Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 4

This is the fourth and final part of our series of posts looking at a number of so-called "Arminian" texts—texts often cited by opponents of Reformed theology in the belief that they somehow undermine or refute Calvinism.

1 Timothy 2:3-4

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This is one of the most frequently cited verses by Arminians against the Reformed doctrines of grace, especially against particular redemption, but also against unconditional election. The Arminian argument is straightforward. The verse says God desires everyone to be saved; Calvinism says that God desires (at least in the sense of the desires he decides to decree to come to pass) the elect to the saved and the non-elect to be damned. Therefore, Calvinism must be incorrect.

There are at least two ways Calvinists have answered the Arminian view.

The first Calvinist view says that we need to look at context to dispel Arminian claims. In verse 1, Paul writes: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people." We note again the phrase "all people"—the same words as are found in verse 4. Paul says Timothy's church is to pray for all people. Did he mean that they were to pray for every single person without exception? We they, as it were, supposed to get out the voter's roll for Ephesus and work their way through it in prayer? That seems unlikely. The true interpretation is confirmed by verse which explains the "all people" of verse 1: "for kings and all who are in high positions." 

Paul means that they are not to exclude any type of person in their prayers. They are to pray as much for kings and governors as they are for ordinary people. Therefore, "all people" in context means "all kinds of people". No class or type of person is to be excluded from the congregation's prayers.

So then, in verse 4, Paul means that God desires all kinds of people to be saved. He did not mean that God desires the salvation of everyone without exception. So the Arminian use of this verse simply falls apart. 

A second Calvinist view, accepts that the verse does teach God has a desire to save everyone without exception. It is not controversial in Reformed theology to teach that God has desires for some things that he chooses not to fulfil via his decree. Considered as a thing in itself, it pleases God for sinners to come to faith and be saved. He has this desire towards all his creatures. But this does not contradict the parallel truth that God also desires to save only some and to allow some to bc condemned for his own glory and the display of his justice. This Calvinist view counters the Arminian more fundamentally in some respects by saying "so what?" - we agree God desires all people to be saved and we preach the free offer of salvation on that basis, yet we do not deny God also has a secret or decretive will that purposes only to save the elect and condemn the reprobate.

My own view tends towards the first of these views, but both are valid in Reformed theology. 

1 Timothy 4:10

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe.

The Arminian interpretation of this verse is normally something along the lines that God has made salvation available to everyone (without exception) but it is effective only especially for those who believe. The problem of course is that this is not what the verse says.

If "Saviour of all people" means Saviour of everyone without exception then the verse proves too much and teaches universalism—that all are saved, especially those who believe. This would conflict with dozens of verses and passages that teach those not everyone is saved.

There are three Calvinist interpretations of this verse. 

Firstly, that "all people" has the same connotation as 1 Timothy 2:4 that we have just looked at and means "all kinds of people". Once we note that the Greek word translated "especially" (malista) could also be translated "namely" or "more specifically" we can see that the verse means "the living God, who is the Saviour of all kinds of people, namely [or more specifically] those who believe." The verse then makes perfect sense and is fully compatible with Calvinism.

Another Calvinist interpretation, notes that the word for "Saviour" (soter) is not always used in the sense of saving from sin. It can also mean a "preserver" or "deliverer" from non-salvation related situations, such as illness or danger. According to this view, the verse is only pointing out that God preserves and delivers everyone, but especially "delivers" in the full salvific sense believers. Personally, I think this view is open to charges of "special pleading" as it requires Paul to be using "Saviour" in a different sense here from is found in almost all occurrences in Paul's writings.

Third, some Calvinists simply acknowledge that Christ has been appointed as the sole Saviour of mankind though he accomplishes salvation only for those who believe (the elect). Many Calvinists accept that though the intention in the cross was to save the elect, this does not preclude Christ being set forth, held out or offered as Saviour to everyone through the gospel. In his revealed will, God sends Christ as Saviour for anyone who will believe in him; in his decretive will, God sends Christ to save the elect. While there may be mystery as to how these two ideas fit together, there is no contradiction.

2 Peter 2:1

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

In this verse Peter mentions false teachers who "deny the Master who bought them." This, according to Arminian views, conflicts with limited atonement, as we apparaently here have Peter acknowledging that Christ died for false teachers who are not saved.

Clearly, from other places in Scripture, we know that those "bought" (or "redeemed") by Christ are saved, the Arminian view cannot be correct, particularly since these false teachers have brought swift destruction on themselves. So, another interpretation must be possible.

One such interpretation is that Peter was saying that the false teachers were denying the Master who they claimed to believe had bought them. He is, as it were, writing not from the perspective of the truth, but from the perspective of the false teachers' claims. It is almost as if he is putting inverted commas around the words. If this view is right, Peter was saying something like this: "even denying the Master "who bought them," bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

Another Calvinist interpretation, regards Peter as writing of them from the point of view of their having been associated with the body of believers. They are part of the visible church or covenant community, though as non-elect not part of the true invisible church or real covenant people. As Christ died for the church, insofar as the false believers associated with the church, Peter could speak in a sense of them denying the Master who it would appear bought them according to their own (false) profession.

A third view argues that "bought" here does not refer to salvation at all, but to Christ's ownership over them as created people, rather than as redeemed people. This view points out that "bought" could refer to any type of deliverance paid for. It could therefore be referring to outward benefits received by these men by being drawn into the church community (such as deliverance from idolatry or obvious wickedness in their lives) and therefore might not concern the atonement of Christ at all.

These three views have some overlap elements of all three views are present in this ambiguous verse in 2 Peter.

One final point to make that applies to this verse and many of the others claimed by our Arminian friends is that this passage is not about the atonement. The phrase in question is tangential to the main argument of the passage which is about false teachers. It is always dangerous to base a doctrine not on the main passages that deal with the subject, but on isolated words and phrases capable of more than one interpretation.

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

This verse in 2 Peter is one of the most frequently used verses by Arminians. Along with Matthew 23:37 and 1 Timothy 2:4 it forms what James White calls "the Big Three" cited over and over again by Arminian authors. The Arminian takes the phrase "no wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" and claims this applies universally. God wants to save everyone and so by implication election, predestination and limited atonment must be false.

The Calvinist can respond forthrightly and as we have frequently seen, there are several Calvinist approaches.

The one group of Calvinists maintains that these words should not be viewed as having a universal import, but rather that they apply to the "you" (plural) of the verse. The "you" of the verse are the recipients and addressees of the letter, and that is not everyone without exception, but God's people, the elect. The "you" of the verse is "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1).

Peter is really saying "God is patient with you, not wishing that any [of you] should perish. The context bears out that view. The passage is dealing with the timing of the second coming of Christ. Peter is explaining that God delays this cataclysmic event in order that all of the elect would come to faith because he is not willing that any of them should perish.

An alternative Calvinist viewpoint, similar to approaches we have seen already in John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, Matthew 23:37 and other places, acknowledges the Arminian interpretation insofar as 2 Peter 3:9 does teach that God is unwilling that anyone perish (not in the absolute sense of his sovereign or decretive will), but in the sense of his revealed or preceptive will. This to be preached to all because God does in one sense desire all to be saved and that none perish, and the Biblical revelation both includes God's desire towards salvation for all AND his decree to save only the elect and believers must keep both truths in tension without jettisoning either. Both the Arminian and the High/Hyper Calvinist are in danger of overemphasising one to the exclusion of the other truth. Evangelical Calvinists hold to both, even if they cannot rationally explain how they logically cohere.

1 John 2:2

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

I believe we can deal with this verse quite quickly. As with John 3:16, here the Arminian believes this verse teaches that Christ died for everyone without exception. They tend to point to the words, "the whole world" to underline their argument. The Arminian view tends to contrast "not for ours" by which they understand all current Christians at the time John was writing with "the whole world" meaning everyone without exception.

One Calvinist view points out that "whole world" need not mean "everyone without exception". Even within the context of First John this is clear. In 1 John 5:19 John says: "and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." Clearly this does not include the church who are not under Satan's rule, so the addition of "whole" to world does not make it mean "everyone without exception" automatically.

If the whole world meant everyone without exception here then the verse would teach that Christ is the propitiation for all sins of everyone. This would lead to universalism as how could God condemn anyone if Christ has already taken away that person's sins and turned aside God's wrath from them?

In this view, "our sins"—the sins of those already believing—is contrasted with the sins of all the nations—the whole world—everyone who would come to believe from any nation on earth.

As with other verses, a second Calvinist interpretation, accepts that "whole world" means everyone, but argues that John means simply that Christ is sufficient to propitiate the sins of the whole world, even though he efficiently propitiates the sins only of the elect and that both aspects are God's intent. Calvinists taking this view include the likes of W. G. T. Shedd, C. H. Spurgeon and John MacArthur - all pointing to the sufficiency of the atonement for all while also holding that the atonement is effective only for the elect.

Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 3

This is the third in our series of posts looking at a number of so-called "Arminian" texts—texts often cited by opponents of Reformed theology in the belief that they somehow undermine or refute Calvinism.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

This is probably the best-known verse in the entire Bible. The Arminian view is that “world” means everyone without exception—God loves you, no ifs or buts. In addition, they typically point to “whoever” as meaning that anyone and everyone has the power to believe if they choose. The Arminian view of John 3:16 can be summarised as God loves you—no exceptions, Christ died for you—no exceptions, and it’s up to you if you believe in him or not.

There are serious flaws in this view from the Calvinist viewpoint.

The basic problem with the Arminian claim is that in the Bible, “world” (kosmos in Greek) has a range of different meanings, and usually does not refer to everyone without exception. I believe that “world” here has two meanings. First, it refers to the humanc race in the sense of all peoples (not all individual people), namely Jews and Gentiles. And second, it also in John’s writings has a connotation of humanity in rebellion against God. I would summarise the combined meaning as “sinners from all the nations”. 

I am also clear that the open-ended term “sinners from all the nations” could refer to everyone without exception as Arminians and some Calvinists maintain but it need not do so. It can as easily refer to all without distinction. I am convinced in the wider context, the "world" so loved connotes to those whom God has chosen for salvation, not least since the next verse, John 3:17, states plainly that Christ came to save the same world that God loves in verse 16. We know from elsewhere in John’s Gospel that Christ will lose none of what the Father gives him, but will save them all (see John 6, John 10). 

Therefore, John 3:16 simply means that God does not love only the Jews, but all the nations so that not just the Jews, but “everyone who believes” or literally “every believing one” (both better translations than “whoever” or “whosoever” believes) will be saved. This interpretation makes much more sense in the context of Jesus’ conversation with the Jewish leader Nicodemus and with the Old Testament parallel Jesus mentions of the serpent on a pole back in Moses’ day. Just as everyone who looked on the serpent was healed, so everyone who believes in the Son will be saved, and distinctions of race or nationality do not come into it. But the verse certainly need not be interpreted in the Arminian manner and does not override plain passages which speak of predestination or election (e.g. Ephesians 1, Romans 9, etc.)

Acts 7:51

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

This verse from Stephen's speech prior to his martyrdom is used by Arminians to argue that God's saving purposes can be thwarted by sinful human beings, and by implication, Arminians suggest there can be no decree or decision of God that determines salvation. The phrase used to argue this was is "resist the Holy Spirit." The Arminian argues this refers to God's will to save everyone without exception.

The Calvinist argues on the contrary that this "resisting the Holy Spirit" does not refer to God's decree (God's decretive will or God's secret will) but to God's preceptive will or God's revealed will. We believe the reference is to the people of Israel disobeying God's commands in Scripture, which of course comes from the Holy Spirit through inspiration. 

The immediate context surrounding verse 51 backs this interpretion up. In the following verse Stephen talks about the people opposing and killings God's prophets—those who brought God's message tudio the people, those who foretold of the coming of the Messiah. In verse 54, Stephen gives the context of what "resisting the Holy Spirit" amounts to: "you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it."

Therefore, I believe that Acts 7:51 clearly refers to the people rejecting God's law and promises, but this has nothing to do with God's will of decree which cannot be thwarted (see Job 42:1, "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted" and Isaiah 46:9-10, " I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose'.")

Hebrews 2:9  

But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

This verse from Hebrews is often cited by Arminians as evidence against the Reformed doctrine of particular redemption. The argument is that since the verse says that Christ "might taste death for everyone" how can it be true that Christ died only to save the elect?

To begin with, we need to be clear that the word translated "everyone" is the Greek word pantos meaning "all". The phrase could be translated "he might taste death for all."

This helps slightly because we can then ask, which "all" is in view here? Though we could also ask which "everyone" is in view? 

The Arminian reads it as "everyone" or "all" without exception. Yet given the way the Bible refers to the atonement as accomplishing salvation and not merely making salvation provisionally available, this is deeply problematic. If "all means all" as the Arminian argues, this would imply universalism given the way the Bible speaks of the atonement. 

In the following verse, it refers to Christ "bringing many sons to glory" not "all sons". This would suggest there is also a limitation on the "all" of verse 9 to those who are saved. Similarly, in verse 11 it refers to those who are sanctified or made holy and that they "all" have their source of sanctification in Christ. The context here teaches that "all" does not always mean "all" "all" the time.

An alternative Calvinist interpretation would be that although Christ died to save only the elect, nonetheless, his death was sufficient to save everyone and that everyone called to faith and offered salvation without exception and in this sense Christ could be said to taste death for everyone, though he did not intend to redeem everyone and save them. 

Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 2

This is the second in what will be series of posts looking at a number of so-called "Arminian" texts—texts often cited by opponents of Reformed theology in the belief that they somehow undermine or refute Calvinism.

Lamentations 3:33

For he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.

The next text occasionally cited is this short fragment of Lamentations chapter 3. The Arminian argument seems to run along the lines that here the Scriptures state God does not willingly afflict or grieve human beings, yet Calvinism teaches the exact opposite since God chooses some for salvation and chooses for others to remain unsaved and to be punished for their sins.

We can deal with this objection quite quickly. The verse has nothing whatever to do with the doctrines of election or reprobation, nor does it contradict the Bible's teaching that God is a righteous judge who administers justice—including punishment for sin—and indeed delights in justice (see Jeremiah 9:24).

In the verse immediately preceding this one, the writer is clear that God does "cause grief" (v.32). For his children, he administers discipline as a good Father. For the wicked, he administers justice. And in both cases he acts according to his desires for discipline and justice. It is just as a human parent takes no enjoyment in punishing their children and does so with a heavy heart, yet it is done for the child's ultimate good and in shaping a good and well-rounded person that punishment is sometimes necessary. It is the improvement of the child's character that the parent delights in, not the discipline or punishment considered in itself, even though it is a necessary step towards the ultimate goal.

This verse simply teaches that God is not cruel or nasty. He is no sadist. Although he does "cause grief" and sends people pain and suffering as discipline or as punishment, he does not do so because he enjoys it, but for higher goals of disciplining the children he loves for their good or for constraining the evil of the wicked and giving them justice. The verse teaches that God does not derivce pleasure or happiness in punishing anyone when considered as a thing in itself. The sentiment here is closely related to the verses found in Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11.

Matthew 18:14

So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

This is another verse sometimes cited as implying that it is not the will of God in any sense that anyone perish. As such, the Arminian sees it as being a denial that God has any decree of reprobation and instead God would save everyone if he could, but obviously cannot achieve his aim because human free will is the determining factor in each person's salvation.

A common theme in these verses, as you may have noticed, is that Arminians tend to accept that this kind of verse should encompass everyone without exception. Likewise, you will notice that Calvinists tend to look closer at the context and restrict the application of the verses to those who are saved and not to everyone. This verse is no exception.

The verse takes place at the end of Jesus' Parable of the Lost Sheep. Matthew 18:12-14 reads like this:

What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

It is obvious that the sheep, as they consistently do in Scripture (see Psalm 23, John 10), represent those who are Christ's people, those who are saved. The 100th lost sheep does not stand for everyone, but for those who will be saved but are not yet saved. They are one of the elect, yet before coming to faith. It is precisely the Father's will that not one of his elect should perish. When properly understood, far from being a problem for Calvinism, this verse supports Calvinism.

Matthew 23:37 

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Matthew 23:37 is one of the most common verses cited by Arminians against Calvinism.

We should note that once again the Arminian interpretation has little to do with the context of the verse. The passage is not dealing with the atonement, the gospel offer, irresistible or resistible grace, far less election or predestination. The context is judgment and condemnation of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Read the context of the passage surrounding this verse to see that is true.

This verse merely teaches that in his revealed will, Christ does desire and seek to save everyone in Jerusalem (the children), as his Saviour's heart goes out to all sinners and bids them come to him in faith to find salvation. It is this will, this desire, this delight in sinners finding salvation, that leads to Christ's anger against those who would seek to block or prevent others coming to faith in the Messiah (i.e. the leaders of the people).

The verse has nothing to do with and does not contradict the fact that in his secret or decretive will, God nevertheless chooses some for salvation and rejects others for salvation. As he taught elsewhere, "many are called but few are chosen" and all those who are called are genuinely and sincerely called. Those who refuse cannot blame God, for even though he has chosen to pass them by for salvation, he take no pleasure in their loss.

The verse condemns the Jewish leaders not only for killing the prophets in the past, but also in opposing Christ's mission to save sinners ("you would not"). The verse says that the leaders tried to prevent Christ saving the "children" of Jerusalem, but it does not teach that Christ would fail to save his people in the city. Far from it. Within weeks, on Pentecost, three thousand people were converted and saved, despite the city's leaders being opposed. Little did they know that their opposition and finally their plotting to kill Jesus would be the very means used in the plan of God to bring about the salvation of the elect (see Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27-28).

Luke 7:30

But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

This verse is fairly often mentioned by Arminians and other non-Calvinists. The argument is that Calvinism teaches that God's purpose or decree is always carried out and cannot be thwarted by anything. Yet here we find that the Pharisees and lawyers were able to "reject" the purpose of God. Arminians therefore believe that God's will can be thwarted by human free will. He may wish people to be saved, but people are free to reject God's will.

It is important to note that the key word, translated "purpose" in the ESV is the Greek word boulé which could also be translated as the "counsel" of God, "will" of God or even "decree" of God. It usually refers to a "resolved" or "determined" plan. However, it can also refer to "counsel" in the sense of advice or "will" in the sense of God's recommendation. It can refer not to God's decree or purpose in the sense of his detemination of events, which can never be frustrated, but to God's commands or precepts representing God's wise counsel or advice on how to live or what to do. It was this, the call to repent and accept God's mercy, that the Pharisees and Experts in the Law rejected for themselves.

As some Calvinists note, even if this is a reference to the decree of God, which always comes to pass, the verse does not state that God's purpose for them was their salvation. It need only be God's purpose that they be exposed to the good news and to Christ. Even this they rejected. There is nothing in Calvinism to rule out it being God's purpose for them to meet Christ and hear his gospel and God's purpose for them to reject the good news.

Either of these approaches is feasible. Neither requires us to accept that the human will can actually overturns God's sovereign will.

Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 1

While I am convinced the overall teaching of the Bible points very clearly that Reformed theology or Calvinism, to give it its nickname, is true, there have always been a number of texts in the Bible used by Arminians to attempt to show that Calvinism does not match up with what the Bible says. Often these are isolated verses, plucked from context, and used as if to say, "Aha, so if Calvinism is true, why does the Bible say X..."

We will look at some of the main verses used in this way, explain why they might seem to be a problem for Calvinism, and then give explanations of the verses or reasons why they do not undermine Reformed theology. I hope fellow Calvinists and Arminians will find this process useful.

In this regard we will look at a number of such passages In each instance we will initially quote the verse from the ESV Bible. These are not every passage we could have cited, but they include the main ones usually brought up in opposition to Reformed doctrine.

To avoid this becoming a very long post, we will split this into a number of parts. In this part we deal with three verses, one in Isaiah and two that form a pair in Ezekiel.

Isaiah 53:6

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

We begin with this verse from the astonishing and well-known prophecy in Isaiah 53 which clearly foretells of the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah. The alleged problem for Calvinism in this verse comes in the words "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Calvinism teaches what is known as particular redemption or limited atonement, the doctrine that Christ died with the intention of saving the elect only, that is, with the intent of saving a specific number of people who are in fact saved. Arminianism by contrast, teached unlimited atonement, that Christ died to save everyone, but only those who believe benefit from his death. The difference is clear enough. The Arminian believes Christ died equally as much for those who are saved as for those who are lost; the Calvinist believes Christ died only for those who believe, who are brought to faith by God's choice and power.

This verse says that the LORD laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. The Arminian looks at the word "all". The Calvinist answer to this one is fairly obvious. We look at the word "us" before "all". Who are the us mentioned? The Arminian requires that "us" to be everyone—all of humanity. But does the context bear this out?

Look at the preceding verse 5: "But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." 

Here is no provisional atonement for all indiscriminately yet only activated by faith for some. The text plainly says that this atonement is effectual for all for whom it is made. His punishment "brought us peace" and "with his stripes we are healed." Since not all are healed, and not all have peace with God, it is clear enough that the passage is addressed to God's people, not everyone without exception. 

This is further supported by verse 11, "Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."  

Here the verse is clear that the "all" of verse 6 is now recognised as the "many" of verse 11. Those whom the Messiah dies for will be "accounted righteous". This is not true of everyone, but only of those for whom he made atonement.

This verse present no problem whatsovever for the Reformed doctrine of particular redemption. We believe the LORD did indeed lay on him the iniquities of US all who are the Lord's people by faith.

Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11

For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live. (18:32)

Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? (33:11)

This pair of verses in Ezekiel are often cited by Arminians. The argument is that since God says he has "no pleasure in the death of anyone" and "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" this somehow proves that predestination as Calvinism teaches it, cannot be true.

There are two Calvinist approaches to these verses. 

One group of Calvinists simply points out that verses are addressed not to people in general, but to the "house of Israel" or God's covenant people in particular. This is explicit in both passages. In chapter 18, verse 30 reads (two verses before the quotation): "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin." Similarly, 33:11 is also addressed to the people of Israel. Therefore, for this group of exegetes, God has no pleasure in the death of his people.

A second group of Calvinists accepts that God does not have pleasure in anyone's death, or to be more accurate, does not take any delight in (Hebrew chaphets) any person's death when considered as a thing in itself. Yet although God might be said not to take delight in or enjoy/take pleasure from anyone's death when considered in isolation, nevertheless the Bible also teaches that whatever God desires, he does (Job 23:13) and also that God delights in seeing justice done (Jeremiah 9:24) and in displaying his own attributes including justice and wrath (Romans 9:22). When considered in that light, these verses in no way contradict the Bible's teaching that God chose not to save everyone, but chose to pass by the reprobate and punish them for their sins. 

God's internal pleasures and delights are undoubtedly complex and it may be that considered in itself God may not take pleasure in death—and conversely does have a delight or desire towards the salvation of all, even those he has decreed not to save—yet when viewed in the wider lens of all things being considered together, he does delight in expressing and doing justice, even if that means death for some sinners. In any internal hierarchy of delight, desires, or wishes, God highest desire is to glorify himself in the display of all his attributes (see Ephesians 1:11-12 and Romans 9:22-23).

Both approaches have some things in their favour. The verses are undoubtedly addressed to the covenant people and not all humanity in general. So it could be that the verses are only speaking of the death of those chosen for salvation. Yet they seem to indicate something wider than that in my view. But equally, if the second view is correct, these verses in no way can be used to deny the Calvinist doctrines of election and reprobation as these represent the desires God was pleased to decree to come to pass, even if considered separately, Gods Word reveals other desires he chose not to satisfy in his decree.

R. C. Sproul on Common Grace

In this video, R. C. Sproul explains common grace.

The Book of Zephaniah

The short book of the prophet Zephaniah, which comes near the end of the Old Testament, has always been one that I have loved and valued.

In this video from the Bible Project, the book is well explained. It deserves to be preached on more often.

Christian Standard Bible – Anglicised Edition

 

I was happy to find out that the Christian Standard Bible is going to be issued in an Anglicised edition with British spelling and usage. I understand the new edition will go on sale in June this year.

The Christian Standard Bible or CSB is a great translation. It first came out in 2017 and was a revision of the "Holman Christian Standard Bible" first published in 2004. The CSB translators claim it uses "optimal equivalence" as its translation philosophy which is to say it is more literal than the NIV but more functional than the ESV. It is a conservative evangelical committee translation produced by Holman Publishers in the USA. Often thought of as a "Baptist" translation because it was produced by a Baptist publishing house, it is not sectarian and involved scholars from 17 denominations to avoid denominational bias.

Like the NIV, the CSB is a completely fresh translation from the original languages and is not within the Tyndale/KJV/RV/ASV/RSV family tree, which means it does not necessarily follow "traditional" renderings. I believe this is a strong point in its favour, whenever a "new" rendering is more accurate to the Hebrew or Greek.

Here are a couple of sample verses from the CSB, which I think show the nature of the CSB as a translation:

Mark 9:3 - describing Jesus' appearance during the transfiguration - "and his clothes became dazzling—extremely white as no launderer on earth could whiten them."

Where the CSB has "no launderer" the NIV has "anyone" and the ESV has "no one" but the Greek has "γναφεὺς" (grapheus) - a launderer or "fuller" (KJV), thus the CSB is considerably more accurate.

Matthew 6:9 - "Our Father in heaven, your name be honoured as holy" moving away from "hallowed" in the Tyndale/KJV tradition, which few modern readers understand or use anywhere else except in the Lord's Prayer.

John 3:16 - "For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Here the CSB again moves from the traditional to the more accurate. "In this way" is an improvement on the traditional "so loved" which we tend to read as "loved so much" rather than "loved in this way" which is what the Greek word houtos usually means. Secondly, "everyone who believes" is better in my view than "whoever believes". 

The CSB also makes good use of footnotes where alternative translations are possible or where there are textual variants. Often the footnotes contain a more traditional or literal translation. 

For example in 1 John 2:2: "He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world" with a footnote "the propitiation."

Again in 2 Timothy 3:16a: "All Scripture is inspired by God" with a footnote "breathed out by God".

There is always a danger that the CSB will fall between two stools. It may not be literal or traditional enough for churches that favour the ESV and it may not be simple enough for churches that use the NIV or anything even more functionally equivalent like the NLT.

Yet the CSB is a very good translation and its fresh renderings in many places are helpful to contrast with the ESV/NRSV in the Tyndale tradition or with the NIV/NLT's more functional renderings.

How to tell if someone is a Christian?

I came across this video on YouTube, which features seven people who claim to be Christians in conversation.

The point is that only six are professing Christians and one is an atheist masquerading as a Christian. Through questions, the participants try to guess who is the imposter and vote them out. It is an interesting exercise.

Personally, I have some doubts about the credibility of some of the others who claim to be Christians as well, but that's beside the point.

Of more interest is to ask, how would we try to determine if somone claiming to be a Christian is genuine?

I don't think the questions asked in the video were very good. No one seemed to ask or talk about God at all. No one mentioned Jesus or the Holy Spirit. No one referred to prayer or Bible reading. At least not in the edited version we see in the video.

These are the kind of questions I would probably ask in this scenario:

• What led you to become a Christian?
• What kind of church do you attend?
• What Bible translation do you mostly read?
• What's your favourite Bible verse?
• What's your favourite hymn or worship song?
• Do you serve in any capacity at your church?

Of course, someone deliberately setting out to deceive could probably come up with answers to these, so who knows. In my experience, most Christians are very willing to accept someone's profession of faith as genuine.

More important than our personal "tests" is to see what the Bible says about what makes a Christian. Some relevant verses are the following:

• A Christian is someone who has been born again by the Holy Spirit. The phrase "born-again Christian" is a redundancy. See John 3:3-8.
• A Christian is someone who has faith in Jesus to save them. See Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16
  
• A Christian is someone who seeks to follow Jesus in obedience to his teachings. See 1 John 2:3-6.
• A Christian is someone who confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes that God raised him from the dead. See Romans 10:9
• A Christian is someone who seeks to turn away (repent) of their sins. See Matthew 3:2, Mark 1:15, Acts 2:38, 2 Peter 3:9.

The folk in this video seem to associate being a Christian with going to church and maybe having some kind of spiritual experience. I was quite shocked that none of them mentioned a personal relationship with Jesus or God the Father or the Holy Spirit.

The Meaning and Translation of "Hilasterion" in Romans 3:25

Paul's Letter to the Romans is a key part of the New Testament, the letter in which the gospel or good news is given its fullest explanation. Within this letter, the section in Romans 3:21-26 is central to the meaning of the doctrine of salvation and within that section verse 25 is a key verse. 

The focus of our discussion is on the meaning and translation of this word "hilasterion" in this verse. 

1. Description of the Possible Translations

While we confess that ‘all Scripture is God-breathed’ (2 Tim. 3:16) meaning that all of Scripture comes from God, we recognise that not all the God-breathed Scriptures are equally important. Obviously, for example, the crucifixion and resurrection narratives of the Gospels are more important to the people of God and the message of salvation than say a genealogy of names in Genesis or Chronicles. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is one of the most important books in the New Testament because it is where we find the fullest exposition of Paul’s gospel. Within Romans, chapter 3 verse 25 is a key verse. And within that verse the key word is ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion). This word is the focus of this paper.

The verse reads as follows (author’s translation)—from verse 24 to give the context:

24 Being declared righteous freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a hilasterion, by his blood, to be received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness because in the forbearance of God he passed over the sins committed beforehand.

The correct translation of this word "hilasterion" into English has a long history of controversy and debate. English translations of the word divide into five main categories as explained below.

a. Mercy Seat or Atonement Cover

The first group of translations sees hilasterion as a direct reference to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant, traditionally known as the ‘mercy seat’ or other more descriptive translations such as ‘atonement lid’ or ‘atonement cover.’ 

This view sees hilasterion as the direct Greek equivalent of the Hebrew, כַּפֹּרֶת (kapporeth) which is the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, commanded by God to be made (Ex. 25:17 ff.), the place where God’s presence would rest and make atonement for the sins of his people. 

Translations taking this approach include the following:

God presented him as the mercy seat by his blood, through faith (CSB)

whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood (Darby)

whom God publicly displayed as the atonement seat through faith in his blood (EHV)

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith (NET)

Whom God hath set forth as a propitiatory covering, through faith in his blood. (Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible)

Whom God purposed for a Propitiatory shelter, through faith in His blood. (Concordant Literal Version)

This interpretation sees Paul’s argument being that just as the mercy seat on the ark was the place where the people’s sins were taken away, God’s wrath removed, and God’s reconciliation with his people established, so the cross of Jesus Christ was the reality of that Old Testament type. It should be noted that the last two translations above make it explicit that the kapporeth being referred to is much more than merely the lid of the covenant box or ark, it has deep theological meaning—it is a propitiatory shelter or covering—meaning it is the place where God’s wrath against sin is dealt with and taken away or removed.

b. Propitiation

The second group of translations does not link hilasterion directly to the mercy seat, but instead sees it as a reference to the means or place of propitiation (the means by which or place where sin is taken away, wrath turned aside and justice is satisfied). The translations which take this approach includes some of the most commonly used literal translations in English, as follows:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. (KJV)

whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood. (ASV)

whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith. (NKJV)

whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (ESV)

whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. (NASB 1995)

whom God put forward as the means of propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (Moffatt)

Two versions agree that the hilasterion is a propitiation, but rather than use this technical term which would doubtless be difficult to understand for many English readers, they explain the concept of propitiation:

God presented him as the one who would turn aside his wrath taking away sin through faith in his blood. (NIV 1984 marginal reading)

For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. (NLT 1996)

c. Expiation

Some English translations, particularly it must be admitted, translations at least influenced by liberal theology, which have a tendency to deny or play down the concept of the wrath of God, see in hilasterion a reference to the taking away of sin, but not the turning aside or satisfying God’s wrath. For these translations, rather than use ‘propitiation’ with its connotation of appeasing or satisfying wrath, they use the word ‘expiation’ which connotes only to the taking away or removal of sin, without reference to wrath.

This position is found in the following versions:

whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (RSV)

For God designed him to be the means of expiating sin by his death, effective through faith. (REB)

whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood. (NABRE)

d. Reconciliation

A few English translations take hilasterion to refer not to the expiating of sin or the propitiating of wrath, but to the end result of expiation and propitiation, which is the reconciliation of God and sinners and believe this was Paul’s point in Romans 3:25. These versions include the following:

Whom God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood. (Geneva)

For God showed him publicly dying as a sacrifice of reconciliation to be taken advantage of through faith. (Goodspeed)

whom God purposed for reconciliation through faith in his blood. (Jubilee Bible 2000)

e. Other ‘Non-Committal’ Options

Finally, some translations, either for reasons of simplicity for the reader or from a desire to avoid the controversies surrounding the historic and ongoing ‘expiation vs propitiation’ debate, opt for a more general translation such as ‘sacrifice of atonement’ which could allow for either expiation, propitiation, or indeed reconciliation, which ‘sacrifice of atonement’ at least hints at.
    Versions taking this approach include the following:

Through his faithfulness, God displayed Jesus as the place of sacrifice where mercy is found by means of his blood. (CEB)

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. (NIV 1984 main text)

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. (NIV 2011)

For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. (NLT 2004)

whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (NRSV)

2. Assessment of the Translation Options

Of these five possible approaches, I think there are three we can dismiss quite easily and two that have strong claims.

The translations I would set aside first are the last three. To take the last one first, translating "hilasterion" as "sacrifice of atonement" is only a very broad attempt to explain the concept behind the word. Although "hilasterion" does imply an atoning sacrifice, this does not adequately explain the word's meaning and could be viewed as something of a "cop out".

Likewise, although the "hilasterion" can lead to reconciliation between the offended and the guilty party, the word does not itself refer to reconciliation.

Finally, the translation "expiation" or "expiating sacrifice" should be rejected as it does not cover the full menaing of "hilasterion". Expiation refers to the removal of guilt, but that is only half of the meaning of "hilasterion". As has been well-explained by Leon Morris, John Stott and others writing on the atonement, "expiation" has been favoured by theologians who do not believe that the atonement involves dealing with the wrath of God against sinners. But one of the key aspects of a "hilasterion" is appeasing or satisfying God's wrath.

It is for this reason that the word has traditionally been translated as "propitiation" (meaning either the means of propitiation or the place of propitiaiton). Propitiation implies both expiation (removal of guilt for sin) and the turning aside of God's wrath against sinners. For this reason, "propitiation" or an explanatory phrase meaning the same found in the NIV 1984 margin or the 1996 NLT is a good translation as far as I am concerned. The only problem with it, it might be argued, is that the word is not well understood by many readers. Chambers Dictionary defines "propitiate" as meaning "to appease or placate (an angry or insulted person or god)" and it is this appeasing, placating or satisfying divine anger or wrath that is the key aspect of "hilasterion" that most other translations omit or downplay.

Some scholars believe that Paul was not referring to a place or means of propitation in a generic sense, but rather they see this as a clear alluding to the Old Testament "mercy seat" or "atonement cover" - the lid of the ark of the covenant, the place where the people's sins were taken away and the wrath of God averted or appeased or placated. Some translations use "propitiatory cover" or "proptiatory shelter" to try to cover both concepts.

It is a difficult judgment whether to translate in a more general sense of "propitiation" or the more specific sense of "mercy seat" or "propitiatory cover". We cannot be entirely certain which of the two Paul had in mind. The difference is a translation problem, but not a theological one because both have the same meaning: the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross took away the guilt of sin and turned aside the wrath of God against sin by taking the punishment directly in his own flesh. 

If I had to pick one, I would go with the more general term "propitation" as I am not certain Paul was solely making an Old Testament allusion to the "mercy seat" when writing to a largely Gentile church in Rome. Although "hilasterion" was used in the Greek Septuagint as the translation of the mercy seat (the atonement lid on the ark of the covenant), "hilasterion" is a broader theological concept than the noun for the covenant box lid, and so on balance I think the wider theological term "propitiaton" or an explanation of what "propitiaiton" means is preferable in our English translations, with the single word "propitiation" being more suited for formal equivalent translations and a phrasal explanation such as "the way of turning aside God's wrath and taking away sin" being more suitable for functional equivalent translations.

Year's End

 

As we reach the end of 2023, many of us will reflect on the year gone by and look forward to the year ahead. This is a good time of year to consider your own walk with God. 

In my tradition, among other things, church membership vows include how we should give a "fitting proportion of time, talents and money" to the church's work in the world. At the end of 2023, maybe we should all take stock on how we did on this and how we might do better in 2024. For each one, this is a personal thing between them and God, but is always worth reviewing at least once a year and the start of a new year is a convenient time to do it.

We might also consider what sins we need to better "put to death" and what good works God is leading us to do.

All of us can surely do better. Almost all of us could use our time better to read God's word and pray for example. But maybe most important of all is to remember that we who believe in Him already have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ. Perhaps our biggest challenge is to live in that truth and let it guide us out of contentment and thanksgiving, not out of guilt.

We pray for a holy and blessed new year for all our readers in 2024.