people would see the “true Light” (cf. 1:7-8). Because John’s human testimony (5:34) might seem inadequate to confirm that Jesus speaks on behalf of God, Jesus turns to a witness “greater than John’s” (v. 36). Even so, John’s human testimony about Jesus was intended to lead people to have and see the true light of life and “be saved” (v. 34). (Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015], 133)
D.A. Carson, himself a Calvinist, offered the following comment on John 5:33-34:
Jesus’ hearers clearly need corroborative testimony, and to this Jesus now turns. The first witness he mentions is John the Baptist, who came into the world to bear witness to the true light (1:7). Not only had he borne witness to the delegation sent by the religious leaders in Jerusalem (1:19-28), but he had also publicly identified Jesus as the Lamb of God, the Spirit-anointed Son of God (1:29-34). The perfect tenses (‘You have sent . . . he has testified’) ‘present his testimony as an established datum’ (Barret, p. 264).
Although everything John the Baptist said about Jesus was true (cf. 10:40-41), Jesus himself did not, could not, accept human testimony – i.e., he himself did not depend on it to establish who he was in his own mind. The preceding verses (5:19-30) have emphasized Jesus’ intimate knowledge of the Father: he is able to say everything the Father gives him to say, he is able to do all that the Father does. As far as Jesus’ self-consciousness is concerned, the ‘another’ (v.32) who testifies in his favour is God himself. How could the witness of John the Baptist add to that? Jesus mentions the Baptist’s witness, not for his own sake, but for the sake of his hearers, that they may be saved. People are saved by believing in Jesus; John the Baptist’s witness may help them believe: that was its purpose (cf. 1:7), and hence Jesus’ appeal to such witness is justified. (D.A. Carson, The Gospel of John [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990], 260, italics in original)
There are many passages in the Bible that affirms man's role in salvation, including texts that affirm baptismal regeneration, something Bobby rejects (while he would hold a high view of water baptism, it being an ordinance in Reformed theology, it is an outward sign merely, not the instrumental means of regeneration and initial justification), I will focus on exegeting just one text: Phil 2:12-13.
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but how much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (Phil 2:12-13)
It is common for Evangelical critics of LDS soteriology (e.g., Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine) to argue that Paul was addressing the internal conflicts in the Philippian church and was merely addressing the survival/salvation of the congregation, not a statement about individual salvation. In this way, Evangelicals attempt to empty this passage of its eternal dimensions and limit the discussion to working out one's salvation to working out their disputes. However, this ignores verse 16 which reads:
Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.
Here, Paul speaks of the final judgment ("the day of Christ"). Hence, all the fear and trembling that Paul encourages the Philippians to do is for the purpose of passing the judgment on that final day. If Paul finds that he has "laboured in vain," we know from other passages that the salvation of his hearers/readers is either in jeopardy or has yet to be determined (e.g., Gal 2:2; 2 Cor 6:1; 1 Thess 3:5). Even Paul does not think of himself as "eternally secure," as we see in 1 Cor 9:27-10:13).
As one Pauline scholar wrote on this passage, showing that Paul is teaching synergistic soteriology:
Finally, Phil 2:12-16, particularly verses 12-13, deserves a more thorough analysis. What does Paul mean by the phrase “with fear and trembling work out your own salvation” (2:12)? Some suggest that σωτηρια refers to the health and welfare of the corporate body of believers in Philippi, not final salvation from God’s wrath or eternal life in the next age. This sociological interpretation has been amply rebutted. Here, as in 1:28, σωτηρια refers to eschatological salvation as it usually does elsewhere in Paul’s letters.
What, then, does Paul mean by κατεργαζομαι? Paul uses the word eighteen other times with the meaning “to achieve, accomplish, do, bring about, produce, or create.” In this case, then, Paul exhorts the Philippians to bring about or achieve their own salvation. Considering all the passages discussed in this section, such a mandate and responsibility should come as no surprise. Why else would Paul exhort believers to be “pure and blameless,” or to “produce a harvest of righteousness,” or to be “blameless and innocent . . . without blemish” in light of the imminent day of Christ, unless he also believes that Christians themselves must work in order to be saved on that day. Κατεργαζομαι refers to a number of things, such as “live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel” (1:27), “standing for in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel” (1:28), “do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves” (2:3), “look not to your own interests but to the interests of others” (2:4), do all things without murmuring and arguing” (2:14), “holding fast to the word of life” (2:16), and so on. Christians themselves do these things, not God; they decide as an act of the will to obey or disobey Paul, the gospel, or God.
Believers do such things, however, not on their own strength alone. Paul says, “For God is the one who is working in you so that (you might) desire to work for (his) good pleasure” (2:13). God aids and inspires the believers to accomplish God’s purposes. Likewise, Paul testifies about himself:
Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. (Phil 3:12)
I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Phil 4:13)
On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. (1 Cor 15:10)
In his autobiographical statements, sometimes Paul emphasizes his role in his endeavors (e.g., 2 Cor 11:23-29; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 2:9), sometimes God’s grace. Paul views himself as neither “possessed” or controlled by the deity nor as constrained or overpowered; rather he is inspired. If one’s deeds rely solely upon God’s doing, then the logic of God’s commandments is lost and responsibility for one’s behaviour at the Last Judgment is moot. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006], 186-87)
The implication he is trying to give is that one is merely demonstrating their saved state, not to maintain such. However, the Greek does not support it. The verb is κατεργάζομαι and it means "to work out" in the sense of "to produce," consistent with the Latter-day Saint understanding of this passage. Notice how the term is defined by Louw and Nida in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2d ed.):
κατεργάζομαι: to do something with success and/or thoroughness - 'to accomplish, to perform successfully, to do thoroughly.' ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι στῆναι 'having accomplished everything, to stand' Eph 6.13.
Eph 6:13, referenced by Louw-Nida, reads as follows:
Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything (κατεργάζομαι), to stand firm. (NRSV)
In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3d ed), often known as "BDAG," the leading scholarly lexicon of Koine Greek, the verb κατεργάζομαι, with respect to how it is used in Phil 2:12 is defined as "to cause a state or condition, bring about, produce, create," again, consistent with the Latter-day Saint reading but alien to the interpretation Thomas lamely attempts to foist upon the verb. Furthermore, with respect to Eph 6:13, quoted above, it is defined as having the meaning of “to bring about a result by doing something, achieve, accomplish, do.” Here is the entry under κατεργάζομαι in BDAG:
κατεργάζομαι
• κατεργάζομαι mid. dep., Att. fut. 2 sg. κατεργᾷ Dt 28:39; 1 aor. κατειργασάμην; perf. κατείργασμαι. Pass.: fut. 2 pl. κατεργασθήσεσθε Ezk 36:9; aor. κατειργάσθην (on κατηργασάμην and κατηργάσθην s. B-D-F §67, 3; W-S. §12, 1; Mlt-H. 189) (Soph., Hdt.+).
1. to bring about a result by doing someth., achieve, accomplish, do τὶ someth. (Hdt. 5, 24 πρήγματα μεγάλα; X., Mem. 3, 5, 11; Jos., Vi. 289) Ro 7:15, 17f, 20; 1 Cor 5:3; 1 Cl 32:3f. τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι committing shameless acts Ro 1:27. τὸ κακόν do what is wrong 2:9; 13:10 v.l. τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν do what the gentiles (i.e. polytheists) like to do 1 Pt 4:3. δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ does what is right in the sight of God or (s. ἐργάζεσθαι 2c) achieves the uprightness that counts before God Js 1:20 v.l. ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι after you have done or accomplished everything (in this case the reference would be to the individual pieces of armor mentioned in what follows, which the reader is to employ as is prescribed; but s. 4 below) Eph 6:13. ὧν οὐ κατειργάσατο Χριστὸς δι᾽ ἐμοῦ of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me Ro 15:18. Pass. τὰ σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου κατειργάσθη ἐν ὑμῖν the signs by which an apostle demonstrates his authority have been done among you 2 Cor 12:12.
2. to cause a state or condition, bring about, produce, create (Hdt. 7, 102 ἀρετὴ ἀπὸ σοφίης κατεργασμένη; Philo, Plant. 50; TestJos 10:1) τὶ someth. νόμος ὀργήν Ro 4:15. θλῖψις ὑπομονήν 5:3 (TestJos 10:1 πόσα κατεργάζεται ἡ ὑπομονή); cp. Js 1:3. λύπη μετάνοιαν 2 Cor 7:10a v.l. (for ἐργάζεται). λύπη θάνατον vs. 10b; cp. vs. 11 (where a dat. of advantage is added). φθόνος ἀδελφοκτονίαν 1 Cl 4:7. μνησικακία θάνατον Hv 2, 3, 1. ἡ ἁμαρτία κ. ἐν ἐμοὶ πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν sin called forth every desire within me Ro 7:8. τινί τι bring about someth. for someone (Eur., Her. 1046 πόλει σωτηρίαν) μοι θάνατον 7:13. αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης ἡμῖν 2 Cor 4:17. εὐχαριστίαν τῷ θεῷ bring about thankfulness to God 9:11; θάνατον ἑαυτῷ κ. bring death upon oneself Hm 4, 1, 2; cp. s 8, 8, 5 ἐργάζεσθαι.—Work out τὶ someth. (Pla., Gorg. 473d ὁ κατειργασμένος τὴν τυραννίδα ἀδίκως) τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε Phil 2:12 (JMichael, Phil 2:12: Exp. 9th ser., 2, 1924, 439-50).
3. to cause to be well prepared, prepare someone κ. τινα εἴς τι prepare someone for someth. (cp. Hdt. 7, 6, 1; X., Mem. 2, 3, 11) ἡμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο for this very purpose 2 Cor 5:5.
4. to be successful in the face of obstacles, overpower, subdue, conquer (Hdt. 6, 2 νῆσον; Thu. 6, 11, 1 al. τινά; 1 Esdr 4:4; Philo, Sacr. Abel. 62; Jos., Ant. 2, 44) ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι στῆναι after proving victorious over everything, to stand your ground Eph 6:13 (but s. 1 above).—M-M. TW.
This Evangelical "responses" to the force of Phil 2:12-13 are driven by pure eisegesis.
But What about Gen 50:20? Doesn't that text prove Reformed Theology?
But What about Gen 50:20? Doesn't that text prove Reformed Theology?
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (Gen 50:20, NASB)
This verse is perhaps the strongest verse used by Calvinists to support the concept of compatibilism; as a result, one will discuss this verse here. To quote a contemporary apologist for Calvinism who appeals to this text:
These are the words of one who has come to see the sovereign plan of God in his own life. Joseph well knew the motivations of his brothers when they sold him into slavery. But, in the very same event he saw the over-riding hand of God, guiding, directing, and ultimately meaning in the same action to bring about good. (James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler’s Chosen but Free [2d ed.; Calvary Press, 2009], 48)
There are a couple of important considerations that cast doubt onto the popular Reformed reading of this verse.
Firstly, the Joseph narrative in Genesis clearly ascribes the responsibility for selling Joseph into Egypt onto his brothers, and there is no mention of this being part of the “secret decree” of God:
Then there passed by the Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt. (Gen 37:28)
And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph, your brother, who ye sold into Egypt. Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves that ye sold me hither for God did send me before you to preserve life. (Gen 45:4-5)
While some may appeal to the above text in Gen 45 as further evidence in favour compatibilism, Joseph tells his brothers that they committed evil in selling him and sinned against him (Gen 42:22). Only by presenting God as the author of sin can a Calvinist appeal to such an interpretation of this pericope.
Further, in suggesting what they intended for evil God intended for good, Joseph speaks to his brethren in a form of poetical parallelism, so should be understood as a rhetorical flourish, not the basis for systematic theology. The Hebrew reads:
וְאַתֶּם חֲשַׁבְתֶּם עָלַי רָעָה אֱלֹהִים חֲשָׁבָהּ לְטֹבָה לְמַעַן עֲשֹׂה כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה לְהַחֲיֹת עַם־רָב
The Hebrew is captured rather well in the 1985 JPS Tanakh:
Besides, although you intended me harm, God intended it for good, so as to bring about the present result--the survival of many people.
The Hebrew verb translated as "to intend" is חשׁב (to think/reckon/credit/assume). Commenting on this verse and the theology of the Joseph in Egypt narrative vis-à-vis human freedom and foreknowledge, John Sanders wrote:
How should Joseph’s remarks that God “sent” him to Egypt and made him ruler of Egypt (Gen 45:5, 7, 9) be understood? First, it should be remembered that Joseph has used language like this before. In Genesis 43:23 he says that God gave the money back to his brothers even though Joseph admits that he had the money put in their sacks (see Gen 42:25, 28). Furthermore, the remarks of Gen 45:5, 7, 9 occur at a tense moment in the dialogue. Joseph’s brothers are overwhelmed by anxiety, and they fear for their lives due to the ruse Joseph has played on them. Moreover, Joseph is brought to tears in the presence of his brothers, desiring reconciliation. Now is not the time for condemning words. He desires to vanquish his brother’s fears. Although he acknowledges that they sold him into Egypt, he suggests that everyone look on the bright side—what God has done through this. Their lives and those of the Egyptians have been spared the devastating effects of the famine.
Joseph plays down the human factor and elevates the divine factor in order to allay their fears. After reconciliation is assured, Joseph remarks that what they intended for evil, God intended for good, so that many people would live (Gen 50:20). It is the glory of God to be able to bring good out of evil human actions. But nothing in the text demands the interpretation that God actually desired the sinful acts. The text does not say that God determined the events. In fact, the text is remarkably silent regarding any divine activity until Joseph’s speeches. Until now, the events could have been narrated without reference to divine activity at all. In fact, unlike in the other patriarchal stories, here God is strangely absent. Joseph never invokes God! It is in retrospect that Joseph identifies God’s activity in his life, and his words require the interpretation that God exercises meticulous control over human affairs. (John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence [2d ed.; Downers Grove, Illin.: IVP Academic, 2007], 85)
Another consideration adding support to Sander’s claim that Joseph “desires to vanquish his brother’s fears” is found in Gen 45:3
And Joseph said unto his brethren, I am Joseph; doth my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer, for they were troubled at his presence.
The Hebrew term the KJV translates as “troubled” is בהל which means "to be terrified, out of one's senses" (cf. Exo 15:15).
Gregory Boyd points out the theological difficulties resulting from the traditional way Calvinists absolutistise Gen 50:20:
[I]f we interpret this episode as evidence of how God always operates, we must accept the consequence that this passage always minimizes the responsibility of human agents. This is the conclusion Joseph himself draws from his observation that God used his brothers to send him to Egypt. “Do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves,” he tells them, “for God sent me.” If this text is taken as evidence of how God always controls human action—if God is involved in each kidnapping and murder the way he was involved in the activity of Joseph’s brothers—we must be willing to console every murderer and kidnapper with Joseph’s words: “Do not be distressed or angry with yourself, for God kidnapped and murdered your victims.” We cannot universalize the mode of God’s operation in this passage without also universalizing its implications for human responsibility. No one, of course, is willing to do this. (Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy [Downers Grove, Illin.: IVP Academic, 2001], 396-97)
Additionally, Boyd notes that:
The text only suggests that at some point in the course of God’s interaction with humans, God decided that it fit his sovereign purpose to steer the brothers’ intentions in the manner we read in Genesis. It wasn’t God’s original plan that the brothers would acquire the character they did, but in the flow of history it fit his plan to use these brothers in the way he did. (Ibid., 397)
As we have seen, there are a number of problems with the common Reformed appeal to Gen 50:20 as biblical evidence in favour of compatibilism.
The Atonement: Universal or Limited?
Elsewhere, we get to the real crux of the issue, that of the extent of Christ's atonement. Near the end of the article, Bobby wrote:
This is not to say that the God of the bible does not love humanity, and this is not to say that Jesus did not die and rise again in order that the elect might know Him
In the theology of Five-Point Calvinism, Christ died only for the elect and intercedes only for the elect, and that God will, through the means of irresistible grace, efficaciously call the members of the elect (who were chosen in the eternal past), at a point in time designated by God. However, this is an anti-biblical doctrine. Consider 1 John 2:1-2, as well as the nature of Christ's intercessory work. The ESV renders the text as follows:
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
In this verse, John is speaking to Christian believers of his time and states that not only was/is Christ an atoning sacrifice (ιλασμος) for their then-past sins but is presently an atoning sacrifice for their then-future sins. Why is this problematic? In Reformed soteriology, when an individual is pronounced “justified,” all their past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven, a “blanket forgiveness,” if you will. However, the text is pretty clear that a true believer will not only sin, but such sins will have to be repented of and forgiven by Jesus Christ. This is brought out when one looks at the Greek:
The phrase, “we have an advocate” translates παράκλητον ἔχομεν, where the present text of “to have” εχω coupled with the Greek term παρακλητος, which refers to an advocate, an individual who pleads another's cause in their place, which is related to the intercessory work of Jesus Christ being tied into the perseverance of Christians and their ultimate salvation, something we find in a host of biblical texts, such as:
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (Rom 8:33-34)
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore, he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25)
We see a very potent example of this in Rev 5:6:
And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
In this passage, John sees a vision of the heavenly tabernacle, where Jesus is presented as being a Lamb. The term “as it had been slain” translates the Greek term ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, where the term ως (like/as) coupled with perfect passive participle of the verb σφαζω (to slay), therefore, depicting Jesus, in His post-resurrection state, in a sacrificial role, paralleling the slaughter of the Passover lamb. Furthermore, Jesus is not sitting, but standing, indicating activity on his behalf (cf. Acts 7:55-56; Heb 8:1-3), namely, His intercessory work before God the Father, applying the benefits of His atoning sacrifice for His people until He comes in glory; further, as we learn in vv.8-9, the potency of the prayers offered by the disembodied elders have their basis on this intercessory work—similarly, the potency of our prayers have power due to the prayers and intercessory work of Christ, our mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).
The term “he is the propitiation for our sins” translates the Greek αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The ESV and other translations are correct in rendering Christ being a present atoning sacrifice (“propitiation”), as the verb “to be” (ειμι) is in the present tense (εστιν [“he is”]). This is commensurate with texts such as Heb 2:17, where the author of Hebrews presents Jesus as a present-propitiation, not merely a past-propitiation, for the sins of true believers.
1 John 1:5-10 confirms the focus on the present sins of the Christian that need forgiveness; verse 6 speaks of those who claim to have fellowship and yet walk in darkness (i.e. are engaged in unrepentant sin). In verse 7, the author provides the remedy to such, viz. the blood of Jesus Christ "that cleanseth us from all sin," allowing restoration of fellowship. This is reinforced in vv.8 and 10 that denies the claim that a Christian is without sin, while v. 9 encourages the sinner to repent, upon which God will "forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The pronouns used indicate that the author included himself in such warnings and as one who needs to engage in repentance and have his then-future sins forgiven, too.
John continues by qualifying the scope of Christ’s atoning sacrifice—He is not just the propitiation for the sins of believers (“our sins”) but also but also "for the whole world." The term "whole world" translates the Greek του κοσμου. The term κοσμος in all 17 occurrences in 1 John does not have the restrictive meaning that is required by Reformed theology which states that Christ died only for the elect and makes intercession only for the elect (Limited Atonement [AKA Particular Redemption], the”L” in the TULIP):
Let us quote from some representative examples, again from the ESV, as it is a popular translation among many Reformed Protestants:
For all that is in the world (κοσμος)--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life--is not from the Father but is from the world. (1 John 2:16)
But if anyone has the world's (κοσμος) goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? (1 John 3:17)
They are from the world (κοσμος); therefore they speak from the world (κοσμος), and the world listens to them. (1 John 4:5)
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world (κοσμος). (1 John 4:14).
The latter texts are interesting as the title “Saviour” (σωτηρ) is predicated upon Jesus and His role as a Saviour is said to be for the world, not just a select few arbitrarily chosen by God in the eternal past (cf. John 4:42). Some Reformed apologists try to answer the implications of the phrase, "the whole world" by claiming that John is writing to Jewish converts to Christianity, and is simply stating that Christ has elect from among both the Jews and the Gentiles, so "the whole world" should mean "Jew and Gentile." However, such is a complete and utter stretch--for Jews, there were only two ethnic categories one belonged to; one was either a Jew or a Gentile--so everybody would be in view.
When read exegetically, 1 John 2:1-2 shows that (1) Christ is a present propitiation for Christians; (2) the then-future sins of a Christian are not forgiven at justification, and as result (3) repentance is not a once-off concept as some (not all) Evangelicals posit, and (4) Christ is the atoning sacrifice, not just for Christians, but the everybody.
John McLeod Campbell, a 19th-century Reformed theologian who was critical of much of Penal Substitution, captured the extent and meaning of the atonement when he wrote:
And He is the propitiation: for propitiation is not a thing which He has accomplished and on which we are thrown back on as a past fact. He is the propitiation. Propitiation for us sinners,--reconciliation to God,--oneness with God abides in Christ. When we sin, and so separate ourselves from God, if we would return and not continue in sin we must remember this. For it is in this view that the Apostle, writing to us “that we sin not,” reminds us of the propitiation—not a work of Christ, but the living Christ Himself: and so he proceeds—“Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments;” the direct effect of knowing Christ the propitiation for sin being keeping Christ’s commandments. And because of the power to keep Christ’s commandments, which is ours in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, the Apostle, in words similar to those which he had just used with reference to the claim to fellowship with God who is light, adds, “He that saith I know him,” that is Christ the propitiation for our sins, “and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected,”—the end of this gift of love accomplished. “Hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked.” (John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life [2d ed.: London: Macmillan and Co., 1867], 197-98; emphasis in original).
This is yet another text which shows, with great perspicuity, that Latter-day Saint theology is more reflective of “Biblical Christianity” than Reformed theology, which most of our Evangelical Protestant opponents subscribe to.
With respect to Jesus "sitting," it is true that Hebrews speaks of Christ "sitting" on the Father's right hand, based on Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX), denoting that He will never have to die again. However, other texts speak of him "standing" and "interceding." Note the following comments from two scholars on the nature of Christ's intercessory work:
Finally, John Calvin, in his commentary on 1 John 2:1, wrote the following on the comment that Jesus is our advocate (emphasis added):
The Reformed doctrine of Christ’s atoning death and its relationship to His intercession is internally inconsistent and should be, as with the other tenets of Calvinism, rejected.
To be fair to Bobby's theological perspective, there are certain texts in Hebrews and elsewhere that seems to support the Reformed view of the atonement, such as Heb 10:10-14, so I will provide an exegesis of this text, and two related passages to 1 John 2:1-2, that of Heb 2:17 and 10:26-29.
Heb 10:10-14
The Greek (with key terms in bold), followed by the KJV, reads:
In the view of many Evangelicals, this pericope “proves” that the believer cannot fall from their salvation and that salvation is a once-for-all event (being tied into one of the many theologies of “eternal security” [e.g. Perseverance of the Saints within Reformed soteriology]).
Heb 10:26-29
As an aside, for a detailed exegetical response to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (a work White is rather fond of), see Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (2d ed; Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 1978).
Another popular "proof-text" is that of John 19:30 and the meaning of the Greek term translated "it is finished/done" (τετελεσται). For a full treatment, see:
Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30
As an aside, Bobby wrote the following which touches upon the "intermediate state":
With respect to Jesus "sitting," it is true that Hebrews speaks of Christ "sitting" on the Father's right hand, based on Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX), denoting that He will never have to die again. However, other texts speak of him "standing" and "interceding." Note the following comments from two scholars on the nature of Christ's intercessory work:
Forgiveness through the intercession of Jesus
While not as universally attested as the view of his death as salvific, the notion of Jesus’ continuous intercession for those who have sinned surfaces in a number of texts that otherwise differ widely in theological character. Paul expresses his conviction that Jesus ‘is at the right hand of God’ and ‘intercedes (εντυγχανει) for us’ (Rom 8.34), but he does not mention sins specifically, Likewise, the author of Hebrews states that Jesus ‘can also save forever those who come to God through hi, since he always lives to intercede (εντυγχανειν) for them’ (Heb 7.25). It is possible in view of his subsequent discussion of the high-priestly sacrifice for sins (7.26-7) that the author here envisages a ministry of praying specifically for sins to be forgiven, but he does not say so explicitly.
First John clearly associates Jesus’ intercessory work with forgiveness claiming that ‘if somebody sins, we have an advocate (παρακλητον) with the Father, Jesus Christ who is righteous’ (2.1). The notion that the righteous departed pray for the forgiveness of the sins of the living is firmly rooted in several variants of early Judaism, and the phrasing in First John is strikingly evocative of Philo’s articulation of this conception. What Philo predicated of the ancient saints of Israel, First John attributes to Jesus: the continuing ministry of praying before God on behalf of sinners, at least on behalf of those sinners who have not committed mortal sin (see 5.16-17)
Luke’s narration of the death of Stephen (Acts 7.54-60) also assigns the role of advocate to Jesus. Scholars have frequently taken Stephen’s invocation of Jesus, ‘Lord, do not hold (μη στησης) this sin against them (7.60) as equivalent to saying ‘Lord, forgive this sin for them’ and thus as expressing the notion that the heavenly Jesus forgives sins. But this interpretation appears to be based on the misunderstanding of ‘to establish’ (ισταναι) and ‘to remit’ (αφιεναι) as antonyms in 1 Macc. 13.36-40; 15.2-9, where a careful reading reveals that these verbs are by no means antonymous. A more relevant philological background for Stephen’s prayer is provided by the regulations concerning vows and pledges in Num 30.11-15 LXX, which allow a husband either to nullify (περιαιρειν) his wife’s vows and pledges by speaking out, or to validate (ισταναι) them by keeping silence. In the former case, ‘the Lord will forgive (καθαρισει (MT: יסלח )) the woman (30.13). In Acts 7.60, Stephen analogously petitions Jesus not to validate the sin of the assassins, but to nullify it by speaking on their behalf, reserving for God the prerogative of properly forgiving their sin. This also explains better why Jesus is standing, rather than sitting, at the right hand of God in Stephen’s vision (Acts 7.55-56): Jesus is not functioning as a judge, but as the advocate of his faithful witness (cf. Luke 12:8-9), who exemplarily asks him to speak also in favour of the enemies.
This understanding of Acts 7.60 affects the construal of Peter’s advice to Simon Magus, ‘ask the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven for you’ (Acts 8.24). The identity of ‘the Lord’ is obscure. If it refers to God, a post-baptismal sin may be forgiven by God without Jesus playing any instrumental role (cf. 3.19). If, by contrast, it refers to Jesus, then his function could be understood in either of two ways: as the one who actually forgives sins, or as the heavenly advocate, who intercedes for the sinner before God. The contextual nearness between 7.60 and 8.22 speaks for the latter alternative, as does the passive construction ‘will be forgiven’ (αφεθησεται), which may indicate that the implicit agent of forgiveness is not identical with ‘the Lord’ to whom the prayer is addressed. (Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Ministry [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 150; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012], 97-99)
To understand the heavenly intercession of the Son on our behalf as the propitiation of the Father, as Michael does, generates a significant problem of internal coherence for penal substitution. According to penal substitution, the primary purpose and effect of the death of Jesus was to propitiate the wrath of God on account of the sins of humanity. As it is written elsewhere, because Christ is “a priest forever” in heaven, he “always lives to make intercession” and is thus “able for all time to save those who approach God through him” (Heb 7:24-25). Heavenly intercession on our behalf is thus the ongoing vocation of the risen and ascended Christ. So, if the purpose and effect of the Son's intercession is to propitiate the Father's wrath, then the Son is continually doing in heaven at the throne what was to have been fully accomplished on earth at the cross. The cross would thus seem to have been ineffective, or at least incomplete, in accomplishing its primary purpose of saving humanity from divine wrath. Michael's [a Reformed apologist the author is responding to] interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2, although given in defense of penal substitution, effectively undermines it. (Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012], p. 249 n. 13)
Many proponents of Reformed soteriology have shown to be inconsistent with respect to their views on the nature of Christ’s atoning death its relationship to intercession, as well as the salutary nature of Christ’s intercession. James R. White, for instance, once wrote the following:
He enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption. Christ presents Himself before the Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of His people. His work of intercession, then, is based on His work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father . . . the Son intercedes for men before the Father on the basis of the fact that in His death He has taken away the sins of God’s people, and therefore, by presenting His finished work on Calvary before the Father, He assures the application of the benefits of His death to those for whom He intercedes. (James R. White, The Fatal Flaw, pp. 133-134).
Ulrich Zwingli, one of the magisterial Reformers, wrote the following on the intercessory work of Christ:
For as He [Christ] offered Himself once on the cross and again to the Father in heaven, so He won and obtained remission of sins and the joy of everlasting happiness. (The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli [trans. Macauley Jackson; 2 vols.], 2:276)
This inconsistency is also part-and-parcel of John Calvin’s soteriology as well as those who, like James White, subscribe to such a forensic model of atonement. In the book by Robert Peterson, Calvin and the Atonement, we read the following on the topic of Christ’s office of priest and work of intercession:
Salvation depends upon Christ’s highly priestly work of reconciliation . . . The second of Christ’s priestly duties is intercession. Because Jesus Christ has reconciled the Father to believers and them to him, he has opened for them a way of access to God in prayer. In the Institutes, Calvin explains that Christ’s accomplishment of reconciliation is the prerequisite for his work of intercession:
For having entered a sanctuary not made with hands, He appears before the Father’s face as our constant advocate and intercessor (Heb. 7:25; 9:11f.; Rom. 8:34). Thus He turns the Father’s eyes to His own righteousness to avert his gaze from our sins. He so reconciles the Father’s heart to us by His intercession that He prepares a way and access for us to the Father’s throne. He fills with grace and kindness the throne that for miserable sinners would otherwise have been filled with dread. (Institutes II.xvi.16)
In fact, according to Calvin’s commentary on 1 John 2:1, ‘Christ’s intercession is the continual application of His death to our salvation.’ Christ’s priestly work of reconciliation is once for all. But his high priestly function of intercession is continuous. He continually intercedes on behalf of his people before his Father’s throne. (Robert A. Peterson Sr., Calvin and the Atonement: What the renowned pastor and teacher said about the cross of Christ [Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 1999], 57-58)
On p. 58 n. 51 of ibid., we read the following:
Hoogland expresses this very well: ‘The intercession of Christ according to Calvin, is not an additional act which Christ performs in heaven, different from His death and resurrection. His intercession is the presence of His death and resurrection themselves before the Father’ (Marvin P. Hoogland, ‘Calvin’s Perspective on the Exaltation of Christ in Comparison with the Post-Reformation Doctrine of the Two States’, pp. 198f.)
As with James White (whose book was written, in part, against the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice), Calvin contradicts himself when he critiques this doctrine, one that is tied into Christ’s intercessory work being salutary (showing the inconsistent nature of such a view of atonement):
It is in the context of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice that Calvin takes great affront at the Roman Catholic mass. In the Institutes, he explains:
The sacrificial victims which were offered under the law to atone for sins were so called, not because they were capable of recovering God’s favour or wiping out iniquity, but because they prefigured a true sacrifice such as was finally accomplished in reality by Christ alone; and by him alone, because no other could have done it. And it was done but once, because the effectiveness and force of that one sacrifice accomplished by Christ are eternal, as he testified with his own voice when he said that it was done and fulfilled; that is, whatever was necessary to recover the Father’s favour, to obtain forgiveness of sins, righteousness and salvation—all this was performed and completed by that unique sacrifice of his. And so perfect was is that no place was left afterward for any other sacrificial victim. Therefore, I conclude that it is a most wicked infamy and unbearable blasphemy, both against Christ and against the sacrifice which he made for us through his death on the cross, for anyone to suppose that by repeating the oblation he obtains pardon for sins, appeased God, and acquires righteousness. But what else is done by performing masses except by the merit of a new oblation we are made partakers in Christ’s passion? (Institutes IV.xviii.13-14) (ibid., 98-99)
Commenting on this aforementioned passage from Calvin’s Institutes, Peterson writes:
[In Calvin’s eyes] Christ’s work was perfect and no other sacrifices are needed. Christ perfectly fulfilled the Old Testament sacrificial system by offering himself on the cross. His work is sufficient to save his people from their sins. (Ibid., 99)
Christ is our advocate; for he appears before God for this end, that he may exercise towards us the power and efficacy of his sacrifice. That this may be better understood, I will speak more homely. The intercession of Christ is a continual application of his death for our salvation. That God then does not impute to us our sins, this comes to us, because he has regard to Christ as intercessor.
But the two names, by which he afterwards signalizes Christ, properly belong to the subject of this passage. He calls him just and a propitiation. It is necessary for him to be both, that he might sustain the office and person of an Advocate; for who that is a sinner could reconcile God to us? For we are excluded from access to him, because no one is pure and free from sin. Hence no one is fit to be a high priest, except he is innocent and separated from sinners, as it is also declared in Heb 7:26. Propitiation is added, because no one is fit to be a high priest without a sacrifice. Hence, under the Law, no priest entered the sanctuary without blood; and a sacrifice, as a usual seal, was wont, according to God’s appointment, to accompany prayers. By this symbol it was God’s design to shew, that whosoever obtains favor for us, must be furnished with a sacrifice; for when God is offended, in order to pacify him a satisfaction is required. It hence follows, that all the saints who have ever been and shall be, have need of an advocate, and that no one except Christ is equal to undertake this office. And doubtless John ascribed these two things to Christ, to shew that he is the only true advocate.
Now, as no small consolation comes to us, when we hear that Christ not only died for us to reconcile us to the Father, but that he continually intercedes for us, so that an access in his name is open to us, that our prayers may be heard; so we ought especially to beware, lest this honor, which belongs peculiarly to him, should be transferred to another.
To be fair to Bobby's theological perspective, there are certain texts in Hebrews and elsewhere that seems to support the Reformed view of the atonement, such as Heb 10:10-14, so I will provide an exegesis of this text, and two related passages to 1 John 2:1-2, that of Heb 2:17 and 10:26-29.
Heb 10:10-14
The Greek (with key terms in bold), followed by the KJV, reads:
ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ. 11Καὶ πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκεν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων θυσίας, αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, 12 οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, 13 τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. 14 μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
In the view of many Evangelicals, this pericope “proves” that the believer cannot fall from their salvation and that salvation is a once-for-all event (being tied into one of the many theologies of “eternal security” [e.g. Perseverance of the Saints within Reformed soteriology]).
First, Hebrews 10:14 is a somewhat obscure grammatical choice of words by the writer.
It should first be noted that Heb 10:14 (“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”) is ambiguous in the Greek.
The verse contains the present participle τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους (“those being sanctified”). This present participle could be related to the perfect tense of τετελείωκεν (“he has perfected”). If this is the case, the sacrifice of Christ is indeed once-for-all (εφαπαξ), but is in a progressive relationship to us, that is, at least with respect to sanctification, Christ’s sacrifice does not give us a “blanket” forgiveness of one’s past, present, and then-future sins; instead, it gives us a perfect forgiveness of one’s past and present sins, but it is not applied all at once to us, as we know elsewhere from the New Testament that we must seek forgiveness of sins we commit post-conversion (e.g. 1 John 2:1-2).
Had the author of Hebrews wanted to convey such a “blanket” forgiveness as some wish to read into this pericope, he should have used a noun (e.g. τουν αγιουν [“the sanctified”]).
Something interesting appears in verse 10—the writer uses a perfect tense instead of a present participle. He says ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν (“we have been sanctified”). The difference apparently lies in the “we” of v. 10 (the author and his immediate hearers) in contrast to those addressed in v. 14 which is an open-ended inclusion of anyone who will experience the sanctification in the future. This being the case, in biblical Greek, it is better to use a present participle, because only that form can include those in the present who are being sanctified as well as those in the future who will be sanctified.
There is another possibility that τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους refers to the entire sanctification process, including “positional” sanctification, for the author and his hearers in v.10 (i.e. they have been sanctified [per v. 10] but they are also being sanctified [v.14]).
Heb 2:17
Heb 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
There are a number of interesting things when one examines this verse. Firstly, there are two “purpose clauses” in this verse; the first (“that he might be a merciful high priest”) is the Greek ινα clause; the second is the use of the Greek preposition εις which means “into” or “with a goal towards” and this is coupled with the present infinitive form of the verb ιλασκομαι “to make atonement” (ιλασκεσθαι), and this present “making of atonement” is “for the sins of the people” (τας αμαρτιας του λαου). The author of Hebrews views Christ’s on-going office of heavenly intercessor as one that allows for the continuing appeasement of the Father to win the forgiveness of sins committed by believers, sins that were not forgiven at one’s conversion. In other words, this verse presents Jesus as the heavenly high priest who, even at present, makes atonement for sins; this is alien to many theologies that think of one's forgiveness as being once-for-all. The author of Hebrews says Jesus makes atonement for sins on an ongoing basis. If ones’ then-future sins were already atoned for when one appropriated Jesus (esp. if one holds to imputed righteousness), and their justification can never be lost, this verse and its theology is nonsensical. However, Christ's ongoing work as High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle is ongoing in reference to our own sins. Thus, the present infinitive form in Heb 2:17 conclusively demonstrate the continuing need for the application of Christ's work for our own salvation. Reformed Protestants are in the unenviable position of having to advocate a soteriology that is at odds with the witness of biblical exegesis.
This fits perfectly well with what we find in the Expositor's Greek New Testament (5 vols.), ed. Nicoll Robertson, where Protestant scholar Marcus Dods wrote the following on Heb 2:17 (here, vol. 4 pp. 269-70):
εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι, “for the purpose of making propitiation,” εἰς indicating the special purpose to be served by Christ’s becoming Priest. ἱλάσκομαι (ἱλάσκω is not met with), from ἵλαος, Attic ἵλεως “propitious,” “merciful,” means “I render propitious to myself”. In the classics it is followed by the accusative of the person propitiated, sometimes of the anger felt. In the LXX it occurs twelve times, thrice as the translation of כִּפֵּר. The only instance in which it is followed by an accusative of the sin, as here, is Psalms 64 (65):3, τὰς ἀσεβείας ἡμῶν σὺ ἱλάσῃ. In the N.T., besides the present passage, it only occurs in Luke 18:13, in the passive form ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, cf. 2 Kings 5:18. The compound formἐξιλάσκομαι, although it does not occur in N.T., is more frequently used in the LXX than the simple verb, and from its construction something may be learnt. As in profane Greek, it is followed by an accusative of the person propitiated, as in Genesis 32:20, where Jacob says of Esau ἐξιλάσομαι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς δώροις κ.τ.λ.; Zechariah 7:2, ἐξιλάσασθαι τὸν Κύριον, and Zechariah 8:22, τὸ πρόσωπον Κυρίου, also Matthew 1:9. It is however also followed by an accusative of the thing on account of which propitiation is needed or which requires by some rite or process to be rendered acceptable to God, as in Sir 3:3; Sir 3:30; Sir 5:6; Sir 20:28, etc., where it is followed by ἀδικίαν, and ἁμαρτίας; and in Leviticus 16:16; Leviticus 16:20; Leviticus 16:33, where it is followed by τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ θυσιαστήριον, and in Ezekiel 45:20 by τὸν οἶκον. At least thirty-two times in Leviticus alone it is followed by περί, defining the persons for whom propitiation is made, περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐξιλάσεται ὁ ἱερεύς or περὶ πάσης συναγωγῆς, or περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν. In this usage there is apparent a transition from the idea of propitiating God (which still survives in the passive ἱλάσθητι) to the idea of exerting some influence on that which was offensive to God and which must be removed or cleansed in order to complete entrance into His favour. In the present passage it is τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ which stand in the way of the full expression of God’s favour, and upon those therefore the propitiatory influence of Christ is to be exerted. In what manner precisely this is to be accomplished is not yet said. “The present infinitive ἱλάσκεσθαι must be noticed. The one (eternal) act of Christ (c. x. 12–14) is here regarded in its continuous present application to men (cf. c. Hebrews 2:1-2).”
Heb 10:26-29
On his Alpha and Omega Ministries Website, James R. White has an article entitled, "Hebrews and the Atonement of Christ." This is, in part, a response to pp. 102-7 of Catholic apologist Robert A. Sungenis' book, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (for my articles interacting with Sungenis' treatment of the Bible and patristic literature to support the Mass, see Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone).
Near the end of the article, White attempts to interact with one pericope that is often cited, alongside Heb 6:4-6, as proof that a truly justified believer can lose their salvation, Heb 10:26-29. Before we reproduce White's comments, here is the 1995 NASB translation:
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer a punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under the foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
Sungenis (ibid, pp. 102-3) writes:
This is a significant passage for our present discussion. The use of the word “sacrifice” in this context demands an explanation as to why such a concept is even mentioned, if, as is claimed by non-Catholic opponents, the one-time acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice totally secures and completes one’s justification. How can opponents explain this passage when the ones addressed in the context of Hebrews 10 are practicing Christians? According to Hebrews 10:29, they have already been “sanctified.” Hebrews 10:32-34 adds that they had become noteworthy for having previously “stood their ground in a great contest in the face of suffering;” they had been “publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times stood side by side with those who were so treated;” they “had sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property, because they knew they had better and lasting possessions.” The warning is clear that if they now decide to sin “deliberately,” then no more sacrifice is left or them, rather, “a fearful expectation of judgment.”
In an attempt to avoid the theological implications of this pericope, White (using some projection along the way), writes:
Sungenis follows up these comments with a reference to Hebrews 10:29. He asserts this passage teaches one can fall away from sanctification. He does not show any familiarity with the question of who it is who is sanctified by the blood of the covenant in this passage. The great Puritan scholar, John Owen, wrote concerning who is the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29:
But the design of the apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words. It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the sacrificer himself, -- to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See John 17:19; Hebrews 2:10, 5:7, 9, 9:11, 12. That precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to consecrate him unto God and his office. (John Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, vol. 22, p. 676)
I will admit that when I first read White’s comments, it struck me as rather desperate, but forced upon him due to his a priori assumption that Reformed soteriology must be biblical.
In an article responding to White (no longer accessible online, but a copy is in my possession for those who wish to read it), "James White's 'Feature Article' and the Calvinist Dance Around the Book of Hebrews," Sungenis wrote in response:
Obviously, Owen can’t admit that the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29 is a Christian, for that would mean that the Christian could lose his sanctification, and if he lost his sanctification, he would lose his justification, and if he lost his justification, it means he was never predestined to salvation in the first place, and thus, you see, the whole edifice of Calvinism would topple in one fell swoop. Suffice it to say, the only ones who even dare interpret Hebrews 10:29 in the way White is suggesting are the Calvinists.
But, of course, once they make such a claim, then they create other exegetical problems out of which there is no escape. They are stuck with explaining how Christ can be “sanctified by the blood of the covenant” when the word “sanctified” or its derivatives are never mentioned as occurring with or to Christ. Perhaps White would like to start a new religion based on the fact that he thinks Christ was “sanctified,” but it will be a religion that has no basis in the Bible, for the Bible simply does not teach such a heretical idea.
They also must explain how and why the Hebrew writer, in Hebrews 10:29, suddenly shifts from talking about the Christian (“and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant”) to an abrupt reference to Christ in mid-sentence (“by which he was sanctified”). I have searched all my Greek lexical and grammatical aids, and not one of them says that it is grammatically justifiable to say that the “he” of “by which he was sanctified” is anything but the Christian spoken about in “and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant.”
In short, this is an outlandish claim of White’s, and it is just as heretical as his suggestion that Christ is the one who is sanctified. But this is what White is reduced to saying of Hebrews 10:29 in order to attempt to save face for Calvinism. It’s obvious why White didn’t cite any Greek grammars to support his claim, since none of them do so. The only thing he could find is some centuries-old Calvinist writer, who didn’t even address the Greek of the passage, as his only authoritative source. That, speaks volumes of the shoddy research and poor exegetical abilities of James White. One fatal flaw leads to another.
While I disagree with Sungenis on the thesis of his book (that the Catholic Mass is both biblical and historical), he is both spot-on in his book in rejecting eternal security/perseverance of the saints as being biblical and this rather desperate attempt to avoid the clear meaning of Heb 10:26-29 from both White and Owen. While the verb αγιαζω can have the sense of "to consecrate" and is used of Jesus in John 10:35-36; 17:19 and 1 Pet 3:15, the meaning in Heb 10:29 is clearly soteriological, so cannot be used of Jesus but of redeemed/justified Christians. If Owen and White were consistent, they would have to argue, as do many Christadelphians, that Jesus offered up a sacrifice for himself for His own sin(s) (in the CD view, the sin of being human [not that White or Owen would hold to such--they would agree that Christ was sinless, but such is the precarious position one is placed with such eisegetical nonsense]).
Indeed, the other Reformed commentators I have examined on this epistle while agreeing with White’s soteriology and belief a true believer could never lose their salvation, reject this strained reading (i.e., Christ is the one sanctified in Heb 10:29, not a Christian). For instance, one recent commentary wrote the following:
Indeed, the other Reformed commentators I have examined on this epistle while agreeing with White’s soteriology and belief a true believer could never lose their salvation, reject this strained reading (i.e., Christ is the one sanctified in Heb 10:29, not a Christian). For instance, one recent commentary wrote the following:
We should also note that the author speaks of the blood “by which” the readers were “sanctified” (ηγιασθη). Here is powerful evidence that those addressed are truly believers, confirming what was argued in 6:4-5, for Jesus’ blood sanctifies, and sets them apart (cf. 13:12 and 2:11). Jesus by his once-for-all offering “perfected forever those who are sanctified” (10:14). Sanctification here is definitive and positional rather than progressive. It is awkward and unnatural to see a reference to Jesus in the pronoun instead of believers, for it makes little sense to say Jesus was sanctified by his own blood. Jesus is the one who sanctifies in Hebrews (2:11), not the one who is sanctified. Indeed, in chapters 10 and 13 the author clearly states three times that the death of Jesus sanctifies believers (10:10, 14, 12:12). Nor is it persuasive to say that the sanctification is not saving, comparing it to the sanctification under the old covenant (9:13), which only sanctified externally. The argument fails to persuade, for the point in Hebrews is that Jesus’ sacrifice stands in contrast to the sacrifices of the old covenant. His sacrifice is effective and truly brings sanctification. To say that his sacrifice only sanctifies externally, like the sacrifices of the old covenant, misses one of the major themes of the letter. Contrary to OT sacrifices, Jesus’ sacrifice truly cleanses the conscience. (Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews [Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation: Nashville: Holman Reference, 2015], 327)
James White's theological mentor, John Calvin, also believed that those who are said to be "sanctified" in Heb 10:29 are Christians, not the person of Christ:
The blood of the covenant, etc. He enhances ingratitude by a comparison with the benefits. It is the greatest indignity to count the blood of Christ unholy, by which our holiness is effected; this is done by those who depart from the faith. For our faith looks not on the naked doctrine, but on the blood by which our salvation has been ratified. He calls it the blood of the covenant, because then only were the promises made sure to us when this pledge was added. But he points out the manner of this confirmation by saying that we are sanctified; for the blood shed would avail us nothing, except we were sprinkled with it by the Holy Spirit; and hence come our expiation and sanctification. The apostle at the same time alludes to the ancient rite of sprinkling, which availed not to real sanctification, but was only its shadow or image
As with so many areas, James White fails on (1) biblical-exegetical grounds and (2) presents a marginal interpretation (out of desperation to prop up belief in Calvinism) of Heb 10:29 that is a rejected view even within Reformed circles, both historical and modern.
As an aside, for a detailed exegetical response to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (a work White is rather fond of), see Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (2d ed; Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 1978).
Another popular "proof-text" is that of John 19:30 and the meaning of the Greek term translated "it is finished/done" (τετελεσται). For a full treatment, see:
Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30
Do the Righteous go to Heaven immediately after Death?
As an aside, Bobby wrote the following which touches upon the "intermediate state":
Philippians 1:
21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 [s]But if I am to live onin the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know [t]which to choose. 23 But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better;
Paul’s desire was to depart and behold His God eternally, and be with Christ, not to stay and progress further to make sure his exaltation, not even to depart and be with his family, but rather Paul’s single minded goal was to depart and be with Christ.
To be fair to Bobby, there are two other texts from the Pauline corpus that seem to support the idea that the righteous will go to heaven upon their death:
Therefore, we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (for we walk by faith, not by sight :) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. (2 Cor 5:6-9)
The other is Phil 3:14, depending on which translation one uses. The NIV renders the text as follows:
I press on onward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Commenting on Phil 1 and 2 Cor 5, J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology (Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 230-31 that provides a pretty sound refutation of the popular misuse of these texts:
[On 2 Cor 5:6-9] The first thing we should note is how Paul has already stated in 5:1-2 that his actual hope is for the heavenly dwelling that God has prepared (the resurrection body), and in 5:3-4 he affirms that he does not want to be “naked” or “unclothed” (disembodied). And yet Paul says that he prefers to be away from the (present) body and at home with the Lord (5:8). Could Paul have contradictory hopes? . . .[W]e need to pay attention to Paul’s key statement near the end of chapter 4 about the basis of his hope even amid tribulations and suffering (vv.8-12). The reason why Paul says he can live faithfully in the midst of suffering is this: “We know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus, and will bring us with you into his presence”(v. 14). There is no separation here of resurrection and being with Christ. Not only does Paul look forward to the resurrection but he also conceives of being in a resurrected (embodied) state in the Lord’s presence. This means that when Paul comes to speak of being “at home with the Lord” in 5:8, there is no reason to separate this from his hope of resurrection (except that we are habituated to reading the text this way). Paul is not speaking of being with Christ immediately at death; rather, he is looking to the second coming, at which time we will be raised and be with Christ in the new creation. [On Phil 1:23] While interpreters often take Paul as expressing a preference for death . . . the text does not actually say that it would be immediate. Yes, he wants to be “with Christ,” but he does not elaborate on where or exactly when this will be. Once again, the rest of Scripture would lead us to expect that Paul is thinking of the eschaton. There is no clear teaching here of any interim state in heaven.
On Phil 1, the Expositor’s Greek New Testament, ed. Nicholl, the commentator, H.A.A. Kennedy, wrote the following cautious note about reading too much into this text (emphasis added):
It is, however, hazardous to build up eschatological theories on these isolated utterances of the Apostle. He has, apparently, no fixed scheme of thought on the subject. The Resurrection is not before his mind at all in this passage. His eschatology, as Dsm (Th. LZ, 1898, col. 14) well observes, must rather be conceived as ἐλπίς. Death cannot interrupt the life ἐν Χριστῷ. This is the preparation for being σὺν Χ. Even contemporary Jewish thought was familiar with a similar idea. So, e.g., Tanchuma, Wajjikra, 8: “When the righteous leave the world they ascend at once and stand on high” (Weber, Lehren d. Talmud, p. 323). See also Charles, Eschatology, p. 399 ff.—πολλῷ κ.τ.λ. It seems necessary for the sense to insert γάρ with the best authorities. The double comparat. is fairly common.
κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
The term τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ is not correctly rendered by the NIV; instead, it refers, not to Paul being called to heaven, but that the calling of Paul originates from God. Peter O'Brien, a Reformed Protestant and New Testament scholar, commenting on this passage, wrote:
κλησις can be understood in its customary Pauline sense of the divine calling to salvation, particularly the initial summons, while the prize is that which is announced by the call. On any view του θεου indicates that it is God himself who issues the call, while εν Χριστω Ιησου probably signifies that it is in the sphere of Christ Jesus himself that this summons is given. In the immediate context the prize (το βραβειον) is the full and complete gaining of Christ for whose sake everything else has been counted loss. (Peter T. O’Brien, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: Philippians [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991], 433)
What further militates against this understanding of Phil 3:14 is that the context is about, not the intermediate state of believers, but the resurrection (cf. Phil 3:21).
That Paul did not believe that all the elect would immediately go to heaven can be seen in a text that also soundly refutes various Protestant theologies, 1 Cor 3:15. For a full discussion of the theology of this verse, see:
1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse
Other popular "proof-texts" are that of Luke 23:43 and Heb 9:27. For a discussion, see:
The Good Thief on the Cross
Hebrews 9:27 and Posthumous Salvation
As we have seen in this article, using some of Bobby's comments as a "springboard" of sorts, that the Reformed understanding of monergism, as well as their other erroneous theological presuppositions, highlights the importance of not over-emphasising one truth to the point where, not only is that singular truth corrupted, but all other truths in Scripture and theology are perverted thereby (again, a great parallel is the over-emphasis on the role of Mary in Catholicism, something I have discussed in great detail elsewhere, such as here). For all the attacks in it as being opposed to the Bible or detracting from the authority thereof for not holding to Sola Scriptura, etc., the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only theology within the broad scope of Christianity that can truly be called "Biblical Christianity."
That Paul did not believe that all the elect would immediately go to heaven can be seen in a text that also soundly refutes various Protestant theologies, 1 Cor 3:15. For a full discussion of the theology of this verse, see:
1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse
Other popular "proof-texts" are that of Luke 23:43 and Heb 9:27. For a discussion, see:
The Good Thief on the Cross
Hebrews 9:27 and Posthumous Salvation
Conclusion