Truth Magazine

By Roland Worth, Jr.

Very few people will take the time and effort to defend the existence of humanly composed creeds. A notable exception is Arnold T. Olson, head of the Evangelical Free Church of America. In his book, This We Believe: The Background and Exposition of the Doctrinal Statement of the Evangelical Free Church of America, he defends at length the right of churches to have such creeds (Free Church Publications, Minneapolis, Minnesota: 1961). Although he lumps his arguments under only a few major headings, it will help in a study of them if we break them down into smaller units of thought.

The first thing that is notable about his defense of creeds is that nowhere does he cite book, chapter, and verse authorizing a church to adopt such creeds. It has been said (and it continues to need to be repeated in the future) that to have a creed and to fully believe in the authority of the Bible is a contradiction in terms. If a creed says less than the Bible it is an act of sacrilege against the Divine Author of the Scriptures; if it says more than the Bible it is an act of insubordination and rebellion against being confined to that which the Spirit has revealed; if the creed is identical with the Bible there is no need to have it at all.

However if a substantial body of people want something they will soon find a justification for it. Their reasoning may be far fetched but they will still be able to find something, somewhere to hang their position upon. So it is not surprising that though there is no legislative authority given to the church by the Bible, that men have invented rationales by which to defend the existence of their creeds. We will. quote those of Mr. Olson at length so that there can be no question that we have given him a fair hearing.

1. An unwillingness to commit oneself to a creed indicates an unwillingness to be committed. “Through the centuries the very idea of a creed has been under attack . . . This is an age of emphasis on freedom and freedom from conscience. It is a time when strong convictions are considered reactionary. Theology is taught on a cafeteria basis. ‘Here it is, take what you like, leave the rest.’ It is a period when men refuse to commit themselves. The example set by the teachers of our universities in refusing to commit themselves through the loyalty oaths is reflected more and more by the graduates in refusing to commit themselves positively to a statement of faith” (p. 17).

None of us would deny that spiritual cowardliness is present in some opposers of creeds. However the reasons we oppose creeds are at least three in number: (a) They divert attention from reliance on the Bible; (b) Due to their long usage, they become a center of loyalty in competition with the Bible and thereby make needed doctrinal change impossible; (c) They are wrong if they contain anything different (either more or less) than the Bible and not needed if they contain the same. If for us to deny the need for creeds indicates a lack of spiritual commitment, what does it indicate that Paul, Peter, and none of the other apostles who ever wrote or endorsed a creed? Are we to attribute to them doctrinal cowardliness? Of course not! Then let us not simplistically dismiss opposition to creeds today with such a charge. Let us hear the charge leveled only against those to whom it is genuinely applicable.

2. Everyone has a creed even if he doesn’t call it by that name. “Everyone has a creed of some sort. He has a conviction even if it be that he has no creed!” (p. 23). So what? There are things that I believe in very firmly, but that is not the question at issue. That question is by what right do I prepare and bind on others that which I hold to be true. If I can convince them through scripture that I am right then they have the moral obligation to accept what their mind tells them is the truth. But creeds do not reply on the power of argument to bind others. They demand blind loyalty, period. They cannot argue. They cannot defend. They cannot repent if they err. Men can. So the fact that we all have things we believe in does not prove that such beliefs should be placed in writing and bound on others as a test of fellowship.

3. The mere statement of belief in the scriptures does not produce conformity as to what is believed. “Even among those who agree as to the fact that the Bible, the Old and New Testament, is the Word of God, there is wide disagreement as to what the Bible teaches. There was, for example, a wide difference in the understanding of the atonement among our founders in spite of the fact that they ‘accepted the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament, as the Word of God.’ While, as the history states, the leaders also accepted the Bible as the final authority on all matters of doctrine, they were anything but dogmatically agreed on many of the doctrines that are taken for granted today” (p. 26).

First of all, the existence of a creed only allows us to authoritatively know what that creed teaches. But just because a creed teaches something does absolutely nothing to prove that the Scriptures teach the same thing. Book, chapter, and verse have to be cited for that and that can be done without the existence of a creed.

Second of all, just because a creed teaches something does not mean that everyone who swears loyalty to it will really believe it. People can (and do)! “interpret” their way around creeds just like they do scripture. So how in the world can we contend that scripture is “inadequate” because people can find excuses to avoid accepting the clear Will of God?

For the record, it should be noted that Olson admits that creeds can be undermined; he said, “A creed is not the solution to doctrinal questions nor does it end theological controversies. A creed does not guarantee orthodoxy in any group; it merely publishes what the organization considers to be of sound doctrine. In fact, some church bodies which today would deny the virgin birth of Christ, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and classify the Bible story of creation as a myth have official doctrinal statements which would be acceptable in the most evangelical circles” (p. 42). If creeds cannot produce uniformity then we should not introduce such an argument against accepting the Bible as our sole religious standard!

4. The Bible itself contains doctrinal summaries. Olson cites four passages (p 26). 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:13; 2 Tim. 2:5-6; 1 Tim. 3:16. First of all, none of these contain even half of what we find in creeds! 1 Cor. 8:6 only deals with the legitimacy of monotheism and how that all things were created by Christ. 1 Cor. 12:13 only deals with the fact that all are baptized into one body. 1 Tim. 2:5-6 only deals with the facts that there is one God, one mediator (Jesus), and how that Jesus became a ransom for us. 1 Tim. 3:16 gives a brief summary of Christ’s life and conquest that sounds more like a Psalm that a creed! Neither of the passages from Timothy mention how we are saved. The second passage from Timothy does not even mention God the Father. Look at what all these passages lack! None of them would satisfy men as a creed today! So it is completely preposterous to appeal to them as precedents for our having creeds. Furthermore, these Biblical statements were written by inspiration. Is the creed of Mr. Olson’s church or that of any church? Of course not! Only through following what is inspired can we be certain that we are doing right.

These few passages from the Bible are not a creed; the entire Bible (taken together) constitutes our creed. And that should be our only creed! For therein we hear God speaking. In human creeds we only hear the voice of human beings speak, with all the prejudices and biases that go with it.

5. “The creed provides a confession of faith” (p. 33). Doesn’t the Bible do the same? Is that which is written by inspiration an inferior confession of faith to those of purely human composition?

6. The church was founded on a confession. In reference to Matt. 16:16-18, Olson comments, “The church is built on the foundation of a confessed faith in Jesus Christ. This is often overlooked” (p. 33). Firstly, this was not a written creed that men were expected to swear loyalty to. Second, inspiration was involved. Of Peter’s confession, Christ said, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which art in heaven” (v. 17). Can Mr. Olson claim inspiration for his creed? If he can (and if he can make the claim stick), he would have a valid parallel. Thirdly, this was not what we today know as a creed: It deals only with Christ’s relationship to the Father, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Do you know of any denominational creed that consists only of a reference to Christ’s supernaturalness?

7. “The creed provides a summary of the teachings of the scripture” (p. 34). But an uninspired men describe God’s will as well as inspired writers? Can uninspired men be sure that they are writing a creed that accurately reflects what God would want in such a creed? To which of the creed writers has He spoken in the soft stillness of the night? Is God so ignorant that He could not perceive that men need a creed while men such as Mr. Olson can? However you cut it, it comes down to a reflection on the knowledge and competence of God Himself. If creeds were one-half as vital as denominationalists make them out to be, it would have been a supreme act of incompetence on His part not to have revealed such a creed in the apostolic writings.

8. Christ provides, in essence, an example of what creed writers do. “While the Bible is the `complete revelation of God’s will for the salvation of men,’ this revelation does not suddenly appear in a capsule form at a given point in the Scriptures. The revelation is a progressive one throughout the entire book. A creed, without going into great detail, including chapters and verses, presents the sum total of that revelation. None other than Christ Himself set the example in using this form of teaching truth. When asked which of the commandments was the most important, He replied by giving a summary of the entire teaching of the law and the prophets: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ (Matthew 22:37-38)” (p. 34-35).

Look at the differences between this and the creeds of today: (a) Jesus spoke by inspiration of the Spirit; creed writers do not. (b) Jesus did not turn to Levi, tell him to put the “creed” in writing, and order the apostles to “sign on the dotted line or get lost.” Christ taught authoritatively and it was because of His authority that men accepted His teaching, not because it was reduced to a written form. (c) Can you name one group around today that would consider Christ’s “creed” summary sufficient as a creed? Clearly what men mean by “creeds” is different from anything Christ’s example would justify!

9. “The creed provides a common testimony as to the official position of the church on the doctrines in question ” (p. 35). “Having been prepared by a duly elected group of representatives of the churches and studied, discussed, and adopted by the chosen delegates of the churches in democratic assembly, the creed is authoritative in character” (p. 35). Humbug. Any religious claim (whether it be in an article like mine or in a creed) is authoritative only to the extent that it faithfully and fully echoes the teaching of Scripture. Nothing can be genuinely authoritative in the field of religion that is not identical with scriptural teaching.

Whether a creed is democratically adopted is not the basis issue. Democracies have been known to be wrong! The real issue is twofold: (a) Does the creed accurately reflect what the Bible teaches? (b) By what Biblical authority does any church adopt a creed instead of relying on the Scriptures alone? Democratic majorities have been wrong; the masses have erred time and again. (And if you do not think they have erred just ask anybody who votes for the loser in a race for public office!) “Democracy” is no substitute for Divine authority.

10. “The creed provides a test of orthodoxy to be used in such areas where actual authority exists” (p. 38). But by what right is any human product a proper ground on which to determine orthodoxy? God has warned that our ways are not His ways (Isa. 55:8-9). Why in the world do we believe that our religious concepts are an exception to this principle?

One writer quoted by Olson comments. “In like manner, a creed saves the Christian community from lawlessness. It provides a thought out norm within which the lines of orthodoxy and heterodoxy are measured” (p. 40). However Olson himself admits that the existence of creeds does not assure that members and leaders will accept the doctrines contained therein (quoted in section three above). A creed no more will save the believer from heresy than the Bible will. Anything can and will be perverted by those unwilling to accept it.

Conclusion

We have surveyed the arguments introduced by a denominational President in defense of having creeds. We have found his arguments inconsistent with admissions that he makes. In other cases we have found that the texts he introduces would never be accepted by any church today as an adequate creedal statement. In short, his evidence does not establish the propriety of having humanly prepared creeds.

Creeds are always dangerous. They become an authority that is appealed to and in practice easily becomes a substitute for scripture. Ask a denominational leader what he believes and more likely than not he will cite his creed. People have enough obstacles in the way of faith in the Bible without religious leaders writing creeds that will divert their thought away from what should be the center of their attention.

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, pp. 506-508
August 10, 1978

By Irvin Himmel

There is an appropriate time for long hymns and for short hymns, for long prayers and for short prayers, for long sermons and for short sermons, for long admonitions and for short admonitions, for long compositions and for short compositions. Interestingly, the longest and shortest chapters in the Bible are in the same book and separated by only one other chapter. The longest chapter is Psa. 119, having 176 verses; the shortest is Psa. 117, having two verses.

Let us give some thought to the Bible’s shortest chapter.

O praise the Lord, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people. For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord.

God Is To Be Praised

This thought is the beginning and the end of the psalm. Three times in this exceptionally short chapter the psalmist exhorts that praise be offered to God. To praise God means to give honor, adoration, and glory to Him. It means to laud, magnify, or extol. It includes thanksgiving, homage, and expressions of acclaim.

The Bible is filled with examples of men offering praise to false gods. The ancient Philistines worshiped a god called Dagon. When they captured Samson, they sacrificed to Dagon, and “they praised their god” (Judg. 16:24). In the days when Belshazzar was king of Babylon, the sacred vessels taken from the house of God at Jerusalem were used in a drunken feast. “They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone” (Dan. 5:4). Daniel said to Belshazzar, “But thou hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified” (Dan. 5:23).

Only the true God is to be praised. The New Testament teaches that by Christ we are to “offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name” (Heb. 13:15).

Who Is To Praise God

The Israelites were taught through the law to praise God. The little psalm we are studying looks beyond the narrow limits of Israel living under the law to the gospel age. It takes on a Messianic character by admonishing, “O praise the Lord, all ye nations; praise him, all ye people.” This infers the calling of the Gentiles. It looks to the Messiah’s kingdom in which Jews and Gentiles would be united and all would join in glorifying Jehovah.

In Rom. 15, Paul showed that with one mind and one mouth we are to glorify God. We are to receive one another, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, just as Christ has received both Jews and Gentiles to the glory of God. Paul quoted some Old Testament passages pointing to the calling of the Gentiles. In verse I1 he quoted from Psa. 117:1, “Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles, with his people.” This quotation makes it certain that the psalmist was not speaking exclusively of Israel in his admonitions to praise the Lord.

Why God Is To Be Praised

Obviously, God is to be praised because He is our Creator. In Him we live, move, and have our being (Acts 17:28). But the writer of the shortest chapter in the Bible does not discuss this point. He calls upon us to think on two additional reasons for offering praise to God.

First, “God’s merciful kindness is great toward us.” The Israelites should have realized vividly how merciful and kind Jehovah was. He set His affection on them. He brought them out of Egypt. He gave them the promised land. Time and again He passed over their iniquities. He was longsuffering. He was willing to take them back after they had committed spiritual whoredom. We, too, should be aware of His merciful kindness. He is rich in mercy (Eph. 2:4). Think of His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:7). By His grace, mercy, and kindness He sent Jesus to die for us and to provide the way of salvation.

Second, “the truth of the Lord endureth for ever.” God is reliable, truthful, dependable. His promises never fail. His revelation of divine truth will stand when the grass has withered, the flower has fallen, and the earth has melted with fervent heat (1 Pet. 1:23-25).

Conclusion

The shortest chapter in the Bible is not short on value. It teaches important lessons that mankind needs to learn. Some folks are long on praising themselves but short on praising God. The first-century disciples were “praising God” when daily additions were being made to the church (Acts 2:47). Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises to God at midnight in the lonely Philippian prison (Acts 16:25). The beloved John heard a voice out of the throne of heaven saying, “Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great” (Rev. 19:5). The shortest chapter goes to the heart of man’s privilege and duty to praise his God.

Truth Magazine XXII: 32, p. 518
August 17, 1978

By Mike Willis

The doctrine of election as taught by Calvinists is a pernicious doctrine. To them, it is a doctrine which gives them comfort. The idea that God has predetermined that they would be saved, sent them the Holy Spirit to illumine their hearts in order that they might believe and repent, and made it impossible for them to fall from grace is a doctrine of comfort. It would be more comforting to them, however, if they had some genuine evidence that they were among the elect rather than the reprobate. Not ever knowing for sure whether they are among the elect or the reprobate, Calvinists have as much uncertainty about their salvation as any proponent of free-will ever felt. The difference is that the proponent of free-will knows what he must do to be saved whereas the Calvinist does not believe that he can do anything to effect his salvation or cause his damnation.

Let us notice what must happen according to Calvinism in order for a man to be saved. First of all, God must predestinate that certain person to salvation.

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, No. 3).

To those whom God has predestined to save, He grants salvation without any consideration as to what that man might do.

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace (Ibid., no. 5).

Inasmuch as these persons, like all of the rest of humanity, are born totally depraved, God grants to these people the Holy Spirit to illumine them in order that they might repent and believe the gospel.

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it (Ibid., Chapter X, No. 1-2).

Hence, according to the Calvinist, man’s salvation stems wholly from God’s free grace. Man does nothing toward saving himself; God does it all. He chooses the man without regard to what his reaction to God’s offer of salvation might be; He sends him the Holy Spirit to create the faith. Man cannot resist God’s offer of salvation; God’s grace is irresistible. This, my brethren, is what is meant by “election” when used by a Calvinist.

The passages which are used to teach this doctrine are misapplied. One such passage is Romans 9-11. Here is the passage which is frequently referred to:

And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (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) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I love, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy (Rom. 9:10-16).

This passage does not teach Calvinist election. What it does teach is that God of His own will predestined to call His Son through Jacob rather than through Esau. The passage which is quoted by Paul, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (v. 13), is a quotation of Mal. 1:2-3. The passage was written centuries after the death of both Esau and Jacob. It had nothing to do with the salvation or damnation of either one. What it referred to was God’s decision to call Israel through Jacob rather than through Esau. The passage has nothing to do with God arbitrarily electing to save one man and damn another. Rather, it refers to God’s choice which was made without regard to the personal righteousness of either Jacob or Esau to bring His chosen nation into existence.

Let us continue to examine this passage so frequently perverted by the Calvinists.

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (9:17-18).

Calvinists teach that God predestinated that Pharaoh would be born into the world, rebel against God’s will, and be damned in Hell. Notice that the Calvinists teach that it was God’s will that Pharaoh rebel against God’s will. Pharaoh simply did what God predestinated that he would do and then God turned and damned him in hell for doing what God predestined that he would do. Who can believe it?

What this passage teaches is not a thirty-second cousin to such a Calvinist doctrine. What God did was raise up Pharaoh to be king. Pharaoh was the kind of man he was because he chose to be that kind of man. What God did was to allow such a man as Pharaoh to be exalted as king over Egypt. Someone might ask, “How, then, did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?” I reply, “The same way that he hardens men’s hearts today.” How is it that man’s heart is hardened today? We seem to be able to understand how a man’s heart is hardened today. The man hears the word of God, refuses to obey it a . sufficient number of times that he becomes insensitive to God’s will, and then becomes rather obstinate. This is exactly what happened with Pharaoh. Pharaoh heard the word of God through Moses numerous times. Moses related God’s will for Pharaoh, “Let my people go.” Pharaoh refused to obey so God sent the plagues to change his mind. When the plague was hard against Egypt, Pharaoh would decide to allow the people to go but when respite would come, he would change his mind. Through this method God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. This passage does’,not teach that Pharaoh did not have free will. Even as the scriptures teach that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, they also teach that Pharaoh hardened his heart in refusing to hearken to the will of God (Ex. 8:15). Hence, what we have occurring with reference to Pharaoh is not that God predestined to bring a man into this world who He would damn without regard to his personal character. Rather, what God did was to raise up to be a king such a wicked man as Pharaoh whom He used to manifest His glory. There is no difference in God’s use of Pharaoh in the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage than God’s use of the Jews, Herod, and Pontius Pilate in crucifying Christ to deliver us from our sins.

The passage continues as follows:

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory (9:19-23).

This passage must be understood in the context of Romans 9. This passage is discussing God’s purpose to call His people Israel. We are not discussing the personal salvation of a given person. Hence, to make this passage refer to God personally selecting one man to salvation and another for damnation is contrary to the context. Rather, what is being discussed is God’s purpose to choose Israel for God’s chosen people (not all of which Israelites were saved forever in heaven) -and to not so choose Egypt (this does not imply that none of the Egyptians were saved in heaven). Rather, this passage is simply showing God’s determination to choose Israel and to reject Egypt and all other nations.

A few months ago, I was discussing “once saved, always saved” with a Baptist preacher. During that discussion, I used Rom. 11:20-23 to show that a person could fall from grace. In that discussion, the Baptist related that Romans 9-11 was not discussing personal salvation but God’s treatment of Israel. A few weeks ago, I met this same man in a discussion of the Calvinist doctrine of election. Somehow, he had forgotten that this passage was discussing Israel in this discussion for he applied it to personal salvation.

While we are considering Romans 9-11, let us notice some non-Calvinist doctrines taught in this passage. Here are some non-Calvinist doctrines taught in these chapters:

1. A desire for all men to be saved. Paul wrote, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (9:3). Again, he wrote, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved” (10:1). Here, we find Paul praying that God’s will might not be accomplished if Calvinism is true. This passage contradicts the Calvinist doctrine that some are predestined to damnation and some to salvation to praise of God’s glory. Paul should not have been praying that those whom God had predestinated to damnation might be saved. He should have been teaching how God would be praised through their damnation.

2. Conditional salvation. Calvinists teach that salvation is not conditional. Yet, Paul wrote as follows:

“As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom. 9:33).

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. 10:9).

“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom. 10:11).

“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:13).

“For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3).

Since Calvinists teach that salvation is unconditional, this section of Scripture certainly offers them no comfort inasmuch as it offers salvation to every man conditionally.

3. Belief through the preaching of the word-According to Calvinists, a man cannot believe the gospel until the Holy Spirit illumines his mind that he might believe. Rom. 10:17 teaches otherwise; it says, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” This is cofitrary to Calvinist beliefs.

4. Falling from grace. Calvinists teach that a child of God can never fall from grace so as to be eternally lost. Rom. 11:20-23 reads as follows:

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Notice that some of those who had formerly been part of God’s olive tree were broken off. Some who had not been part of the olive tree had been grafted in. We see men traversing from the state of being saved, to lost, to saved. We read nothing of a group of elect and another group of reprobates which can neither be added to nor diminished.

5. Elect people who were lost. Rom. 11:28 states, “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” Hence, here were some who were elect who were enemies of Christ and the gospel and, consequently, lost. This cannot be fitted into Calvinist thought.

Conclusion

Romans 9-11 offers no hope for the Calvinist as proof of his peculiar doctrines of election and reprobation. The doctrine remains unproved. It is contrary to what is revealed about God, man, and the gospel. Calvinism must be rejected in all of its parts.

Truth Magazine XXII: 32, pp. 515-517
August 17, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

For The Truth’s Sake, Christians rejoice in blessed assurance. This confidence cannot exist on a true foundation while we live in sin. Before forgiveness of his sin, David said, “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring (groaning) all the day long.” After forgiveness he exclaimed, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered” (Ps. 32). While living as “children of disobedience,” we are “by nature” of such living, “the children of wrath . . . having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:1-13). Only fear and trembling can abide in a soul where there is “a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries . . . It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God . . . For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 11:27, 31; 12:29).

No wonder Jesus said, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). The first gospel sermon was preached on Pentecost after Jesus ascended to heaven. When people heard that He is “both Lord and Christ” and saw their weight of sin, “they were pricked in their heart” and cried out to be forgiven. The call of Jesus was given for them to come and receive rest to their souls: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins . . .” (Acts 2:26-38). Through the gospel, Christ calls sinners to come by “the faith of the operation of God,” being “buried with him in baptism” (Col. 2:12). When risen from the waters of baptism, they may go on their way “rejoicing” (Acts 8:35-39). When Christians stumble into sin again, they may confess their wrongs and pray God’s forgiveness: “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:6-10).

Assurance in Christ is based upon the certainty of God’s Word — “the Word of the truth of the gospel” (Col. 1:5). God who “cannot lie” has spoken through His Son in His Word; with God there is “no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (Tit. 1:2; Jas. 1:17). Assurance is well founded when we “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11) — speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where it is — call Bible things by Bible names — give Book, Chapter, and Verse for all we do in serving God.

False assurance is often given. Men claim that after they become Christians they can never fall from God’s grace. Paul said of certain ones who were altering the gospel, “Ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Christians who claim “fellowship” with God, claim, “I know Him,” and claim to abide “in Him,” but who continue to walk in their sins are really “of the devil” (1 Jn. 1:6; 2:3-6; 3:8). “He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God” (3 Jn. 11). Jesus came to destroy sin; we must put it away if we are to have assurance in Him.

Assurance based on any foundation other than God’s Word is not true assurance in Christ. Men often express confidence upon false foundations: “How could so many be wrong?. . . I think, suppose, guess . . . It’s what you feel in your heart . . . Our sacred tradition says . . .Our preacher is such a nice man and he says . . . The scholars who wrote our creed believed . . . Our latest convention voted . . .Whatever was good enough for grandma is good enough for me . . . Etc. . . .”

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, p. 509
August 10, 1978