04.03. CHOSEN FOR SALVATION
Ultimate Questions 3. CHOSEN FOR SALVATION
ELECTED
Writing to the Thessalonian converts, Paul says, "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you" (1 Thessalonians 1:4). Just as the sovereignty of God is foundational to Christian theology in general, the doctrine of election is foundational to Christian soteriology in particular. The doctrine maintains that in eternity, before the universe was made, God had selected an unchangeable number of specific individuals for salvation in Christ, and he did so without basing his decision on the faith and works, or any other condition, in the individuals so selected. Rather than choosing an individual because of any foreseen faith, the elect individual receives faith precisely because God has already chosen him.
Against the Calvinists,1 the Arminians oppose this biblical doctrine; instead, they turn divine election into God’s reaction to what we choose, so that our choosing Christ is logically prior to God’s choosing us, with the result that mere human beings determine the will of God in salvation. Against this humanistic heresy, Paul declares, "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you." It is God who sovereignly chooses the elect, so that Paul says, "He has chosen you," and not "He has approved of your choice." If God does little more than accept our choice, then he does not choose us in any real sense of the term. But Jesus says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). Therefore, Arminianism is false. In a disappointing paragraph on 1 Thessalonians, David J. Williams writes:
Election becomes ours only when we are "in Christ". . .Thus the element of human choice enters into the process. If we choose to be in Christ, we have been chosen by God. There is nothing arbitrary, therefore, about election. Our choice makes us his elect. At the same time it makes us "somebodies" who in the eyes of the world may be "nobodies." Election gives us a value that otherwise we would not have, for God chose us, not because of what we were, but despite our being sinners and simply because he is the kind of God he is. . .Our election is entirely an expression of God’s love.2
It is confusing, if not contradictory, to say that election "becomes ours" only when we are in Christ. Is God’s choice of a person an object that can be given or taken away? It is based on this nonsensical statement that "the element of human choice enters into the process."
Williams continues, "If we choose to be in Christ, we have been chosen by God." Depending on how one understands it, on the surface this statement can accommodate either Calvinism or Arminianism. If Williams intends to affirm Calvinism with this statement, then he is saying that one who chooses to be in Christ discovers that he chooses Christ precisely because God has already chosen him, so that God’s choice is prior to and the cause of the man’s choice. That is, God first chose the person, and in due time causes him to choose Christ.3
However, the next statement implies that Williams does not intend to affirm Calvinism: "There is nothing arbitrary, therefore, about election." He is saying that election is not arbitrary only because "the element of human choice enters into the process." If election is completely up to God without reference to any condition found in the person, then God’s decision would be arbitrary. Therefore, to prevent a decision from being arbitrary, God must base his decision on man’s decision. To Williams, an absolutely sovereign God is also an arbitrary God.
Both Calvinists and Arminians are often very careless with the word "arbitrary." If by arbitrary we mean "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will,"4 then of course the Calvinist would deny that election is arbitrary. Both Calvinists and Arminians often use the word in this sense, but this is the last definition in Merriam-Webster. The previous definitions include: "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law…not restrained or limited in the exercise of power: ruling by absolute authority."5 If we use these definitions, then the Calvinist can readily affirm that election is "arbitrary," since God indeed rules "by absolute authority," and election is indeed based on his "individual discretion." Paul writes, "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Romans 9:18), and therefore election is "arbitrary," but not in the pejorative sense.
Williams is clearly using the word "arbitrary" in the pejorative sense - that is, "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will." Then, to paraphrase his position, he is saying that election does not exist or come about "seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will" only because "the element of human choice enters into the process." If election is completely up to God without reference to any condition found in the person, then God’s decision would be "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will."
Therefore, to prevent a decision from being "seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will," God must base his decision on man’s decision. To Williams, an absolutely sovereign God is also a random, capricious, and unreasonable God. To Williams, if God does something with you without first "asking" you, then he is random, capricious, and unreasonable. One term to describe this position is blasphemy. Perhaps Williams forgot that he was writing a Christian commentary. In contrast, Scripture teaches that God is indeed "arbitrary" in the best sense of the term - that is, he "rules by absolute authority" and he does all things by his "individual discretion." He does not have to ask for your permission to do anything with you that he wishes.
Williams’ next statement makes his position even clearer: "Our choice makes us his elect."6 Assuming he understands that the elect refers to "the chosen," this means that he is saying, "Our choice makes us his chosen," or "Our choosing God makes us chosen by God." Notice the word makes - our choice is the cause or reason for God’s choice. But if this is the case, how does election make us "somebodies"? God has not in fact chosen us, but we have chosen him. All he does is respond to our choice. God does not make us special; we make ourselves special.
After this, Williams has the gall to write, "God chose us, not because of what we were. . .simply because he is the kind of God he is." This cannot be true given his position. He has just said that, "Our choice makes us his elect." His position necessarily implies that God chose us precisely "because of what we were" - we are those who have chosen him first. Then, he dares to write that our election is "entirely an expression of God’s love"! But if God chooses us only because we choose him first, then his choosing us cannot be entirely an expression of his love. Thus within several sentences, Williams manages to contradict Scripture, contradict himself, and blaspheme God. The corollary of election is reprobation. The doctrine of reprobation teaches that, just as God has chosen those individuals who would be saved, he has also individually and deliberately decreed the damnation of all others. Many of those who affirm the doctrine of election nevertheless reject the doctrine of reprobation. However, just as election is a necessary conclusion from the sovereignty of God, reprobation is also true if by nothing else other than logical necessity. But many people are proud to reject this biblical doctrine "however logical it may appear to be."7 They reject the doctrine on the basis of irrational prejudice instead of biblical argument or logical inference.
Commenting on 1 Thessalonians 1:4, William MacDonald writes, "The doctrine of election teaches that God chose certain people in Christ before the foundation of the world,"8 and he cites Ephesians 1:4 as support. It seems that he accepts some form of divine election when he writes, "In His sovereignty, God has elected or chosen certain individuals to belong to Himself."9 This broadly agrees with the biblical doctrine of election. But then he continues, "These two doctrines, election and freedom of choice, create an irreconcilable conflict in the human mind."10 I agree that divine sovereignty contradicts human freedom, but where does the Scripture teach human freedom? I deny that humans are free in the sense of being free from God; that is, I affirm with Scripture that God possesses and exercises absolute and constant control over the human will. If MacDonald affirms human freedom, then he must prove it by Scripture. In another place, MacDonald writes: But the same Bible that teaches God’s sovereign election also teaches human responsibility. . .How can we reconcile these two truths? The fact is that we cannot. To the human mind they are in conflict. But the Bible teaches both doctrines, and so we should believe them, content to know that the difficulty lies in our minds and not in God’s.11
First, we must distinguish between human freedom and human responsibility - they are two different things. Many people assume that human responsibility depends on human freedom - that is, they think that humans are responsible because they are free, and that if they are not free, then they cannot be responsible. But by what biblical, theological, or philosophical argument do they establish this? It is almost always assumed without argument, but I reject this unjustified premise. Instead, I affirm that although divine sovereignty contradicts human freedom, and that Scripture never teaches human freedom, divine sovereignty does not contradict human responsibility, and that Scripture indeed teaches human responsibility.
Second, MacDonald fails to understand the nature of a contradiction. He says that if the Bible affirms two contradictory doctrines, then we must affirm both of them. According to MacDonald, the Bible affirms divine sovereignty, and then it also affirms what seems to him the contradictory doctrine of human responsibility. Since the Bible affirms both, we must also affirm both. What he does not realize is that if these doctrines are really contradictory, then to affirm one is to deny the other, so that it is impossible to affirm both at the same time.
If these two doctrines contradict each other, then when you read about divine sovereignty in the Bible, you are not reading only an affirmation of divine sovereignty, but also a denial of human responsibility. Likewise, a biblical affirmation of human responsibility is tantamount to a denial of divine sovereignty. Therefore, if the two doctrines contradict, it will be just as easy to say that the Bible denies both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. To say that these two doctrines only appear to be contradictory to the human mind is irrelevant, because even if it is true that they only appear to contradict each other, it remains that no human mind can affirm both doctrines, even if God can affirm both of them.
Unless MacDonald charges the Bible with error, he must either deny one of the two doctrines as unbiblical, or he must admit that they do not contradict. The real problem is that many commentators refuse to admit that they do not have the subtlety of thought or the intelligence to harmonize the two doctrines - that is, if they need to be harmonized in the first place. Instead, it is as if they think that if they cannot harmonize the two doctrines, then surely no human mind can! On other hand, I affirm that the Bible teaches both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and I affirm that the two doctrines do not contradict - there is not even an apparent contradiction.
MacDonald and many others like him think that there is a contradiction between divine sovereignty and human responsibility because they assume that human responsibility requires man to have freedom of choice, or free will; however, if God has absolute control, then man is not free, and therefore divine sovereignty and human responsibility contradict each other. But this process of reasoning is fatally flawed. A large part of the problem results from an imprecise definition of "responsibility." What does it mean for a person to be "responsible" for his actions? The first definition for "responsible" in Webster’s New World College Dictionary is, "expected or obliged to account (for something, to someone); answerable; accountable."12 Regardless of whether or not man is free, is man "expected or obliged to account" for his actions to God? Yes, because Scripture says, "For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:14). God will reward the righteous and punish the wicked; therefore, man is responsible. What seems to so many as an "irreconcilable conflict" is hereby resolved.
Man is responsible precisely because God is sovereign, since to be responsible means nothing more than being held accountable to one’s actions, that one will be rewarded or punished according to a given standard of right and wrong. It has everything to do with whether God has decreed a final judgment, and whether he has the power and authority to enforce such a decree, but it does not depend on any "free will" in man. In fact, since human responsibility depends on divine sovereignty, and since divine sovereignty indeed contradicts human freedom (not human responsibility), this means that man is responsible precisely because man is not free. The Bible teaches that God controls all human decisions and actions. Autonomy is an illusion. Man is responsible because God will reward obedience and punish rebellion, but this does not mean that man is free to obey or rebel. Romans 8:7 explains, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so." The Bible never teaches that man is responsible for his sins because he is free. That is, man is responsible for his sins not because he is free to do otherwise; this verse says that he is not free. Whether man is responsible has to do with whether God decides to hold him accountable; it has nothing to do with whether man is free. Man is responsible because God has decided to judge him for his sins. Therefore, the doctrine of human responsibility does not depend on the unbiblical teaching of free will, but on the absolute sovereignty of God.
Right away the question becomes one of justice, or whether it is just for God to punish those whom he has predestined to damnation. Paul anticipates this question in Romans 9:19, and writes, "One of you will say to me: ’Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’" He replies, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ’Why did you make me like this?’" (Romans 9:20). This amounts to saying that God is "arbitrary" - he rules by absolute authority; no one can halt his plans, and no one has the right to question him. This is true because God is the creator of all things, and he has the right to do whatever he wishes with his creation: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (Romans 9:21). The next two verses say, "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory. . ." (Romans 9:22-23). Paul is still answering the question in Romans 9:19 : "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" He is saying that since God is sovereign, he can do whatever he wishes, and this includes creating some vessels destined for glory, and some destined for destruction. Peter says regarding those who reject Christ: "They stumble because they disobey the message - which is also what they were destined for" (1 Peter 2:8). Whereas the elect rejoice in this doctrine, the non-elect detest it, but either way, this is the way it is and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.
It is because of poor reasoning that the issue of justice is even brought up against the doctrine of reprobation. In its various forms, the objection amounts to the following:
1. The Bible teaches that God is just.
2. The doctrine of reprobation is unjust.
3. Therefore, the Bible does not teach the doctrine of reprobation.
However, premise (2) has been assumed without warrant. By what standard of justice does a person judge whether the doctrine of reprobation is just or unjust? In contrast to the above, the Christian reasons as follows:
1. The Bible teaches that God is just.
2. The Bible teaches the doctrine of reprobation.
3. Therefore, the doctrine of reprobation is just. The pivotal point is whether the Bible affirms the doctrine; one must not assume whether it is just or unjust beforehand. Since God is the sole standard of justice, and since the Bible affirms the doctrine of reprobation, this means that the doctrine of reprobation is just by definition. Calvin notes: For God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found. Let men’s rashness, then, restrain itself, and not seek what does not exist, lest perhaps it fail to find what does exist.13
Scripture does not teach that God has made salvation actually possible for every human being - it denies it - rather, it teaches that salvation has been made available to "every nation, tribe, language and people" (Revelation 14:6). Joel’s prophecy is that God would pour out his Spirit upon "all flesh" (Acts 2:17, KJV) in the sense of making salvation available to every ethnic group. One idiot of a preacher said that this means "all Muslim flesh, Buddhist flesh," and so on, but this is not what this means. On the day of Pentecost was present "God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5), and the Book of Acts chronicles the progress of the gospel to the Gentiles. That is, "God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18). This is the good news and the surprising message, that the elect company is not restricted to Abraham’s blood descendants, but God has chosen individuals from all ethnic groups, so that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:28-29). In another place, Paul writes:
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men) - remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. (Ephesians 2:11-13) In several passages related to our topic, the Westminster Confession of Faith says the following: 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.
These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
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. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Where they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. (Ephesians 3:3-7) In connection with God’s providence, the Confession states that his control extends itself "to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them" (Ephesians 2:4). Just as the elect comes to Christ by an irresistible summon, and "it is God who works in [him] to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Php 2:13), the reprobate is by no means autonomous - not even in his sins. God directs a person’s thoughts "like a watercourse wherever he pleases" (Proverbs 21:1), and there is no free will.
It is futile to repeat the silly objection that God permits some actions but does not will them, for as Calvin says, "Why shall we say ’permission’ unless it is because God so wills?"14 Since God controls and sustains all things, what does it mean for him to permit something except to say that he wills and causes it? That is, to say that God "permits" something is nothing more than an ambiguous way of saying that God "permits" himself to cause something. There is no distinction between causation and permission with God; unless he wills an event, it can never happen (Matthew 10:29). The Confession says that the election and reprobation of individuals belong to the "secret counsel" of God, so that the members of either group are not listed for public examination. If this is true, then on what basis does Paul say, "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you" (1 Thessalonians 1:4)? Despite his very foolish comments elsewhere, MacDonald gives a correct explanation here: "The apostle was assured that these saints had been chosen by God before the foundation of the world. But how did he know? Did he have some supernatural insight? No, he knew they were among the elect by the way they received the gospel."15 Paul lists the indications that his readers were chosen by God for salvation in the next several verses.
1 Thessalonians 1:5 begins, "Our gospel came to you not simply with words." Because of the pervasive influence of secular philosophy, even the professing Christians in our day are often very anti-intellectualistic. Thus it is unacceptable to present the gospel with "just a sermon"; rather, they place great emphasis on music, drama, fellowship, and mystical experience. With such a disposition, at least some of them will distort "not simply with words" into an endorsement to this type of thinking, so that they may even see the expression as a direct deprecation of plain preaching.
Even the less anti-intellectualistic commentators stumble over the phrase. Leon Morris writes, "Words alone are empty rhetoric, and more than that is required if people’s souls are to be saved."16 But just because "more than that is required if people’s souls are to be saved," does not mean that "words alone are empty rhetoric." Morris is unclear in the first place. If by rhetoric he means, "the art of speaking or writing effectively," "skill in the effective use of speech," or "verbal communication,"17 then what he says almost amounts to saying, "Words are words," which is an irrelevant tautology.
However, the meaning Morris has in mind probably resembles, "artificial eloquence; language that is showy and elaborate but largely empty of clear ideas."18 A fuller quotation from 1 Thessalonians 1:5 says, "Our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction." Now, if Paul’s preaching had been stripped of the other elements, such as the power of the Spirit, it still does not follow that his words would have been "artificial eloquence" or "language that is showy and elaborate but largely empty of clear ideas." Morris’ statement is equivalent to saying that the gospel by itself is nothing more than showy language void of substance and clear ideas.
Morris betrays his confusion when he writes in the next paragraph of his commentary, "The gospel is power. . .whenever the gospel is faithfully proclaimed, there is power."19 But if "the gospel is power," then one can never preach the gospel as empty rhetoric. It is fashionable to repeat such anti-intellectual phrases as, "Words alone are empty rhetoric," but words are always rhetorical, and rhetoric always deals with words. Whether a presentation is empty rhetoric depends on the content of the speech. The proposition, "Jesus is Lord," consists of words alone, and no one will acknowledge its truth unless by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3), but whether one believes it or not, it is not empty rhetoric.
Any interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:5 that deprecates the role of words or of preaching cannot be true. The entire Bible consists of words without a single picture or musical note; it uses words to convey intellectual information. Paul says, "Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32). We inherit the blessings of the gospel and grow in the spiritual life by means of the words of God.
Again, the verse says, "For our gospel did not come to you in word only" (NASB). There are two ways to understand the word "only," as the following examples illustrate:
1. The Godhead does not consist of only God the Father, but also Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2. His wealth does not consist of only this broken bicycle, but also five cars and two houses. In the first statement, the word "only" does not belittle God the Father, but merely indicates that he is not the sole member of the Godhead. However, in the second statement the same word suggests that one’s wealth would indeed be meager if it consists of nothing more than a broken bicycle. That is, the word can simply mean that there are additional items in the list without implying anything negative.
Since the Scripture emphasizes the importance of words in many places, the word "only" (or "simply") in verse 5 cannot be understood in the second sense. That is, Paul has no intention of belittling words or preaching when he says that his gospel did not come "in word only," but he merely desires to indicate that other things besides his verbal presentation had happened, and these things suggested to him that his converts were in fact among God’s elect.
Misconceptions in this area are common. Robert Thomas begins well his explanation of 1 Corinthians 1:5, saying, "Words are basic to intelligent communication. But the gospel’s coming was not ’simply’ in word; speaking was only a part of the whole picture."20 But then he stumbles over the same point as Morris and writes, "Their preaching was not mere hollow rhetoric but contained three other ingredients essential to the outworking of God’s elective purpose."21 However, Galatians 1:11-12 eliminates the possibility that the content of Paul’s preaching is ever "mere hollow rhetoric."22
What Thomas says amounts to saying that if the Spirit does not accompany your reading of the Bible, then the Bible is mere rhetoric. Many unthinking people would agree with Thomas, but I call this blasphemy. As God’s verbal revelation, the Bible is never mere rhetoric - that the Spirit does not act powerfully when you read only means that you may not be affected by what you read, but the content of the Bible, being the mind of God, does not suddenly become hollow.
Morris and Thomas do not seem to know what the word rhetoric means. Paul says he knew that God had chosen the Thessalonian converts because his preaching came "with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction." But then, this means that his preaching did not always include these things, and that God did not always make his preaching effective; otherwise, all who hear Paul preach would have been saved. Now, at those times when these things were not present, did the content of Paul’s preaching suddenly become empty rhetoric, or did the content of the gospel remain the same - that is, the power and wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24)? If Paul preached the same thing, then whether the Spirit came with power to produce faith in the hearers, the gospel was still the power and wisdom of God.
Against the anti-intellectualistic interpretations of Scripture, we must maintain that words can be meaningful by themselves, and whether a presentation consists of empty rhetoric depends on the content of the speech. Since the gospel provides true and coherent content, it is never empty rhetoric. Paul never put down the importance and effectiveness of preaching, since he writes, "God. . .at his appointed season. . .brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior" (Titus 1:2-3). It is true that besides the words that we preach, God must exercise his power to convert the sinner, but it is through our preaching that he exercises this power. Paul came to know that some of the Thessalonians were among God’s elect because of the effects accompanying his preaching that he could not have produced as a human being. But in trying to affirm the necessity of God’s power to convert the sinner, we must be careful not to belittle words or preaching, lest we blaspheme Scripture and the gospel.
SUMMONED
Now we will consider what it means for the gospel to come "with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction" (1 Thessalonians 1:5). Paul mentions two things that happened as he preached the gospel among the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 1:4-10); he was aware that God had chosen the Thessalonians for salvation because of his consciousness of divine involvement when he preached, and because of the converts’ genuine reception of the gospel. 1 Thessalonians 1:5 refers to the first of the two.
Preaching is the means by which God summons the elect to salvation. God’s power regenerates the elect who come under gospel preaching, and gives them faith in Christ, so that they become justified. Because not all who hear the gospel are among the elect, God’s power might not operate in a saving manner every time the gospel is preached, and it might not operate in a saving manner toward everyone in any particular audience.
It is not that the gospel is ever void of power, since "it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16), but only those whom God has called to salvation will receive a change of mind, so that he may recognize Christ as the power and wisdom of God. Paul explains, "Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:22-24).
Therefore, the "power" in our verse refers to the Holy Spirit’s divine influence at work through the apostles’ preaching to effect a subjective change in the minds of the hearers. Common consensus rejects the notion that the apostle has in mind the power to work miracles. Lenski writes, "Power has no connection with the miracles wrought in Thessalonica,"23 and Robertson notes, "Paul does not refer to miracles by dunamis." Then, Vincent: "Power of spiritual persuasion and conviction: not power as displayed in miracles."24 One reason for asserting this is that the word is in the singular, and should not be confused with the plural, as in 1 Corinthians 12:10 - "miraculous powers"; nevertheless, the singular by itself does not exclude the miraculous. Vine adds, "No miracles are recorded in connection with the preaching of the gospel at Thessalonica,"25 Of course miracles can accompany preaching - there are no alternate interpretations to passages like Romans 15:18-33 and Hebrews 2:3-18 than to say that miracles can be an integral part of evangelism, although not necessarily in every instance of evangelism. However, this does not mean that the New Testament writers have miracles in mind whenever they mention "power," even when they are talking about preaching or evangelism. Rather, by "power," they often have in view the subjective influence of the Holy Spirit, as in his divine power to convert sinners. In fact, some scholars think that this is more often the case than not: "Paul rarely alludes to his power of working miracles."28
If we may thus declare the cessationists innocent of theological bias in their understanding of 1 Thessalonians 1:5, we will find some charismatics guilty of misreading it. Donald Stamps says that the power of 1 Thessalonians 1:5 "resulted in conviction of sin, deliverance from satanic bondage, and the performing of miracles and healings."29 Another writer asserts that the verse "probably suggests that miraculous manifestations are in view." At this point, I wish only to establish that one does not need to be a cessationist to reject this interpretation; that is, even a non-cessationist should not see every instance of "power" in the Bible as a reference to miracles.
Since 1 Corinthians 2:4 parallels 1 Thessalonians 1:5, we should study it to better understand both verses. Now, the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 has been distorted by many anti-intellectualistic and charismatic commentators. For example, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:2, "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." It is ludicrous, as some popular charismatic preachers assert, that this means Paul had decided to suppress his tremendous theological knowledge as he was preaching. The expression, "Jesus Christ and him crucified," designates a central theme of the gospel message, that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3). It does not restrict the content of Paul’s preaching to the crucifixion. As 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 indicates, Paul had told the Corinthians about Christ’s resurrection when he preached to them, so that he did not restrict himself to talking only about Christ’s crucifixion. "Jesus Christ and him crucified," "the message of the cross," and other such phrases are general designations of the Christian message and worldview. Of course, several particular aspects of Christianity may receive emphasis at the beginning, but Paul did not preach only a simple message with little regard for the comprehensive set of doctrines forming the Christian faith. Rather, he says that he preached "the whole will of God" (Acts 20:27) to his hearers.
1 Corinthians 2:6-7 also contradicts many preachers’ anti-intellectual agenda: "We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." Throughout 1 Corinthians 1:1-31; 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, Paul does not say that the Christian message is somehow less intellectual, or that the gospel has no claim to intellectual respectability, but his emphasis is that the gospel’s content differs from non-Christian philosophy. He is saying that the content of the gospel is different from and superior to the product of human speculation.30
Christianity is more intellectually rigorous than secular philosophy, not less. There is no trace of anti-intellectualism in 2 Corinthians 11:6: "I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way." Paul claims to possess "surpassingly great revelations" (2 Corinthians 12:7) and "insight into the mystery of Christ" (Ephesians 3:4). He says that love must abound "in knowledge and depth of insight" (Php 1:9). He prays for his readers for "God to fill [them] with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding" (Colossians 1:9). According to Peter, God has given Paul such great wisdom that "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Therefore, it is impossible for 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 to contain any anti-intellectual meaning. The Christian system is thoroughly intellectual. Those who disagree with this often confuse the Bible’s denunciation of human speculation as a denunciation of the intellect or intellectualism. Scripture repudiates the false intellectual content of secular philosophy, and not the exercise of the intellect itself. However, many preachers distort Paul’s statement, "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2), so as to excuse their disobedience to 2 Timothy 2:15: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth" (NASB). Most preachers are not really qualified to be preachers, being especially weak in theological knowledge; thus to belittle knowledge and intellectualism is a convenient way to hide their deficiencies. Our purpose for coming to 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 in the first place compels us to focus on 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 : "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power." Much stronger than they do with 1 Thessalonians 1:5, the charismatics assert that 1 Corinthians 2:4 must be referring to the power to perform miracles; however, the verse has the same emphasis as 1 Thessalonians 1:5 - that is, the Holy Spirit’s subjective influence to convert sinners through preaching. The Greeks had tremendous admiration for oratory eloquence, so much so that at times it caused them to ignore the substance of what was said. The "wisdom" (1 Corinthians 1:22) they so respected "often degenerated into meaningless sophistries."31 The sophists, scorned by Plato, were those who would argue for whatever position the situation demanded. Their blatant disregard for truth allowed them to be debaters for hire, that is, to argue for whatever position that one may have paid them to defend. Many people compare them with present-day lawyers. That they were professional debaters does not mean that the sophists always offered sound arguments. As Plato pointed out, their arguments were often fallacious and deceptive. The Greeks did not help to stem the situation, for they "tended to judge the value of a discourse more by its external exhibition than by its inward power."32 Their philosophical arguments were based on dubious human speculation. Thus as he defends his apostleship, Paul writes, "I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way" (2 Corinthians 11:6). The gospel is not based on speculative philosophy, but divine revelation.
Greek "wisdom" despised the message of the cross, which appeared to the people as a message of defeat and not triumph. But there is salvation in no other message, and so Paul writes, "We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23). Therefore, the statement, "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2), is written in contrast to secular thinking, and does not at all imply an anti-intellectualistic strategy of evangelism. Paul is noting that he preached to the people a message that was contrary to their cultural and spiritual disposition, and since the message was not founded on mere human speculation in the first place, he did not speak as the sophists did, but instead relied on God’s power to convince and convict his hearers. This is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 : "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power." Paul deliberately slips into philosophical terms in 1 Corinthians 2:4, asserting that his preaching was shown true, not by speculative and fallacious arguments, but by the "demonstration" of the Spirit. Some charismatic preachers assume that this word is similar to "manifestation" in 1 Corinthians 12:7, but this is a mistake. Rather than the idea of exhibition, the word indicates a logical proof, such as in philosophy and geometry. The English translation is therefore appropriate, since "demonstration" denotes a "logical proof in which a certain conclusion is shown to follow from certain premises."33 Morris adds, "The word translated demonstration (apodeixis) means the most rigorous proof. Some proofs indicate no more than that the conclusion follows from the premises, but with apodeixis the premises are known to be true, and therefore the conclusion is not only logical, but certainly true."34
Thus Vine writes that "demonstration" here "has the force of a proof, not an exhibition, but that which carries conviction, and that by the operation of the Holy Spirit (not here the human spirit) and the power thereby imparted to the speaker (not here referring to accompanying miracles or signs, which would require the plural)."35 Many charismatics may think that the verse speaks of miracles as proofs of the gospel, but the more scholarly ones often do not insist on such an interpretation. Even with his Pentecostal background, Gordon Fee nevertheless writes:
It is possible, for example, and is often argued for or simply assumed, that in keeping with Romans 15:19 this refers to the "signs and wonders" of 2 Corinthians 12:12. But that would seem to play directly into the Corinthians’ hands, to build up the very issue he is trying to demolish (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:1-10). More likely, therefore, especially in the context of personal "weakness" and in keeping with 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6, it refers to their actual conversion. . .
Therefore, with the concluding purpose clause of 1 Corinthians 1:5 the argument that began in 1 Corinthians 1:18 comes full circle. The message of the cross, which is folly to the "wise," is the saving power of God to the believing. The goal of all the divine activity, both in the cross and in choosing them, and now in Paul’s preaching which brought the cross and them together, has been to disarm the wise and powerful so that those who believe must trust God alone and completely. Thus 1 Corinthians 1:5 concludes the paragraph: "so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power." In another context this might suggest that faith rests on evidences; but that would scarcely apply here. The power of God throughout this passage has the cross as its paradigm. The true alternative to wisdom humanly conceived is not "signs," but the gospel, which the Spirit brings to bear on people’s lives in powerful ways.36
Most commentators agree that the verse does not focus on the power to work miracles, and that Paul is not belittling the use of intellectual arguments. Rather, his point is that when he approached the Corinthians, he insisted on presenting a message that was based on divine revelation instead of one that was based on human speculation. Gordon Fee writes:
He deliberately avoided the very thing that now fascinates them, "the persuasion of wisdom." But his preaching did not thereby lack "persuasion." What it lacked was the kind of persuasion found among the sophists and rhetoricians, where the power lay in the person and his delivery. . .What he is rejecting is not preaching, not even persuasive preaching; rather, it is the real danger in all preaching - self-reliance.37 As Bullinger observes, "Here, it denotes the powerful gift of divine wisdom, in contrast with the weakness of human wisdom."38 This is the issue at hand. Paul’s preaching differs from the orators both in method and content, but his arguments are nevertheless logical and persuasive, instead of hollow and deceptive. Unlike the fallacious "proof" of the sophists, the apostle provides sound "proof" for his message that is powerful to effect conversion in his hearers. This parallels our earlier explanation of 1 Thessalonians 1:5.
We should have a precise understanding of Christianity’s relationship with philosophy. In connection with this, one part of Vine’s definition on the word "demonstration" is problematic. It says, "a ’showing’ or demonstrating by argument, [apodeixis] is found in 1 Corinthians 2:4, where the apostle speaks of a proof, a ’showing’ forth or display, by the operation of the Spirit of God in him, as affecting the hearts and lives of his hearers, in contrast to the attempted methods of proof by rhetorical arts and philosophic arguments."39 It is correct that apodeixis means "demonstrating by argument," and it is true that the "showing forth" is not a visible "manifestation" as in 1 Corinthians 12:7, but it is the operation of the Spirit’s power "as affecting the hearts and lives of his hearers." It is also true that Paul contrasts his approach against "the attempted methods of proof by rhetorical arts." In this case, rhetoric indeed denotes, "artificial eloquence; language that is showy and elaborate but largely empty of clear ideas."40 Any speech is rhetoric in the sense that it is verbal communication or discourse, and as such Paul engages in it, but unlike the philosophers, his arguments are free from sophism.41 The definition is acceptable to this point. Paul’s approach differs from those who employed "mere rhetoric," since he preaches a message with true and coherent content without using fallacious arguments to deceive his hearers into agreeing with him.
However, Vine then contrasts Paul’s speech against "philosophic arguments." Now, this can be misleading. If "philosophy" is the "theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe,"42 then Christianity is certainly a philosophy. Scriptural teachings indeed produce a Weltanschauung - a worldview, or "a comprehensive. . .philosophy or conception of the world and of human life."43 Unless Vine means "sophistic" when he says "philosophic," his contrast between Paul’s demonstrations and "philosophic" arguments is false. That is, Scripture (and Paul) indeed addresses "philosophic" issues, using sound "philosophic" arguments, but unlike human philosophy, these arguments are not fallacious or "sophistic." We should contrast Christianity against sophistry, and not philosophy as such.
Contrasting Christianity against philosophy as such discourages Christians from thinking deeply about the ultimate questions. Some people cite Colossians 2:8, which says, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." They assume this means that the believer should shun philosophy altogether. But if we turn away from an "analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe," we must also stop studying the Bible, since the Bible constantly discusses "conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe" - that is, ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics.
Paul never says to shun philosophy as such, but he warns against being taken captive by "hollow and deceptive philosophy." The Bible repeatedly warns against false doctrines, but this does not mean that we should avoid all doctrines. In fact, an essential step in guarding against falsehood is to thoroughly know the truth. According to Paul, false philosophy "depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world" - it begins from erroneous first principles. At the same time, he has just as good as called Christianity a philosophy when he implies that true philosophy would be based "on Christ" - it has Christ as its first principle. Paul never tells us to stop thinking or contemplating the ultimate questions, which is the task of philosophy, but he says to stop thinking like the unbelievers.
Although the word is very difficult to define, many people are willing to categorize Christianity as a "religion," and to affirm that Christianity is the only true religion among many false ones. This means that just because we must reject false religions does not mean that Christianity itself is not a religion. But religion is perhaps very properly seen as a subset of philosophy. A religion is only a particular way of answering the philosophical questions, and as in philosophy, these answers combine to form a worldview. Again, not all worldviews are true, and the Christian will affirm that only the biblical worldview is true; nevertheless, they are all worldviews. So there is no legitimate reason for denying that Christianity is a philosophy. As one theologian wrote, Christian philosophy is only Christian theology expressed in different vocabularies, so that there is really no problem in calling Christianity a philosophy. Often people say something like, "Christianity is not a religion (or philosophy), it is a life." This may sound clever and pious to some people, but it is false. Rather, Christianity is indeed a religion and a philosophy, but it is one that demands and produces a particular kind of life; nevertheless, it is first a religion and a philosophy. Recognizing the fact that Christianity is a philosophy sets it up to directly confront all other worldviews; that is, we are making it clear that Christianity is a comprehensive system of thought, and it is one that contradicts all non-Christian systems of thought on every major and minor topic. If Christianity is true, then no non-Christian system can be true.
One problem may be that people often associate philosophy with futile speculation, but this is an unnecessary assumption, since the dictionary defines philosophy as the "theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe." That is, not all philosophy is necessary bad philosophy. Whereas non-Christian philosophy indeed consists of mere speculation in the sense of conjecture and guesswork, Christianity, or Christian philosophy, is founded on the indubitable premises revealed by God. The ESV has Paul saying that his preaching was not "in plausible words of wisdom" (1 Corinthians 2:4). Now, plausible can mean "appearing worthy of belief,"44 and as such Christianity is of course not implausible. However, the first and second definitions in Merriam-Webster are "superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious;45 superficially pleasing or persuasive." When these meanings are intended, as seems to be the case in the ESV, then we must affirm that Christianity is more than plausible, since it is not true merely on the surface, but also in its substance.
Non-Christian philosophy may sometimes appear reasonable or persuasive on the surface (although not to me), so as to deceive many people, but under analysis it turns out to be mere sophistry, or an intellectual "sleight of hand." In contrast, Christianity is supported by the "demonstration of the Spirit," and as pointed out earlier, "with apodeixis [or demonstration] the premises are known to be true, and therefore the conclusion is not only logical, but certainly true."46
Therefore, the ESV brings to light Paul’s position, namely, non-Christian philosophy is never too intellectual or logical, but it is precisely the opposite, since it depends on unjustified and unjustifiable premises. Non-Christian thought is not intellectual or logical enough; it convinces people not by sound arguments, but by tricks and fallacies that nevertheless appear compelling to those unable to see through the deception. On the other hand, Christian philosophy draws necessary conclusions from true premises.
Paul tells the Corinthians that he preached the way he did "so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power" (1 Corinthians 2:5). Fee remarks, "In another context this might seem to suggest that faith rests on evidences;47 but that would scarcely make sense here."48 As with 1 Thessalonians 1:5, "The main point is that the whole is God’s work. The Corinthians were made Christians by divine power."49 Since the power in both places refer to "the powerful operation of the Spirit, bearing witness with and by the truth in our hearts,"50 "men’s wisdom" and "God’s power" do not necessarily refer to the object of faith - that which the person believes - but rather the means by which faith has been generated. We may understand the verse to say, "with the result that your faith should not exist by the wisdom of men, but by the power of God."51 This fulfills our purpose for dealing with 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 and takes us back to 1 Thessalonians 1:5, which says, "Our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction." Using theological terms, we may paraphrase, "We know that God has chosen you for salvation, because when we preached to you, you did not receive only the external call of the gospel from us, but God issued the inward summon of the Spirit in your minds and produced in you faith in Christ."52
We mentioned earlier that two things happened in connection to Paul’s preaching at Thessalonica, leading Paul to believe that his converts were truly among the elect. The first indication to Paul that God had chosen some of his hearers for salvation was his awareness of active divine power in his preaching. He mentions this again in his second letter to the Thessalonians: "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). Romans 8:30 says, "Those he predestined, he also called." It was God who had called or summoned the converts to himself by irresistible power, although he does this through and by means of the preaching of the gospel.
PRESERVED This leads us to the second thing that happened when Paul preached. Corresponding to the first, it was the positive reception of the gospel by the Thessalonians. Paul describes this in 1 Thessalonians 1:6-10 :
You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia - your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead - Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
Paul was confident that at least some of his hearers were ordained to salvation because he was conscious of God’s power in his preaching. However, anybody can pretend to agree with the gospel, thus for one to acknowledge the converts as genuine believers, they must exhibit some indications of regeneration and faith. As Jesus says, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:18-20; see also Matthew 7:21-27.
Since regeneration is a radical reconstruction of the intellect and personality of the individual, the true convert should exhibit in his outward speech and conduct the changes that correspond to such a drastic inward transformation. From the transformation that had taken place in the Thessalonians, Paul inferred that they were truly born again, and that their faith in Christ was real. For example, Paul says, "In spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit." Jesus explains in the parable of the sower that not everyone who appears to receive the word of God with joy is truly saved: "The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away" (Matthew 13:20-21). However, Paul is not referring to the superficial and temporary kind of joy coming from a heart in which the word of God has not taken root. Rather, the joy of the Thessalonians in accepting the gospel message was "given by the Holy Spirit," who had changed the very roots of their intellect and personality, for such is the nature of regeneration. The Spirit performs this work of regeneration only in the minds of the elect. Jesus says, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). A doctrine of salvation that teaches free will cannot make sense of this verse, but the biblical doctrine of salvation affirms that, as "the wind blows wherever it pleases," so the Spirit of God regenerates those - and only those - who have been chosen to be saved by God. Scripture says, "All who were appointed for eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). A person believes in Christ because he has been chosen. God did not choose us because he had foreseen our faith, but we have faith because God has chosen us without regard for any condition that would be found in us. God, being absolutely sovereign, would be the ultimate cause for any condition found in us in the first place. Since it was the Holy Spirit who gave Paul’s converts such joy in receiving the gospel message, it means that God had performed a work in their minds on his own initiative, because of his own sovereign decision. And since God does not so affect the heart of those whom he has not chosen, Paul infers that the Thessalonians were among the elect.
Jesus says that the false convert falls away "when trouble or persecution comes because of the word." In contrast, the joy of the Thessalonians endured "in spite of severe suffering." Although many of our countries are unjust toward Christianity, most of them stop short of making persecuting Christians their official agenda. Under this relatively comfortable atmosphere, false converts that have been gathered by unbiblical preaching are not sifted out of the church. Contributing nothing but costing much, they continue to be a vexing but unacknowledged problem for the church. The solution is not to hope for severe persecution, but a return to the biblical gospel.
More than a few writers have expressed concern over the alarming rate with which professing Christians are converting to other religions - Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Catholicism, and other non-Christian groups and cults. However, the unceasing influx of false converts is even more alarming. By God’s providence, non-Christian religions and philosophies actually help remove some of the false converts from the church, lest we become overwhelmed by them. That is, many reprobates - destined for destruction - join themselves to Christian churches because they have heard and affirmed a false gospel, such as Arminianism, and non-Christian religions and philosophies at times attract these reprobates away from the church. On the other hand, true Christians belong to Christ forever, so that "no one can snatch them out of [his] hand" (John 10:28). It is better for a kingdom to have many easily marked enemies than to have many foreign spies within its own domain, wrecking havoc and draining its resources from within. Add to this the fact that many false converts have even become ministers, and it is clear that it is better for them to leave the church than to remain in it.
Since there are many false converts in our churches, there is a great need to evangelize our own congregations; let the gospel either convert them or drive them away. In John 6:1-71, Jesus gives his followers a "hard teaching" (John 6:60) after which "many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him" (John 6:66). But even this did not remove Judas, who being "doomed to destruction," was not lost until later, "so that Scripture would be fulfilled" (John 17:12). He betrayed Christ as predicted (John 6:70-71), and afterward committed suicide. On the other hand, Peter denied Christ three times, but recovered to become a great apostle. What was the difference? Jesus had prayed for Peter so that his "faith may not fail" (Luke 22:32). He also prayed for the rest of his elect, but not for the reprobates: "I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9; also Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25). The truth is that "no one can come to [Christ] unless the Father has enabled him" (John 6:65). Peter was enabled; Judas was not.
Genuine faith embraces the true gospel message without regard to the practical consequences that may occur. If Paul knew that the Thessalonians were true converts because of their joy and endurance in the face of severe suffering, he would no doubt denounce those who compromise their faith because of financial disadvantages, political threats, or pressures from relatives and friends. On the other hand, "No one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life" (Luke 18:29-30).
Thus perseverance in hostile circumstances indicates the presence of genuine faith, which in turn implies that God has chosen the person for salvation, and sovereignly changed his heart. Peter writes:
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade - kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)
God has "given us new birth" because of his "great mercy," and we persevere in the Christian walk because he preserves us through the faith that he has given to us.
Contrary to Arminianism, God does not preserve us as a reaction to our enduring faith; rather, our faith endures because God causes it to endure. Hebrews 12:2 calls Jesus both "the author and perfecter of our faith." Faith does not come from our own wills; it is a gift from God. Neither does faith endure by our own power, but "he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus" (Php 1:6). Salvation depends on God’s sovereign will and mercy from the beginning to the end. Therefore, it is by his immutable decree in election and not human free will (which we do not really have) that all "those he justified, he also glorified" (Romans 8:30). Those who fail to persevere until their glorification, have never received justification.
Genuine faith does not only endure, but it is active and growing. Paul continues saying to the Thessalonians: And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia - your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. (1 Corinthians 1:7-9)
Peter says, "Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation" (1 Peter 2:2). One who shows no interest in studying theology is perhaps temporarily ill in spirit, but it is more likely that he has never received the impartation of spiritual life from the Holy Spirit. By feeding on spiritual milk, the believer grows up in his faith, but one who "lives on milk" is still a spiritual infant, and "is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness" (Hebrews 5:13). Anti-intellectualism has prevented generations of Christians from growing up in the faith. Spiritual growth has to do with an intellectual understanding of God’s word and not mystical experiences. Maturity has to do with how one speaks and reasons: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me" (1 Corinthians 13:11). The writer of Hebrews reprimands his readers, saying, "In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!" (Hebrews 5:12). Now, how many Christians understand the letter to the Hebrews? Many people consider the materials to be quite advanced, but the letter was directed to those who were "slow to learn" (Hebrews 5:11), and those who still "need milk, not solid food" (Hebrews 5:12). However, the anti-intellectuals are unabashed, because they reject the biblical standard of growth and make Christianity a matter of feeling and experience. But let us heed the apostle Paul instead, and begin to grow in knowledge and character, based on an intellectual understanding of Scripture, so that we can begin to speak and think as spiritual adults instead of spiritual infants.
Bearing spiritual fruit is another metaphorical way of indicating spiritual maturity. Jesus teaches, "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). The Bible contradicts the notion that the mere profession of faith guarantees salvation.53 Although it is true that a genuine profession of faith saves a person without regard to his works, one who has made a profession of faith but afterward bears no fruit produces no evidence that he has ever been a believer at all. John 15:8 says that one shows that he is a true disciple by producing spiritual fruit: "This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples." The Thessalonian believers appeared to have passed this test. Their faith endured and grew such that they became models for other believers to imitate. As Paul instructs Timothy, "Set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity" (1 Timothy 4:12). Other Christians readily recognized the powerful effect the Holy Spirit produced in the Thessalonian converts, so that wherever Paul went, he had no need to tell others about them. Believers everywhere already knew how they had "turned to God from idols" (1 Thessalonians 1:9).
True conversion results from a drastic and permanent transformation at the deepest level of one’s intellect and personality. God changes the individual’s most basic commitments, so that he denounces the abominable objects he once served, and turns to offer true worship to God. This change in a person’s first principle of thought and conduct generates a rippling effect that transforms the entire spectrum of his worldview and lifestyle. Thus conversion produces not only a negative change, in which one turns from idols, but Paul states that they also turned "to serve the living and true God" (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Moreover, a biblical system of thought replaces the former unbiblical philosophy. This new worldview is one in which we "wait for [God’s] Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead - Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath" (1 Thessalonians 1:10).
Salvation does not come from turning to a generic "God," as if there is such a thing as a generic "God," but in true conversion, one must explicitly affirm the biblical system of thought. In connection with this, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 is of course not exhaustive, but at least it includes the resurrection and return of Jesus Christ, the coming wrath of God against the unsaved, and it carries a partial reference to the Trinity, since Paul distinguishes between the Father and the Son. The Christian worldview offers a teleology that ties together the whole of human history. Turning from idols to serve the true and living God, the believer now looks forward to the culmination of the ages in the return of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, our biblical passage assumes the apostle’s soteriology from election to glorification. God has chosen those who would be saved through Christ by an immutable decree in eternity. In due time, he regenerates them and produces faith in their minds by means of preaching. Genuine faith then perseveres and grows into maturity. This transformation of the inward man results in a glorious hope, through which the believer yearns for and expects the return of Jesus Christ and the consummation of his salvation.
Endnotes:
1. Of course, we do not affirm "Calvinism" just because John Calvin taught it, but because it is biblical, and we oppose "Arminianism" because it is unbiblical. We are using these terms only for the sake of convenience.
2. David J. Williams, New International Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Thessalonians; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1992; p. 28.
3. We will soon discover that this is not what he means.
4. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2001.
5. Ibid.
6. By this, he shows what he means by his earlier statement, "If we choose to be in Christ, we have been chosen by God." That is, he intends to assert Arminianism.
7. Peter E. Cousins, "1 Thessalonians"; F. F. Bruce, ed., New International Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979; p. 1461.
8. William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary; Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, Inc., 1995 (original: 1989); p. 2024.
9. Ibid., p. 1714.
10. Ibid., p. 2024.
11. Ibid., p. 1714-1715.
12. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition; Foster City, California: IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., 2000.
13. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion; Edited by John T. McNeill; Translated by Ford Lewis Battles; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960; p. 949, (III, xxiii, 2).
14. Calvin, Institutes; p. 956, (III, xxiii, 8).
15. MacDonald, p. 2024.
16. Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, Revised Edition; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991; p. 46.
17. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.
18. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition.
19. Morris, Thessalonians; p. 46.
20. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11; Grand Rapid, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978; p. 244.
21. Ibid., p. 244.
22. "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
23. R. C. H. Lenski, Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon; Peabody, Masschusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2001 (original: 1937); p. 226.
24. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 4; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.; p. 17.
25. The Collected Writings of W. E. Vine, Vol. 3; Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1996; p. 22.
26. "I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done - by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ."
27. "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."
28. Vincent, Word Studies, Vol. 4; p. 17.
29. Full Life Study Bible: New International Version; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992; p. 1860.
30. To speculate may mean "to think about various aspects of a given subject," or to "meditate" and "ponder." However, my use of this word carries the meaning of "conjecture" or "guesswork." See Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition.
31. Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999 (original: 1958); p. 45.
32. The Collected Writings of W. E. Vine, Vol. 2; Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1996; p. 10.
33. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition.
34. Morris, 1 Corinthians; p. 51.
35. Collected Writings of W. E. Vine, Vol. 2; p. 17.
36. Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowerful Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994; p. 92-93.
37. Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987; p. 94-96.
38. E. W. Bullinger, Word Studies on the Holy Spirit; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1979; p. 120.
39. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words; Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, Inc., 1985; New Testament section, "demonstration," p. 158.
40. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition.
41. "A clever and plausible but fallacious argument or form of reasoning, whether or not intended to deceive," Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.
45. Specious means, "having a false look of truth or genuineness; sophistic," Ibid.
46. Morris, 1 Corinthians; p. 51.
47. That is, it might seem that for faith to rest on "God’s power" is a reference to miracles, but we have already explained that Paul is referring to something else, namely, the divine influence of the Spirit.
48. Fee, Corinthians; p. 96.
49. Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians; The Trinity Foundation, 1991 (original: 1975); p. 34.
50. Charles Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians; Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000 (original: 1857); p. 32.
51. Clark, p. 34.
52. See my Systematic Theology, 2001; chapter 6: "Salvation," see calling.
53. That is, a false profession, since a profession energized by the Spirit indicates sincere faith, through which we are saved.