Faith, the Gift of God to the Elect Alone

Every Bible-believing Christian is distinguished by one doctrine: our justification before God is through fail alone. That was the message of Jesus (see the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-Collector, Luke 18:9-14), Paul (such as Romans 3:28), the Old Testament prophets (such as Habakkuk 2:4), and the Reformers.

But rare is the person who asks an important question: Who has such saving faith? As I demonstrate here, faith is given to us by God; it is not something that we add to the cross work of Jesus.

The Arminian claims that God gives faith equally to all men, so that all men are equally enable to respond to the Gospel. However, the Bible says otherwise: "Not all have faith" (II Thessalonians 3:2). So, contrary to the claim of the Arminian, not all have faith.

So, then, who does? "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness" (Titus 1:1). So the answer that Paul provides has three parts: faith, knowledge, and godliness. Thus, we aren't talking about a mere ability to believe, as is the basis of Arminianism. Paul restricts these gifts to God's elect. The elect are given faith by which to be justified, knowledge of the Gospel, and godly lives. Paul here gives an explanation of the content of the promise of Jesus in John 6:39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day."

Calvinism and the Gift of Faith

One of the fundamental differences between Arminianism and Calvinism is their view of faith. In Arminianism, Jesus died equally for every man in the world, making the offer of salvation, receipt of which is conditioned on a response of faith. In Calvinism, in contrast, Jesus died for a particular mass of men, exclusive of others, and His death provided for every grace required by those men, including the faith to receive that salvation.

So, to the one, faith is a condition on man's part, while, for the other, faith is a means purchased in the atonement, and given by God.

There are several places in Scripture in which faith is descried as given by God, such as Romans 12:3: "By the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." And in Ephesians 2:8: "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." And negatively in II Thessalonians 3:2: "Not all have faith." It is given to some, and not to others.

But the one that I especially want to consider here is Philippians 1:29: "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake." Faith is granted, not something created by men. That is why Jesus could say, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). Contrary to the claims of the Arminian, no man grants his faith to Jesus. Rather, faith is granted to everyone for whom Jesus died.

A Priori Sovereign Grace

When discussing the doctrines of grace, also called the Five Points of Calvinism, I am often told that the Calvinist soteriology depends on a few isolated prooftexts taken out of context. I am always flabbergasted by that assertion, because each of the doctrines is seen all over Scripture. Rather, I see it as a problem of the Arminian's deliberate overlooking these doctrines, because they are inconsistent with his theological presuppositions.

Let's look at one of the verses that never comes up in those discussions, II Thessalonians 2:13: "We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

Here we see Paul's addressing the brothers explicitly, not mankind in general. We would have known that anyway, because the entire epistle is written to Christians (II Thess. 1:1). However, Paul reinforces that introduction with a second address to believers here. He tells these believers that God chose them, not that they chose God. For what were they chosen? Three things: to be the firstfruits of those who would be saved, to be sanctified, and to believe in the truth. Contrary to the commonly stated assertion of the Arminians, these believers were not chosen because of those things, but unto them. This precludes the possibility of the reactive predestination that Arminians often claim, that God predestines those whom He knows would believe.

That there are such plain statements of the sovereignty of God's grace is clear proof that free-will theology is imposed on Scripture, not derived from it.

"The Man of Sin" in Preterist Perspective

"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."
- II Thessalonians 2:1-4

Let me say up front that this is a difficult passage to interpret. I immediately grant that sincere brethren will disagree with the interpretation that I will give it here. And I am OK with that. I merely present some thoughts as possible, in the hope that it will provoke thought, not conflict.

The passage above is popular among dispensationalists, who equate "the man of lawlessness" (or "man of sin," KJV) with the so-called anti-Christ. I think that equation is unjustified, even apart from my denial of a personal anti-Christ. They do so simply on the presuppositions of their hermeneutic, not because of solid exegesis.

Let's go point by point. "The coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." This is not the second coming. Rather, it is the next historical element in the salvation of God's people, His coming in judgment against their enemies, the apostate Jews, by means of the Romans and the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and the sacrificial system in 70AD. "Our being gathered to Him," not in any supposed "Rapture," but in death or at His Second Advent. Paul is addressing an error here, in which some people were claiming that the resurrection and return of Jesus had already occurred, and the people to whom Paul wrote were left behind (pun intended). In other words, they had their own version of the full-preterist heresy, and Paul felt compelled to refute it. "For that will not come," Paul assures them (and us), "unless the rebellion comes first." What rebellion? While this is often explained as a general apostasy among professing Christians, there is no biblical support for such a thing. Can Jesus fail to keep His people (see Jude 1:24-25)? Rather, this is a rebellion, an apostasy, of the general population of Jews, which began with their rejection and murder of Jesus, and continued in their persecution, and even murder, of the Christians among them. God would judge them for that apostasy, removing their legal protections in the Empire, and bringing down the wrath of Rome upon their heads.

Therefore, it was Judaism that would be removed, allowing the revelation of the man of lawlessness. Under Roman law, the Jews had had certain legal privileges, privileges that extended to Christians, as long as they were considered a sect within Judaism. However, with the reversal of those privileges, the Christians no longer had that protective covering, and were thus exposed to the persecuting power of the Roman emperors, who were, successively, the Man of Lawlessness.

The Closure of the Unbelieving Mind

When I look at the world around me, everything I see is proof, not only of God's existence, but also of providence, His wise organization and care of both myself and the rest of mankind and the world. Yet, unbelievers demand proof of God's existence. It is comparable to a man in a lifeboat in the middle of the sea demanding proof of the existence of water. This is a clash of perspective, of course, but, more importantly a clash of natures. The believing mind has been taken into a relationship with God, and thus recognizes all things as centered upon Him. The unbelieving mind, however, desires to rule for itself, and thus must retain a blind spot over God in its world.

When the Christian apologist seeks to perform his ministry on the basis of commonality between himself and an unbeliever, then he runs into this unbridgeable gap and is necessarily stymied.

In his description of the Man of Sin (probably equivalent to John's Antichrist), Paul tells us (II Thessalonians 2:9-10), "The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." The Apostle tells us that "those who are perishing," i. e., unbelievers, will be vulnerable to the deceptions of Satan through this man, not because of ignorance, but because of a willful refusal to accept the truth. In other words, they close their minds to biblical truth, and are thus left susceptible to spiritual deception.

The same apostle makes a similar comment in I Corinthians 1:18: "The word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." And again in I Corinthians 2:14: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." In the unbelieving mind, there is an a priori judgment that the spiritual truths regarding God, sin, and redemption, are foolishness, not by a process of reasoning, but rather because of an inherent condition of his heart. His spiritual nature blocks his rational openness to those truths.

The Lord Jesus explained to His disciples the principle that results in the conditions described by Paul (John 14:16-17): "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him." It is the Holy Spirit who creates the gulf between the believer and the unbeliever. A believer is not smarter or morally superior to the unbeliever. Rather, the presence of the Spirit in Him renders him able to understand. And His absence leaves the unbeliever clinging desperately to his refusal to understand. Thus, where Paul says that truth is "spiritually discerned," he isn't talking about a man's spirit, for both classes of men have spirits. he is talking about the action of the Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity.

The Antichrist in Saint Peter's

Reposted from the Contra Mundum blog, with permission. As I have mentioned elsewhere, here for example, I do not take a futurist approach to New Testament prophecy. In particular, I don't believe in a personal Antichrist. That term occurs only in the Epistles of John, who says (I John 2:18), "now many antichrists have come." However, I give a lot of deference to the view expressed below because it was also the view of the Reformers. Even the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXV:6) says, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God." It's just that, in my mind, while the papacy is certainly antichristian, I wouldn't thereby name it Antichrist.

Hippolytus On The Antichrist 
 
The Reformers are frequently accused of malice when they identify the Pope with the Antichrist. It is asserted, or at least, assumed, that they were retaliating against Rome for persecuting them. What has been largely forgotten is the eschatology of the early Church Fathers, particularly the 2^nd & 3^rd Century Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus.

Of particular interest is the short work of Hippolytus (died ca. 236), entitled “On the Antichrist.” Several factors are highly prominent in this work.

1. Rome is the 4^th beast of Daniel 7.

2. The great whore in Revelation 17 is identical with the reorganized Roman kingdom, ruled by the Antichrist. 

3. The Antichrist will rule over a “whore,” which is a universally understood Scriptural figure for an apostate church.

4. This “whore” will be a kingdom that will arise out of the remnants of a destroyed Roman Empire.

5. This “whore” will be Latin in orientation.

6. Antichrist, as head to this whore church-kingdom, will wage war on the saints, sending a second crop of martyrs to join those who were crying out under the altar (Rev. 6:9-10).

7. The Roman Empire is that which “letteth,” (hinders) the rise of Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:7).

8.  Antichrist is the “little horn” of Daniel 7 & 8.

9. Antichrist is the man of sin/son of perdition (2 Thess. 2).

These are all amazing observations. First of all, the idea that Rome would fall and be divided into 10 lesser kingdoms could never have been guessed without the prophecy of Daniel. Identifying Rome with Daniel’s 4^th Beast is easy for us, centuries after the fact. It is astounding though for Hippolytus to have realized this and to have understood that Christ’s church would ultimately be victorious over pagan Rome. Hippolytus wrote during the Age of Martyrs!

Secondly, Hippolytus bluntly says that the Roman Empire is the hindrance, “that which letteth,” (2 Thess. 2:7) which must be removed for the Antichrist to rise to power. Again, this would have been easy to see in the 16^th Century, but Hippolytus wrote during the 3^rd. Tertullian had made the exact same assertion. In chapter 24 of “Resurrection of the Flesh,” Tertullian wrote, ““What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon its own ruins?” Compare this with the following from the commentary of Matthew Henry on 2 Thessalonians 2:7 – “Something hindered or withheld the man of sin. It is supposed to be the power of the Roman Empire, which the apostle did not mention more plainly at that time…These prophecies have, in a great measure, come to pass, and confirm the truth of the Scriptures. This passage exactly agrees with the system of popery, as it prevails in the Romish church, and under the Romish popes.”

Thirdly, he identifies the Antichrist with the little horn of Daniel 7 & 8. He identifies the great whore Babylon in Revelation 17 with the kingdom ruled by the little horn (Antichrist) who comes to power out of the remnants of the Roman Empire that is broken into 10 lesser kingdoms.

Fourthly, he affirms that this Antichristian kingdom will be Latin in orientation, based on understanding the number 666 as referring to Rome. Irenaeus made the exact same identification (Against Heresies 5.30.3).

Fifthly, Antichrist would persecute the Church with more ferocity than pagan Rome ever did. The martyrs of pagan Rome were under the altar (Rev. 6:9-10) crying out to God for justice. These martyrs would have to wait for their brothers who Antichrist’s Rome would kill. Tertullian understood Revelation 6 in exactly the same way. In chapter 25 of his “Resurrection of the Flesh,” Tertullian writes, “In the Revelation of John, again, the order of these times is spread out to view, which “the souls of the martyrs” are taught to wait for beneath the altar, whilst they earnestly pray to be avenged and judged: (taught, I say, to wait), in order that the world may first drink to the dregs the plagues that await it out of the vials of the angels, and that the city of fornication may receive from the ten kings its deserved doom, and that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet may wage war on the Church of God; and that, after the casting of the devil into the bottomless pit for a while, the blessed prerogative of the first resurrection may be ordained from the thrones; and then again, after the consignment of him to the fire, that the judgment of the final and universal resurrection may be determined out of the books.”

To read Hippolytus’ work on the Antichrist, you would think it was written in the 16^th Century by a Reformer. The main difference was that the Fathers believed that the 1260 days of Revelation were a literal 3 ½ years. They knew Rome would fall, but they seemed to have expected Antichrist’s Rome to fall after only 3 ½ years.

It is therefore quite libelous against the Reformers to quibble with their interpretation of Scripture with regard to the Antichrist. Christ is the head of His Church. Antichrist, if he be an impostor (which he is), must be the head of a false church. Antichrist is not a secular political figure. The Fathers held the exact same view as the Reformers in this regard. How incredible is it to realize that in the 230's AD someone was asserting that the Antichrist will be the head of an apostate kingdom-church based in Rome, built on the ruins of the fallen Roman Empire? The Reformers were not innovators!

Hippolytus’ work can be found here.

Is a Universal Gospel Inconsistent with a Particular Atonement?

"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." - I Timothy 4:10

I've written on this topic before, but it has been on my mind again today.

There are several verses in Scripture which declare that the Gospel is universal, i.e., worldwide, without restriction of time or ethnicity, "no respecter of persons" (e.g., Acts 10:34). The verse above is one. John 3:16 is well-known. I John 2:2 is another. These verses are often thrown up in the face of Calvinists, as if our critics think that we have never seen them before.

The doctrine at controversy is the extent of the atonement. Most Christians hold to a universal atonement, that is, that Christ on the cross died in an equal sense for every person without discrimination. Calvinists, such as myself, hold to a particular, or definite, atonement, i.e., for a specific class of named individuals, known only to God. We would say that the doctrine of universal atonement suffers from two fatal flaws: first, that it is thereby a hypothetical atonement only, not a certain one, or second, that there are and will be people in Hell for whom Christ died. I am appalled by either option and sickened that so many Christians are agreeable to such blasphemies.

Let me list a couple of places in Scripture that I understand to teach a particular atonement.

"At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around Him and said to Him, 'How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.' Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name bear witness about Me, but you do not believe because you are not part of My flock. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.'" -John 10: 22-30

"When Jesus had spoken these words, He lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, 'Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son that the Son may glorify You, since You have given Him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom You have given Him. I have manifested Your name to the people whom You gave Me out of the world. Yours they were, and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they know that everything that You have given Me is from You. For I have given them the words that You gave Me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given me, for they are Yours. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, may be with Me where I am, to see My glory that You have given Me because You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know You, I know You, and these know that You have sent Me. I made known to them Your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which You have loved Me may be in them, and I in them.'" -John 17:1-2, 6-9, 24-26

Is there a conflict here? I would certainly deny so. It seems rather clear to me. Jesus received a known (to Him) class of named individuals to redeem on the cross. That part is clear from the passages from John just above. But it is equally and gloriously true that He is the Savior of the world! How so? Because the latter is taken in general, while the former is taken individually. Jesus is the Savior of every believing man, woman, and child anywhere in the world, of any ethnic background, from Adam to the end of the world. Every person who is saved is saved in Him (such as Romans 10:9-13). Furthermore, no one who is saved is or can be saved by any person or means other than Him (such as Acts 4:12 and II Thessalonians 2:12).

The Gospel is universal because it is the message of salvation to every time, place, and people (Mark 16:15). And because the atonement is definite and particular, every individual can know that His atonement is sufficient to satisfy the justice of God, and restore a right relationship between the Father and the repentant sinner. The universal Gospel is the warrant for every hearer to believe. The atonement is what satisfies both God and sinner that all his sins are forgiven (Isaiah 53:6).

No one can know in an a priori sense that he is one of the elect, for whom Christ died. This is only an a posteriori knowledge, arising from having believed. In fact, we are forbidden to meddle in the secret decrees of God (Deuteronomy 29:29). But no knowledge of election is required to take hold of that universal Gospel, and thus to be saved in Christ Jesus!

Proverbs 1:18-19, Wisdom versus American Domestic Policy

"[T]hese men lie in wait for their own blood; they set an ambush for their own lives. Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain; it takes away the life of its possessors."

On the face of it, these verses refer to robbers, that is, those who take the property of others by force. But what if you consider government redistribution of wealth as legalized theft? This verse then puts so many of our social ills together in a way too many have refused to acknowledge.

There are legitimate means of gaining the property of another person, of course: purchase, gift, inheritance, in

exchange for labor, or through due process of law in a lawsuit. Anything else constitutes force or fraud. Force through an intermediary, even government, is still force. And it carries the same spiritual consequences warned of in this Proverb.

Consider what has become of the American family, especially the minority family. Illegitimacy, welfare dependency, and fatherless homes. The list is well-known. And easily predictable. We have become a society of entitlement, expecting the government to confiscate the property of others, in order to redistribute to those who haven't produced it. We might call it "welfare," but whitewashing can't cover up theft; it merely excuses it.

The Apostle Paul also gives the same instruction. Ephesians 4:28 is explicit: "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need." And to the Thessalonians (II Th. 3:10-11) he was even more blunt: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies." Honest labor builds up; illegitimate wealth destroys.