How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?

How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Apparent Contradiction

There’s a seeming contradiction in the Bible concerning Abraham’s age when he left Haran. The apparent contradiction is as follows. If Terah died when he was 205 years old, but fathered Abram when he was 70, then Abram must have been 135 years old when his father Terah died (as Gen. 11.26, 32 suggest), not 75, as Gen. 12.4 indicates. For the story to work without any discrepancies, Terah would literally have to be 130 years old when he fathered Abram. But it seemed as if he were only 70 years old. Hence the apparent contradiction. Below are the relevant citations that appear to contradict each other.

—-

Genesis 12.4 (ESV):

So Abram went, as the LORD had told him,

and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-

five years old when he departed from

Haran.

Acts 7.2:

And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers,

hear me. The God of glory appeared to our

father Abraham when he was in

Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.’

Acts 7.4:

Then he went out from the land of the

Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his

father died, God removed him from there

into this land in which you are now living.

Genesis 11.26:

When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Genesis 11.32:

The days of Terah were 205 years, and

Terah died in Haran.

—————

Apologetic Exegesis

The key passage is Gen. 11.26. The Hebrew text doesn’t explicitly say that *when* Terah was 70 years old he begat Abram. Rather, it puts it thusly (Gen. 11.26 KJV):

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that Terah had all 3 children when he was 70 years old. Nor is there any direct evidence that these children were triplets, or that they were born on the exact same date, month, or year. The verse in Gen. 11.26 merely indicates that after Terah reached a certain age——namely, 70 years old——he began to father children. But exactly when these children were actually born is unknown. The only thing that’s clear from Gen. 11.26 is that they were born after Terah had reached a certain age.

It’s quite possible, for example, that some of his children could have been born when Terah was 130 years old. Nothing in the text would contradict the timing of such a birth. As long as Terah fathered at least one child after he was 70, the rest could have been born anytime between Terah’s 70th and 205th birthday.

The order in which the names of Terah’s sons are listed may not reflect the precise chronological order in which the children were actually born. The text is simply indicating their order of importance. Given that Abram is a key figure in the Old Testament and the common patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, he’s obviously mentioned first:

there is yet a question whether Abram was

born first as listed, or perhaps he is listed

first because he was the wisest similar to

Shem, Ham, and Jafeth where Shem was

not the oldest, but was the wisest. … the

Talmud leaves the above question open.

(Wikipedia)

—————

Conclusion

Actually, Abram could have been 75 years old when he left Haran, as the text indicates (Gen. 12.4). And maybe he did leave Haran “after his father died” (Acts 7.4) at the age of 205 (Gen. 11.32). There is no contradiction with regard to the dates. The assumed contradiction is actually based on fallacious reasoning and speculation. It’s based on an eisegesis, that is, a misinterpretation of the text. Readers often assume that the text is telling us that Abram was born *when* Terah was 70 years old. But that’s a conjecture. The text doesn’t say that at all. All the text says is that once Terah reached a certain age, he began fathering sons. But exactly when each and every son was born is unknown.

—

The Return of Nazism

By Author Eli Kittim

The tactics that modern governments are using against their citizens to coerce and manipulate them are taken from the Nazi playbook. They are using better versions of the same techniques because now they can apply them with greater efficacy and ease via technology!

Nazi Propaganda Welcomed by Big Tech

The Nazis effectively used propaganda to

win the support of millions of Germans in a

democracy and, later in a dictatorship, to

facilitate persecution, war, and ultimately

genocide. The stereotypes and images

found in Nazi propaganda were not new,

but were already familiar to their intended

audience.

(Holocaust Encyclopedia)

Joseph Goebbels was the head of the Ministry of Propaganda for the Nazi Party. His modern counterparts are Big Tech & the Mass Media who do not report the fascism that is currently spreading in Australia & elsewhere but rather deceive the masses by deliberately falsifying stories, such as the purported Italian hospital that CBS News pretended was in NYC. At any rate, anyone who objects to their agenda will be duly vilified and punished in a manner according to that depicted in George Orwell’s film 1984.

See the following article in which a former investor compares Facebook to Nazi propaganda: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5071913/Facebook-investor-compares-network-Nazi-propaganda.html

Mail Online

Facebook investor compares network to Nazi propaganda

Speaking in Washington, former Facebook investor Roger McNamee (pictured) warned he believed Facebook had 'absolved itself' from responsibil

Incidentally, why would any Facebook post need to be removed and marked as “False Information” after being supposedly “Checked by Independent Fact-Checkers”? Since the onset of modern science and philosophy, has any theoretical or intellectual position ever been excluded, censored, or removed from the history books simply because it was deemed invalid or classified as “false information”? No. Of course not! In all democratic societies, multiple points of view have always been accepted as parts of any ongoing debate or freedom of expression, which in the US is protected under the 1st amendment (i.e. freedom of speech & freedom of the press). The only times when such freedoms of expression have been stifled, censored, or even outright outlawed were during the reigns of totalitarian regimes, such as the CCP, the USSR, and the NAZI party. Information can certainly be evaluated as true or false, but even if it is deemed false, it is never omitted, censored, or removed on the grounds of possible misinformation or absence of proof. The fact that platforms like Twitter & Facebook are openly removing user-generated content on that basis alone is evidence that they are acting on behalf of a totalitarian regime (a global cabal) that is operating behind the scenes.

Similarities Between the Nazi Human Experimentation and the Current Forced-Vaccine Experimentation

Nazi physicians and their assistants forced

prisoners into participating; they did not

willingly volunteer and no consent was

given for the procedures. Typically, the

experiments were conducted without

anesthesia and resulted in death, trauma,

disfigurement, or permanent disability, and

as such are considered examples of

medical torture. . . . After the war, these

crimes were tried at what became known as

the Doctors' Trial, and revulsion at the

abuses perpetrated led to the development

of the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics.

(Wikipedia)

Dr. Josef Mengele (aka the Angel of Death) was the Anthony Fauci of his time who presided over the Auschwitz concentration camp, where he performed deadly genetic-altering experiments on prisoners. As a pioneer on eugenics and “approved genocide,” he was the head of a team of nazi doctors who selected victims to be exterminated in the gas chambers. Today this is Anthony Fauci, the CDC and the WHO, who are in cahoots with Big Pharma & Big Tech. These, together with the UN (United Nations), the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the WEF (The World Economic Forum) control governments and nations. They also control the large corporations which are the parent companies of many local news outlets. So, they control the flow of information, the economy, politics, and the culture. Back in the day, these were clandestine operations that were carried out behind the scenes. Now, it’s out in the open. Any state-sponsored science is openly embraced, while all else is relegated to false claims and misinformation.

The Dangers of the COVID-19 Vaccine

I don’t know about you but when credible doctors and scientists (who disagree with the state-sponsored science) are dismissed as cranks by the Big Tech giants, I think it’s time to step back and re-examine what’s going on here. Credible doctors like Peter Andrew McCullough, cardiologist, formerly Vice Chief of Internal Medicine at Baylor University & professor at Texas A&M University, together with virology expert, Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, who has previously worked with the B. & M. Gates Foundation and GAVI, and Michael Yeadon, former vice president and chief scientist at drugs giant Pfizer Inc., are all saying that healthy people shouldn’t be coerced into taking “experimental” vaccines. Moreover, Dr Robert Malone, who was chiefly responsible for the creation of the messenger RNA vaccine at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, has said that “the government is not being transparent about the risks” of the covid-19 vaccine. Dr. Malone also said that the public doesn’t have enough information to decide whether to get vaccinated or not. He added that offering incentives for taking vaccines is unethical. These are experts in their fields. To dismiss them as conspiracy theorists is state-sponsored propaganda, or rather Nazi propaganda on steroids. Besides, why the need to force everyone, including pregnant women and children, to get this experimental vaccine and to continue with additional shots in the coming years if people have a 99.9 percent chance of surviving the virus? Why mandate covid passports with long-term vaccination programs——as in Canada’s initiative to vaccinate people in 2022, 2023, and possibly 2024—-if these vaccines never had proper testing or safety protocols? Sounds like we’re the experimental guinea pigs in a forced-participation-nazi-style program regarding covid-19 clinical trials.

FDA Is a Sellout

The fact that US regulators recently gave full approval to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine right after the violent riots & protests around the world——which, by the way, are not being covered by any major media outlet——doesn’t justify their position. It’s a way to defend themselves against the angry mobs. If they’re so caring about people’s health and well-being, why don’t they allow Africa and India to develop their own vaccines? When asked if these countries should develop vaccines Bill Gates gave a resounding “No.” That was to be expected, given that Gates doesn’t want anyone to tamper with his monopoly!

FDA is a sellout: they betrayed their ethical cause to protect lives for personal gain. No reputable scientist would ever approve such an experimental drug with so many adverse side effects and without undergoing rigorous clinical trials, which usually take years. They’ve lost all credibility. Instead of protecting its citizens, the FDA is in bed with the drug companies. This hasty decision to approve the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is a way to manipulate the crowds in the wake of mass worldwide protests. The FDA was obviously bought off. Shame on them! The globalists forced the FDA’s hand to quickly approve the drug so that they can silence the resistance, as if to say, “see? It’s safe.” Nonsense. It’s well known that it is anything but safe. Ask all the doctors. This implies that large sums of money were funneled to Janet Woodcock, the acting commissioner of the Food & Drug Administration, to bribe her into approving the covid-19 drug. It’s really nothing less than “approved genocide.” We are therefore being controlled by a bunch of psychopaths, like Hitler, who don't give a damn about our welfare or our well-being! In fact, they’re deliberately trying to kill us off!

666: The Mark of the Beast

This scenario has already been prophesied in the Book of Revelation, chapter 13 verses 16-17 (KJV), in which a charismatic world leader (the Antichrist) will dominate the world, at the end of days, under a one-world government, and will not allow people to buy or sell, or hold a job, if they don’t have the χάραγμα (mark), which can be translated as a notch, slit, or cut:

he causeth all, both small and great, rich

and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark

in their right hand, … And that no man

might buy or sell, save he that had the

mark.

Conclusion

We need to wake up, unite, and resist. We need to stand up and fight against tyranny, propaganda, and military coercion. Our brothers and sisters are being harassed by armies in Australia & told what to do. The government is prohibiting their right to free speech, making it illegal to protest, enforcing draconian-style mandates, martial law, requiring authorization to leave one’s home, locking them down for the better part of the year, and forcing them to put blood-clotting toxins in their bloodstream. No news agency that I’m aware of is broadcasting this story or the massive protests that are taking place in Melbourne, France, Italy, and around the globe. They don’t want you to know about it because they want your quiet acquiescence to their demands. Yet the CDC admits on its own website the risks, side effects, and potential harm that these *experimental* vaccines pose to humanity: deaths, blood-clots, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, facial swelling & paralysis, myocarditis, severe anaphylaxis, and other medical concerns and complications that have put a halt to some vaccines, and in some cases (as e.g. Denmark/AstraZeneca) banned from use altogether! Why should there be *forced* injections——administering highly toxic materials into our bloodstream——at gun point?

—

Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim at a private school in Athens, Greece at the tender age of ten (1970)❗️

Is Open Theism Biblical?

By Bible researcher Eli Kittim

Open Theism

“Open theism” (aka openness theology) is a theological movement which holds that God doesn’t exercise complete sovereignty over the universe but allows it to be “open” to the contribution of human free will. Put differently, because God cannot possibly know the future in an exhaustive sense, the future is not predetermined by him. Paradoxically, even though open theists seem to affirm God’s omniscience, they nevertheless deny God’s foreknowledge and claim that he doesn’t know everything that will occur. In his book “The Grace of God, The Will of Man,” Clark Pinnock, a Christian theologian and proponent of open theism, writes:

Decisions not yet made do not exist

anywhere to be known even by God. They

are potential— yet to be realized but not yet

actual. God can predict a great deal of

what we will choose to do, but not all of it,

because some of it remains hidden in the

mystery of human freedom … God too faces

possibilities in the future, and not only

certainties. God too moves into a future not

wholly known …

Similarly, in his book “Letters from a Skeptic,” author Greg Boyd, a leading advocate of open theism, explains it thusly:

In the Christian view God knows all of reality

—everything there is to know. But to assume

He knows ahead of time how every person

is going to freely act assumes that each

person’s free activity is already there to

know—even before he freely does it! But it’s

not. If we have been given freedom, we

create the reality of our decisions by

making them. And until we make them, they

don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there

simply isn’t anything to know until we make

it there to know. So God can’t foreknow the

good or bad decisions of the people He

creates until He creates these people and

they, in turn, create their decisions.

Open theism is basically a new model through which scholars have tried to explain the relation of God’s foreknowledge to the free will of human beings. Their argument runs as follows: humankind could not really be free if God knew absolutely everything pertaining to the future. And since open theists believe that human beings are completely free, it follows that God cannot absolutely know all there is to know about the future. This argument would carry over to our understanding of Biblical eschatology and would suggest not only that the future is unknowable, but also that God doesn’t know the future.

Invalid Arguments

However, it seems to me that open theists are committing a logical fallacy, namely, equating the foreknowledge of God with determinism. If that were the case, their conclusion would be correct, to wit, that a deterministic foreknowledge of God would necessarily be incompatible with human free will. But the premise is misconceived. Foreknowledge in and of itself doesn’t necessarily presuppose determinism. Just because God can foresee the future doesn’t mean that he causes it. Calvinism, of course, is the other extreme which maintains that God is the cause of all events, thereby postulating hard determinism without apologies. However, If we, as free agents, were to act in whichever way we chose, and God could foresee our decision, God’s foreknowledge and human free will would be perfectly compatible!

What is more, Open Theism asserts that although God knows all truths, there are certain possibilities which cannot yet be established about the “open” and undetermined future, and thus even God himself doesn’t know their outcome. But this, too, seems to be a logical fallacy. They create a strawman argument in which they falsely equate foreknowledge with logical impossibilities. Once again, the premise is invalid. Just because the “truth” of what will happen is based on many complex, contingent factors, and is unknowable to human beings, doesn’t necessarily imply that it’s equally impossible for God to know it. On the contrary, it wouldn’t be considered illogical for God to know the outcome of any given event. Yet Open theists claim that it’s as logically impossible for God to create squared circles or make 2 + 2 = 5 as it is for him to know the future. But foreknowledge is not a logical impossibility like a squared circle or a married bachelor.

This, of course, can take the form of a very deep and protracted philosophical discussion about the nature of free will and the essence of God’s sovereignty, namely, to what extent are we free agents, and so on. According to open theism, instead of God exhaustively knowing the course of history in toto, God gradually gains knowledge of events as they occur. This is viewed as the “open view of God” since it considers God as open and receptive to new realities. Thus, in contradistinction to classical theism, open theism suggests that God is, in some sense, dependent on the material world to enhance his knowledge.

There is, however, a contradiction in this premise. How could one compare God’s learning curve from the point of view of time if God is said to be timeless? And how could a transcendent God possibly be dependent upon an “inferior reality” (as both Paul and Plato put it) to gain knowledge?

Bible Proofs of God’s Immutability

Opponents of open theism accuse the latter of employing anthropopathisms (i.e. the practice of ascribing human emotions to God). Moreover, Open theist interpretations of the Bible comprise anthropomorphic characterizations of God as “changing His mind” or “seeming to gain knowledge” or even “being surprised” (see Gen. 6.6; 22.12; Exod. 32.14; Jon. 3.10). But these passages should not be read out of context. God is simply trying to describe himself in ways that we can relate to. God’s language of being disappointed with humanity doesn’t mean their actions caught him by surprise. The idea that he “changes His mind” is to illustrate in human terms that he responds to human behavior and allows our free will to make an impact, especially through prayer, not that he literally is unaware of future events. In fact, the immutability of God can be demonstrated Biblically. For example, in Malachi 3.6 (NRSV), God declares “For I the Lord do not change.” In Numbers 23.19, Scripture reads:

God is not a human being, that he should

lie, or a mortal, that he should change his

mind. Has he promised, and will he not do

it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it.

1 Samuel 15.29 says:

the Glory of Israel will not recant or change

his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he

should change his mind.

Bible Proofs of Future Prophecies

Not a few scholars think that in dismissing classical theism’s doctrine of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, open theism is dangerously reinterpreting the God of the Bible. In this radical re-envisioning of the God of Scripture, how can a clueless God, concerning the future, guarantee the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies? Yet contrary to this position, Psalm 139 verses 4 & 16 read:

Even before a word is on my tongue, O Lord,

you know it completely … Your eyes beheld

my unformed substance. In your book were

written all the days that were formed for

me, when none of them as yet existed.

How could God predict explicit details about Jesus Christ in the Hebrew Bible if he doesn’t even know what the future holds? And, more importantly, how could God possibly guarantee our salvation if he doesn’t have the slightest clue about the future? Furthermore, did God lie in Isaiah 46.9-10 where he declared that he can see the future?:

I am God, and there is no one like me,

declaring the end from the beginning and

from ancient times things not yet done,

saying, ‘My purpose shall stand, and I will

fulfil my intention.’

Conclusion

Open Theism is an attempt to balance God’s foreknowledge and humanity’s free will. Open theism’s conclusion is that God doesn’t possess an infallible knowledge of the future. But just as Calvinism is an extreme form of “theological determinism,” turning humans into pre-programmed robots, so open theism goes to the opposite extreme by turning God into a human being who hasn’t the foggiest idea of what the future looks like. Besides rejecting the credible evidence of eschatology and Bible prophecy, on which our faith and hope depend, open theism ultimately fails to demonstrate its key points both scripturally and philosophically!

—

What is Predestination?

By Bible Researcher, Eli Kittim

——-

Introduction

Predestination is the doctrine that all events in the universe have been willed by God (i.e. fatalism). It is a form of theological determinism, which presupposes that all history is pre-ordained or predestined to occur. It is based on the absolute sovereignty of God (aka omnipotence). However, there seems to be a paradox in which God’s will appears to be incompatible with human free-will.

The concept of predestination is found only several times in the Bible. It is, however, a very popular doctrine as it is commonly held by many different churches and denominations. But it’s also the seven-headed dragon of soteriology because of its forbidding controversy, which arises when we ask the question, “on what basis does God make his choice?” Not to mention, how do you tell people God loves them and that Jesus died for you?

If we study both the Old and New Testaments, especially in the original Biblical languages, we will come to realize that predestination doesn’t seem to be based on God’s sovereignty but rather on his “foreknowledge.” This is the *Prescience* view of Predestination, namely, that the decision of salvation and/or condemnation is ultimately based on an individual’s free choice!

——-

Free Will

John MacArthur argues that the salvation “offer is always unlimited, otherwise why would we be told to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?” He went on to say, “The offer is always unlimited or man couldn’t be condemned for rejecting it.”

Let’s take a look at the Old Testament. Isaiah 65.12 (ESV) employs the Hebrew term וּמָנִ֨יתִי (ū·mā·nî·ṯî) to mean “I will destine,” which is derived from the word מָנָה (manah) and means to “appoint” or “reckon.” But on what basis does God make his choice of predestination to damnation (aka the doctrine of reprobation)? God says:

I will destine [or predestine] you to the

sword, and all of you shall bow down to the

slaughter, because, when I called, you did

not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen,

but you did what was evil in my eyes and

chose what I did not delight in.

It’s important to note that those who are condemned to damnation are predestined to go there because when God called them, they didn’t respond to his call. When God tried to enlighten them, they “did not listen,“ but instead “did what was evil” in his sight. In fact, they did what God disapproved of! That’s a far cry from claiming, as the Calvinists do, that God willed it all along. Notice that God’s predestination for the reprobates is not based on his will for them not to be saved, but rather because they themselves had sinned. This is an explicit textual reference which indicates that it was something God “did not delight in.” So, it’s not as if God predestined reprobates to hell based on his sovereign will, as Calvinism would have us believe, but rather because they themselves chose to “forsake the LORD” (Isa. 65.11).

The New Testament offers a similar explanation of God’s official verdict pertaining to the doctrine of reprobation, namely, that condemnation depends on human will, not on God’s will. John 3.16 (NIV) reads:

For God so loved the world that he gave his

one and only Son, that whoever believes in

him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Notice, it doesn’t say that only a limited few can believe and be saved by Jesus. Rather, it says “whoever believes in him [ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν] shall not perish but have eternal life.” That is, anyone who believes in Jesus will not be condemned but will be saved, and will therefore be reckoned as one of the elect. Verse 17 says:

For God did not send his Son into the world

to condemn the world, but to save the world

through him.

Once again, there’s a clear distinction between the individual and the world as a whole, as well as a contrast between condemning and saving the world, and we are told that the Son was sent to save the entire world. The next verse (v. 18) explains that condemnation itself ultimately lies not with God but with our own personal choices and decisions. “Whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (i.e. is predestined to condemnation):

Whoever believes in him is not condemned,

but whoever does not believe stands

condemned already because they have not

believed in the name of God’s one and only

Son.

Verse 19 puts this dilemma in its proper perspective and gives us the judicial verdict, as it were, that we are ultimately responsible for our actions:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the

world, but people loved darkness instead of

light because their deeds were evil.

This conclusion can be easily illustrated. In Rev. 3.20 (KJV), does Christ imply that man’s free will doesn’t really matter at all? Does he say?:

Behold, I stand at the door. Don’t worry, I

won’t bother knocking on the door. Your

your response is unnecessary. You don’t

even have to open the door. I will break it

down and force my way inside.

Is that what he says? No. He says:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if

any man hear my voice, and open the door,

I will come in to him, and will sup with him,

and he with me.

God respects our free will. Notice the condition that is set before us: someone has to open the door, which is equivalent to granting Christ permission to come in and become a part of them. But the choice ultimately rests with us, not with God. Unless we say yes, nothing happens. We must answer the call (cf. Isa. 65.12) and respond in the affirmative, just as Mary did in the gospel of Luke (1.38 NASB):

‘may it be done to me according to your

word.’

Similarly, Mt. 22.14 clearly shows that those that are not chosen are nevertheless “called”:

‘For many are called, but few are chosen.’

What is more, according to the Biblical text, anyone can become a member of God’s family. Just because God already “foreknows” who will accept and who will reject his invitation doesn’t mean that people are held unaccountable. For Christ doesn’t only take away the sin of the elect, but of the entire world (Jn 1.29 NKJV):

Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away

the sin of the world!

First John 2.2 reads:

And He Himself is the propitiation for our

sins, and not for ours only but also for the

whole world.

In a similar fashion, Rev 22.17 (KJ) says:

Come. And let him that is athirst come. And

whosoever will, let him take the water of life

freely [δωρεάν].

That doesn’t sound to me like a “predestined” election in which only a select few will receive the water of life, but rather a proclamation that salvation is “freely” (δωρεάν) offered to anyone who desires it. Moreover, in 2 Pet. 3.9 (ESV), we are told that “The Lord” doesn’t want to condemn anyone at all:

[he’s] not wishing that any should perish,

but that all should reach repentance.

Is this biblical reference compatible with Calvin’s views? Definitely not! Calvin suggests that God is the author of sin and the only one who ultimately decides on who will repent and who will perish.

Unlimited Atonement

There seems to be a comparison and contrast between the “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (in Rom. 9.22), and the “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (v. 23). But we cannot jump to any conclusions because the text doesn’t explicitly say that both classes of people are predestined either to election or condemnation by the sovereign will of God. Furthermore, the terms that are used, here, are not the same as the ones used for predestination elsewhere in the Bible. For example, the Greek term often used for “predestination” is προορίζω or proorizó (cf. Acts 4.28; Rom. 1.4; 8.29; Eph. 1.5, 11). However, the Greek word used in Rom. 9.22 is καταρτίζω (katartizó), which means to complete or prepare (not predestine). It could simply refer to the remainder of the population that will miss out on salvation. it doesn’t necessarily follow that these are predestined (κατηρτισμένα) to destruction.

The next verse employs the term προητοίμασεν (prepared) to refer to the elect, or the “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.” But caution is advised. The term used is proētoimasen (prepared), not proorizó (predestined). This expression can refer to that portion of the population that God adopted into his family and nourished into maturity. The text is unclear as to whether the term “prepared” suggests that God coerced them into “election” by overriding their free will, while they were kicking and screaming. Besides, their personal choice may have been *foreknown* and acknowledged from the foundation of the world. It still doesn’t prove predestination, as defined by Augustine and Calvin.

If, in fact, God predestined some to salvation and some to perdition, so that Jesus didn’t die for all people but only for a limited few, then it wouldn’t make any sense for the New Testament to say that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all.” Nor would God contradict himself by saying that “he desires everyone to be saved.” First Timothy 2.3-6 (NRSV) reads:

This is right and is acceptable in the sight of

God our Savior, who desires everyone to be

saved and to come to the knowledge of the

truth. For there is one God; there is also one

mediator between God and humankind,

Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave

himself a ransom for all [not for some].

Notice that Christ’s atonement potentially covers even sinners who are not yet part of the “elect.” In the following verse, observe what the text says. There were apostates who denied “the Lord who bought them.” This means that Christ’s atonement is not “limited”; it covers them, as well. Second Peter 2.1 (NKJV) reads:

But there were also false prophets among

the people, even as there will be false

teachers among you, who will secretly bring

in destructive heresies, even denying the

Lord who bought them, and bring on

themselves swift destruction.

Prescience (Foreknowledge)

The Greek term that is typically used for predestination is also used in Rom. 1.4 (ESV), namely, the term ὁρισθέντος (from ὁρίζω), which carries the meaning of “determining beforehand,” “appointing,” or “designating.” However, notice that, here, this term is translated as “declared”:

and was declared to be the Son of God in

power according to the Spirit of holiness by

his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ

our Lord.

But was Jesus Christ predestined to be the Son of God? No. He already was the Son of God. Nevertheless, what he would perform in the future was “declared” beforehand, or announced in advance. This verse, then, demonstrates that the word “foreknown” would be a more accurate term than “predestined”!

Similarly, Rom. 8.29 (ESV) tells us that those he “foreknew” (προέγνω), the same God προώρισεν (from προορίζω), that is, foreordained, predetermined, or pre-appointed beforehand. And Rom. 8.30 goes on to say that those he προώρισεν (predetermined) were the same that God also called, justified, and glorified. Verse 29 says:

For those whom he foreknew he also

predestined to be conformed to the image

of his Son.

Notice that God’s *foreknowledge* temporally precedes predestination. If God actually chose to save some and not to save others before the foundation of the world, then his foreknowledge would be irrelevant. But since it is on this basis that God predestines, it doesn’t sound as if predestination is chosen on the basis of God’s sovereign will.

Conclusion

Acts 4.28 does say that God’s will προώρισεν (predetermined beforehand) what will happen. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that everything that has occurred in human history is based on the will of God (i.e. fatalism). And we don’t know to what extent God influences reality. So, we cannot jump to any conclusions that God is behind everything that happens. Why? Because with absolute responsibility comes absolute blame. Is God responsible for murder, or rape, or genocide? I think not! So, we are on safer ground if we acknowledge that God “foreknew” what would happen and declared it beforehand (cf. Isa. 46.10). This notion would be far more consistent with the Bible than placing the full blame for everything that has ever occurred in the world on God. This seems to be the Achilles' heel of Calvinism.

Ephesians 1.5 is another controversial verse. The Greek term used is προορίσας (from προορίζω), meaning “foreordain,” “predetermine,” or “pre-approve beforehand.” The verse reads:

he predestined us for adoption to himself as

sons through Jesus Christ, according to the

purpose of his will.

But what exactly does the term “will” mean, here? Does it refer to God’s choice to save only a limited few and no one else, or to his overall plan of salvation that includes all people? It seems as if God saved those who answered his invitation, as it were, which would explain why he has “foreknown” them and predestined them for glory. I think that the latter explanation seems far more compatible with the Bible by a preponderance of the evidence.

Finally, let’s look at Ephesians 1.11. The Greek term that is used is προορισθέντες (from proorizó), meaning to “predetermine” or “foreordain beforehand.” The verse says that we have been predestined according to his purpose. Granted, it does say that all things work according to God’s will. However, to be fair, we don’t know exactly how that works, and so we can’t offer premature assumptions and presuppositions, especially when they contradict other passages in the Bible.

It would be utterly foolish to suppose that the God of the universe does not affect, influence, or sustain his creation. The fact that he created the universe obviously implies that he had a purpose for it. So, I’m not discounting the notion that all things are, in a certain sense, guided by his ultimate purpose. However, I take issue with those thinkers who take it to the extreme and portray the deity as an authoritarian and capricious God who bypasses the principles of truth and wisdom and intervenes by forcibly coercing man's free will. That type of God is inconsistent with the infinitely wise, holy, true, and good God of the Bible. That is precisely why “Arminius taught that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil” (Wiki)!

——-

Is Free Grace Theology Biblical?

By Award-Winning Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,

he is none of his.

(Romans 8.9 KJV)

——-

Sola fide

Sola fide (meaning “faith alone”) is a theological doctrine which holds that believers are justified by faith alone. Originally, the purpose of this doctrine was to distinguish the Protestants from the Catholic & Orthodox Churches that relied on sacraments (such as the Sacrament of Penance, aka Confession) and “works” for salvation. By contrast, Sola fide maintained that it is on the basis of faith alone that believers are justified (pardoned) and saved.

However, the original doctrine of Sola fide (faith alone) didn’t mean to imply that nothing happened to the believer existentially, psychologically, or supernaturally *after* they were saved. On the contrary, many reformers emphatically stressed that *regeneration* should produce verifiable evidence of the spiritual life. As 2 Pet. 1.10 warns (cf. 2 Cor. 13.5), make sure your faith is real:

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give

diligence to make your calling and election

sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never

fall.

The evidence of conversion is a believer’s *new self* in Christ (his new identity cf. Gal. 2.20; Eph. 4.24), with proof of ongoing fruit in their life. Many people mistakenly think they are converted or born again but they show no evidence of a personality change (a recreation) nor any fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace). Alas, despite what they say publicly, they have not been converted; they have not been reborn! Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “Sudden Conversions Are Very Often False.”

The reformers knew the importance of John 3.7: “Ye must be born again.” This Biblical concept doesn’t refer to the time when, during a crusade, you decided to make a spiritual commitment to Christ, or to the time when you made a sincere profession of faith during an altar call at a Jimmy Swaggart rally, or when you decided to give your life to Jesus, in your living room one night, while watching Billy Graham or Joel Osteen. This “decision” is characterized under the category of “works” (since you decided the outcome by yourself), and it has absolutely nothing to do with Biblical regeneration or with God. Why? Because God had nothing to do with it, nor is there any evidence of a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in your life. That’s why 2 Corinthians 5.17 declares:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a

new creature: old things are passed away;

behold, all things are become new.

Unfortunately, the sinner’s prayer doesn’t save anyone. It doesn’t change your carnal nature into a new creature. Your sin nature remains the same and dominates your mind and heart. So how, then, are you saved? A saved person is dominated by God, not by his passions.

That’s why the reformers spoke of irresistible grace (monergism). Regardless of whether we agree with it or not, the point is that this soteriological doctrine teaches that God’s grace is effectually applied to the believer in order to save them, and that God overcomes their resistance and *changes* them from *within.* In other words, a transformation takes place on the inside. It’s not just faith alone. If they cannot deny it or resist it, then that means that God’s grace has a direct cause-effect influence in their lives. That’s why scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit (Matthew 3.11): “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16.16)!

——-

Free Grace Theology

Free Grace (aka Easy-believism) is a Christian soteriological position which holds that anyone can be saved and receive eternal life simply by believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). The only condition for receiving the grace of eternal life is *faith.* Nothing else is required. In fact, one is not even required to stop sinning. They have completely removed Sola fide (faith alone) from its original Biblical and soteriological context, thereby isolating and distorting it to mean something entirely different.

By contrast, *Lordship Salvation* requires obedience to Christ. And this is the actual teaching of Scripture! The free Grace movement apparently forgot Jesus’ teaching which states: “repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1.15). Grace is free, but it’s not cheap. Christ says in Mt 16.24:

If any man will come after me, let him deny

himself, and take up his cross, and follow

me.

Here are Jesus’ own words in John 14.15:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Besides, how can *mere belief* ALONE be sufficient for *salvation* if the demons believe just as much? (James 2.19):

Thou believest that there is one God; thou

doest well: the devils also believe, and

tremble.

In fact, 1 John 2.3-4 would call proponents of Free Grace “liars”:

And hereby we do know that we know him

[Christ], if we keep his commandments. He

that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his

commandments, is a liar, and the truth is

not in him.

And yet, *free grace theology* is constantly mocking Lordship Salvation, calling it evil and unbiblical. Therefore, we should take heed of Isaiah’s (5.20) stern warning:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good

evil; that put darkness for light, and light for

darkness.

In this paper, I’m only talking about the *regenerated* or *born-again believer,* and what their salvation consists of. I’m trying to demonstrate that a rebirth entails a new identity, a new creation, and a constant outflow of the fruit of the spirit. Just to be clear, Christian salvation is not based on the *works* of the law. Obeying the commandments of Moses doesn’t save anyone. We are not saved because we obey; we obey because we are saved! Nor is salvation an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity (see Wayne Grudem’s “Free Grace” Theology). You don’t simply look at the facts, weigh the evidence, and conclude that Jesus must be the Messiah. Salvation is NOT an intellectual exercise. Rather, it’s an experience! In Paul’s “Participationist” model of salvation, we don’t merely stand afar off and believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ. No! Rather, we *participate* “in Christ.” We share in his baptism (Rom. 6.3), death (Gal. 2.20), and resurrection (Rom. 6.8). Psalm 34.8 says:

O taste and see that the LORD is good.

—