Strength for Those Suffering With
Christ: The Doctrine of Calling – Part I
Romans 8:28-30
Open your
Bibles to Romans, chapter 8. We’re down to Romans 8:28 and 29. I’ve
been reading through this chapter again and again this last couple of
weeks. It’s so important to remember context. The more I study the
Scripture, the more I’m impressed by how much we miss because we don’t look at
favorite verses and promises by really examining how it fits within the
context. One of the areas where there is an egregious amount of proof
texting is in the area of the debates over the sovereignty of God versus the
free will or volition of man. It’s important not to just grab verses as
you read through theologies and other things written on this topic. They
just list a string of verses and you look at a lot of those verses and you
start looking at the context around there and you say, “I’m not sure that’s
even talking about what they say it’s talking about. It doesn’t really
apply to this situation.” So we need to look at that and one area we need
to look at is Romans 8:28–30.
This is going
to take several weeks because we have to slowly and precisely work our way
through these words that are used here so we’ll have a number of word
studies. Hopefully we’ll get into the first one tonight on the doctrine of
calling. What does it mean when Paul uses the term ‘the called’ in verse
28 and then again in verse 30? Before we get there I want to look at
context. Now when we study the Scripture there are really four things that
need to be evaluated as you study a passage. The first is really
context. We have to really understand a number of things about its
context. What kind of literature are we dealing with? Are we dealing
with poetry like Proverbs or Psalms? Are we dealing with legal literature
such as the Torah, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy? Are we dealing with
historical narrative which is what we’ve had a lot of in Acts? Are we
dealing with epistolary literature like the letters where Paul is very methodically,
logically, precisely building an explanation of important doctrines or
teachings of Scripture? So that’s one area of context.
Another area of
context is the flow of the author’s thinking as he writes through the book. It
used to drive me nuts when I was in high school and I would go up to Camp Peniel as a worker. We’d be given an assignment every
day to read through three or four verses and then we had to write them out in
our own words. You really have to think about something to do that and
understand it. You have to learn to read well and back in 1967 and 68, all
we had was a King James Bible. That was extremely difficult. Now when
you have more up-to-date translations, it’s a little easier to do something
like that. That was a hard thing to do with the King James Bible when
you’re in high school. I wasn’t a dumb high school kid. I can’t
imagine how a lot of people in high school are today because they just don’t
have the reading comprehension skills.
That’s why so
many of these English translations that have been coming out the last twenty or
thirty years seem to have dumbed things down so much
is because the whole education system in the country has dumbed
down so much that high school kids today, for the most part, read at such a low
level of comprehension that if you want a high school kid to understand the
Bible, you’ve got to translate it at a third or fourth grade level. That
means taking out a lot of significant English words that have a time-honored
tradition of theological significance. Words like justification,
redemption, and propitiation just don’t communicate at all to people who are
just the products of our public education for the most part. That’s why we
have to go through and explain all of these different concepts.
We have to look
at the context, the literary context, what is said before a passage and after a
passage. We have to ask how these verses fit in the flow of what the
writer is saying. We have to deal with that and too often, what I find, is
that people do Rorschach Bible study. The Rorschach tests are those ink
blot tests that psychiatrists use. They have an ink blot
and they put it out in front of you and you’re asked what it makes you think
of. Somebody looks at a passage and they see a word there and they say,
“Oh, I’ve seen that same word over here.” They start connecting the dots
where they shouldn’t be connected. Just because there are similar ideas or
words doesn’t mean that the context of one passage is talking about the same
thing as another passage. You don’t need to connect those dots.
Sometimes
you’ll have passages that are talking about the same thing but not using the
same vocabulary but those passages need to be connected together. The only
way you get there is if you’re familiar with a text of Scripture. So we’re
going to be doing some of those things as we go through here but we need to
start with context and really understand the flow of what Paul is saying here
in Romans, chapter 8. Remember he started off at the beginning talking
about the contrast between those who walk according to the flesh and those who
are walking according to the Spirit. So you have two different kinds of
believers. You have those who are living as if they’re unbelievers;
they’re walking according to the sin nature called ‘the flesh’ by Paul in many
passages or they’re walking in fellowship with God, walking according to the
Spirit and applying the Word of God daily, consistently in their
life. Believers fall into one of those two categories. Those who are
consistently walking according to the flesh are developing a quality of life
called a death-like existence as a believer. They can’t please God, verse
8. If you live according to the Spirit, you’ll experience that richness
and abundance of life from the Spirit.
All of that leads
up to the fact that there are two categories of believers that are addressed in
those passages. One it referred to as “children of God”, which includes
every believer. That instant you put your faith in Jesus Christ, that
instant you believe Jesus Christ’s death on the cross, alone, is sufficient for
your forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and justification, you receive new life
in Christ. You’re a child of God. You’re adopted into the family of
God. But then there’s another type of child of God and that’s called a ‘son of God” in this passage using the term huios, just as the Son of God in
reference to Jesus Christ is called huois.
Verse 14 says
“As many as are led by the Spirit”. This refers to those who are following
the leadership of the Spirit and are walking by the Spirit. They are
pursuing spiritual growth and spiritual maturity so the term that’s used of
them is a term that reflects a mature son. They’re called sons of
God. There’s a contrast that’s then made in Romans 8:17 which we have covered
extensively in the past. It requires a change in
punctuation. Remember there was no punctuation in the original
Greek. In fact, in the uncial manuscripts, all the letters were upper case
with no spaces between any of the words and no punctuation. They didn’t
divide words like we do by syllable with a hyphen at the end of the
line. If they ran out of space at the end of the line, they just started
on the next line. So you have to know the language. Now you think,
“That would be pretty hard to read” but not if that’s how you learned to read
and that’s what you’re familiar with. They understood that and they knew
the language. That wasn’t something difficult to them. But what
happens with us we come in and read a verse and we have to ask how we should
punctuate that in English.
The punctuation
that we find in most Bibles is to put a comma after Christ in verse 17, which
makes it look as if “heirs of God” and “fellow heirs of Christ” with a comma
there, are synonymous. The problem with that is that it makes being an
heir of God or joint-heir of Christ conditioned upon suffering with
Him. Now the gospel doesn’t say that you can have eternal life if you
suffer with Jesus. That’s not much of a free gift. If the gospel is
not by works but by grace, then it’s a free gift and we simply accept the
gift. We believe on Jesus. We don’t have to do anything. There’s
no condition. We just believe the gospel. We accept it; we receive
the gospel, all of these are synonyms for faith in Christ. So if we
re-punctuate the verse it reads, “So if children.” Children
is the word teknon and
refers to every Christian who is a believer in Jesus Christ. Every person who is a member of the royal family of God. “If
children heirs also, heirs of God…” This is where the comma goes, that’s
the first category. Every child in the family is an heir of God.
Secondly, then
fellow heirs or joint-heirs with God on the condition that is expressed by the
“if clause” that we suffer with Him that we also may be glorified with
Him. Suffering entails spiritual growth and spiritual advance on the
basis of obedience. Whenever we’re obedient, we’re going to learn things
through suffering. In Hebrews 2:10 we read, “For it was fitting for Him
[God the Father] in bringing many sons to glory.” That is believers in
Jesus Christ and bringing us to glory “to make the captain [the Lord Jesus
Christ] to make mature through suffering. So Jesus Christ had to grow to
maturity learning in His humanity through the things that He suffered just
living amongst unbelievers in the midst of Satan’s cosmic system.
We’re going to
go through suffering. Now as soon as Paul said that in verse 17, I think
the editors are right that there’s a paragraph shift that occurs in verse 18
because it’s a slightly different focus. From verse 18 down to the end of
the chapter, the focal point is helping us understand some things about
suffering with Christ. So this topic, this idea of suffering with Christ,
becomes the umbrella concept from verse 18 down through verse 39. Once you
get the grip on the fact that this is the umbrella term dealing with
understanding suffering in the life of the believer, then
it becomes clearer. Suffering is part of God’s plan and purpose and this
is how He has determined that we will be brought to maturity and in preparation
for a future where we rule and reign with Christ.
Let me show you
how that works out. You can just circle some of
these key words as we go through here. I want to trace this broad idea for
you before we start getting down into the details of Romans 8:28 because if you
don’t understand how the particulars, the details, orient to the general flow
of thought then you can easily get off-track. We have to understand where
Paul is taking us. It’s like looking at a map. I know some people are directionally
challenged and as soon as I talk about a map their brain goes blank just like
mine does when people start talking about numbers. When you look at a map,
it gives you an overview. You look at the route you’re going to take and
then all the different towns and cities you go through along the way begin to
make sense in terms of how they’re strung together on the route from Point A to
Point B. That’s what happens in the text. We’re getting the overview
so the details make sense only as how they relate to that overview.
Verse 18 starts
with the word ‘for’. Most of the time in the English text when we see a
verse start with the word ‘for’, it’s a translation of the Greek word gar, which always introduces an
explanation. Paul just made this statement, “If indeed we suffer with Him,
that we may be glorified in Him.” Then he says, “Let me explain.” Not
only does verse 18 begin with ‘for’ but it also brings in the idea of suffering
so he’s expanding on our understanding of why we suffer and helping us understand
that role in terms of our future glorification with Christ. Verse 19
begins with what? “For.” Circle that word. It’s a further development
of the explanation. Verse 20 begins with “for”. In these two verses
we introduce creation and how creation itself even groans under the curse of
sin, which is explained in verse 22. So 18, 19, 20 and 21 [which is one
sentence] all start with “for”. Then verse 22 introduces a fourth ‘for’
explanation and verse 23 develops the idea from verse 22 and then verse 24
begins with a “for”.
Something
happens in the flow of thought when we get down to verse 24 where Paul says,
“For in hope we have been saved.” So now he’s talking about how this hope,
our confident future expectation, is related to how we can handle suffering
right now because we understand where we’re headed. Hope has to do with a
future certainty. A confidence of a future situation so
we’re saved with this hope, this confident expectation. Then he
explains a little bit about hope in the rest of the verse and then verse 25
also talks about hope, “If we hope for what we do not see.” Then in verse 26 he
says, “likewise”. I didn’t hit this last time. I didn’t catch this
until this week. It says, “Likewise the Spirit also helps us in our weaknesses.” This
word ‘likewise’ means in the same way or in a similar manner. In a similar manner to what? Well, the only thing we
have in the immediate context is the hope. So the hope is a problem-solving
device. It’s a way to solve the problem of adversity. We’re in adversity.
How do we
handle it? We handle it because of that confident expectation. It’s
that personal sense of our eternal destiny that helps us here. We know
that God has a destiny where he’s taking us and that’s related to our confident
expectation so we know God is doing something in our life even if we have to go
through suffering or adversity right now. This serves a purpose; it has a
purpose. Then he says, “In the same way, the Spirit also helps our
weakness.” Well, hope helped our weakness. That’s what he’s implying
there. Hope as a tool, a technique for handling adversity strengthened us
in the weakness of having to deal with adversity. Weakness was a term that
James used a lot in dealing with the same thing in facing adversity and trials
or testing.
So
likewise, in the same way that hope helps us, the Spirit also helps us in our
weakness. Then he explains how the Spirit helps because the Spirit
intercedes for us when we don’t know exactly how to pray for circumstances or
situations, the Holy Spirit acts as kind of a divine translator in articulating
our prayers the way they ought to be. As I pointed out when we studied
this the last time, that doesn’t excuse us for praying in a sloppy manner, an
imprecise manner, or in a generalized manner. You don’t find any writer of
scripture from David in the psalms, and David in the psalms all the way up
through Jesus’ prayers and any of the apostle’s prayers, just bailing out in
some sort of generalized prayer, saying, “Well, Lord, I don’t know what to pray
for so the Holy Spirit will do it. Amen.” No, they craft their
prayers. They articulate them to the best of their ability but they know
that ultimately they don’t comprehend all that needs to be comprehended and the
Holy Spirit is going to handle the situation but that doesn’t relieve them of
their responsibility.
Now we come to
verse 28. Verse 28 says, “And we know that God causes all things to work
together for good.” What are the all things in context? It’s not
necessarily every detail in life. It’s talking about this suffering, the
adversity that’s been the topic since verse 17 which is how to handle the
adversity, the suffering we face in life as we are pursuing spiritual growth,
spiritual maturity with the end game of being a joint-heir with Christ in order
to be glorified with Him. So Romans 8:28 fits within this flow. We
see that Paul shifts his focus now to a general principle that is known to his
audience. He includes the audience with himself and this is a principle
they understood and he is appealing to the concept of God’s sovereign
plan. It’s a plan of such a scope that God is able to orchestrate all the
details and elements of history, specifically the elements of adversity in the
life of a believer, in order to bring about maturity and glorification in the
life of the believer so that he can rule and reign with Christ in the kingdom
in the future.
The next thing
we should notice is at the end of verse 30. We read, “And those whom He
predestined, He also called, and these whom He called, He also justified, and
those He justified, He also glorified.” Now when was the last time we saw
that word, “glorified”? We saw that back in verse 17, “and if children,
heirs, also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with
Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” So you see contextually
we’re dealing with this issue of taking the believer through suffering through
this aspect of glorification with Christ as a joint-heir with
Christ. Although the principles we see here are in one sense true for
every believer, Paul is not dealing with what’s true for every
believer. Paul doesn’t focus on the lowest common denominator and say,
“You’re a failure believer. You’re unfaithful. You’re not walking in
the Spirit. This is what you get.”
He assumes that
if you’re a believer you’re going to do what you ought to do which is pursue
maturity. So he focuses on the high road and he’s not dealing with the
exception of the losers. It’s true for them. The person who is not
pursuing maturity just gets mired up in a lot of adversity and self-induced
misery as well. But Paul is talking about how the maturing, focused
believer is aided by understanding God’s sovereign plan. The point I’m
making here is that we have to understand Romans 8:28-30 to encourage us on how
we look at our adversity in life as we’re pursuing spiritual maturity.
Look down to
Romans 8:35-37. This is in the midst of a whole series of rhetorical
questions that Paul asks. We’ll get into all of that when we get
there. But look at verse 35. He says, “Who will separate us from the
love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine,
or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” In other words does any of this
indicate that God doesn’t love us anymore? You’re going through difficult
times. You’re going through hard times. You’re going through
persecution. You’re going through imprisonment.
Today I was
looking at something on the Mamertine prison in Rome.
This was basically a hole in the ground. The way they treated prisoners in Rome
was because they knew they were going to die, they didn’t really care so they
just stuck them down in this dungeon and there was no sanitation, nothing down
there. They were just left there. They just threw food down there and it was
just an absolute horrid existence. You can certainly see why when people are
going through extremely difficult times, they question if God loves them
anymore, and why He takes them through this. They wonder if God hates them to
take them through all this. So Paul is answering that kind of a question here.
“Can anything separate us from the love of Christ?’ No matter how horrible it
might get: tribulation, distress,
persecution, or famine or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
In verse 36 he
quotes from the Old Testament. “For Your sake [referring to God] we are
being put to death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be
slaughtered.” Our lives are for Him to use however He deems
necessary. In verse 37, Paul says, “But in all these things [adversities]
we overwhelmingly conquer [we are more than conquerors] through Him who loved
us.” That word for ‘more than conquerors’ is hupernikao, a compound word in the Greek. nikao is the verb form for someone who
overcomes. The noun form is nike
where we get our word for the shoe brand “Nike”, the conqueror or victor in the
races. The verb is used for the participle for the overcomer
in Revelation 2 and 3. The overcomer is the
believer who is really pursuing spiritual victory in his life through spiritual
maturity. And this is a huper,
which means adding something to it. I’m tempted to translate it with a
little German. This is the uber-conqueror. This
is the uber-victor. This is the uber-mature believer who is pushing off, so the uber-mature one he is focusing on.
This takes us
right back to the concept that he’s focusing on that he introduced in verse 17
which is how to be a joint-heir with Christ. We need to push on to be a
co-heir with Christ and that’s done by how we handle suffering. So Romans
8:28 fits right in this context. It is a verse introducing a thought on
how we are to think about the suffering and the adversity, that’s going on in
our life. So that sets up the context. Now let’s look at this verse
because this is a verse that is filled with some difficulties. I’m not just
talking about understanding what it says; we have to first know what it
says. ((CHART)) Romans 8:28 starts out, “And we know.” The top verse
on the chart is the New King James Version. The second verse is from the
New American Standard Version. The top verse reads, “And we know that all
things work together for good.” So the main verb is sunergeo, work together, but the way
it’s translated you have the Greek word for “all things” which can be
nominative but the same form is also for the accusative. So it appears in that
text that all things is the subject in sort of a passive construction, all
things impersonalize or depersonalize construction, all things work together
for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His
purpose.
But it’s a
little different in verse 28 in the American Standard and the NIV and about five other translations. Those read,
“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good, to those who
love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” Now the issue
here is that we have a textual difference between two basic manuscript
groups. This is what it looks like on the bottom of a Greek New Testament. I’ll
explain this to you. What it tells you is that right up here where we have
this Greek word ho theos or God is that that’s found in
these five manuscripts here. And papyrus number 6A, which is Codex Alexandrinus, B, which is the abbreviation for Ephraim of Syria,
81 is another manuscript, which is a more recent translation. The biggies
are A and B, which are fourth century manuscripts and so there’s some people
who follow the principle that if it’s older, its accurate which is a fallacious
principle because it can be a copy of an even older wrong document. So
it’s not even an issue between the critical and the majority text at this
point. And this line tells us what manuscripts support the reading of the
text, which leaves God out. That’s Sinaticus,
which is one of the oldest and best manuscripts found on Mount Sinai at St.
Catherine’s monastery at Tishendorf. Then these
next four represent other uncials, or older, capital letter Greek manuscripts
and then some other minor manuscripts.
This funky
looking “m” here stands for the majority text or the majority of manuscripts
that come out of Greece and modern Turkey. These others stand for some
other different translations and writers. So regarding all of this, you
see there are only two basic strong manuscripts that support this reading and
there’s a vast number that leave God out.
Bruce Metzger,
who before he died was considered one of the top two
or three textual critics—even though he didn’t hold to a majority
text he was still recognized as one of the greatest scholars on textual
criticism—wrote quite a bit and was one of the major editors of the
critical Greek text that we use. He also published a commentary back in
the 80’s explaining why they chose certain readings over other readings. You
can catch the gist of what he said here. He said, “Although the reading
that has God in it [God worked all things together for good] is both ancient
and noteworthy, a majority of the committee deemed it too narrowly
supported.” In other words, it’s only in a few manuscripts. It
doesn’t have enough support from different geographical regions as well as a
number of manuscripts. “It’s too narrowly supported to
be admitted into the text, particularly in the view of the diversified
support for the shorter reading.” Then he lists all the different
manuscripts that have the shorter reading. He then goes on to say, “Since sunergeo, ‘working together,’ may be
taken to imply a personal subject, God, it seems to be a natural explanation
made by an Alexandrian editor. The bottom line he’s saying is that the
shorter reading is always to be preferred because the tendency of scribes was
to add something in order to enhance the explanation. It’s implied that
God is the one working all things together but that’s not what the text says.
I think the
reality is that usually the debate in textual criticism is between the critical
text and the majority text view. But this isn’t even a majority
text/critical text view. There’s just little support for this in the
manuscript. It’s only accepted in a couple of English translations and the
vast majority doesn't accept that because the manuscript evidence is just too
weak. So it’s implied in the text that God is the one who is working but
it doesn’t state that. “We know that all things work together for the good
to those who love God.”
Now this raises
the next question, “Who is it that loves God?” There’s two ways to look at
this. This is a really tough thing to try to resolve. The first view is that
this passage only relates to that class of Christians who are obedient to God
and are advancing spiritually. The second view is that this passage refers to
all believers whether they’re growing or not, faithful or not, or walking by
the Spirit or not. Let me give you the rationale behind each view. The first
view is that the passage only relates to that class of Christians that are
obedient and walking with the Lord. That this is how the phrase “loving God” is
used in many passages. Not everyone who is a believer not only in the Old
Testament or in the New Testament is a lover of God.
How does the
Scripture say we demonstrate our love for God? By being obedient. The
one who loves God keeps His commandments. So not everyone who is a
believer keeps His commandments. So view one emphasizes that
aspect. For instance in Exodus 20:6, “Showing loving kindness to
thousands, to those who love Me and keep my
commandments.”
Those are
viewed as going together: loving Him means you keep His
commandments. Deuteronomy 30:20 states, “By loving the Lord your God, by
obeying His voice and by holding fast to Him for He is your life.” Love and
obedience go together. If you say, “Oh I love God” and you’re not walking
with the Lord and you’re not obedient, you don’t love God. You just have a
lot of warm fuzzies about what you think is God but
you don’t love God.
Jesus says the
same kind of thing in the New Testament. In John 14:15, He says, “If you
love Me, you will keep My commandments.” John
14:21, “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me and
He who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will
disclose Myself to him.” Again, if you love God, you’re going to keep His
commandments. John 15:10, “If you keep My
commandments, you will abide in My love.”
Abiding in
God’s love is another way of talking about fellowship so again it’s
obedience. 1John 5:3 says, “For this is the love of God [the love for God
or toward God] that we keep His commandments.” So how do you know if you
have love for God? You keep His commandments. All of that is related
to keeping His commandments. The first view would say, “Okay, this verse
doesn’t apply to every believer. It only applies to those who love God, those
who are pursuing spiritual maturity.”
The second view
comes along and says, “No, the concept of those who love God is defined clearly
in context. Look at what it says.” “All things work together for good to those
who love God.” Those who love God are then explained as those who are the
“called according to His purpose.” Now who are those who are called according
to His purpose? Well, that’s
explained in verse 29, “For those whom He foreknew He also predestined..” Okay, how many people did He foreknow? Let’s just say
five billion. He predestined all of that five billion to become conformed to the
image of His Son. Any more? Any
less? No, it’s the same number.
It goes on in
verse 30 to say, “And those whom He predestined, He also called.” Did He
lose any or gain any? He doesn’t lose any or gain any. So the ones
whom He foreknew, that same exact number, no more, no less, are
predestined. That same number, “these He also called.” That same number—no
more, no less—is justified. So that means that all of those who are
saved and get eternal life and are justified are among those who are the set, fixed
group who are foreknown, and that set, fixed group that are predestined, and
“these whom He called, He also justified, and these whom He justified, He also
glorified.” So, according to the explanation in verse 30, those who are
called according to His purpose are everyone who is justified and everyone
that’s glorified. He doesn’t lose any. It’s not admitting of any
subset of faithless believers versus faithful believers. It doesn’t make
that division at all so the definition of who are the called applies to every
believer.
Now, how do we
resolve this? I think we resolve it by simply saying that this is true for
every believer, but Paul is simply applying it and addressing it to those who
are pursuing spiritual maturity. It’s true for every believer in one sense
but Paul, like John does in 1 John about the one who is born again doesn’t sin.
He is not using the term ‘born again’ as an exact equivalent, that every person
who is regenerated no longer sins; because if that’s true, none of us is
saved and we might as well go home. He’s talking about those who are
regenerate, those who are begotten of God, those who are living as family
members. He’s addressing the group that is pursuing spiritual
maturity.
That’s what you
have with Paul also. He addresses those who are going somewhere. He’s
not talking about those who are not going anywhere. He is encouraging, in
the context, those who are pursuing spiritual maturity and spiritual
growth.
He’s not
addressing those who have just decided to be unfaithful, to live in carnality
and walk according to the flesh. Even though the principle applies to
every believer, it is only a reality to those who are pursuing spiritual
maturity because it is what strengthens and encourages them as they face adversity.
Now that brings
us to the big term right in the middle of this verse and it’s defined and used
again in verse 30. That is the word ‘the called’. This is the
beginning where we’re going to have to go through each of these concepts:
calling, predestination, justification, and glorification. Let’s talk
about some concepts related to the term “calling”. This is just a basic
word. The Greek word is kaleo
and it simply refers in a generic sense to an invitation to
something. Just as we use our word call with a broad range of meaning, the
word kaleo has a broad range of meaning but
when it comes to theology, it is used to refer to the overall process, the
whole process whereby an unjustified sinner comes to understand the plan of
salvation and God’s invitation to them to receive salvation in
Christ. It’s a broad term. It refers to that whole process from the
beginning of understanding the plan of salvation, God’s invitation to every
human being to accept that salvation, and ultimately to those who have accepted
and received that salvation. So it’s a broad term. It can be used as
generically as an invitation and then it’s used in a little more precise
way.
The second
point I want to say about this in that in the development of theology, it’s
come to pack on a lot of baggage. It’s got a lot of additional meaning
that have been stuck on this. In the stream of Augustinianism, which I
mentioned Tuesday night, which preceded Calvinism, the term became identified
with a theological concept called ‘irresistible grace’.
((CHART))
I’ve got a little chart here, which I put together; a timeline, and this may
help you sort of conceptualize some of the things I talked about on Tuesday
night. On the one hand, we have, both in terms of philosophy and theology,
we have people who believe man is completely and totally free, that there’s
absolutely nothing to hinder human will and human freedom. They believe
man is free, just like Adam was created to make any decision, no external
influence on him whatsoever. On the other extreme, you have those who
believe that man is totally determined by God or by nature or by chemical
makeup or by something like that so there’s no freewill whatsoever. They
believe everything is programmed into your computer, your DNA. You do what you do because it’s all
programmed. That goes by the name of fatalism or determinism. It’s
impersonal.
On the left
side is those who believe man is absolutely free with
absolute free will, like Adam. On the other extreme we have those who have
an absolute determinism or absolute fatalism. Now I inserted this line of
Roman Catholics in the middle ages. This was their big debate between free
will and what we call Calvinism, a more deterministic view and those were the
representatives in the Roman Catholic tradition. The first person to use
the term ‘irresistible grace’ was Augustine. Augustine lived in the late
300’s, early 400’s, and he said that if God elected some and chose who would be
saved and who would not be saved, then what brings those who were the elect to
salvation is that God gives them grace but they can’t resist it.
That became an
extremely debated doctrine for the next hundred years until about 525 when you
had a council that met in Orange. They left out irresistible grace from the
Catholic doctrine of salvation. Pelagius was the British priest who believed
that everything was free, so he was Augustine’s great opponent. So Pelagianism was declared a heresy, but then you had the
Augustinian viewpoint, which is a very strong precursor to Calvinism. But at the
Senate of Orange the Roman Catholic Church basically adopted a view of semi-Augustianism. This gets real confusing. You’re not going to
get a test on this or anything but this gives you an
idea of what was going on. In the Middle Ages there was also another
intermediate view called semi-Pelagianism and it gets
really weird. There were a lot of debates that went on long before the
Protestant Reformation. That’s really the thing I want you to take away from
this is that these ideas have been debated over and over again long before
Christianity. They were debated among the Greek philosophers and a lot of those
Greek ideas were brought into the church, which affected how they interpreted
Scripture.
Even today a
lot of the books that are written on free will and the sovereignty of God have
a lot of philosophy in them and they just burst your brain cells. So this
just gives you kind of a little historical background and this all leads up to
the Protestant Reformation. By the time of the Reformation, semi-Pelagianism which is emphasizing a really heretical view of
freewill dominates the Roman Catholic Church so when you have the Protestant
Reformation, it’s spearheaded by a guy named Martin Luther who nails the 95
debate points or theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg, which was the
local Facebook page and calls for a debate over these
95 points that he thinks express all the abuses of the Roman Catholic
Church.
Martin Luther
was an Augustinian monk. He was in that order and he’s been reading Augustine
and he wants to go back and get away from this “loosy-goosy,
you can lose your salvation, you can work your way to heaven” kind of
understanding of the gospel which was dominating the Roman Catholic Church and
he wanted to go back to Augustinianism.
Having said all
of that, by the time you get past Calvin into the end of the 1500’s, there
developed a lot of controversy over these issues related to free will and
sovereignty among Calvinists. There was a theology professor by the name of
Jacob Arminius whose teaching in Holland and his followers [he died in 1609]
put together and summarized five basic points, which they wanted to emphasize,
on how they viewed man’s condition and salvation. Those were called the
Remonstrance and the Calvinists came up with what they called the
counter-remonstrance, which we call today the five points of Calvinism. That’s
indicated by the acronym T-U-L-I-P. T stands for total inability. Because of
sin, man is not capable of doing anything to not only please God but he can’t even
exercise positive volition toward God without a work of grace changing him. The
U stands for unconditional election, which means that God chooses who will be
saved and who won’t be saved and that’s really what determines whether you’re
saved or not. It has nothing to do with your volition or your belief in Christ
if God chose you ahead of time. The L stands for limited atonement. If God is
only going to save a few people then Christ only died for them. They ask, “Why
waste Christ’s blood?” If he died for the unsaved, He only spilled His blood on
Calvary. That’s how they’ll argue that. The I stands
for irresistible grace. This is the idea that for the elect to come to Christ
God has to irresistibly draw them, and He will only draw those who are elect. He won’t draw others. This is also called effectual
calling. The P stands for the perseverance for the saints. This is their
meaning of eternal security that Christ perseveres in keeping the saints saved.
But for many, in the last hundred years or so, especially the last fifty years,
the emphasis has been more on the fact that if the professing believer doesn’t
persevere or continue in his faith, then he wasn’t truly saved to begin with.
Not that he loses his salvation but he wasn’t truly saved to begin with and
that form of theology is what we refer to as “lordship salvation” or “lordship
theology”.
Let me put a
couple of quotes up here just to give you a little flavor of what is being
said. ((CHART)) This long quote up here comes from Millard Erickson who wrote a
three volume, now it’s a one volume, of systematic theology that has superseded
Chafer and Berkhoff and others at Dallas Seminary and
most seminaries today, except for Chafer seminary. He’s describing Calvinism
here. He says, “We’ve already seen several characteristics of election as
viewed by Calvinists. One is that election is an expression of God’s sovereign
will and good pleasure. It’s not based on any merit in the one elected or on
foreseeing that the individual will believe.” Now this is a side point. In Calvinism belief is meritorious.
That is, faith is given to you by God and faith has
merit. So we disagree strongly with that. He goes on to say, “It is cause [that
is, election is the cause], not the result of faith. Second, he says that election
is efficacious. Those whom God has chosen will most certainly come to faith in
Him and for that matter will persevere in that faith until the end. All of the
elect will certainly be saved. Third, he says election is for all eternity. It
is not a decision made at some point in time when the individual is already
existent. It is what God has always purposed to do. See, that is fatalism. It
doesn’t matter what you believe.
God already made the decision for you. That is a form of fatalism or
determinism. Fourth, he goes on to say, “Election is unconditional and doesn’t
depend on human performance, specific action or meeting certain conditions,
i.e., faith or terms of God.” There are some hyper-Calvinists who believe that
if God wants you to be saved, you’ll be saved whether you hear the gospel or
not. Then he goes on to say, “It is not that God wills to save people if they
do certain things. He simply wills to save them and brings it about.” Finally
he says, “Election is immutable. God will not change His mind. Election is from
all eternity and out of God’s infinite mercy He has no reason or occasion to
change His mind.” That’s his description of Calvinism.
Then he goes on
in his conclusion dealing with the work of the Holy Spirit and salvation, he
says, “Salvation consists of three steps, effectual calling [irresistible
grace].” This is not to be defined as God the Holy Spirit making a
person’s faith effectual for salvation. That is redefining a classical,
historical Calvinistic term. I’d had twenty or thirty guys go through
seminary and it’s taking me a year or so to beat that wrong definition out of
their heads because they read a Calvinist, they say, “Oh, this guy is
right.” No, effectual calling is a Calvinist synonym for irresistible
grace and you can’t ever re-define it. You have to let them use their
terms in their way.
Now, we had the
word calling used several ways in the Old Testament and it simply refers to a
commissioning. In Isaiah 42:6, he says, “I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness.” Isaiah 43:1 says,
“But now, thus says the Lord, your Creator, O Jacob, and He who formed you, O
Israel, Do not fear for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are
mine.” It relates to his commissioning of Israel. Isaiah 45:3, “I
will give you the treasures of darkness and hidden wealth of secret places, so
that you may know that it is I, the Lord, the God of Israel, who calls you by
your name.” He is saying, “I commissioned you and gave you a purpose and a
focus.
Same thing in
Isaiah 45:4 and all of this leads up to the fact that this is the same way Paul
uses the term “called” when he says, “I, Paul, called an apostle.” He’s
talking about it as a specific commission from God to be an apostle. But
there is a commissioning at salvation for every believer and this is how the
word calling is used. We’ll come back and take this up more in-depth next
time but I wanted to at least get to this point. In Ephesians 4:1, Paul says,
“Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy
of the calling [the commissioning, the task which I set before you] with which
you have been called. Every believer has this calling. This really
refers to the end process of what began as the initial external invitation,
external call to the gospel when you first heard it all the way up until you
believed in Christ. Those who have gone through that process are referred
to as “the called” because they’ve gone through that process. I skipped
over a lot of stuff in the middle of this to get the overall view down and then
next time I’ll deal with some questions and some other things there. We’re
out of time today.