Let us first define some common terms:

Allegory/allegorical – Interpreting scripture to say what you want it to say in defending one’s own

theology/denomination and then changing your mind as it fits your point.  

Arminian/Arminianism – The antithesis of Calvinism in that it gives man the final word to his own

salvation.  Some believe in a prevenient grace which means that there’s just enough good in man to have the ability to make the right free will choice to their own salvation.  It was born out of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism which puts “a bit of moral goodness” in man to allow him to make choices in salvation, despite what scripture teaches about the real pre-salvific nature of man.

Calvinist/Calvinism – This is simply the adherence to the biblical doctrines concerning salvation

commonly called the 5-Points if Calvinism as outlined in the acronym T.U.L.I.P. They are Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance or Preservation of the saints. True 5-Point Calvinists believe in the total sovereignty of God but understand that man is ultimately responsible for his actions/inactions.  In reality, there is no such person as a 3 or 4-point Calvinist any more than there is a 2 or 3-point Arminian.

Covenantal theology – A system in theology that basically teaches a non-dispensational view that the

Church replaced Israel because of Israel’s disobedience to God.  Most covenant people are Calvinists.

Dispensations/Dispensationalism – This is a belief in a system of periods of time as found throughout the

Bible sometimes referred to as economies during which God dealt with people in history differently.  It must be understood that salvation was always and will always be by grace alone. Most dispensationalists are Arminians.

Eisegeses – reading into the text which may not be there but used only to prove a point.

Exegesis -- taking out of the text which it really means.

Decision – In salvation, this places the sovereignty on man’s moral or persuasive conscious.  This is often

referred to as decisional regeneration.  A similar act is called baptismal regeneration in which man thinks that through the (false) teaching of infant baptism that man/baby is saved through the act of baptism on the part of themselves or surrogates.

Denominationalism – Here we see people holding to what they believe their denomination teaches

regardless of some of the historical or traditional Statements of Faith.

Dominionism – This is a teaching that Christians should work towards and are capable of achieving a

dominant role in the world.  They usually teach that Israel is not part of God’s plan.

Kingdom Now Theology – This is not far removed from Dominionism.  They teach, too, that God is

looking for people to help Him bring back dominion in the world so He can return.

Preterist/preterism – This teaches that most, if not all, of prophecy, has been fulfilled.  They hold to the

destruction of the 2nd temple in AD 70 as a starting point for Jesus’ spiritual reign on earth.  They are non-dispensationalists who believe that Israel, too, was cast aside for disobedience.

Ordo salutis – the order of salvation as outlined in scripture (Romans 8:29, 30)

Spiritualize/spiritualization – This is a teaching that claims the Church replaced Israel.  It is difficult for

any to agree to when and how that happened.  But again, they are usually covenantalists who deny any type of dispensational teaching.

Supersessionism/Replacement theology – This says that because of Israel’s disobedience to God that He

replaced the Church with Israel, thus transferring the blessings to the Church.  They claim that the Church now supersedes Israel in relation to God. It is interesting that one rarely, if at all, hears about the possibility of receiving the curses from God for their own disobedience.

 

“Context! Context! Context!”  This is the chant from many who hold to the biblical view of eschatology, particularly, as it pertains to Israel.  This chant should be the right approach to all who hold to a literal interpretation of scripture with proper expository preaching/teaching.  However, if they hold true to this chant then why do some restrict it to eschatology and dismiss it when studying soteriology? Denominationalism and/or traditionalism seem to get in the way when studying certain doctrines.  The perfect example of denominationalism getting in the way is infant baptism, which is an errant tradition carried from the Roman Catholic Church to many Protestant denominations that also hold to Supersessionism, aka, Replacement theology.  Even if one denies infant baptism as a sacrament, administering it is nothing short of confusion to the child and witnessing congregants. If salvation is attached to infant baptism in any way, then it can have an eternal deception. Likewise, Supersessionism flowed from Rome.  History has shown that the majority of Calvinists are Supersessionists and that the majority of Dispensationalists are Arminian. So, are either right? Or, are both wrong? Can there be a mix?

 

Calvinism or Arminianism?

Since most Dispensationalists are also Arminian, then a few points need to be considered with their attempt to promote free will.  True Arminians seem to want to “chip away” at some of God’s attributes. These include omniscience, omnipotence, wrath, trustworthiness, and love.  At the same time, they ignore, circumvent, redefine or change the ordo salutis.  Likewise, those who ignore, circumvent or attempt to erase Israel as a biblical and future truth also “chip away” at God’s omniscience, omnipotence, wrath, trustworthiness, and love.  Scripture complements itself; it does not contradict itself. This applies to Israel and all of God’s promises to her. And if one is going to chant “Context! Context! Context!” to eschatology, then they need to chant “Context! Context! Context!” to soteriology.

 

Although there may be more, here is a small list of attributes that cannot be ignored when looking at scripture describing God and salvation.  Equally, God’s attributes do not change when one studies eschatology.

 

• God is Sovereign over all things, including humans -- man does not hold the final card over God’s will (Exodus 15:18; Psalm 22:27-28; Ephesians 1:11)

• God is Omnipotent – God is powerful enough to fulfill His will (Job 42:2; John 19:11)

• God is Omniscient – God knows all in that He does not learn (Isaiah 46:10; Acts 15:18)

• God is Love – He is patient with whom He chooses and His omnipotence brings them into His love (I John 4:8; II Peter 3:9)

• God is Righteous – He does as He morally pleases in His own character and in His mercy towards some (Psalm 119:137; Deuteronomy 32:4; II Timothy 4:8)

• God is Immutable – He does not change His mind because of man’s actions (Isaiah 46:10; Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8)

 

Perhaps the most misinterpreted and most frequently used scripture used by the non-Calvinist/Arminian is II Peter 3:9 which reads, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” So, it can be asked, where is God’s omnipotence if He wants someone to be saved and they refuse?  Where is God’s omniscience if He is not sure if they will be saved or not?

 

There are several rules when one interprets scripture as anyone who studies the Bible should know.  And, it is important to keep an understanding within the whole context without attempting to interpret selective verses (whether intentional or not) with an eisegesis approach instead of the proper exegesis approach.  So, if one only looks at this verse without reading the entire text it may be easy to misinterpret or prove a denominational point.  However, the first thing one should do when reading scripture is asking the question: To whom is he writing? Of course, all of scripture is written to man, in particular the Christian and the Jew.  And, of course, there are countless warnings to the lost. But when examining this particular verse one must, at least, read the whole of the chapter.

 

Peter opens the chapter by writing, “This second epistle, beloved, I write unto you” (II Peter 3:1).  Peter is addressing this letter to the “beloved.”  It is doubtful that Peter would be addressing a group of pagans or heathens with this same type of term of endearment.  He supports this interpretation by writing in this same epistle in chapter 1, verse 5-8, by addressing their faith, godliness, and knowledge of and from the Lord Jesus Christ.  He further continues in chapter one of this second epistle, “I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance.”  In the translation, the word “both” was added to help the reader understand the meaning of the translation from Greek to English.  But, it does not take away from or change the meaning to Peter’s audience. But, also, who is the “you” to whom Peter is writing? Once again, the “you” are the “beloved.”  They are not every single person that has lived or ever will live as the universalists/Arminians want to believe. And, what is he reminding them of? Peter is simply stating that he is reminding them of what he had written about in his previous epistle.  When one now reads his first epistle it is a clearer (though it should never have been unclear, to begin with) understanding of to whom Peter is writing in regards to the addressees of II Peter 3:9.  I Peter 1:1, 2 which says, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, unto you, and peace, be multiplied”.  So, to whom is Peter addressing in his second epistle? Who are the “us-ward”, “any” and “all” to whom he is addressing in this chapter of II Peter 3:9 and who are the “elect” in I Peter 1:2? The “us-ward”, “any” and “all” in the second epistle are the “elect” in the first epistle.  They were those undeserving sinners chosen before the foundation of the world through the foreknowledge of the Triune God for His own pleasure (Ephesians 1:4).  From this, we see that God is not waiting and wanting and pleading for sinful man to make a “decision” in determining their own salvation as the Arminian so wants you to think.  God is Sovereign. He is also patient in His own time for all the elect to come unto salvation and He is not willing that any of His elect will perish.  And, they will not!

 

Another favorite of the Arminian is I Timothy 2:4, which says, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”  The same rule of interpretation applies to this verse as it did to the previous.  Also, not all words that are the same always have the same meaning. For example, the word “world” (another misinterpreted word used by Arminians) does not always have the same meaning.

 

Timothy, being a student of Paul, was aware of Paul’s theology.  And Paul’s theology was directly inspired by God. Therefore, Paul’s writings were not contradictory.  There are two key words in this single verse that cannot be misunderstood. First, is the use of the word “will.”  When one looks at this Greek word used by Paul it is the word thelo.  It has an interpretive meaning to determine, to choose or to prefer.  Notice that from the scripture it does not say that man has the will to choose but it is a reference to the “Who” as the verses begins.  But like all scripture, it must be supported by verses surrounding it.  I Timothy 2:3 reads, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.”  Therefore, the “Who” in verse is God.  This tells us that it is God Who wills certain men to be saved.  The second keyword to look at, of course, is the word “all.” Does “all” imply that God wants every single person that has ever lived or will live to be saved?  If not, since not all are saved, then to whom is Paul referencing? Looking at another epistle that Paul wrote, we read, “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the saints……According to he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world…having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will” (Ephesians 1:1-5).   Through the Triune God’s predetermined will He has chosen some unto salvation.  Whom Paul writes about in I Timothy 2:4 are the same ones whom he writes about in Ephesians chapter one.  The “all” in I Timothy 2:4 are the “us” in Ephesians 1:4.  Now they may be different groups of people as an audience but they are all the same as being the elect.

 

A further look at I Timothy 2:2 has Paul mentioning “kings, and for all that are in authority.”  Is he saying every king and everyone in authority is to be saved by God?  Certainly not. “All” does not always mean every single king or person in authority that has ever lived or will live.  Does it not fit scriptural interpretation better for him to mean all kinds of kings and persons in authority?  If God willed that every single person is saved then certainly that would be true but it is obvious from the context and the veracity of scripture that is not sound biblical interpretation unless one holds to the unbiblical view of universalism.

 

Ephesians 1:5 says that God does “according to the good pleasure of his will.”  Since God is sovereign and His will cannot be thwarted then one can conclude that if He wills someone to be saved then they will be saved.  And, He will save all of His elect according to scripture. Paul is not writing to confuse Timothy or the readers of today. Paul is simply confirming that God is, in fact, willing by His will that all those “chosen in him” will be saved.  And, as Peter wrote, God is “not willing that any (of his chosen before the foundation of the world) will perish” (II Peter 3:9).

 

So to the Arminian it can be asked:  If God is Sovereign in His dealings with prophecy then why is He not sovereign in His willingness for all men to be saved?  Both II Peter 3:9 and I Timothy 2:2 are a couple of the verses that clearly show when read in the proper context that God is Sovereign and His will will be done.  And God is not going to save everyone.

 

The prophecy experts are correct when they place order in the end times.  Just like there was order in creation. For example, God created the waters before He created the fish and He created the heavens before He created the birds, so it is in prophecy.  Just because some may disagree on every event they still have some type of order to the end. So, too, there is orderliness in salvation. Romans 8:28-30:  “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.  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.”  Who is the originator of each action?  Is it man or is it God?

 

So when we look at Romans 8:28-30 we see the following order:

• Foreknow

• Predestinate

• Called

• Justified

• Glorified

To whom is it addressed?  

• To them that love God -- Remembering the pre-salvific condition of man (dead, blind, lost, hating God, etc.), he cannot of his own volition love God? In this text does it mean that we love God before He calls us or after?  What is God’s purpose with man as written here? Answer – the following verses describe it.

• For whom He foreknew – What does the word “foreknow” mean in the context?  This is not in the thought that the Omniscient and Triune God learned something.  It is in a relationship-type or covenantal knowing as to the elect of God. Someone He knew beforehand or ordained. It is more like a covenantal promise, an unconditional agreement from God, not from man, it is not just knowing someone exist, ref. Matthew 7:23, Amos 3:2.

• For whom He did predestinate to be conformed– To determine beforehand.  To be conformed as in a kinship. Conformed by holiness, which we cannot of ourselves do without God or sanctified which we of ourselves cannot do without God. Too often some will mockingly ask, “If God already predestinated us to salvation then why to evangelize, repent, believe, etc.?” (We are told to.)

• To them that are called – Whom are the called and why are they called? He just did not make a general call to anyone who would listen.  Here the word called has a particular calling (from God) and not a general calling (from man) because in the whole context of the verses it is effectual in relation to the predestinated.  The word “called” here is a reference to someone specifically appointed. This is an effectual call meaning that it was not without the result that God had determined in eternity past.   It is effectual in relation to the predestinated.

• For what/whom He did justify– To be made free from any guilt or punishment of our sin.  To have our sins blotted out. If we are already justified before God then why worry about anything? Because we still sin.  This is not saying that we will never sin again but it is saying that through the Blood of Jesus Christ and the perpetual mediation of Jesus Christ the Sovereign God does not see us as guilty.  The world may still see us as guilty but God does not.

• For whom He did glorify – Is this past tense meaning that we are already glorified?  This is the eternal glorification of the elect which will be glorified.

 

Now to whom is this addressed?  Romans 8:33 tells us.  It is God’s “elect.”

 

A quick look at Romans 9:11: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth.”

 

What is the order in Romans 9:11?

• Election

• Calleth

Does man elect himself?  Of course not.

 

A quick look at Acts 13:48:  “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

 

What is the order in Acts 13:48?

• Ordained

• Believed

Does man ordain himself?  Of course not.

 

A comparative look at translations of I John 5:1:

• KJV – “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”

• ESV – “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God”

• NIV -- “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God”

• NASB – “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”

 

What appears to be the ordo salutis in these verses?

Now, what is the original Greek translation of I John 5:1?  The Greek New Testament – pas ho pisteuo– which is properly translated “all who believe.”  So, what is the difference? There is no specificity or limitations to who believes in the English translations as found in the KJV and NASB. Scripture, on the other hand, is clear about who will believe.

Calvinism should never remove man’s responsibility to God, and it is doubtful that many do, except maybe the Primitive Baptists.  Arminianism over-emphasizes man’s ability in response. Properly defined hyper-Calvinism misinterprets God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.   It turns the doctrines of grace into fatalistic doctrines. Too many Arminians throw the term “hyper-Calvinism” around as if it blankets everyone who believes in the biblical doctrines of grace. This is a clear exposure of their ignorance, if not arrogance.  Equally, it would not be fair to blanket everyone who attends a Reformed church as one who holds to Replacement theology. In fact, there are some who attend Reformed churches who do not even understand or adhere to the doctrines of grace or Replacement theology.  Those in the movement called New Calvinism do not all hold to the 5-points of Calvinism. Just for the record, there is nothing “New” about Calvinism. In their “Twelve features of New Calvinism” (John Piper’s Twelve Features of New Calvinism” by John Oliphint), he points out that they have “a sometimes qualified embrace of limited atonement. The focus is on Calvinistic soteriology but not to the exclusion or the appreciation of the broader scope of Calvin’s vision.”  So, in other words, they want to be called Calvinists although they are not! When reading the other features it is apparently clear that this so-called New Calvinism is leaning towards Arminianism with charismatic and social gospel visions of its own. It is an inclusive theological group without true respect to historic and biblical views of Calvinism. If this group or any other teachers an all-inclusion atonement then they mistakenly teach that God has failed not only in the efficacy of the atonement but in the failure of God’s omnipotence and omnipresence to name a couple.

 

John 6 is an often overlooked or misinterpreted chapter about God’s sovereignty in salvation in Arminian circles.  John 6:37 says, “all that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”  John 6:40 says, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  John 6:44 says, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  How much clearer can it be that it is all of God’s omnipotent will? Notice the word “draw” in verse 44. The Strong’s Concordance has that word from the Greek to mean “to drag.”  This does not sound like a freewill mention, at all.  Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words concurs.  So then, who is doing the dragging?  It is God the Father Who chose some “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4).  And all those whom God has chosen will come to salvation.  Look further at John 6:64-66 which says, “But there are some of you that believe not.  For Jesus knew from the beginning whom they were that believed not, and who should betray him.  And he said, therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it was given unto him of my father.  From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Again, who did Jesus Christ atone for?  It was not for those who turned and walked away because of unbelief but for those who were given by the Father. Let it be clear that we are not born believers so our pre-salvific condition was unbelief.  But Jesus says here that He knew those from the beginning. And the Triune God knew from the beginning whom all He would call (to drag).

 

With a literal examination of Romans 9, it is easy to see that it is God who “will have mercy on whom” he will (verse 15).  It is not man “that willeth…but of God that sheweth mercy” (verse 16).  Not only does God have mercy on some but “he will hardeneth”whom He wants (verse 18).  Verse 21 asks, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?”  Verse 23 says, “And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.”  The word “afore” in verse 23 is defined in Strong’s Concordance as “ordained before or prepared before.”  It is nothing that man did or could do to influence God to elect “some” and not “all.”  How can a true Arminian refute such supportive scripture of God’s un-influenced sovereignty over man in salvation?

 

Calvinism is more consistent with the literal interpretation of scripture and the total Sovereignty of God.  Arminianism attempts to reorganize the ordo salutis to give man the free will to accept or refuse salvation from the God who chose some before the world began. If Calvinism, then, takes the literal approach to soteriology then what happens when they look at eschatology?  Why do so many Calvinists, i.e. Reformed Baptists/Presbyterians, suddenly start to read the future prophecy, in particular Israel, as some kind of Disney-like hocus-pocus that became spiritualized and full of allegories? The perpetual chant should be, “Context! Context! Context”, regardless of the doctrine.

 

Supersessionism or Amillennialism or Dispensationalism?

It is so easy to believe in something that has already happened but to believe in something that is yet to come takes true faith and a literal interpretation of scripture.  This is not saying that those who hold to an amillennial view do not have faith but they seem to replace the literal view with the allegorical view by not taking scripture at face value.  The preterists also excel in wanting to believe what has already happened so they want to teach that all or most of prophecy has already happened by AD 70. They may say they believe in the literal story of creation, the flood, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and even that there were two malefactors on the cross, but when it comes to events yet to happen they struggle in denial.  Of course, there are some in the dispensational camp who over-sensationalize prophecies, such as with the blood moon theories and date-setting. Those holding to a Kingdom Now or Dominion-type theology attempt to erase future prophecies by exclaiming that it is them who by good works can bring in the Kingdom of God which they also say is kind of already here or, at least, spiritually. Even the very popular (false) teacher, Rick Warren, is quoted as saying, “If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out prophecy” (The Purpose Driven Life book, page 286).  So, Rick Warren thinks that God is on our timetable for end time events.  And if we do something then that will change God’s prophetic plan. That seems pretty arrogant on his part.  Not only do these people think that they can usher in the kingdom of God but he, in particular, is saying that 25% of the Bible is irrelevant.  This is a dangerously deceptive theology. Sadly, many church bodies are clinging to every word that Rick Warren speaks.

 

Many dispensationalists divide history into seven distinct periods or economies: Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace and the Millennium.   Some people may even combine or omit some periods. Others may even overlap some. Although most agree that we are in the dispensation of Grace or the Church Age, scripture does not allow us to believe that God is not still working with the Jewish people, regardless of their disobedience to Him, including the rejection of Jesus Christ as their Messiah.  The sovereign God of the Bible continues to fulfill His promises to the Jewish people, including returning them to their land, Israel and returning the Hebrew language to them. However, despite the number of dispensations one might divide Bible history into, all should agree there are at least two dispensations: Israel and the Church. Easily, there could be the third dispensation: the millennium.  But regardless of how many dispensations one may believe can be found in scripture, salvation is always and only by grace. Dispensationalism is also the most common view held by futurists and pre-millenarians. Most Calvinists, however, fall into Covenantal theology.

 

In Charles Ryrie’s Book, titled Dispensationalism, he lists three points that define a true dispensationalist.  They are 1) the recognition of a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, 2) a consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation, and 3) a basic and primary conception of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of individual man.  (Dispensationalism, Charles Ryrie, page 51).  Notice that he emphasizes consistency and literal interpretation.  And that is how it should be regardless of one’s study of soteriology or eschatology.  If one holds to the typical Supersessionists view of allegorical interpretation then they can make any verse say anything they want it to say with the freedom of changing that meaning at a later time.  Although there is much criticism concerning dispensationalism, the one point that is beyond silly is the almost accusatory point that it began with an English gentleman who became a Plymouth Brethren writer and a clergyman named John N. Darby.  This is a historically invalid point of argument to try to excuse dispensationalism as somewhat current thinking by many Calvinists. Interestingly, Darby wrote the following in a letter titled, “A Letter on Free-will” in October 1861. He wrote, “I believe that we ought to keep to the Word; but, philosophically and morally speaking, free-will is a false and absurd theory.  Free-will is a state of sin” (http:www.puritanboard.com/f46/john-nelson-darby-error-free-will-20624). Darby, though a dispensationalist also, at least appeared to be, a Calvinist in his criticism of the Arminian view of free will.

 

In his book on dispensationalism, William C. Watson easily silences the Darby-only critics by listing those early Church fathers who held to similar views.  He writes, “When Justin Martyr was asked, around AD 150, whether he believed that ‘Jerusalem…shall be rebuilt; and [whether he expected his people] to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs,’ he responded, ‘I and many others are of this opinion’” (Dispensationalism Before Darby, William C. Watson, p. 5).  Justin Martyr was not exactly pro-Jewish in his writings, though he recognized some kind of dispensational period regarding them.  There are plenty of other historical proofs documented in his book that invalidate the current thinking of most Supersessionists. So, the weak argument that teachings on dispensations is relatively new (maybe 200 years old) falls on sinking sand.   But why so many still refuse to believe that is irrelevant to the truth of scripture?

 

One interviewee on the very good program, Prophecy Watchers, was explaining his accurate view on God’s sovereignty in prophecy when he made the following comment: (paraphrased) “Now, I am not taking the Calvinistic approach to God’s sovereignty here.”  This is the perfect example of how those who hold to God’s sovereignty in eschatology want to circumvent or deny it in soteriology. This is nothing against the man personally. He is a great teacher in his field of eschatology but why does he not equally chant, “Context! Context! Context!” as he studies God’s sovereignty in salvation?  

 

We should never view the Bible through the lens of the daily newspaper but we should be able to discern world events through the lens of the Bible.  How can anyone who reads or listens to the daily news not recognize the amount of attention that Jerusalem, Israel and the Middle East receives then conceive the idea that it is just a geographical issue?  This is not just an American interpretation but worldwide attention that is drawn to the hatred of the Jew and Israel. And it is just as God wrote thousands of years ago. In October 2005 Iran vowed to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”  In November 2014, Iran wrote a “9 Point Plan to Destroy Israel.” In July 2015, Iran’s Rafsanjani again said that “Israel will be wiped off the map.” In May 2016 Iran said that they “can destroy Israel in less than 8 minutes.” The New York Times also wrote in October of 2017 that “the new president of Iran said, ‘Israel must be wiped off the map.’”  In December 2017 “Turkey’s Erdogan threatens to wipe out Jews.” Are these threats only from Islamic countries? In December 2017 it was reported that a “Texas Imam calls for Israel’s destruction.” Reported in November 2015, “CNN Wipes Israel Off of the map.” Some airlines are doing the same thing. The list could continue but suffice it to say that most of the world hates Israel and the Jews.  I dare say that most could not even give a legitimate excuse for their actions against Israel. What does the Bible say about such words of threat? Psalm 83:4 says, “They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more remembered.”  Is this taking the news and interpreting the Bible or was this threat written thousands of years ago and we are seeing it today through the lens of scripture? Most Calvinists, particularly those who call themselves Reformed, would ignore or spiritualize this very clear prophecy.  Some may argue that it is part of an imprecatory (curse or wailing) prayer and others may say that it is a future war. Either way, it cannot be ignored by the non-dispensational theologians (teachers and students) to mean nothing or something already fulfilled. The fact that the Bible mentioned this and now we are seeing and hearing it should awaken anyone who has fallen asleep through scriptural spiritualization. This hatred for Israel is just one example.

 

A young pastor stood before his small congregation and said that the millennium began in 70 BC following the destruction of the second temple.  How can that this be unless you completely take scripture out of “Context! Context! Context!?” Simple math will tell you that a 1,000 years from 70 BC does not equal 2018.  But all that does not matter when one denies the true millennium by forcing to spiritualize it. These same people do not spiritualize salvation by grace. Yet, some even go so far as to teach that Jesus actually returned then but only in Spirit.

 

The teaching on a no-rapture is comical.  Some say that I Thessalonians 5:17 actually means that Jesus will come down far enough to call his Church up then immediately return to earth.  This can be referred to as the boomerang rapture. They totally ignore John 14:2, 3 which reads, “In my father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be.”  Does the boomerang rapturist believe that Jesus Christ is going to build mansions for nothing or are the mansions going to be built on earth? What is the point of going straight up then immediately coming straight back down?  When Jesus comes to earth He will set His feet in Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4).  The rapture will have happened, possibly long before that time and a lot of wars and worldwide turmoil would have already taken place.   There will be no confusion about that. The Tribulation will be finished. The no-rapture and Jesus just showing up on earth known as amillennialism can easily fall prey to the teachings of dominionism or Kingdom Now theology.

 

Many Reformed Calvinists say that they have inherited the blessings of God because of Israel’s disobedience (Deuteronomy 28-30).  One would be hard-pressed to hear those same people say that they could equally receive the curses from God for their own disobedience.  And for them to say that God turned Israel away because of their disobedience and idolatry, were we not all disobedient (and still are) along with our idolatry?  Scripture is replete with the pre-salvifc conditions of man. A quick review of the following verses should convince anyone of their pre-salvifc nature: Genesis 6:5, 21; Psalm 51:5, 58:3; Proverbs 15:8,9; Isaiah 64:7; John 3:20, Romans 1:28-31; 3;10-12, 23, etc. Believing that the Church has replaced Israel because of her disobedience while totally dismissing all of man’s disobedience to God, is nothing short of arrogance.  Some may even say that Replacement theology is anti-Semitic as compared to what the Bible says how God calls Israel the “apple of his eye” (Zechariah 2:8).  Paul also responds to that in Romans 11:2, “God has not cast away his people (the Israelites) which he foreknew.”  Someone has to totally misinterpret the words, “foreknew or foreknow” to believe that it is in an intellectual knowledge only and not a type of special love relationship in which God made His promise to the Jewish people. Equally, they would have to discredit some of God’s attributes, such as trustworthiness, love, mercy, etc.  Then you have some who believe that the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is NOT for the Jew since they are of the Abrahamic Covenant. This dual covenant theology is a heresy which equally denies the need for the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5, 6).

 

There are several verses in scripture that are used to support Supersessionism, but do they really?  One such verse is found in Jeremiah 3:8.  It reads, “And I saw when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot.”  This can be a very convincing point of argument for those who say that God was through with Israel and the Jew. But is it? It could be if one only reads the first eight verses of that chapter. Jeremiah 3:12 also tells us, “Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger forever.”  And what does Jeremiah 3:14 say?  It reads, “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you, and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.”  If the Supersessionists wants to believe that God is finished with Israel or the Jewish people then they have to acknowledge that God broke His own promises and was untrustworthy.  They also have to deny God’s omniscient in their thinking that He did not know of their idolatry. Galatians 3:15-7 tells us that God does not break His promises, although man can and does.  Since God made a promise to Abraham and the Jewish people then it would be God who disannuls it but He does not.  Also in Galatians 6:16 they attempt to say that the “Israel of God” is the Church as if the Church replaced Israel.  It is simply describing Jewish Christians as opposed to Jewish non-Christians. Jeremiah 31:35-37 describes the truthfulness of God and His promises.  It reads, “Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:  If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus saith the LORD; if heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.”  Have the “ordinances” departed from God? Has the sun stopped giving light for the day and the moon stopped giving light in the night? Of course not. And, neither has the LORD cast Israel aside. There are other scriptures that the Supersessionists use to attempt to deny Israel’s existence or purpose in God’s plan: Matthew 21:43, Acts 3:19-21, Romans 2:23-29, 11:9.  A contextual study of these can negate their interpretation.  Having said all this, too many of God’s attributes are at stake when one attempts to replace Israel with the Church.

 

Those who hold to the proper, non-allegorical, view of prophecy will clearly understand and teach Revelation 13:3.  It reads, “And I saw one of the heads as it was wounded to death, and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.”  They will rightly define “world” in this verse to not pertaining to everyone who ever lived, is alive or will live. Yet, when John 3:16 is quoted, “For God so loved the world…” many Arminians will say that “world” means every single person who ever lived, is alive or will live.  So, at least in some eschatological circles they properly interpret one use of the word “world” but misinterpret another use of the word “world” elsewhere in scripture.  Still, the chant is “Context! Context! Context!” But is it always? So, the non-Calvinist dispensationalist will rightly interpret God’s sovereign will in this eschatological view but deny or ignore God’s sovereign will as Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:5, “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.”  Whose will? God’s will.

 

It so also interesting to note that historically most of our so-called Church Fathers had Roman Catholic backgrounds.  And whether it was Augustine or Luther and regardless of the reason they left or protested against Rome, they never fully divorced themselves from Roman Catholic dogma.  They may have had a grasp of understanding on God’s sovereignty in salvation but could not quite break the tether of amillennialism which included their view on Israel to which they collapsed into Replacement theology.  So, it is with the Supersessionists Calvinists who take the (most of the time) correct and literal interpretation to soteriology but hesitate or fall back on historic denominationalism when viewing eschatology.

 

It is common acceptance among most that God created the world in six days then rested on the seventh day (Genesis 1).  This is the literal interpretation that is widely accepted by most, even the Calvinists.  They even preach that the flood of Noah’s day lasted 40 days and nights (Genesis 7:4).  Another literal interpretation.  The Gospel tells of Jesus fasting for 40 days and nights in the Judean Desert in His conversation with Satan (Matthew 4:1-11).  This, again, is taken literally by most.  Jesus’ crucifixion is marked at the third hour (Mark 15:25). Here is another literal time/number preached by many who hold to allegorical interpretation.   The non-Calvinists who looks at end times in their proper perspective, i.e. “Context, Context, Context!”, will take the number of days found in Daniel, being 1260 days (Daniel 12:11-2), as literal, yet, will not take a literal interpretation of the “elect, predestinated or ordained.”  Furthermore, the 1,000 years that is mentioned six times in Revelation 20 is taken literally by the dispensationalists but allegorized or spiritualized by those who hold to an amillennial view, which makes no sense at all.  The non-dispensationalists can allegorize anything they want for their own interpretation. And not every dispensationalist totally agrees on every issue.  But the true dispensationalist does not try to spiritualize or allegorize Israel out of the biblical picture. The dispensationalist, at least, wants to interpret literally, understanding that there may be parables to further interpret but not explain way.  There are several scripture verses that refer to a 3 ½ years period. This is taken literally by most dispensationalists. There is also a symbolic one week and the “midst of the week” period written in Daniel 9:27.  Symbols do not always mean allegories or spiritualization.  There are a lot of symbols in the Bible but that does not take away from literal interpretation. A lot of symbols and mysteries are defined in the context.  Still, the true Reformed Calvinists will allegorize symbols and actuality by explaining away biblical meaning to defend their historical/denominational view.  Likewise, the Arminian, non-Calvinist will allegorize or explain away God’s sovereignty in salvation for man’s decisional regeneration and free will. Matthew 24:24 it mentions a specific group of people that usually go undefined.  That word is “elect” which is also found throughout the New Testament.  Too often, it is still ignored and given a meaning that makes man the decider through free will or choice of who is elected.  There has to be a total ignoring of the biblical descriptions of man’s pre-salvific condition to believe that man can make a non-regenerative “free will decision” for Christ.  And to believe that man can open their heart and let Jesus in is totally preposterous. This man-made belief can only be accomplished by removing or lessening man’s depravity and inability.  But both man’s depravity and inability are found in scripture.

 

One cannot dismiss their own responsibility when talking about the sovereignty of God.  For example, when Joseph’s brothers took it upon themselves to remove him from the family they eventually ended up in his presence.  Although guilt overtook them for their actions, Joseph declared, “Fear not: for am I in the place of God? But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save many people” (Genesis 50:19, 20).  It was God all along Who decreed the life that Joseph was cast into, yet, He used Joseph’s brothers to fulfill his plan.  In Isaiah 10 God used the Assyrians to punish Israel.  Still, the Assyrians boasted of their accomplishments.  So, God had to remind them Who really accomplished His will. Isaiah 10:15 says, “Shall the ax boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it?”  God is truly the One Who accomplishes His will and uses sinful man to do so as He pleases. In Ezekiel 38:4 we are told that God will “turn thee back, and put hooks into his jaws…”  Here, Gog is apparently having one goal in mind but God has another and is going to use Gog to accomplish His will.  We are not sure what the “hook” may be but God is using it to entice Gog to turn around, although Gog may think that they are in charge, it is God Who is in charge and after turning them back will ultimately destroy them at His good pleasure.  Acts 4:28 tells us whose will it was for the Lord Jesus Christ to be crucified.  It reads, “For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined beforehand.”  Men crucified Jesus Christ and not just the Jews, but it was God Who foreordained it and saw that it happened.

 

II Peter 1:20, 21 tells us, “Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”  Did man write the Bible or did God? The answer is both. But it is through the Holy Ghost that the words were penned. It was not man’s opinion but God’s Words.  If a man had of himself penned scripture then it would no doubt be filled with some error. God used man to write what He wanted them to write. Just as God used Joseph’s brothers to accomplish His goal; He used the Assyrians to accomplish His goal; He used a “hook” to accomplish His goal; He used men to crucify the Lord to accomplish His goal.  And so, He used men to write His words. God is sovereign but uses men to do His will, even though man may “think” that it is all of himself. So, it is in salvation and so it is in prophecy. The study of prophecy is not merely academic. It easily applies to today, regardless of the skeptics and critics and those who lessen its biblical importance.

 

This entire discussion revolves around the biblical meaning of God’s sovereignty and ALL His attributes.  The most argued attribute of God that contemporary and liberal preachers want to erase is God’s attribute of wrath.  And for typical reasons. Too many today soft-petal God’s anger, yet, scripture tells us that “God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day” (Psalm 7:11).  So, is God sovereign just some of the time?  Is God sovereign only as it pertains to certain issues, such as soteriology or eschatology or both or neither?  In an article titled, “Is God Sovereign? No! At Least, Not in the Calvinist Sense. ‘The Heresy of Sovereignty’ Exposed” by Jesse Morell (Open AirOutreach.com, Biblical Truth Resources), he makes a desperate attempt to discredit Calvinism because of their cliché-ish use of the phrase, “the sovereignty of God.”  He criticizes Calvinists by saying that “the idea of ‘Sovereignty’ is that God planned, orchestrated, and caused absolutely everything that happens. That God prefers sin over holiness in every instance that it occurs, because He could have decreed sin instead of holiness but chose sin instead.” First of all, God is not the author of sin.  He simply lets sin happen. Mr. Morell has no biblical concept of the true pre-salvifc nature of depraved man. And God does call us to holiness (I Peter 1:15, 16) not to sin.    Secondly, what does Isaiah 46:9-11 tell us?  It reads, “Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.  Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, stating, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.”  This does not sound like what Mr. Morell wants us to believe about the Sovereign God of the Bible.

 

There is a “chipping away” away of the attributes of God in today’s pulpits (and print).  Is it any wonder that man has no fear of God (Romans 3:18) when preachers boastfully proclaim that wrath (Psalm 7:11; John 3:36; Ephesians 5:6, etc.)  is not an attribute?  When a preacher begs an unrepentant sinner to make a decision or accept Jesus and mis-uses II Peter 3:9, is he not also “chipping away” at the attribute of omniscience (Psalm 139:1-4, 147:4,5; Acts 15:18, etc.) and omnipotence (Job 42:2; Daniel 2:21; John 19:11, etc.).  And, what about His attribute of foreknowledge (Jeremiah 1:5; Amos 3:2; John 10:14, etc.)?  When a preacher proclaims that God is through with Israel and that the church is the new Israel is he not “chipping away” at God’s attribute of immutableness (Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18, James 1:17, etc.) and faithfulness (Deuteronomy 7:9; Isaiah 11:5;  II Timothy 2:13, etc.)?  And, what about His truthfulness (Deuteronomy 32:4, John 14:6, 17:17)?  When the non-dispensationalist says that God made a mistake when He initially chose Israel, then what about His attribute of wisdom (Job 12:13; Isaiah 40:28; Romans 11:33, etc.) or longsuffering (Romans 2:4; I Peter 3:20; II Peter 3:9, etc.) ?  Will it was not soon that the very foundation of God’s attributes are going to be so “chipped away” that they will all collapse?

 

Now, before we close this discussion, what do the words “forever” and “everlasting” mean?  Are they words that the allegorical interpreter can say that they do not mean what they say they mean? “Forever” is not a word dependent on the obedience of man but on the immutable love and truthfulness of God.  Likewise, “everlasting” is not dependent on a man. A sinful man should be thankful to a Sovereign and Holy God that our salvation or the salvation of Israel is not dependent on us.

 

The Calvinist who denies any type of dispensation that does not include Israel needs to study the totality of scripture just as the Arminian who denies the true sovereignty of God in salvation in favor of man’s free will should study the totality of scripture.  Neither should “pick” one verse with a “gotcha” attitude to discredit the remainder of scripture to prove a point. Both groups of sincere Christians need to consider all of God’s attributes. The attributes are not lone fly balls hit in different directions. They are all connected somehow as they express the total nature of the Eternal Triune God.  “Context! Context! Context!”…they should all chant.

 

God is sovereign, not man.

 

TLV