Theodore Zachariades's Blog, page 7

Do You Believe the Bible?

Do you believe the Bible?

Why do we believe the Bible? Many reject the notion that the Scriptures are the very Word of God. Even some who claim faith in God still have lingering doubts about the truth of the Sacred Writings.

Is it reasonable to take God’s Word at face value? Can we really trust in these ancient documents? A Christian’s answer is, of course: Absolutely!

“Every Word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him” (Proverbs 30:5). Moreover, the Psalmist declares, “The Law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7).

The New Testament echoes these affirmations of the complete trustworthiness of the Bible. But the New Testament adds the stunning declaration that Scripture is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). The real meaning of this is that God breathed out the content of the Bible, hence Christians believe in the full verbal inerrancy of the Holy Bible.

Finally, Jesus reminded people that even though the whole world would pass away, His words would abide forever (Matthew 24:35; also see 1 Peter 1:22-2:3). Forever indeed, because “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

It is not surprising then, in light of these scriptural claims, that throughout church history, many have issued a warning about one’s attitude to Holy Scripture. One of the finest was put in poetic form:

Within this awful volume lies

The mystery of mysteries;

Happiest they of human race

To whom their God has given Grace

To read, to fear, to hope, to pray

To lift the latch, to force the way;

But better had they ne’er been born

Who read to doubt, or read to scorn.

Sir Walter Scott,

“The Monastery”

So, it is vital that we read Scripture. But doubly vital, that we read with the right attitude. Do you really believe the Bible?

Things Don’t Just Happen

Things Don’t Just Happen

by Esther L. Fields (before 1944)

Things don’t just happen to us who love God;

They’re planned by His own dear hand.

Then molded and shaped, and timed by His clock.

Things don’t just happen; they’re planned.

We don’t just guess on the issues of life,

We Christians just rest in our Lord.

We are directed by His sovereign will

In the light of His holy word.

We who love Jesus are walking by faith,

Not seeing one step that’s ahead,

Not doubting one moment what our lot might be,

But looking to Jesus instead.

We praise our dear Saviour for loving us so,

For planning each care of our life,

Then giving us faith to trust Him for all,

The blessings as well as the strife.

Things don’t just happen to us who love God,

To us who have taken our stand.

No matter the lot, the course, or the price,

Things don’t just happen; they’re planned.

A Day of Thanks among Friends

In America the holiday known as Thanksgiving Day is traditionally spent with family. As my wife, Chrisa and I do not have any family here in the USA, we are extremely grateful for friends that have made our thanksgiving days a wonderful time of fellowship, and of fun, and let us not forget the food! This year has been another wonderful get-together with dear folks that attend our congregation, and as such they are family in another sense, indeed, a deeper sense.

Thanks to all of you that have been such a blessing in years past. This year it was the Pinkstons that served as our hosts. They have become extremely dear to us, and we praise the Lord for bringing them into our lives. May our gracious Lord repay their kindness a thousand-fold. Whenever we have spent time in their home, they have made us so welcome and honored. They are dear, dear friends.

Thinking about Thanks.

Thinking about Thanks.

Theodore Zachariades.

It is the time of the year when we all reflect on how grateful we are. Or, at least, most of us do! It is a welcome break for those who get time off from their busy work places. Indeed, much thanksgiving has already been rendered to the Almighty for such trivial blessings. But what of deeper matters? How about the difficulties and the trying times that rattle our nerves and rake our souls over the fires?

The answer from the Bible is that it is always appropriate for an attitude of gratitude. Paul, when he wrote to the Thessalonians during a time of trial, could encourage them to be thankful in all things!

Often, one may hear a clever distinction from the pulpit showing that Paul meant, not that we should thank God for all things, but that we should be thankful in the midst of all things. Is there a difference and is this what Paul meant? Well, to answer the first question, we must affirm that, yes, there is a difference. To answer the second we must pause and reflect a little more.

The first thing to note is that the perspective that would have you be thankful, not for everything, but in everything must of necessity distinguish events or circumstances between those that merit thanksgiving and those that do not. Then, one must offer thanks in the midst of those undesirable situations [those not meriting thanksgiving], but for other things. This is where the problem lies.

Underlying such an attitude is the notion that God is somehow not in control of the universe, or else, we must distinguish from what he “allows or permits,” from what He really would prefer that we experience. These strategies for assessing life are doomed to failure as they reflect, not the God of Scripture, but our fanciful and wishful thinking. God is sovereign over every aspect of life. So, it is useless to try and affirm, as so many do, that God “allows” certain realities to exist that, in reality, He would rather that they didn’t. It is those “allowed” circumstances that we cannot or should not be thankful for, but we also must resolutely be thankful in, no doubt. Where is the scribe or the wise man that is able to discern such? This in essence would require an infinite mind, indeed one superior to the Almighty’s as He has decreed to “permit” or “allow” in this perceived schema.

But the truth is that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, and to speak of bald permission is tantamount to denying God’s absolute control. Calvin helps in this regard. For the truly curious and careful, I would encourage you to read the extended discussion by Calvin on God’s providence in Institutes of the Christian Religion Book I, Chapters 16-18. This is a masterful presentation of sound scriptural argument. It is irrefutable!

Calvin says,

“Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute his judgments. The modesty of those who are thus alarmed at the appearance of absurdity might perhaps be excused, did they not endeavor to vindicate the justice of God from every semblance of stigma by defending an untruth. It seems absurd that man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and yet be forthwith punished for his blindness. Hence, recourse is had to the evasion that this is done only by the permission, and not also by the will of God” (Institutes I.XVIII.1).

Then he cites several examples from the Bible. Finally, in this particular section, he ends with this reminder:

“Often in sacred history whatever happens is said to proceed from the Lord, as the revolt of the ten tribes, the death of Eli’s sons, and very many others of a similar description. Those who have a tolerable acquaintance with the Scriptures see that, with a view to brevity, I am only producing a few out of many passages, from which it is perfectly clear that it is the merest trifling to substitute a bare permission for the providence of God, as if he sat in a watch-tower waiting for fortuitous events, his judgments meanwhile depending on the will of man” (Institutes I.XVIII.1).

What Calvin demonstrates is that the appeal to a “bare permission” to God in a sense that would as a corollary exempt us from thanksgiving in some instances is seen to be a subterfuge. Indeed, God directs the heart of the king, and the Reformer accedes that this must include all of humanity. Nations rise and fall at God’s bidding. All things are from Him and through Him and for Him. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His will.

So in the grand schema, God as all-over sovereign directs things as He determines. As all things are designed for his children to conform them to Christ, there is never a place or circumstance or matter for which we should not thank God.

Some years ago a young Rachael Lampa had a song in which the following is included as a chorus:

I am blessed, I am blessed

From when I rise up in the morning

Till I lay my head to rest, I feel You near me

You soothe me when I’m weary

Oh, Lord, for all the worst and all the best

I am blessed

Blessed, Rachael Lampa (emphasis added).

This attitude is found in more classical Christian hymns:

Lord, I would place my hand in Thine,

Nor ever murmur nor repine;

Content, whatever lot I see,

Since ’tis my God that leadeth me

He Leadeth Me, Joseph H. Gilmore (emphasis added).

So let us not use an artificial distinction that may very well be an untruth, as Calvin puts it. Rather, let us truly give thanks in all things and for all things, for God is truly sovereign.

Models of Grace: Part Two

Models of Grace:

Part Two.

Theodore Zachariades.

So far I have tried to give an account of the model of grace as represented in the Free Grace movement, and specifically in the Grace Evangelical Society of which I was a member for about ten years or so. To summarize the view it is best to take a look at how grace and faith are related within this model.

Grace is spoken of as something that governs soteriology, so that in its language and rhetoric it is firmly evangelical. The way of expressing its sola fide convictions would be echoed by other evangelicals that no doubt, like myself at present, would not agree with this model at its operational level. So let us take a look.

The first and foremost rationale for this grace model is the specific understanding of the atonement. It is here that the prevenient notion of grace is underscored. Grace has thus been shown by God to every single individual as Christ has paid the penalty for all sins of all people. This is customary unlimited atonement theology with a definite Arminian twist. So there is a way in which the evangelist utilizing this grace model may say to any individual or group that God is already gracious to them. However, the point is raised that the true saving grace of God must now be received by faith alone so as to make the atonement effectual in the party that believes. To illustrate this let us see it in a hierarchy:

1. God foreknows who will believe and become recipients of grace. Ironically, it is still argued that anyone can truly be saved by exercising saving faith.

2. Grace (for all) in provision of salvation. This very much like prevenient grace.

3. Grace offered (for all in the mood of desire, God wants to save everybody).

3. Faith (the actual acceptance of Grace as proffered in gospel preaching). This makes the atonement actual for the believer.

4. Grace to the end (for it keeps the believer saved as eternal security is part of what became effectual at initial point of faith). Ironically, common in Free Grace circles is the idea that even if the believer stopped believing, they would remain secure in said salvation.

What is clear and so very common among the Free Grace movement is the notion that it is one’s faith s that activates salvation. Zane Hodges, in particular, expressed it often that we believe in order to be saved, and thus faith precedes regeneration in the outworking of God’s saving an individual. Hodges has said, “nowhere does the Bible say be saved then you will believe [paraphrase].” Faith is thus seen as a condition for salvation. It is a non-meritorious one, but the only condition, nonetheless. We bring faith to meet God’s grace, and then together (synergistically) salvation becomes a reality. The appeal to the many references in John’s gospel, for example, is said to promote this model. In John 6:47, Jesus says, “He that believes on Me has everlasting life.” Faith is thus explained as the condition for receiving eternal life.

Of course, theological studies and seminary do not happen in a vacuum, and the opportunity to interact with alternative theories is always at hand in books if not personally. One such personal interaction came during a presentation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner. At the time in 1997, he was appointed by President, Dr. Mohler, to a position as NT professor. Schreiner gave a presentation on perseverance and apostasy, in which he surveyed various common approaches and then suggested his own model. This has since become public via an article shortly thereafter published in the Seminary’s journal  (See Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and Proposal” in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, vol.2 no. 1, pp. 32-62 and in the co-authored volume with Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance, [Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001.]) This was a challenging presentation to which I took immediate exception. I spoke with Dr. Schreiner after the presentation during the Q & A session, and subsequently I even invited him to lunch in my home, to which he graciously came and cordially debated the merits of his proposal during our meal together. There was one point where I had conceded to Dr. Schreiner that works proved to be evidentiary of genuine faith (Matthew 25), even though I was strongly resistant to the idea that works had anything to do with salvation. So despite this concession on my part, otherwise we were still miles apart. My purpose here is not to suggest that Dr. Schreiner’s view is heretical, though I thought that at the time. I believe it is within the realm of evangelical options as an alternate model of grace but one that operates very differently from what I understood grace to be at the time as a member of GES. Though my present sympathies lie closer to Schreiner’s view than that which I espoused back then in 1997, my soteriological position is somewhat differently nuanced, but our models of grace, I believe, are now the same as I have conformed to an authentic reformed view.

I see the grace model of reformed theology to be, as C. H. Spurgeon put it, “All of Grace.” What this means is that grace operates monergistically, and as such, even the faith with which we believe is not our own, it is a gift of God. The grace in this model originates in the mind of God before the foundation of the world, and it is designed to terminate on the elect alone. Because in actual experience we are all born into the world with the guilt of Adam anchoring our souls and actual corruption that chains us in disobedient rebellion against God, we cannot escape our predicament with any self-effort, not even with non-meritorious faith. Dead people cannot do anything. Spiritually dead people cannot do anything spiritual. So, even eager appeals for us sinners to “believe and be saved,” will always fail apart from God’s specific enabling. Let us provide a hierarchy for this model:

1. Grace designed in eternity past.

2. Grace actualized in election.

3. Grace purchased by the economic work of Christ for His elect.

4. Grace announced in the indiscriminate preaching of the gospel.

5. Grace effectual in regeneration.

6. Grace manifest in the believing sinner.

7. Grace continues to preserve, and the elect persevere.

What we notice in this model of grace is that it is always restricted. Grace, or saving grace, we may prefer to call it, is a blessing that terminates on the elect alone! The only place where there is a universal component is from # 4 above. But even this must not be confused with universal saving grace. The biblical command that we preach the gospel to every creature is interpreted in the reformed model as an announcement of grace to all and any believers, not as an offer of grace that will become effectual once the person believes. So, it must be distinct from the way evangelism is perceived and practiced by the GES model. Saving grace only comes to an individual once they have believed according to that Free Grace movement model. It is presented as an offer or as a barter of sorts, God will give you salvation for your faith, so to speak. However, in a reformed model, though it is true that faith is the occasion of salvation it is not a condition as such. Election that precedes the exercise of faith is typically understood as unconditional. So faith is not a condition for salvation but an instrument that alone justifies. But biblical salvation is more than justification. It is true that “faith alone saves” in the sense of being the alone instrument and is always a gift of God. But sola fide is not to be a bald statement that the only act of the sinner is trust that is never accompanied by anything else. This is the impression that GES model often leads to, even as it was trying to “save” the gospel from the intrusion of works!

The way of putting this correctly is that “Faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is never alone.” Of course, with faith there is regeneration which precedes and actually births faith. Then there is repentance a turning from sin, just as the Prodigal son rebelled then repented turning from his wayward life and came home fully cognizant of his sin and rebellion as convicted by the Holy Spirit. There is also confession of Jesus as Lord, and in the New Testament writings, often there was an actual baptism in water at the time of this confession. None of these save in the strictest sense, not even faith. But they are all acts of the penitent sinner at the time of conversion. And this new life results in sanctification.

So in the broader salvific scope of the New Testament witness, however, we also find repentance, turning, following, confessing, calling, and some other elements that are part of salvation. This is where we must carefully articulate the gracious nature of the model. In the GES model, there is no room for any other aspect than faith in proclaiming the good news, as this would compromise the grace of the gospel. In a reformed model, any response, and all responses that an individual makes and experiences, is because of effectual grace that works prior to faith, including repentance confession, calling etc. In the GES model it is faith and faith alone that receives grace. In an authentic reformed model, it is grace that births these evangelical “graces.”

This is exactly where I began to see that grace is operating on a very different plane in reformed theology. Of course, the question cannot be settled by mere allusion to historical precedent but must be examined by careful exegesis of Scripture and a systematic theology of the biblical witness to salvation. For example, in Acts 18:27, in a non-polemical section, Luke says that Apollo “helped those who had believed through grace.” It is in this order: grace first, belief second. This is contrary to the idea that one believes in order to receive grace. In this biblical account grace operates in order for faith to be realized.

In a letter that Paul wrote to the Philippians he expressed the truth that it had been granted to believers not only to believe but also to suffer for Christ (see 1:29). Here faith is seen as a gift granted by God. We also see faith as a gift in 1 Corinthians 12.

The locus classicus is Ephesians 2:8-9, where the relationship between grace and faith has forever been settled by Paul’s maxim: “By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God.” Much has been made of the grammar that supposedly diffuses the argument that faith is a gift because of its feminine cast. However, the same formula is found elsewhere with a neuter pronoun referring to an antecedent that is feminine (see Matt 19:20, cf. v.17). Furthermore, this is to overlook the point of the Ephesians 2 passage, which is to express the totality of the salvific package as one that is granted as a gift, and this certainly includes their faith. Also, this view, with its grammatical appeal to faith as feminine suggesting that the gift of God cannot be faith, also fails to notice the prior similarity of declaration in verse 5, “By grace are ye saved” without any mention of faith. So clearly, it is grace that is operative to save, and which leads one to believe. It is not belief that is prior and thus receives grace. The rallying cry of the reformers, sola fide was grounded in an earlier sola gratia. When one examines the views closely, one can see that these are indeed, two different models of grace, and only one of them is truly faithful to the New Testament as a whole.

Models of Grace: Part One.

Models of Grace: Part One

Theodore Zachariades

I have long been thinking about writing of my transitions in theology over the last twenty years or so. I was saved as a young man in my 21st year on the island of Cyprus after moving there with my family. I had been born and raised in England by nominal Greek Orthodox Cypriot ex-patriots. They had fled for a better life from the troubled times of the late fifties and early sixties of the twentieth century in Cyprus. To make a long story short, as the saying goes, I will briefly tell of my conversion to what I call authentic Christianity (C.S. Lewis might have called it mere Christianity with half a foot in the evangelical door). I was never an atheist, but I had never really thought much about religion as a youngster growing up in a lower class London of the 1970s. I was more interested in football (soccer), girls, and music. However, in a sociology class at North London College, I distinctly remember getting visibly agitated at my professor, let’s name him Mr. Nonfide, as he was irreverently mocking the idea of God, or a god. His particular ploy was: “if God [or a god] existed, why wouldn’t he just show himself and settle all bets, so to speak?” I don’t recall much else but I do remember standing for the challenge and indicated that belief in God was not mere superstition, and that there were other things we as rational people believed in that could not be seen.  This was perhaps as close to faith, as I ever got.

Well, back to my emigration to Cyprus in 1985. I soon found myself in the National Guard as I signed up for the  26 month period of service that is compulsory by conscription for all males. Even though my relationship with Cyprus was merely days old they accounted my physical lineage from both my mother and father, who were, among other things, bona fide Cypriots, born and bred, no doubt. So the connection was established and there was no going back.

About half way through my tenure as a private in “the army,” as we would call it, I realized that something strange had happened to my parents. They got “religious” all of a sudden, but in a non-religious sort of way. I think of their transition from the trappings of Greek Orthodoxy to Evangelical piety as a move from faithless religion to religionless faith. Of course, what I mean by all this is that although under the banner of Eastern Orthodoxy from birth, my parents hadn’t really a shred of faith in the church, the Bible, the traditions, and especially the priests. Yet, that id stuck. “Chi O” is what they stamp on your birth certificate, the Greek characters that are equivalent to “Christian Orthodox.” So the move toward a genuine faith that results in a personal relation with Jesus and a real encounter with the living God via the Bible is really refreshing, and it has none of the ceremonial and liturgical religious marks of the Eastern Church. A genuine faith without all the religious extras. Still, for me, it was all weird.

I agreed one Sunday to go to church with my parents as I was on a pass for the weekend. I was a little hesitant and did not know what to expect. My fears were cast aside as soon as we arrived. The building looked nothing like a church, at least not like the elaborate cathedral like edifices common in Orthodoxy. Once inside, there was not a trace of any burning incense. Nor were there any candles on display for sale, nor any icons that had to be kissed in visible reverence, nor was the black robed figure with long beard to match to be found lurking about, seeking whom he may. . . ! Whatever this place was, it was light years from what I envisioned Christianity to be.

The songs were in a tongue that was known, even though Greek was my second language, everything was done and said in an accessible manner. What struck me immediately, however, were the girls. I mean there were pretty young females at this gathering. The only “girls” you ever see at a Greek Orthodox church were black clad women in their fifties and sixties, and that is just in the youth group. This was much better than expected.

I was introduced by my parents to one of the two ministers, a younger man by the name of Theologos. This is truly ironic as his name means theologian! My folks told me that he was not only called Theologos but that he was a Theologos. As such, he could answer all my questions. I later learned that this man led my parents to the Lord. In the sovereign providence of God, he did the same with me not more than nine or ten months after that initial visit. But let me fill in a few more details.

The other minister, the senior pastor, was senior in more than one respect. He was 96 years old, and still going strong. He preached the old reformed faith that he learned many years earlier from Presbyterian missionaries that laid the foundations of what was to become the Greek Evangelical Church of Nicosia, Cyprus. I later had the chance to meet with this dear old saint, and one of the gifts from him was a Greek Translation of the Westminster Confession of Faith. This was my “baptism into the Reformed faith.” But the other minister, the theologian, was more in the Arminian camp, and it was he, and not the saintly old man, who was able and available to disciple me. So after I attended youth meetings and started to become a regular on Friday nights, by the Lord’s grace I was led to the recognition of my own sin and I realized that I was lost without Christ and I cried out in faith for Him to save me. That evening on Friday, December 19, 1986, to borrow from another Englishman’s conversion testimony, my heart was strangely warmed. My growth began immediately as I was hungry to learn from Scriptures and passionate about sharing Christ. Theologos, who had graduated from Bible College in Greece, where he was from, started to throw hints in my direction about the need for a biblical education. I resisted quite firmly. All the training I needed I could get from him. Also, I was not very good at school, so to speak. In fact, I hated school while I was growing up in London. Academics was clearly off the table, as far as I was concerned. God, I might add, had other plans. . . .

So, Theologos gave me a theological foundation. This was a type of hybrid: Calminianism. Neither, fully Calvinist or fully Arminian. I initially accepted this as a great insight into scripture. It was the teaching of the systematics professor and president at the Greek Bible School in Athens from whom Theologos had learned it. It was famously labeled by the professor, Mr. Baldwin, as the “Balanced View.” This was laced through with dispensationalist contours and the rapture doctrine had pride of place as our ever-present hope. The reality of Christ was the anchor of this “new birthed” theological reality that was, happily, short of all the weird Greek Orthodox stuff. When I matriculated in 1988 this was the primary theology that I would be taught over the next three years. But in my second year, I started to read books in the library, conducted my own independent research, and finally became a Calvinist without wanting to, or from any pressure by others. It was primarily a result of Acts and Ephesians speaking to me about the unconditional nature of God’s electing grace. The defenses began tumbling. By the time I graduated in 1991, I was a confirmed Calvinist struggling only with the doctrine of atonement, and with the difficulties of Lordship salvation given my understanding of grace.

The Dallas Seminary connection helps to explain some of the theological ideas that were transmitted. Three of my profs were graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary, the Mecca of dispensationalism in the late seventies and early eighties. Another was from Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, also a dispensational school. There was only one prof who was non-dispensational, but he still adhered to the pre-millennialist scheme, ala George Eldon Ladd. The Bible College I attended was thus heavily influenced by the teachings of Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost, John F. Walvoord, and many others.

One of the teachers at the school introduced me to the writings of Zane C. Hodges, particularly The Gospel Under Siege. The reason was that there happened to be a chapter on First John in Hodges’s work, and at the time I was leading a Bible study on First John. I read the chapter in one sitting, but I was intrigued so I read the entire volume. This was a short book, but it clarified some of the things that I had been exposed to, especially the notion of Grace. This was my entry into the so-called Grace Theology that was characteristic of Dallas Seminary. Dallas boasted itself as a bastion of grace theology. The majority of its professors thought themselves as being the authentic heirs to Lewis Sperry Chafer’s grace approach to salvation. Chafer was a co-founder of the school prior to it being named Dallas Theological Seminary, and according to my profs, he was considered, even post mortem, as the theologian on campus having authored an eight volume magnum opus that established the system of dispensationalism on a surer academic footing than it had been in its earliest existence found only in the notes of Cyrus I. Scofield’s Bible. What Hodges and some disciples of his had done, was to take a specific teaching of Chafer, that is, the claim that over 150 times the NT teaches salvation upon the condition of faith alone, and made it the non-negotiable axiom. Sola Fide, was the battle cry for this group, even as it was for the reformers in the sixteenth century. Of course, there were clear differences. I will attend to these later. For now, let us consider this approach.

Even at Dallas there were a few distinct groups. I recall listening on tape to a book review gathering conducted by S. Lewis Johnson, a former professor of Zane Hodges, tackling Hodges’s The Gospel Under Siege. This made for some interesting discussion as Hodges would respond eight days later. Johnson was a committed five point Calvinist and a dispensationalist, who at the time was a teaching elder at the famed congregation, Believer’s Chapel in Dallas. He always considered himself a “Dallas Man.” He challenged many of Hodges’s points and suggested, with only a slight tongue in cheek, that the book ought to have been titled, Antinomianism Under Siege, as this is what Hodges represented. I will not belabor the point here, but it is sufficient to note that many who were in fact sympathetic to a non-Lordship model, that countered the view as expounded by John F. MacArthur in the late eighties in the book, The Gospel According to Jesus, actually stood midway between the two extremes as they saw them. On the one hand you had full Lordship Salvation, on the other you had Hodges and his followers. In the middle, perhaps best represented by Ryrie and to some degree by S. Lewis Johnson, there was another group. I found myself embracing the extreme side of the no-Lordship model of grace. Let me explain.

The idea that we are saved by grace is the quintessential evangelical doctrine. So embracing this as it was taught by my profs, and defended in such books as Ryrie’s So Great Salvation, Hodges’s The Gospel Under Siege, Absolutely Free, and Grace in Eclipse, I thought I had arrived theologically. The great enemy was Lordship Salvation, with its confusion of works and faith. As such it could not be authentically a grace approach to salvation, or so I thought. In my mind at the time, I considered that John F. MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus was more akin to Roman Catholicism that evangelicalism. I even wrote my undergrad thesis on “The Lordship Salvation Debate.” I graduated fully wanting to grow in this approach.

At seminary in Toronto, I deepened in this way of thinking and at some point in the early 1990s I joined the Grace Evangelical Society [GES]. This was an organization still in its relative infancy at the time, that was created by Dr. Robert Wilkin, who was briefly a professor at Multnomah School of the Bible or Multnomah College, as it became later. Wilkin was eager to start a loose fellowship around the distinctives of Grace Theology as interpreted by Zane Hodges. Of course, there were a variety of persons affiliated with the group as members. These people may have had a slightly different approach to some passages of the Bible, but all were committed to No-Lordship salvation. A focus on grace was what they had in mind and published a newsletter that was re-titled, Grace in Focus. I was able to get a couple of articles published with them as I was well within the party’s guidelines. The also had a slightly more academic Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society that was my pride possession when I was able to purchase back issues and have a complete set. All things seemed well.

What was missing from the society was a defense of Calvinism. In fact, often Calvinism was maligned as being opposed to Grace Theology. I started to get uncomfortable but was not ready to jump ship. I thought that I could be tolerated just as folks like Ryrie, who definitely advocated unconditional election, potentially was.

Some bizarre readings emerged from within the ranks. In Hodges aforementioned Absolutely Free, he had a chapter on Repentance, which, in a nutshell, essentially removed this “grace” from the gospel rather reserving it as a condition for intimate fellowship with God, but not as a condition for eternal life. To receive salvation one must have faith alone. The way that faith was explained left it sounding as if mere intellectual assent was enough. This was often the charge from those opposed to GES and its grace oriented message. Those who repented may or may not exercise faith, and until they did there was no eternal life. This became a bit of a problem for me. Another matter that was raised by Hodges was Romans 10:9-10. Hodges stated that the condition believe and confess was to be seen as speaking to two different concepts. Faith alone was needed to embrace justification or righteousness, whereas Confession was necessary only to avoid the wrath of God in the here and now, that is, the temporary wrath of God. This ingeniously defended view with its sophisticated exegesis looks legitimate but it is surely something strange when one considers that Romans is a powerhouse of Gospel proclamation. I wrote a paper defending the traditional view of Romans 10:9-10 and presented it at a regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.

GES was robbing these texts from within the sphere of gospel proclamation that began to cause my serious misgivings. I wanted to stay within its ranks but GES was becoming all the more bizarre and it continued in its anti-Calvinist crusade. There were articles defending faith as something anyone who wanted to could exercise and, in this sense, it was clearly Arminian, as far as labels go.

By this time I was a committed five-point (or seven point) Calvinist. Also, I started to read more widely from reformed and puritan types, so around 2005-2006, I resigned from the Grace Evangelical Society. My (re)turn to Reformed theology was gaining traction. In 2007, I also resigned from my congregation due to misgivings about Calvinism and Reformed theology. So by God’s grace I was involved in a church plant that embraced the First London Baptist Confession of Faith 1646, 2d. ed. as our standard (since 2011 it has become the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 that is our confession of faith, primarily due to my growth in understanding Baptist history). Home at last!

So What? This is often asked of me. Did it really matter? Does theology really have to be so divisive? Was this more akin to a tempest in a teapot? I have to explain the model of grace that operated in GES, and the way the model of grace operates in Reformed theology.

The Free Grace movement defends a model of grace that wants to offer free grace to anyone and everyone. In this they take seriously the Great Commission, to preach the gospel to every creature. The Gospel as defined by the movement is that faith alone is the only condition for eternal life, and that anyone that believes that God grants eternal life solely on the condition of faith has fulfilled that condition. The basis for this free grace is Christ’s saving work, of course. The movement largely embraces an un-restricted atonement that covers all the sins of all men, only unbelief excepted. So one has to merely believe, because one wants to, and furthermore, has the ability to, and so one will become a recipient of eternal life. So grace is offered in this system but it is a synergistic model of grace, as the faith that one believes with is generated by the individual. This is precisely why I was finding it increasingly difficult to remain in the GES. Although, strictly speaking, this is a sola fide model, it is not in reality a sola gratia model, as much as they want it to be. Its model of grace is flawed in that it does not recognize the inability of fallen sinners to believe without divine efficacious intervention. Preaching to all that all they must do is believe that Jesus saves by faith alone, and insisting that faith is trust and nothing more has led to the charge of easy believism. And given the way some have preached this model of grace, myself included, the charge sticks quite well. In an effort to avoid Paul’s wrath of Galatians by not preaching another gospel, which is really not another, the sola fideism of GES has become suspect in that it does not line up with the serious call of discipleship seen in Jesus himself. Maybe John MacArthur had a point after all!

The problem, it seems to me, is that the GES model of grace operates with sola fide as a filter. What I mean by this is that any passage of scripture or any conception of salvation that is not worded in a sola fide manner, must by definition be non-gospel. So for example, Jesus says “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This is brushed off as something for the Jews related to an earthly kingdom offer [because of GES's dispensationalism]. Or, as in Robert Wilkin’s dissertation on Repentance, it is seen a la Charles Ryrie as being the flip side of faith but not a separate step. Repentance is thus a “change of mind,” certainly not a turning from sin! Later, Wilkin repented of his view of repentance and fully embraced the strange view of Hodges his mentor where repentance is never linked with eternal life. Confession as seen in Rom. 10 cannot be a gospel call. Turning to God from idols to serve the living God is ingeniously defended by Chafer as a single turn, and that of faith, despite the clear statement of Paul that it is a turning to serve the living God. Clearly, more than trust is at stake. The parable of the prodigal son is re-interpreted to show the falling away of a believer and his repentance to harmonious relation/fellowship with his father, and is not salvific in the least. After all, he was a son when he left!

Making sola fide the filter through which all scriptures must pass, and defining faith in a minimalist sense shows that despite its best efforts, the Grace Evangelical Society and the Free Grace movement is working with a model of grace that is highly questionable. In this model of grace discipleship cannot be the same as the gospel call, as clearly Jesus demands more than faith, so how could it be faith alone? Again, the problem includes the way in which the lowest common denominator for defining faith, as trust or belief, is defended. Despite its rallying cry, sola fide, being that also of the Protestant reformers, this is a far cry from traditional protestant reformed theology, especially, its doctrine of salvation. The next installment will consider a Reformed approach, which in my opinion, is a better understanding of grace that coheres with the entirety of the Bible.

Look Up, Look Ahead

“. . . I must say something to you, not regard to the power and the honour you bear in this evil world, nor with regard to the preservation of your corruptible mortal body (for it too is destined to pass away, and how long it may endure is always uncertain), but with regard to the salvation promised us by Christ. Because of it He was degraded and crucified here below, so that He might teach us rather to despise than to desire the good things of this world, and to set our affection and our hope upon that which He revealed in His resurrection ; for He ” is risen from the dead and dieth no more ; death hath no more dominion over Him.”

St. Augustine, Epistle CCXX (220).

Here Augustine teaches in this occasional letter that as result of God sending His Son to die for His people, they in turn reject the worldliness of the fallen cosmos and seek a better, eternal life. Of course, St. Augustine is no mystic, nor is his theology disparaging of life in the here and now. However, when all is said and done, no matter how much this world will reveal the glory of God, and according to Augustine we must strive to make it as wide as possible, the eternal verities are on an infinitely higher plane. We must “set our affections,” says the African Father, “upon that which is revealed in His resurrection.” Only a life lived fully in a completely resurrected body in a New Heaven and New Earth can truly satisfy us for we are made to live with God. His kingdom is forever.

Theological Orations, Gregory Nazianzen.

Gregory of Nazianzus on the “The Word’s Incarnation” from his Theological Orations.

For this reason, what could not be mixed has been mixed: not simply

God and change, not simply mind and flesh, not simply the timeless one and time, not simply the uncircumscribed and measured limit, but also birth and virginity, dishonor with the one who is higher than all honor, impassible being with suffering, immortal substance with decay. For since that clever salesman for evil thought he was invincible, deceiving us with the hope of being gods, he is himself deceived by the screen of flesh, and thinking he was attacking Adam, he encountered God. In this way the new Adam succeeded in saving the old Adam, and put an end to the condemnation of the flesh; death, in that flesh, was put to death. . . .

Oration 39.13

I shall cry out the meaning of this day: the fleshless one is made flesh, the Word becomes material, the invisible is seen, the intangible is touched, the timeless has a beginning, the Son of God becomes Son of Man—“Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also for all ages!” Let the Jews take offense, let the Greeks scoff, let the heretics wear out their tongues with chatter! They will believe one day, when they see him ascending into heaven—or if not then, at least when he comes from heaven again, enthroned as judge!

Oration, 38.2

He was sent, but as a human being—for he was twofold, since he

grew tired and hungry and thirsty, and was distressed, and shed tears, by the law of the body. And if he also did these things as God, what can that mean? Think of the good pleasure of the Father as a mission, and that [the Son] refers all that is his back to him, both because he reveres him as his timeless source and in order not to seem to be God’s competitor. For it is said in Scripture both that he “was handed over” and that he “handed himself over,” and that he “was raised by the Father” and “was taken up,” but also that he himself “rose” and “ascended” once again—the former a proof of [the Father’s] good pleasure, the latter of [his own] power.

Oration, 38.15

New book on Colossians

Here is where you can get the book directly from CreateSpace:

https://www.createspace.com/4060776

This is a brief exposition based on lengthy study of the letter. Sometimes exegetical, sometimes practical, there is something here for everyone. If you want to grasp Paul’s meaning from a close analysis of the structure, then look no further.

My prayer is that God is glorified and Christ exalted in the book and from its use.

Here is a sampling:

Commentary

3:1-2. Paul here provides some general conclusions from his previous discussion. Central is the focus on the spiritual salvation that the Colossians had received. This real redemption is foundational to his opening statement. If you have been raised, as Paul exclaims, does not put the matter in doubt. In contrast, since they have been raised spiritually, they are to seek those things which are above. Jesus Himself said something akin to this exhortation: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt 6:21). Because Christ due to being raised bodily is sitting at the right hand of God, believers should be looking to Jesus (cf. Heb 12:1-2) rather than seeking worldly wisdom. Christians must constantly think on things above, not on things of the earth. So seeking and thinking on things above appear conceptually parallel. . .

3:3. In further explaining the true spiritual position of the saints in Colossae, Paul adds that they had died (metaphorically; cf. Gal. 2:20) and that their life is hidden with Christ in God. Indeed, the Christians had died so they could live out a new life with Christ. Paul captures the irony of Christian truth: It is death to self that brings fulfillment (cf. John 12:24-26).

3:4. When Christ our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory. The fullness of what Christ has accomplished for believers is to be revealed in the future. Certainly we are already possessors of eternal life as saved people, but our resurrection is still future. At the time of Jesus’ return, “The dead in Christ will rise first” (See 1 Thess. 4:13-17). Any Christians still living at the time of the rapture will be “transformed” (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-56) to appear with Him in glory.

 

Preview for my Commentary on Colossians

Here is a link to a very brief preview to my commentary on Colossians, Hold on to the Head.

This is a short work that will distill Paul’s message.

It is now available as an e-book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKU2D78

The paperback is on sale now through CreateSpace.

Check out the preview:

https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1158941