Covenant, Election and Salvation

Is the covenant between God and man to be identified with election unto eternal salvation? Is it to be construed rather as something only very loosely related to salvation? Or is it to be viewed in yet a different manner? This issue has been answered in many ways by different Reformed thinkers over the centuries.

In Scripture, God is unafraid to call His covenant people His "elect." This does not mean that covenant and election (in the sense usually understood) are identical. Rather, because Christ is the preeminent Elect One, all those in Him are addressed by God as His chosen ones. This address is historical and not identical with the eternal decree of predestination to eternal glory. Thus, even though the apostles wrote to churches which doubtless contained members who were not chosen to eternal glory, nonetheless they identified their readers as the elect of God, because they really were a part of the body of the Elect One. This does not lead to false confidence, because these same writers, in the same epistles, provided warnings regarding the necessity of persevering in faith (e.g. 1 Cor 9.24-27). Ultimate benefit, arriving at the final goal of eternal glory, will only come about by way of one route: persevering faith granted and renewed by preserving grace.
To whom does the covenant of grace belong? Closely related and intertwined with the issue of the relationship between covenant and election is the question of who really belongs to the covenant, and to what degree. Numerous writers argue that according to Scripture and early Reformed theology, the covenant embraces a visible community. (Hence, this question relates too to that of the Church.)

In Scripture, there is a much more marked connection between God and an identifiable community than is frequently made today. God associates His name with even wicked people in a remarkable fashion. For example, in 2 Chronicles 36.15-16, we are told that God “had compassion on His people,” but that “they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy” (NKJV). Even though Judah in this instance was under divine wrath, they were identified as God’s. His name was upon them by virtue of His covenant.

Nor is this a situation unique to the Old Testament, as is sometimes suggested. Peter says that false teachers will “deny the Lord who bought them” (2 Peter 2.1), implying some kind of redemptive connection between Jesus and teachers who stray from the truth. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul employs the wilderness generation of Israel, which fell under divine judgment, as “types” (Greek tupoi - a word which refers to something which sets a pattern) for the present people of God (1 Cor 10.6, 11), who are therefore to take the warning to heart, not to imitate them. Just as Israel was baptized into Moses, ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink - and in fact partook of Christ (1 Cor 10.4) - and yet perished, so the present people of God are to take heed lest they fall (1 Cor 10.12).

Bibliography
Disclaimer: inclusion of material in the bibliography implies neither endorsement of all views expressed in the material, nor that the author of the material endorses (or, if deceased, would have endorsed) the views of this web site. The criterion for inclusion of material in this list is genuine helpfulness to the discussion, not uniformity of viewpoint.

John Barach: “Covenant and Election.” (In The Federal Vision; Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner, eds. Monroe, LA:  Athanasius Press, 2004, pp. 15-44.) A pastoral reflection upon how Scripture addresses the people of God, and a plea to do our preaching and theologizing in imitation of that pattern.
John Calvin, “Special and Common Election.” An excerpt.

Tim Gallant: “Covenant and Election:  A Brief Introduction to Various Views.” A very succinct overview to issues under discussion.

Thomas Goodwin:  “The Covenant Seed: That the Children of Believing Parents Are Included in the Covenant.” An argument from a well-known Puritan regarding the status of believers’ children.

Peter A. Lillback: The Binding of God:  Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.) A highly important study in the original sources, tracing the genesis and shape of early covenant theology.  The section on Zwingli is particularly pertinent to the question of the relationship between covenant and election.

Rich Lusk: “Covenant and Election FAQs.” Responses to various frequent objections or questions raised by the relationship between covenant and election.

Dr. J. Van Genderen: Covenant and Election. (C. Pronk, trans.  Neerlandia, AB: Inheritance, 1995.) Argues that covenant and election are related but not to be identified.

Quotations
What then of Esau if he had died as an infant? Would your judgment place him among the elect? Yes. Then does election remain sure? It does. And rejection remains also. But listen. If Esau had died an infant he would doubtless have been elect. For if he had died then there would have been the seal of election, for the Lord would not have rejected him eternally. But since he lived and was of the non-elect, he so lived that we see in the fruit of his unfaith that he was rejected by the Lord.
- Ulrich Zwingli, Refutation of the Tricks of the Anabaptists 1527

But he makes a special covenant with Isaac, which rises above the world and this frail life: not for the sake of cutting Ishmael off from the hope of eternal life, but in order to teach him that salvation is to be sought from the race of Isaac, where it really dwells.

- John Calvin, Commentaries on Genesis at 17.20

SOURCE: CovenantRenewal.com

The Work Of The Trinity In The Salvation Of Sinners

BY Michael L Gowens

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Galatians 4:4-6

The Bible, because it is the word of the eternal, righteous, and immutable God, never contradicts itself. When properly understood, there is an amazing symmetry and consistency in the historical facts it cites, the ethical standards it upholds, and the theological truths it champions. Whenever an apparent contradiction occurs, the disharmony is not in God’s book, but in man’s mind. The interpreter’s challenge, consequently, is essentially a matter of synthesizing each verse with its immediate context, then with the particular book in which it appears, then with the other inspired writing of that same human author, and finally, with the many other claims the Bible makes as a whole. He does this by comparing scripture with scripture. When a level of consistency is achieved so that the truths fit together in a unified way, like the many pieces of jigsaw puzzle go together to form a big picture, then he can be reasonably certain that his view is correct.

Admittedly, accurate interpretation is not easy. But neither is it impossible. Divine help notwithstanding, the more you know- the better grasp you have of the big picture-the easier it will be to understand how all the theological pieces fit together. Remember, the goal is to understand every truth in the light of every other truth so that a kind of theological unity, consistency, harmony, and symmetry prevails.

With that premise, I proceed to state a hypothesis which I will then endeavor to prove: The Biblical doctrine of the Trinity makes the doctrines of unconditional election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and eternal security a necessity. In other words, "the doctrine of grace" is the only theology of salvation that is consistent with the revealed truth that God is triune. That’s my hypothesis. Let’s attempt to establish it Scripturally.

God is Tripersonal 
Scripture teaches unequivocally that God is triune. The Godhead is composed of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (I Jno. 5:7). Few tenets of the Christian faith have come under greater attack than the doctrine of the Trinity, and few verses of Scripture have been the subject of greater technical scrutiny that I John 5:7, no doubt because it is so unmistakably clear.

First John 5:7 defines the Trinity in terms of "three Persons within the unity of one God:" "There are three that bear record in heaven… and these three are one." God is, therefore, triune, for "trinity" means "tri-unity." This doctrine is, in Pauline language, a Divine mystery. There is more to it than finite minds can comprehend. From passages like Matthew 28:19, however, where the Lord commissions the church to baptize " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," a formula for expressing this mysterious doctrine emerges. Note the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost implied by the use of the conjunction "and" : "…in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The language implies that there is a distinction of persons in the Godhead. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. They are distinct, the one from the other. Now note that the word "name" is singular. Jesus did not say "in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit," but "in the name…", singular. This suggests that there is a unity of essence within the Godhead. From this verse, the Christian faith derives the formula expressing the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of "a distinction of Persons but a unity of essence." In other words, there is within the Godhead three Divine Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit - who are one in mind, in attribute, in design, in purpose, in ability, and in glory. The Father is 100% God; the Son is 100% God; and the Spirit is100% God. Yes, that is a mystery, not unlike the mystery of the two natures of Christ who was at the same time God of very God and man of very man, not half God and half man. Formulae like this are not intended to explain everything so that no mystery remains, but to safeguard the mystery so that God is not misrepresented by those who speak in His name.

Both oneness and threeness are basic to the being of God. When Christians say they believe in the Trinity, they are not saying that there is one Person in the Godhead who wears three masks, like comedian Red Skelton playing his three famous characters - Klemm Kididdlehopper, Freddie the Freeloader, and The Mean Little Kid - all in the same skit. It is not that God sometimes plays the role of the Father, then decides to be the Son, and then puts on the mask of the Spirit. That’s unitarianism! The unitarian model fails to explain how there could be interaction within the Godhead as expressed in John14:16: "I [the Son] will pray the Father and He will send the Comforter, that He may abide with you forever;" and Psalm110:1: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I make the enemies thy footstool." God is not a unit, but a unity. Neither are they saying that they worship three Gods. That’s tritheism! But they are saying that there are three Persons in the Godhead, but one God (I Cor. 8:4-7; cf. Deut. 6:4; Jno. 10:30; 2 Cor. 3:17). Biblical and Historical Christianity is unquestionably trinitarian (Lk. 1:35; Jno. 14:16; Jno. 15:26; Eph. 2:18; Mt.28:19; 2Cor. 13:14; I Jno. 5:7; Rev. 1:4-5).

Salvation is the Work of God 
So, God is a trinity. That’s premise one. Now let’s establish a second premise from Scripture, namely, that salvation is God’s work, not man’s: "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jon. 2:9); "so then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. 9:16); "[God] who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim. 1:9).

What does it mean to say that salvation is God’s work? It means that God works alone, apart from man’s assistance in the salvation of sinners; therefore, all glory goes to God: "But of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is make unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (I Cor. 1:30-31). It also means that the three Persons of the Godhead work together in the salvation of simmers. "Salvation is of the Lord" means that salvation is the work of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, for God is Tripersonal.

Theologians employ a special phrase ("the economy of the Godhead") to describe the united operation of the three Persons. In whatever activity God engages, the three Divine Persons move in perfect unity, harmony, and cooperation. For example, Creation was the work of the Father (Gen. 1:1) by the Son (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2) through the agency of the Spirit (Gen. 1:2). Compare also Genesis 1:26-27. There was no conflict, difference of opinion, or disunity within the Godhead in the work of Creation. The combined operation of the Godhead is also displayed in the resurrection of Jesus. Scripture attributes Christ’s resurrection to the Father (Acts 2:24; Acts 13:30), the Son (Jno. 2:19; Jno. 10:18), and the Spirit (Rom. 1:4; Rom. 8:11; I Per. 3:18). Although the three Persons of the Godhead have their respective offices and distinct identities, yet a marvellous oneness and unanimity prevails.

The economy of the Godhead shines most brilliantly in the work of salvation. Note the Divine cooperation expressed in verses like Isaiah 48:16, "The Lord God and His Spirit hath sent Me…", and 2 Corinthians 5:19, "…God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself…" Nowhere is this scene more vivid than in rich theological passages like Ephesians 1 and Romans 8, where Father, Son, and Spirit are pictured as a Divine Team in their respective covenant activities. The covenant of grace was planned by the Father (Eph. 1:4-5; Rom. 8:28-29,33; 2Tim. 1:9), executed by the Son (Eph. 1:7; Rom.8:3-4,34; Jno. 6:37), and applied by the Spirit(Rom. 8:2,9,15). From start to finish, salvation is of the Lord, without the slightest hint of inconsistency or incongruity within the Godhead.

Three New Testament passages express the economy of the Godhead in salvation concisely. By comparing them with one another, we can sharpen the focus on the respective roles of each Divine Person in the Work of salvation. The first, Galatians 4:4-6, heads this essay. The second is I Peter 1:2; "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ…" The third is Jude 1: "Jude…to them that are sanctified by God the Father, preserved in Jesus Christ, and called…" Do you see the references to Father, Son, and Spirit in each of the above verses? By putting these verses together, a composite picture of Trinitarian cooperation in salvation emerges.

(1) The Work of the Father - The passages in Peter and Jude present the Father as the Orchestrator of salvation in the covenant. Election, Foreknowledge (I Pet. 1:2a), and Sanctification (Jude 1a) refer to the initial act of God whereby He chose those whom He loved and set them apart to salvation before the foundation of the world. Each term refers to God’s covenant activity. Contrary to popular interpretation, "foreknowledge" is not synonymous with the attribute of God’s omniscience, but a relational term expressing the idea of covenant love (Cf. Gen. 4:25; Mt. 7:23; Jno. 10:27b). In other words, the word does not refer to rational knowledge, but relational knowledge, not to information but to intimacy. In this sense, God foreknew people, not events: "For whom He did foreknow…" (Rom. 8:29a). God’s choice of a people before the world began was based on His own initiative to establish a covenant relationship with those whom He loved: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God…" Those whom He loved and chose, He also set apart for Himself, that is, He sanctified them (Jude 1a). Again, the reference to sanctification as a work of the Father must be understood in terms of the covenant of redemption before the world began. In the same way that the Father "sanctified" the Son (i.e. set Him apart in the covenant of grace) and sent Him into the world (Jno. 10:36, He also sanctified His people (again, He set them apart in the covenant as His own special people) and "sent redemption" to them: "He sent redemption to His people: He hath commanded His covenant for ever: holy and reverend is His name " (Ps. 111:9). It was precisely this group of people, i.e., those set apart in the covenant, who were redeemed by Jesus Christ: "For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). The Galatians passage presents God the Father as the great Choreographer of salvation, dispatching (sending) the Son (v.4) and the Spirit (v.6) at the precise and appropriate time, in order to bring us into his family as His adopted sons. The Father who initiated the covenant also orchestrates and deploys the covenant requirements for salvation (cf. Eph. 1:5).

(2) The Work of the Son - Galatians 4:4-5 presents the Son as the Redeemer. The verb "to redeem" means to buy back by paying a price. It presupposes prior ownership, for one cannot "buy back" what one never owned. By definition, then, the doctrine of redemption is inseparably connected to the doctrine of election. Are you beginning to see a kind of continuity in the plan of salvation? The Father sent redemption to His people, and the Son carried out the Father’s plan completely, securing redemption for them all. The Son did not merely make men redeemable, savable, or reconcilable. He actually redeemed (I Pet. 1:18). He accomplished salvation (Jno. 19:30). He reconciled (Col. 1:21)! When he ascended back to the Father’s right hand, He had "obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9:12). In Christ, all the elect "have redemption through His blood" (Eph.1:7). I Peter 1:2c presents the Son as the Purifier, the One who by the sprinkling of His blood cleansed "His own People" from their sins (Heb. 13:12; Rev. 1:5). This is definitive sanctification (Heb. 2:11; I Cor. 1:2). Jude 1b presents Him as the Warden, who guards the souls He has redeemed. Tereo, the Greek word translated "preserved" means "to keep an eye on; to guard like a warden guards a prisoner." Because they are guarded by the Good Shepherd, no man is able to pluck the sheep from Christ’s hand (Jno. 10:27).

(3) The Work of the Spirit - Galatians 4:6 presents the Holy Spirit as the Divine Resident of the soul. The Father sends the Spirit to indwell the same people for whom the Son was sent in redemption: "Because you are sons [that is, by adoption] God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6). When he takes up residence in the soul, the Holy Visitor promotes spiritual desire for God comparable to a child’s intuitive desire for its parent. Through this "Spirit of adoption" we cry "Abba, Father" (Rom. 8:9). I Peter 1:2 pictures the Spirit as the Sanctifier, the One who personally applies the blood of Christ to the soul, individually and vitally cleansing the heart from personal sin. In contrast to the Father’s sanctifying work, which we called "covenant sanctification," and the Son’s sanctifying work, which we called "definitive sanctification," the Spirit’s work of sanctification in respect to eternal salvation might be expressed by the term "vital sanctification." When a person is born again, he is cleansed and washed within by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:24; Titus 3:5; Jno. 13:10). Jude presents the Spirit as the Voice, the One who calls the chosen and redeemed individual, though personally dead in sins, into new life by His sovereign, life-giving voice (Jno. 5:25). The Spirit only calls those whom the Father elected: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28). But, He calls them everyone: "For whom He did foreknow, them He also did predestinate…moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called…" (Rom. 8:29-30). Do you see the unity and consistency that prevails in God’s plan of salvation? Interestingly, the word kletos, translated "called" in these texts speaks of the power, force, and Divine greatness of the call. The word does not speak of an invitation, like "the call of the wild," but of a creative fiat, a Divine imperative. The call of God in regeneration is an effectual call, accomplishing God’s intended objective every time.

Application 
My hypothesis states that the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity makes the doctrines of unconditional election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and preservation of the saints a necessity. There is no other school of soteriological thought that is consistent with the revelation of the Godhead. If one accepts what the Bible says about the Being of God, he is forced to the conclusion of sovereign grace, if he will be consistent. On what basis can I make such bold (and some may say, dogmatic) claim? On the basis of this fact:

Every other position regarding how sinners are saved disrupts the unity of the Godhead. Take, for instance, the idea of general atonement (i.e. Christ died for all men without exception and offers salvation freely to all who will repent, believe, accept, etc.). I ask, will all for whom Christ died ultimately be saved? General atonement says, "No, for only those who accept His offer will be born again by the Spirit." This position disrupts the unity of the Trinity, for it teaches that the Son died for all, but the Spirit will only call some. What about the popular belief that God chose those He forenew would believe in Him, although He loved the entire human race and made salvation available to them all at the cross? By defining election in terms of the foreseen faith of the believer, a consistency is reached between the work of the Father and the work of the Spirit, but what about the work of the Son? This position says that the Father chose some, the Son died for all, and the Spirit will call some. Again, there is disunity. Many Christians, I venture to say, believe that God the Father loves all people equally, that God the Son died for all people equally, but that the Spirit will only call those who respond in faith to the gospel. Again, this position introduces an element of inconsistency into the Trinity. The idea that some who have been redeemed can backslide to the point that they lose their salvation also interjects an element of uncertainty and incongruity into the Godhead. Whatever form it takes - the Father chose all, the Son died for all, but the Spirit will only call some; the Father chose some, the Son died for all, but the Spirit will only call some - the interjection of a human element into the work of salvation contradicts the Biblical testimony concerning the harmony and unity of the Trinity and makes the outcome of salvation vague and uncertain. The old adage puts it succinctly: A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.

Is salvation uncertain? 2 Timothy 2:19 says, "The foundation of God standeth sure having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His…." 2 Samuel 23:5 says that God’s covenant is "ordered in all things and sure…." Matthew 1:21 says that Jesus "shall save His people from their sins." Language of certainty like this is unintelligible so long as salvation depends on man at any level.

The "doctrine of grace" is the only model of salvation that preserves the unity of the Trinity by maintaining consistency and harmony from start to finish. God the Father chose a people. God the Son redeemed that precise people. God the Holy Spirit calls that same people from death in sin to life in Christ. Not one shall be lost. Everyone the Father intended to have with Him will be with Him. One day Jesus will say, "Behold I and the children that Thou hast given me" (Heb. 2:13), not some of the children or most of the children, but every one the Father loved, the Son redeemed, and the Spirit called. From start to finish, Salvation is of the Lord, by His free and sovereign grace.

Few verses more plainly demonstrate the consistency and continuity of the work of salvation than Romans 8:29-31. Trace the "whom’s" and the "them’s" in the passage: "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" Because salvation is God’s work, the "glorified" at the end of verse thirty are precisely the same people designated as the "foreknown" at the beginning of verse twenty-nine. Salvation is of the Lord, by free and sovereign grace! No other school of thought harmonizes with the other Bible doctrines. No other missing piece fits the puzzle. The doctrine of the Trinity makes belief in the doctrine of grace the only option for those who would be true to the word of God.

Source: Sovereign Grace Publications

DEBATE: Dr. Michael Brown Versus Dr. James R. White

Youtube Video: Dr. Michael Brown vs. Dr. James White - Predestination, Election and the Will of God

Dr. Michael L. Brown vs. Dr. James White at Southern Evangelical Seminary, February 14, 2013.

For whom did Christ die?

Dr. James White v. Dr. Michael Brown

In reflecting on this "debate" Dr. White wrote:

First, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the term “debate” in this instance, for a number of reasons. This might be one of those times where “discussion” is really the better term. The actual interaction time was limited, only about 53 minutes total, after which time our discussion was driven by the audience in the main. And though we both attempted to be as brief and concise as possible, still, without specific time controls, complete equality was not possible to obtain. And particularly in the second discussion we (I think quite properly) had more actual personal interaction on a pastoral level.

Whatever term we choose to describe the discussions, they were most certainly unusual for most of Christian television anywhere in the world, and in Europe in particular. While there may be lots of panel discussions recorded for broadcast, this kind of open and honest disagreement based upon the highest view of Scripture and inspiration, by two participants, both of whom have studied the biblical languages (Michael being the expert in Hebrew, and I having the advantage in Greek), is certainly not your normal fare on what is called Christian television. On that level alone I am very pleased that these programs will be available for viewing for at least the foreseeable future.

This is not the first time Michael and I have demonstrated that you can disagree strongly and still do so respectfully...

Regarding the Atonement Discussion

I did all I could to start the debate on the right foot, which is hard to do in less than five minutes. But I focused upon what must be the heart of any such discussion: the vital relationship between the extent of the atonement and the divine intention of the atonement. This element, together with 1) the covenantal nature of the death of Christ as the very ground and source of the New Covenant and, 2) the intimate, necessary, and glorious nature of Christ’s high priestly role and hence the connection of atonement and intercession, formed the heart of my argument. I believe a fair analysis of the encounter would confirm that these arguments were not undercut by anything Michael offered. Instead, it was plain to me that his opening arguments were based not on the provision of a biblical doctrine of atonement, but upon a general denial of particularity in salvation itself. He focused far more upon emphasizing “all” passages than upon providing any kind of positive doctrine of intentionality or accomplishment in atonement. This was not a failure on Michael’s part, it is the nature of non- Reformed soteriology in general. It simply does not go deeply into the biblical revelation at this point, for the deepest most illuminating texts on this topic (Romans 8, the Hebrews chapters) are all connected to sovereignty, election, priesthood and intercession. This is why Michael was forced (and this, to me, was the deciding moment in the debate) to divide, conceptually and practically, the atoning work of the High Priest and the intercessory work. So, Christ dies for every individual, even for those already under God’s judgment, but Michael sees how impossible it is to keep that priestly work unified, so he denied that Christ is interceding for those who are already under judgment. Now if he could just follow that thought to its conclusion and see the power of it! Instead, he seemed to wish to deny the fact that even in Israel you had the physical offspring of Abraham and the spiritual offspring of Abraham, and that it is the remnant (λεῖμμα), those who are of faith, who were in view in the sacrifices and the priestly ministrations. So he wished to insist that the sacrifice of atonement on the day of atonemente was for all of Israel, and hence potential in nature. I disputed this on a few accounts, but time did not allow an in-depth discussion.

I would simply point out that 1) the offering in Leviticus 16 is limited to the covenant people of God; it did not make atonement for the Egyptians or Moabites or Assyrians. It was, by nature, covenantal and hence “limited”;

2) there is good ground for arguing for a limitation even within the Old Covenant context based upon the obedience and faith of the remnant of Israel (many bore in their bodies the covenant sign but were not of the remnant as they were not of faith); but most importantly

3) the New Testament text makes the limitation explicit in the phrase τους προσερχομενους δι αυτου τω θεω, those drawing near to God through Him (Hebrews 7:25). In any case, the powerful argument based upon Christ’s high priestly ministry, together with the inarguable fact that the ones for whom the sacrifice is offered and the ones for whom the High Priest intercedes are identical, was clearly presented and defended. I truly wonder how many who heard that program heard about these wondrous truths for the first time? What a privilege to have the opportunity to proclaim them!

Of course, if someone in the audience does not remain focused upon the topic, they may well be distracted by the other issues raised, especially by the audience interaction. Texts such as 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, etc., which I have discussed in depth in my published works, again show that the primary objection to particular redemption is found in a rejection of particularity as a whole, i.e., in objections to election. I can only hope that those who found those objections weighty will take the time to dig into the interactions Michael and I had previously on those topics.

Here then is Part 1:

Part 2: Questions and Answers



Taken from Reformation Theology. For more similar articles pls click HERE.

Christ and the Fulfillment of Prophecy

          One of the most compelling lines of biblical evidence for the amillennial position is how a number of Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the New.1 Setting these matters out carefully is important when treating the subject of the millennium, especially since dispensational premillenarians insist on a literal fulfillment of these prophecies in a future millennial age. If these prophecies have already been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, much of the dispensational case for a future earthly millennium simply evaporates. Dispensationalists tell us that these prophecies remain unfulfilled until Jesus Christ returns to earth to establish his millennial kingdom. Paul, on the other hand, told us, “What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened” (Rom. 11:7). Thus, true Israel, those Jews who have embraced Jesus Christ through faith, has already received the inheritance promised God’s people, since they are the children of promise (Rom. 9:6–8).

Christ, the True Israel

When we use the prophetic vision of Israel’s prophets and look to the future, what do we see? The prophets anticipated a time when Israel would be restored to her former greatness. Such a prophetic vision included not only the restoration of the nation but also a restoration of the land of Canaan, the city of Jerusalem, the throne of David, and the temple. The nation had been taken into captivity, the magnificent temple had been destroyed, and the priesthood had gone some five centuries before Christ’s first advent, so these prophetic expectations spoke of a reversal of fortune—the undoing of calamity that had come upon the nation. In fact, with apostolic hindsight Peter told of how “the prophets, who spoke. searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1Pet. 1:10–12).

The prophet Isaiah spoke of a future restoration of Israel in these terms:
“But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said ‘You are my servant’; I have chosen you and have not rejected you” (41:8–9). The same promise was reiterated in the next chapter of Isaiah (42:1–7), when the Lord declared of his servant, “I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles” (v.6).Isaiah continued to speak of this servant in chapters 44 (vv. 1–2) and 45 (v.4).

Dispensationalists, who interpret such passages literally, assign the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies to a future earthly millennium in which Israel will coexist with Gentiles under the reign of the Davidic king.2 Is this how the New Testament interpreted these messianic prophecies regarding the servant of the Lord? Who is this servant of the Lord—the nation of Israel or Jesus, Israel’s Messiah? The Gospel writers interpreted these prophecies from Isaiah as fulfilled in the messianic mission of Jesus. As Jesus cast out demons and healed the sick, Matthew saw in this the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies of a suffering servant who would take upon himself our infirmities and carry our diseases (Matt. 8:17 with Isa. 53:4). Luke spoke of both Israel and David as servants of God (Luke 1:54, 69). Yet, in Acts, Luke pointedly spoke of Jesus as the servant of God (Acts 3:13). After Jesus’s crucifixion, God raised him from the dead so that people everywhere might be called to repentance (Acts 3:26). Later on, when the Ethiopian eunuch read Isaiah 53:7–8 and asked Philip to whom this prophecy referred, Philip told him that this passage was about Jesus (Acts 8:34–35). But this is not all that is in view here. The prophet Hosea quoted God as saying, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (11:1). But Matthew told us that Hosea’s prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus’s parents took him to Egypt for a time as a baby to protect him from Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents” (Matt. 2:13–18). Thus, Matthew, not the “spiritualizing amillenarian” centuries later, took a passage from Hosea that referred to Israel and told his readers that it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

According to many New Testament writers, Jesus was the true servant, the true Son, and the true Israel of God. Recall as well that Isaiah spoke of Israel and the descendants of Abraham as the people of God. It was through the seed of Abraham that the nations of the earth would be blessed. Therefore, even as Jesus was the true Israel, he was the true seed of Abraham. Paul made this point in Galatians 3:7–8 when he said that “those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’” Paul’s words here are important for several reasons. First, they tell us that Abraham believed the same gospel that Paul preached to the Gentile Galatians. There has been only one plan of salvation and one gospel from the very beginning. This, of course, raises serious questions about the dispensational theory of distinct redemptive purposes for national Israel and the Gentiles. Paul also explained, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). From the beginning of redemptive history, the true children of Abraham, whether Jews or Gentiles, will be heirs of God’s promise if they belong to Jesus Christ, the true seed of Abraham.3 
          The ramifications for this on one’s millennial view should now be obvious. The New Testament writers claimed that Jesus was the true Israel of God and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. So what remains of the dispensationalists’ case that these prophecies will yet be fulfilled in a future millennium? They vanish in Jesus Christ, who has fulfilled them.

The Land of Canaan, the City of Jerusalem, and the Mountain of the Lord

When God established his covenant with Abraham and his descendants after him “to be your God and the God of your descendants after you,” he also promised the great patriarch, “The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God” (Gen. 17:7–8). According to classical dispensationalists, this promise was “an unconditional covenant made with Israel and therefore cannot be either abrogated or fulfilled by people other than the nation Israel.”4 In other words, God’s unconditional promise of a land to Abraham’s descendants is everlasting and therefore can be fulfilled only by the return of national Israel to her ancient homeland. At first glance, this appears to be a compelling argument, especially since the nation of Israel was formed in Palestine in 1948, amounting to a return of the Jews to the land of their fathers. But once again the critical question is, How did the authors of the New Testament view this prophecy?

To answer this question, we must first answer a different one. How did Israel’s own prophets understand this promise of a land that God made to Abraham? Once again, returning to the words of Isaiah, we find language such as this:

“Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy. I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy the works of their hands. They will not toil in vain or bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed by the Lord, they and their descendants with them. Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” says the Lord. (Isa. 65:17–25; cf. 66:22)

The promise of the land in Canaan made to Abraham was reinterpreted by Isaiah to mean a new heaven and a new earth, not just the land of Canaan. This is an easy claim to make, but what is the evidence for it? As we have seen, Joshua regarded God’s promise of the land of Canaan as provisionally fulfilled when Israel took possession after the exodus (Josh. 1:2–9; 21:43). Israel’s prophets, writing during the exile, when Israel had been cast from the land, universalized the promise of a land in Canaan to include a new heaven and a new earth, the fruit of the eschatological victory won by the suffering servant and conquering king.5 Because God swore the oath of ratification in the covenant of promise, God ensured that the everlasting promise entailed by the covenant would be realized. This would be true even if God’s covenant people disobeyed and lost their inheritance, receiving instead divine sanctions, such as being cast from the land.

The idea of land promised under the Abrahamic covenant was also universalized in several passages in the New Testament. In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul described the role of Abraham in redemptive history. Notice again the promise God made to Abraham: “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. The whole land of Canaan. I will give as an everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:7–8). In Romans 4:13, Paul saw the fulfillment of this as follows: “It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.” As Robert Strimple so aptly puts it, “Where in the Old Testament do you find the promise that Paul refers to here? Nowhere if you insist on a strict literalism. But you find it in Genesis 17:8 if you see that this is inspired apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament promise that Paul is giving us here.”6

The author of Hebrews made a similar point when he wrote that ultimately Abraham was not looking just to Canaan, even though he and his descendants after him lived in the Promised Land. Abraham “was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Peter also picked up on this prophetic expansion of the Promised Land when he wrote, “In keeping with his [God’s] promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness” (2Pet. 3:13). The inheritance promised to Abraham, which was couched in premessianic terms as a reference to the land of Canaan, was, after Israel took possession of the land under Joshua, subsequently reinterpreted by Isaiah, Paul, the author of Hebrews, and Peter as a new heaven and a new earth.7
         If the New Testament writers did in fact reinterpret the promise of a land in terms of a new heaven and a new earth, this raises great difficulties for premillenarians who assign these prophecies to an earthly millennial age—a halfway consummation yet to dawn—instead of understanding these promises in terms of a new creation and the final consummation. If this interpretation is correct, amillenarians are no less literal in their hermeneutic than the New Testament writers. This same pattern of a premessianic prophecy being reinterpreted in the New Testament also holds for those prophecies dealing with the city of Jerusalem and the mountain of the Lord. Like the prophet Isaiah, Micah gave us the following vision of what lies ahead: In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it. Many nations will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid, for the Lord Almighty has spoken. All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever. (4:1–5) In this amazing vision, Micah foresaw not only a glorious time for Israel but also a period in which the knowledge of the Lord will extend to the very ends of the earth. 

Dispensationalists are clear about how this prophecy is to be interpreted. This text, they say, along with a similar passage in Isaiah 2:2–4, refers to Israel’s future exaltation during the millennial age when the city of Jerusalem is the seat of God’s millennial government.8 But this is an erroneous interpretation because it ignores an important step in the interpretive process, namely, how the New Testament writers understood this prophecy in light of the coming of Jesus Christ.The pattern for how these premessianic images were interpreted should now be clear. We ask one more time, What did the New Testament writers do with these Old Testament prophecies?

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could not be more clear about how he understood this prophecy. Though Old Testament prophets spoke of the earthly city of Jerusalem, the New Testament writers did not say these prophecies would be fulfilled in a future earthly Jerusalem. On the contrary, the author of Hebrews said the prophecy was already fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

        You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.” The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (12:18–24) In Jesus Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem has already come, even now.9

This point is especially problematic for postmillenarians who see Micah 4:1–5 and Isaiah 2:2–4 as important texts supporting the idea that a millennial age, in which the nations will turn to Christ, is yet to dawn in this present age. Agreeing with amillenarians that this prophecy is fulfilled before the second advent of Jesus Christ, postmillenarians see this passage as finding fulfillment in the last days in which “a spiritually renewed church attracts the nations (v.2) to the Christian faith by the vitality and depth of its worship, doctrine and life.”10 

The problem with the postmillennial interpretation is simply this:
If it is self-evident that this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, why did the author of Hebrews speak of the fulfillment as a present reality? We can go a step farther. Strimple shows us that postmillenarians “must view Christ’s kingly reign as a failure so far.”11 This, it seems to me, is highly problematic. Yet, dispensationalists will undoubtedly remind us that the same author who said that in Jesus Christ the new Jerusalem has already come also said in the next chapter, “We are looking for the city that is to come” (Heb. 13:14). This is a problem for dispensationalists because they fail to distinguish between the earthly copy and the heavenly reality.12 The earthly city is a redemptivehistorical picture of a heavenly reality yet to come. A word of explanation is in order. The apostle John spoke of the new Jerusalem as though it were yet future (Rev. 21:2). When we look more closely at the text, however, we see that this heavenly city is even now coming down from heaven. The new creation, which will be consummated with the coming of Christ in judgment on the last day, has already been inaugurated and is a present reality for the people of God.13 But how can the new Jerusalem be said to be both present and future? To understand this, we need to distinguish between the earthly copy and the heavenly reality. The author of Hebrews distinguished between earthly and heavenly things: “It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence” (9:23–24). When we speak of the premessianic prophetic expectations regarding the city of Jerusalem and the mountain of the Lord as fulfilled in Christ but awaiting a final consummation at the end of the age, we are speaking of the earthly Jerusalem serving as a type or a copy of the heavenly reality, which now is realized in principle. If true, this strikes a serious blow to the root of dispensational and premillennial expectations about Jesus reigning over an earthly kingdom from a new Jerusalem. The earthly Jerusalem was intended to point us to Jesus Christ and to serve as a shadow of the realities to come when God makes all things new.

David’s Greater Son

Dispensationalists place great weight on their interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant, but the Davidic covenant is right behind it in terms of importance. Based on God’s promise that he would establish the kingdom of David’s son forever (2 Sam. 7:12–16), dispensationalists believe this promise was partially fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, with the final fulfillment delayed because of Israel’s stubborn refusal to embrace Jesus as her messianic king. This prophecy stated that the throne of David will be established forever. Since dispensationalists believe that such prophecies must be interpreted literally, this necessitates a literal rule of Jesus Christ on the earth during a future millennial kingdom. At that time the postponed kingdom will be finally consummated. John Walvoord feels so strongly about the literal fulfillment of this prophecy that he believes amillenarians commit exegetical fraud by spiritualizing literal prophecies such as this one.15
         Since no one wants to be guilty of such an offense, the safest course of action is to return to the New Testament interpretation of the Davidic covenant. Before we do so, we ought to note that the prophecy of 2 Samuel 7 does not stand alone. In the famous words of Isaiah 9:7, we read, regarding the coming Redeemer, that “of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.” In Psalm 2:7–9, we find the following: “I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.’” That a descendant of David would return to Israel and rule over his kingdom was a major aspect of the prophetic expectation of Israel and occupied a significant role in the New Testament. From the beginning of Jesus’s messianic mission, his identity as the heir to David’s throne was clearly established. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus’s link to David was established through the use of genealogy (1:1–17). In the birth narrative in Luke’s Gospel, Luke informed his readers that the angel Gabriel told Mary: Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end. (1:30–33)

According to Matthew and Luke, the prophecies of Samuel, Isaiah, and the psalmist were fulfilled in Jesus. But how does his birth fulfill the prophecy of an everlasting kingdom? The answer to this is also found in Luke’s writings, though not in the infancy narratives. When Peter delivered the Pentecost sermon, he preached to Jews who did not yet believe that Jesus was the Christ. To make his case, he had to demonstrate that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be. The two most effective tools to do this were the apologetic arguments from fulfilled prophecy and miracle. Therefore, Peter pointed out that the eternal kingdom promised to David’s son was finally realized in the resurrection of Jesus. Because Jesus conquered death and the grave, Peter could say with confidence: Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:29–36)

It was in Christ’s resurrection and ascension, therefore, that God fulfilled his promise that David’s greater son would rule the nations with an everlasting kingdom. People’s greatest foe is death, and in his resurrection Jesus emerged victorious. This is why his kingdom is everlasting and why he is both Lord and Christ. When dispensationalists complain that amillenarians spiritualize these great Old Testament prophecies by saying they are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, perhaps they should take this up with the apostles who did the very thing of which dispensationalists are so critical.

Christ, the True Temple

Jesus declared of himself, “One greater than the temple is here” (Matt. 12:6) and told the Samaritan woman that he could give her “living water” (John 4:10–14). Such declarations give us a major clue that the authors of the New Testament reinterpreted the premessianic understanding of God’s temple in light of the coming of Israel’s Messiah. The temple occupied a principal role in the witness of Israel’s prophets regarding God’s future eschatological blessing for the nation. When we see that this imagery pointed forward to Jesus, we can better understand the nature and character of the millennial age.

Let us consider the Old Testament expectations regarding the temple of the Lord. Both Isaiah 2:2–4 and Micah 4:1–5 speak of God’s future blessing on Israel in the last days when his people will go up to the temple on the mountain of the Lord and learn his ways. In Isaiah 56, we read of those who hold fast to God’s covenant (v.4) and love the name of the Lord and keep his Sabbaths (vv. 6–8). God will bring them to the holy mountain and the temple, which will be a house of prayer for all nations (v.7). A similar vision was given in Isaiah 66:20–21, which says that the Israelites will bring their grain offerings to God’s temple, and he will renew his priesthood. In Zechariah’s prophetic vision, we learn that one day Israel will once again offer sacrifices acceptable to God (14:16–19). With all this prophetic expectation in the minds of Jews living in Palestine in the first century, it is no wonder that Jesus’s declaration of God’s judgment on the temple—“Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down” (Matt. 24:2)—came as a shocking offense. How dare this man say that their expectation of a glorious temple was fulfilled in him! He said, ”Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19). It was not until after Christ’s resurrection that the meaning of these words became plain to his disciples. When he spoke of the destruction of the temple, he was speaking of his own body (John 2:22). This is what he meant when he said that one greater than the temple had come. Ezekiel prophesied that the temple will be rebuilt, the priesthood will be reestablished, sacrifices will be offered, and the river of life will flow from thetemple. How we interpret this prophecy will have a significant bearing on the question of a future millennial age on the earth.  It should come as no surprise that dispensationalists believe that this prophecy will be literally fulfilled in the millennial age. 

According to J. Dwight Pentecost:
The glorious vision of Ezekiel reveals that it is impossible to locate its fulfillment in any past temple or system which Israel has known, but it must await a future fulfillment after the second advent of Christ when the millennium is instituted. The sacrificial system is not a reinstituted Judaism, but the establishment of a new order that has as its purpose the remembrance of the work of Christ on which all salvation rests. The literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy will be the means of God’s glorification and man’s blessing in the millennium.16 Traditional amillenarians criticize such images of perpetual animal sacrifices and temple worship after the second advent of Christ, saying this would undercut his saving work, especially since these aspects of Mosaic economy werefulfilled at Calvary.17 So Pentecost is careful to argue that Ezekiel’s prophecy is not connected to a renewed Mosaic economy but to an entirely new order, one that commemorates the saving work of Christ in the past. But is this what the authors of the New Testament taught about these prophecies? We have already seen that the New Testament taught that Christ is the true Israel and David’s greater son. The Old Testament prophecies regarding Jerusalem and the mountain of the Lord are fulfilled in Christ’s church. The promise of a land, as we have seen, will be fulfilled in a new heaven and a new earth in the consummation. Likewise, the New Testament taught that Christ is the new temple and that a new order of commemoration involving the ceremonies typical of the earthly temple can only commemorate the types and shadows, not the reality. This presents a serious problem for dispensationalists, who argue, in effect, that redemptive history takes a U-turn in the millennial age, as the reality in Christ supposedly returns to the types and shadows of the Old Testament.

How, then, is the temple imagery from the Old Testament fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New? In Exodus 40:34, we are told that the glory of the Lord filled his temple. When viewed against the backdrop of redemptive history, we see how this pointed to Pentecost, when, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, the glory of the Lord filled his true temple, the mystical body of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 12:12ff.).18 If Christ’s body is the true temple and as Paul put it, “We are the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:16), what use remains for a future literal temple? That to which the temple had pointed is now a reality through the work of the Holy Spirit. Why return to the type and shadow?
It is also clear from Hebrews 8–10 that Jesus fulfilled the priesthood typology of the Old Testament in his death, and he put an end to the sacrificial system in his own blood once and for all. The author of Hebrews said, “We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man” (8:1–2). If the reality to which the Old Testament sacrifices and priesthood pointed is found in this true sanctuary and tabernacle in heaven, why look for a return to the shadows in the form of an earthly temple, which pointed us to this heavenly scene? Contrary to the view of dispensationalists, the prescribed New Testament commemoration of the ratification of the new covenant will not be found in a new order of temple worship, which includes a new temple, a new priesthood, and animal sacrifices, supposedly in an earthly millennial kingdom. At the Last Supper, Jesus told his disciples, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me. This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:19–20). He instituted the divinely approved method of commemorating his sacrificial work, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In this way, the people of God feed on the Savior through faith and commemorate his dying on their behalf.

Jesus told the Samaritan woman that he could give her living water and that “whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst” (John 4:14). Jesus declared that he fulfilled the image Ezekiel foretold in chapter 37 of his prophecy when he spoke of water flowing from the sanctuary.19 If Jesus is the true temple of God, he alone gives us the “living water” that takes away the thirst of human sin and longing. Therefore, the dispensationalists’ insistence on a return in the millennial age to the types of the Old Testament sacrificial system amounts to a serious misunderstanding of the nature of redemptive history. By arguing for a new commemorative order based on Old Testament typology in the millennial age, dispensationalists see the future not as a consummation but as a return to the past. And this, of course, sadly obscures the person and work of Christ by seeing the ultimate reality not in him but in the types and shadows destined to perish when the reality entered the theater of redemption.

Extracted from the book entitled A Case for Amillennialism - Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger. You can download and read the whole eBook HERE in pdf format.

Is Repentance Necessary for Salvation?

By John Hendryx

"First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." Acts 26:20

"I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn 
to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus." Acts 20:21

  There is a divergence of viewpoints on this topic that, recently, has led to quite a bit of contention among evangelicals. This has also been known as the Lordship, no-Lordship debate. After we strip away the bark what is left is the difference between the Reformed and a dispensational view of salvation.  After doing some serious personal contemplation over this I have personally come to the conclusion that the difference lies in each camps’ understanding of the doctrine of regeneration. 

The dispensationalists will argue that to require repentance, as part of salvation, is to actually add another requirement to ‘faith alone’. In other words, to require belief in Christ’s Lordship in addition to the belief in Christ as Savior is tantamount to adding a work and confusing the simple gospel of faith alone with some action on the believers’ part. Any addition to simple faith is seen as another gospel and dangerously close to salvation by works. Such critics would thus define repentance to only mean a change of mind towards one’s previous view of Christ. 

On the other hand, the Reformed understanding salvation is that God commands all persons to repent and believe the gospel. Repentance here means to turn away from all known sin and from trusting in one’s good works.  A Reformed understanding sees faith and repentance as two sides of the same coin that really cannot be separated.  To believe in Jesus means to recognize that one is a sinner in rebellion against God.  It is not simply adding Jesus to one’s life among other interests but to consciously forsake other loves and idols.  Prior to salvation one’s love for sin was more than one’s love for God.  The result of grace working in one’s soul caused the repentant sinner to have a new affection for God that now desires God more than he desires sin. 

I will argue here that the difference between these two positions is no mere argument about semantics.  Rather, this is an argument about hermeneutics, about how one understands God’s work of salvation in one’s soul. I commend the dispensational position for attempting to protect the simple doctrine of faith alone but it fails to take into account the doctrine of regeneration.   Understandably, the dispensationalists see the additional requirement of repentance as unbiblical from their viewpoint since they have embraced a synergistic scheme of salvation.  What do I mean by this?  I mean that most dispensationalists teach that the atonement and grace are God’s part in salvation, while faith is our part.  But the atonement and the grace they speak of is not effectual in and of itself and cannot effect the completion of salvation without the cooperation and consent of the sinner.  Somehow the sinner, in his unregenerate, fallen state has the ability to turn to Christ in faith with some help from God’s grace.  But in the final analysis, it is the sinner that contributes his faith as part of the requirement of salvation.   Such a belief sees regeneration as the result of, rather than the cause of faith. 

The Reformed understanding of repentance and faith is that both of these are not something that the sinner contributes to the price of his or her salvation.  They are, rather, the supernatural result of God working new affections in their soul.  Therefore, repentance is not something that the sinner is adding in addition to faith as a work, but both repentance and faith are seen as the infallible result of the new birth that is applied to sinners by the Holy Spirit.  A biblical understanding sees faith and repentance not as something we create or perform or supply, apart from regenerative grace.  The unregenerate are truly incapable of creating a right thought, generating a right affection, or originating a right volition, so God, in His mercy, gives to His people freely, that which He demands from us.  God disarms the opposition of the human heart, subduing the hostility of the carnal mind, and with irresistible power (John 6:37) draws His chosen ones to repentance and faith in Christ. The gospel confesses, "We love Him because He first loved us."

When admonishing us to teach the gospel to unbelievers the Scripture says do so, "with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth." (emphasis mine). It couldn't be more clear that the apostles viewed repentance as something God enables us to do, since the unsaved are being held captive by the devil to do his will and unable and unwilling to loose their chains on their own. 

What I would argue, therefore, is that it is the dispensational view that actually adds to the simplicity of the gospel of grace.  That is because I believe the Scriptures teach that the very desire for faith itself is a gift of God’s mercy.  The idea that it is something that we ourselves generate in our fallen nature is the cause of great confusion in our day.  All evangelicals will agree that faith is our responsibility but a deficient view of man’s depravity has led to erroneous doctrines that make faith itself something we have to contribute to our salvation and therefore it is perilously close to trusting in something we do in order to win God’s approval for salvation.  If you don’t see this, ask yourself how a fallen sinner who hates God suddenly was able to generate affections for God.  If I share the gospel to two men sitting in the same room and one believes the gospel, why is it that he believed and not the other?  Was one more spiritual, have more love, have a better knowledge, originate a better thought?  From where in his soul did he get the power to believe? Any answer other than God’s pure grace is saying that God choose us because of something right or good within us. Even if you believe that God initiates with grace (as a synergist), we still have to respond by drawing from something within our unregenerate nature. The Scriptures testify that the:

“… natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Cor 2:14

And

“…the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.” Rom 8:7

So in the end, I would argue, it is actually the synergistic dispensational view that is erroneously making additions to the pure gospel that says, “salvation is of the Lord.”  They very beginning and desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to us through regeneration: does this belong to us by nature or is it a gift of grace itself, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness? If not then you have missed the point of the Scripture which declares, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, " For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; (Eph. 2:8). Grace does not depend on the humility or obedience of man but it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, for the Scriptures testify "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). 

So the requirement for repentance and to believe that Christ is Lord is plainly taught in the Scripture.  The dispensational view would have one reject Christ’s Lordship when coming to faith.  No, the correct understanding is that God works new affections in us. When spoken in the power of the Holy Spirit, the word of God has the power to graciously open people's eyes, change the disposition of their hearts, and bring them to faith and repentance (James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, 25).  Anything less is to misapprehend what God does when he raises us from spiritual death.  Faith and repentance are not something we get the glory for: God gets all the glory. 

Does God have mercy upon us, apart from His regenerative grace, so that we believe, will, desire, strive and labor?  Shouldn’t we all confess that it is by the efficacious working and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we even have the faith, the will, or the desire to do all these things as we ought to?  Repentance or yielding to the Lordship of Christ at the time of salvation is just a simple product of our new nature in Christ, not something we do to earn a new nature.  I would argue that many dispensationalists who uphold no-Lordship are actually teaching that salvation is by grace plus faith rather than this historic Christian teaching of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. That even faith itself is not of ourselves but a divine gift to the soul, for what do we have that we did not receive?. (2 Tim 2:25, Phil 1:29, Hebrews 12:2, 1 John 5:1, Rom 3:24, Ezekiel 11:19-20; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Eph 2:8, John 1:13) Do you see the difference? One makes faith something we contribute to complete the work of salvation while the other views salvation as a work of God alone.

To conclude, this issue is so critical that the church in America must reclaim a right understanding this doctrine if it has any hope of continuing usefulness to God in the world.  God deals with us personally, not as abstractions, as those who have transgressed His law, who are hostile and engaged in obstinate rebellion against His legitimate authority in our lives. The seriousness of man's fallen condition has often been put aside in modern churches due to, what I believe, are erroneous views of repentance. The casualness of our message to merely "accept Jesus" without helping people to understand our wretched condition, allows many to remain stubbornly unyielding in their pride and sin.  This large-scale "user-friendly" message in today's evangelical churches have given rise to a Christianity that gives hollow worship to Christ but creates a heart that remains unrenewed and still delights in sin.  

Many are unwilling to give the Lord their allegiance because they have not been born again. They are told, however, that because they "accepted Jesus into their heart" at some moment in the past that it doesn't matter that they now live in rebellion against God. The continuing spirit of defiant, willful rebellion to Christ's authority as an unbroken pattern of our churches are a direct result of a lack of understanding among church leaders of the doctrine of regeneration.  (Source: Monergism.com )

Does Hebrews 10:26 mean that a believer can lose salvation?

Question: "Does Hebrews 10:26 mean that a believer can lose salvation?"

Answer: “For if we are willfully sinning after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice concerning sins.” Hebrews 10:26-29 warns against the sin of apostasy. Apostasy is an intentional falling away or defection. Apostates are those who move toward Christ, right up to the edge of saving belief, who hear and understand the Gospel, and are on the verge of saving faith, but then reject what they have learned and turn away. These are people who are perhaps even aware of their sin and even make a profession of faith. But rather than going on to spiritual maturity, their interest in Christ begins to diminish, the things of the world have more attraction to them rather than less, and eventually they lose all desire for the things of God and they turn away. The Lord illustrated these types of people in the second and third soils of Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23. These are those who “receive with joy” the things of the Lord, but who are drawn away by the cares of the world or turned off by difficulties they encounter because of Christ.

“Willful sinning” in this passage carries the idea of consciously and deliberately rejecting Christ. To know God’s way, to hear it preached, to study it, to count oneself among the faithful, and then to turn away is to become apostate. Sinning willfully carries with it the idea of sinning continually and deliberately. Such a person does not sin because of ignorance, nor is he carried away by momentary temptations he is too weak to resist. The willful sinner sins because of an established way of thinking and acting which he has no desire to give up. The true believer, on the other hand, is one who lapses into sin and loses temporary fellowship with God. But he will eventually come back to God in repentance because his heavenly Father will continually woo and convict him until he can’t stay away any longer. The true apostate will continue to sin, deliberately, willingly and with abandon. John tells us that “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God” (1 John 3:9).

Apostates have knowledge, but no application of that knowledge. They can be found in the presence of the light of Christ, mostly in the church, among God’s people. Judas Iscariot is the perfect example—he had knowledge but he lacked true faith. No other rejector of the truth had more or better exposure to the love and grace of God than Judas. He was part of Jesus’ inner circle of disciples, eating, sleeping, and traveling with Him for years. He saw the miracles and heard the words of God from Jesus’ very lips, from the best preacher the world has ever known, and yet he not only turned away but was instrumental in the plot to kill Jesus.

Having turned his back on the truth, and with full knowledge choosing to willfully and continually sin, the apostate is then beyond salvation because he has rejected the one true sacrifice for sins: the Lord Jesus Christ. If Christ’s sacrifice is rejected, then all hope of salvation is gone. To turn away willfully from this sacrifice leaves no sacrifice; it leaves only sin, the penalty for which is eternal death. This passage is not speaking of a believer who falls away, but rather someone who may claim to be a believer, but truly is not. Anyone who apostatizes is proving he never had genuine faith to begin with (1 John 2:19).

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/