Thanks for those comments Jason; good points, I think you’re right on. I would say, more accurate and more thorough; The Essarys certainly raise some very good points, but this book (as it stands now) leaves too many gaping holes in the biblical defense for these points for the more astute reader. I would also add that a big problem for their approach for many is their strong penal sub. atonement stance. It actually kind of works (at least for purely sub. atonement) the way they present it; but because PSA has some serious problems in and of itself, it doesn’t help the overall approach of the book simply for that reason. They do start talking about when “the end” was in the next chapter, so that chapter review should have some relevant details on the preteristic eschatology angle they’re taking; although if I recall correctly, they don’t address the point of why more wrath was necessary in the fall of Jerusalem.
Anyway, the rest of the Chapter 3 summary:
In their subsequent stops on the Romans Road, the authors wish to point out more things to us. Using Rom. 6:23, 6:3-5 (and the entire chapter), Matt. 3:11, John 8:21-24, 12:38-40, Eph. 2:4-7 to show that we did not have any choice in the matter as to our lot, being dead in our sins, yet we were made alive with Jesus at his resurrection after being crucified with him (again, independently of any input from us). They also take us back to Romans 4:14-16 to remind us that the Law is not what makes us part of God’s family, as it only brings wrath; however, where there is no law there is no transgression. In Romans chapter 5, when Paul says we are justified by faith, he does not mean our own personal faith. God reconciled us and forgave us at the cross before we decided to love Him; in fact, when we hated him. He died for his enemies, forgiving them whether they asked for it or not. Here, the authors state that it is difficult to understand why God would let someone who spent their entire life hating him and doing evil have eternal life, but that’s His choice. He’s God and can forgive whomever he wants. As evidence of this, they point to Romans 9:15-26. The authors also point out Romans 5:12-15, and reasoning from this that the gift came in the same manner as the curse; through one man’s disobedience/ obedience, that when sin came it came to all, and when life came, it also came to all. They note that yes, the passage says “many”, but then point out that this term is used for both the recipients of sin and the gift, which we know to be ALL, and give the subsequent verses 16-18 as further evidence of this. They also point out here that Paul says that judgment came to all men, though we’ve been taught judgment is in the future. So, they ask, how can judgment come before judgment day? this is a question they want to attempt to answer in the next chapter. The point they want to make here is that Judgment day is in the past; the day of the crucifixion, when all were found to have sin, but grace abounded even more. Here they point to 2 Tim.1:8-10 as evidence. Their paraphrase of this: “God saved us and called us, not because we deserved it, but rather because he wanted to. He gave us grace in Christ before time began, but now revealed it by sending us Jesus who has given us the New Covenant to shed light on our new condition of life and immortality.” Sin was here before the old covenant revealed it, and their contention is that grace was always here too, but wasn’t revealed until the new covenant, which means that it was God’s intention from the beginning to forgive us all and let us all live with him forever.
So now they want to bring us to a sticking point they often run into with people when they discuss Rom. 10:9-10, 13: something they partly addressed in Chapter 2. They want us to understand that when these verses are read alone, it sounds like you have to take action in order to be saved (in the traditional sense). So, they take us back to the beginning of chapter 10 to show that in the beginning of the chapter, Paul says he wishes Israel to be saved, but they go on to explain that what he is saying he wants Israel to be saved from is the power of the Law in their heads, by understanding that they no longer have to worry about trying to establish their own righteousness; not that he wants them to be saved from “death or hell” which they have already been saved from.
Now, they want to show us some other passages that they feel indicate a choice was made for us. They ask, “why did Adam’s decision affect all, but Christ’s didn’t?” (according to the CAM). So, they point to Ephesians 1:3-11. It would be easy to say that this is only about believers, except that toward the end of this section, we have the famous “gather together in one ALL things in Christ…” section. They also point out here that God “made us accepted in the Beloved”, and asks the question, “How does one become accepted in any scenario? Who decides who is accepted in any situation? Is it the acceptor, or the accepted? It is up to me whether I accept you. You might want me to accept you, but that decision will always fall on the one who does the accepting.” The authors then say that they realize that the CAM says that God has laid out terms of His decision to accept us; and they admit that it is true that there are two covenants considered in deciding whether we are accepted, but number one is the Law, which we all failed miserably at keeping; and the second replaced the first, which accepts Jesus and his choice to make you right. Continuing on, they also point out from the passage that the dispensation of the fullness of times, when Paul is saying that God will gather together in one all things in Christ; Paul seems to be indicating here that he believes the fullness of the times was fulfilled by Christ’s work on the cross. Also, God works all things according to the counsel of His will, which means he makes at least some choices for you.
Now, the authors bring us to some other passages that they say indicate or give strong hints that choices were made for us. In John 3, they point out this interaction with Nicodemus and the language of being born again. Their point here is that the birth analogy was chosen carefully to illustrate that the change involved in being born again is not our choice. We had no say in our physical birth (it was the choice/ actions of your parents that brought this about); likewise, we have no control over being born again. Here, they also bring us back to the point they were trying to make back in chapter 2 from John 8:24; they want to point out that Jesus was referring to the time frame of when He was on the cross. He said that whoever didn’t believe when he left would die in their sins (which was apparently no one), but then in Eph. 2:4-6 Paul says that when we were dead in sins, God made us alive together with Christ, raising us up together, seating us together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. We rose from the dead when Jesus did (at least representatively; the authors later seem to indicate that our personal “physical” resurrection occurs at our death). God made the choice for us. It is not Jesus + your choice = the way, but Jesus = The Way.
The authors then have a little aside for us here, asking the question; “Does God hold us to a higher standard than He holds Himself to? According to the CAM, we must ask God to forgive us for our sins. At first this seems reasonable, but consider the flipside, they say. CAM leaders will tell you if asked what we are supposed to do when someone wrongs us that we are supposed to forgive everyone, no matter what they do to us. So, what if they don’t ask? Well, we are supposed to forgive them anyway. If this is true, why do some believe that God doesn’t forgive everyone, no matter what? It’s a two sided standard that doesn’t make sense. God wouldn’t ask you to do something that He is either incapable of or unwilling to do. While we were His enemies, He forgave us all the way to his own death. It is never the choice of the guilty to be forgiven. The one doing the forgiving has the power to decide who is forgiven and who is not. The CAM twists the logic of this to say that God, though He has the power to forgive all, has laid out ground rules, putting the ball in our court. The authors disagree, pointing to Matt. 5:43-48, instructing us to look closely at what is being said here: that we are to treat others with Love, regardless of their actions. Bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you. Love your enemies. Ask a CAM believer where one will spend eternity if they hate God. The CAM, they say, makes this hard to answer, though it is in their opinion very simple. If you hate God, he will return love. Curse God, and it will not faze Him because He loves you and only wants blessings for you. Even evil people can love those who love them back, but God is different, and asks us to follow suit. Jesus tells us to forgive everyone who sins against us, but God doesn’t do the same? Nonsense.
I’d rather not get rid of that “baggage”.
)
