Scripture Twisting accusation

I love AOL chatrooms. They are such an exciting place to discuss ones beliefs. However, they can quickly become burdensome when someone begins to throw around accusations about what one believes. Accusations are not a comfortable thing to live with. Sometimes they can ruin a reputation.

As a Calvinist, I get pestered quite a bit. I hear things like, "Calvinism is a lie of Satan," or "Calvinist believe this or that...." (usually a charicature follows here). However, the worse accusation that I cannot stand in those chat rooms, much less in person, is the charge of "Scripture twisting" (cf. II Peter 3:16). I take this charge very seriously and I think it should be dealt out rather sparingly and not so nonchalantly.

Recently, I was defending the doctrines of Grace in a chat room when a member of the chat room began to post up comments which said that I was "twisting the Scriptures" and interpreting according to men. I quickly reacted by pointing out that I was quoting from the Greek grammar and basing all of my arguments on the Greek manuscripts. Not caring that the Greek is the Bible in its purest form (because the Greek manuscripts were the original God-breathed text), he simply said I was scripture twisting. For example, he would argue from John 3:16 that "whosoever will" can choose to be saved. I quickly pointed out that in the Greek text, the indefinite relative pronoun (whosoever) is not found. I would also point out that the verb for "believe" was in the present tense and should thus be understood as saying, "all the ones who are believing will never perish but have eternal life..."

Now, my question for him was, "how is this twisting the Scripture, when I have simply pointed out what the text, in fact, really does say?" Is this such a crime? Perhaps his presupposed traditions about that text and how it has been interpreted by Bible translations has so molded his thinking that he is not willing to examine the scripture and would rather charge all who do not interpret Scripture like he does with "Scripture twisting." My friends, this is a sad day for Christian who are not willing to really examine the Scriptures at their deepest level. Not that I am trying to turn Bible study into something deeply theological (although, that seems to be where serious Bible tends to lead), but I am saying, that one be willing to examine texts at the grammatical level. After all, that is one level, if not the most common level, where Scripture twisting does in fact take place.

One more thing was quite disturbing. After he was done accusing me of scripture twisting, I politely asked him to grant me the "true interpretation" of the text. After all, if he can say that I am twisting the Scriptures, then he must have a standard to compare my interpretation with. However, he was not willing to provide the "true interpretation" of the text. When he didn't want to do that, I pressed further and asked him how his charged of Scripture twisting was warranted if he couldn't even quote or support any "true interpretation" of the text. All he could offer was negative exegesis - "the text doesn't mean that..." "the text can't mean that..." but never any reasons. Simply a flat out rejection of the grammatical construction and syntax of text after text that I provided.

Certainly interesting experiences. I hope that Christians of all theological backgrounds will always be willing to examine the SCripture and see if the things that are spoken of by another are true. I hope that a flat out accusation of "scripture twisting" will not be resorted when one knows that they cannot support their beliefs from Scripture. The burden of proof lies upon the one affirming a proposition. If one is going to charge someone with Scripture twisting, they should be able and willing to provide proof for the charge. As Calvinist, I hope that we also will not flat out charge other with "scripture twisting" without being informed about the text ourselves and its proper meaning.

"it is Finished" Can Arminians understand what it means?

A friend of mine, who happens to be an Arminian, recently asked me for some material regarding the meanings of the words of Christ from the Cross, "tetelestai" (It is finished). Now, I found this rather odd being that an Arminian and a Calvinist have mutually exclusive views of the atonement of Christ. One understands it as Particular and completed, while the other understands it as general and incomplete (insufficient in and of itself for salvation). The following is my complete correspondence to him regarding the usage of my material. In essence, I am going to ask him to not use my material as long as he is an Arminian since he CANNOT understand what Jesus meant by "it is finished" and still believe in a hypothetical universal atonement. (Names have been edited to protect the innocent)

ok, Friend....here is the outline to my study on the Atonement of Christ and the significance of the word from the Cross, "tetelestai". Part I deals with what the Bible says was the Intention of the coming of Christ and his work on the Cross. Most of the words are from Jesus himself as he frequently alluded to the intended outcome and purpose of his coming. To be brief, Matt. 1:21 states plainly, that Christ came "to save His people". There is no getting around the intentional language that Christ came with a specific purpose that was given to him by the Father and that was "to save"...that is, to ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH THE SALVATION OF HIS PEOPLE. The grammar and syntax of the text (esp. in the Greek) does not allow for the possibility of Jesus being understood as saying, "I came to make salvation possible for all who would be my people". Rather, a definite purpose is defined (to save) for a definite category (His People).

Part II deals with what the Scripture say that the atonement of Christ actually accomplished. I note three things that are described in the Greek as past tense, completed actions (aorist tense). The first is Redemption. The understanding is that all that was intended to be redeemed was actually redeemed through the atonement. Second, is reconciliation. The understanding is that the enmity that existed between God and His People because of their sins has been put aside and ACTUAL reconciliation on the part of God has taken place. This reconciliation is possible because of the third thing, propitiation. Christ was the propitiation that was offered to the Father on behalf of sinners.

Thus, in wrapping up the meaning of "tetelestai" Jesus was proclaiming the accomplishment and finality of redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation all done on behalf of sinners. "It is finished" means that the work of Christ is completed. There is no adding to it. Neither is there subtracting from it. To quote from SCripture, Christ is able to save to the uttermost all who come to God through Christ Jesus (hebrews 7:25). Thus, no one is able to snatch them out of my hands, says Christ (John 10:28) because it was the purpose of the Father and Christ to ACTUALLY ETERNALLY REDEEM (cf. Hebrews 5:9; 9:12) and no one for whom Christ died, can be eternally lost but they MUST - to use the emphatic terms that Spurgeon did in his sermon on Limited atonement - be saved and cannot run the risk of not being saved. They are redeemed. It is finished.

Now, having said that, I must admit that I am a bit hesitant to give you my material because I don't believe that you - as an Arminian - are warranted in proclaiming these great truths of SCripture. Indeed you cannot if you are consistent with your Arminianism. For instance, you believe that Christ died for every single individual that has lived, is living and ever will live till Christ returns and they have the option of "accepting" or "rejecting" the atonement of Christ. If they do, then they are redeemed; if they don't and persist in unbelief, then they are damned. This atonement is a hypothetical universal atonement. Now, there is no avoiding that it is hypothetitcal since you must, as an Arminian, say no one can be saved if they don't accept Christ by their own faith, and secondly, because all men are potentially redeemed upon the basis of their faith. Also, it is a general atonement in the sense that Christ really didn't come for "His People"....in fact, Arminian theology must acknowledge that Christ came for no one in particular but merely to have a basis in the atonement to make salvation possible for all who will trust in Him. This is the universal aspect of the Arminian rendering of the atonement.

Friend, I want you to reconsider using my information if you are not going to present it with the clear teachings of Scripture that are laid out in this outline, and with the entire study that I have done to prove FROM SCRIPTURE that CHRIST ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED SALVATION (REDEMPTION, RECONCILIATION, PROPITIATION, JUSTIFICATION [Romans 3:25], SANCTIFICATION [I Cor. 1:30]) FOR HIS ELECT PEOPLE. I know that you cannot say that you believe the above statement and mean it.

Personally, I think that you either need to abandon your current theology (repent) OR you need to find a way to find out what Christ meant by "it is finished" with your view of the atonement. You even have to take into account this question: "how is Christ atonement "finished" (perfect?) , if it is possible for a sinner to undo the work of the atonement and lose their salvation (lose redemption, reconciliation, propitiation)?" This you can only do apart from my work and through your own personal study. In any regards, here is the outline. I hope that God through His Holy Spirit will use it for His fullest glory

Some thoughts on Ante-Nicene Christianity

I've recently been reading Phillip Schaff's "History of the Christian Church" on Ante-Nicene Christianity. I must say, that I was amazed and in awe with what the earliest members of the the Church had to endure just to keep profess and protect the faith and their faith.
Let me put this in another way. As Christians today, we don't fight very hard for anything that we have except maybe to keep the world moral. We are able to function in the world for the most part as members of society. We can send our kids to schools. We can go to the grocery stores, etc... Essentially, we can live our own lives.
Ante-Nicene Christianity is an era of Christian heroes who fought their personal faith and for the faith that is handed on to us. In regards to their own personal faith, it was illegal for Christians to exist within the Roman empire. They underwent severe persecution for simply professing to be Christian. We might get a snicker or a wierd look from people today, but for them it was the sword and martyrdom. This really puts so much into perspective. Today, it is so easy to profess to be a Christian. Back then, to do so surely meant death, especially under emperors like Nero, Domitian, Trajan and others. What also amazes me about the Church of this era is their lack of tolerance for worldliness. Granted that some sects of the Church went to the ascetic extreme, for the most part, there was a healthy dose of non-affiliation with the world. Today, because it is so easy to be a Christian, we can see worldliness creep into the Church in so many ways. It could be through homosexuality, through pragmatic techniques for preaching and evangelism, certain type of "worship music", etc... Back then, being a Christian really meant something more than it does today.
Also, this Church really fought for the faith. The particular doctrines that they fought to preserve for us were the doctrines of Christ, particularly the full Deity and Humanity of Christ. Gnosticism was trying to destroy the church from within while Rome was trying to destroy it from without. But God raised up men and women to preserve the true apostolic teachings of Christ. If the Church had succumbed to the Gnostic doctrine of Christ, there would have been no bodily resurrection that we celebrate every Easter. There would be no hope of looking forward to a physical deliverance from sin. According to I Corinthians 15, we would not have a Savior!
My concerns for us, are 1) how many of us are aware of what our brothers and sisters in Christ went through for the faith that we have today? 2) Do we not value the teachings of the Apostles handed down to us in the Scriptures enough that we are not willing to fight (perhaps not physically, but at the very least, intellectually) for the faith? 3) What can we do to avoid succumbing to worldliness in the church? These things are certainly not answered in a mere moment but require reflection and meditation and the work of the Holy Spirit to work on our hearts.
I thank God for those brothers and sisters who contended for the faith. Because of them we can state the true doctrine of God and Christ as being one in Substance yet distinct in personality. We can state in doctrinal formulation that Christ is truly God and truly man at the same time in one person. And because of those doctrines, we know that Christ is the perfect savior. May we never forget that those doctrines came to us at a cost. They were handed to us in blood.

Moses