The Quest for Truth: Theology for Postmodern Times

By F. Leroy Forlines

This work by a senior theologian shares an overview of systematic theology and its implications for the transformation of the entire person. This comprehensive book answers ably the who of life, the why of direction, and the where of one's destiny showing Forline's passion for understanding the truth of God's Word. Forlines writes this work for every Christian, not just for theologians. He sets before us a powerful vision of God's holiness, and calls us to holy living. Forlines also offers a contemporary yet historic interpretation of Classical of Reformed Arminianism. Anyone interested in understanding a present-day view of Arminianism will want to study this work carefully. This book is an excellent resource for scholars, pastors, students and laymen alike.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Randall House
• Release date: May 1, 2001
• ISBN: 9781614840305

F. Leroy Forlines

F. Leroy Forlines is a prolific author having published "Romans Commentary," "Biblical Systematics," "Classical Arminianism," and "Biblical Ethics." Forlines taught at Free Will Baptist Bible College for 50 years and continues to serve as Adjunct Professor. He is also Adjunct Professor of Theology at Russian Baptist Theological Institute at the Chelyabinsk Affiliate of he Moscow Theological Institute, under the auspices of Free Will Baptist International Missions. Forlines earned his B.A. from Free Will Baptist Bible College, M.A. from Winona Lake School of Theology, B.D. from Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Th.M. from Chicago Graduate School of Theology.

Book preview

THE

Quest

FOR

TRUTH

Answering Life’s Inescapable Questions

Also by Leroy Forlines

BOOKS

Biblical Ethics

Biblical Systematics

Biblical Systematics (Russian)

Teologia Cristiana Sistematica (Biblical Systematics in Spanish)

Randall House Bible Commentary: Romans

BOOKLETS

Christian Standards & Convictions Without Legalism

Doctrine of Perseverance

Evolution

Inerrancy & the Scriptures

These titles are available from—

Randall House Publications

114 Bush Road • P.O. Box 17306

Nashville, Tennessee 37217 USA

phone [phone] • 1-800-877-7030

fax [phone] • www.randallhouse.com

THE

Quest

FOR

TRUTH

Answering Life’s

Inescapable Questions

F. Leroy Forlines

Acknowledgements

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations in this volume are from the authorized King James Version of the Bible.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version, Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked NASB are taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of the Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Quotations from Predestination & Free Will by David Basinger and Randall Basinger are used by permission of InterVarsity Press. Quotations from The Justification of God by John Piper (Copyright © 1983), Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson (Copyright © 1985), The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Copyright © 1995) are used by permission of Baker Books. Quotations from Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof are used by permission of Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Quotations taken from A Systematic Theology of the Christian Church (or A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Volume 1 or Volume 2) by James Oliver Buswell, Jr., (Copyright © 1963 by Zondervan Publishing House) are used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. Quotations from Protestant Thought and Natural Science by John Dillenberger are used by permission of the author. Quotations from A Case for Arminianism: The Grace of God and The Will of Man by Clark Pinnock are used by permission of the author.

The Quest for Truth:

Answering Life’s Inescapable Questions

by F. Leroy Forlines

© Copyright 2001

Randall House Publications

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America.

Dedication

This book is dedicated to my wife Fay with love and appreciation.

Table of Contents

Foreword

Only occasionally does one find a theology book that seriously discusses profound truths while at the same time connecting with everyday life. The study of theology is thought by many people to be a pedantic exercise, unrelated to real-world concerns. In this book, a major revision and expanded edition of his earlier work entitled Biblical Systematics (1975), F. Leroy Forlines offers his readers a penetrating treatment of the main topics of systematic theology that seeks to interact with lived experience. This combination is the result of what Professor Forlines terms his total personality approach to theology. He insists that theology must be wrested free from a methodology that would rely solely on intellectual concerns. Rather, it must be made applicable to the total personality–the intellect, the emotions, and the will.

Forlines’ total personality approach is skillfully displayed in his book Biblical Ethics (1973). It may also be seen in his forthcoming manuscript that develops a theological approach to human personality. This forthcoming work is the outgrowth of more than twenty years in a dual role as not only a professor of theology but also a student dean and counselor. These experiences compelled him to develop an approach to theology that is designed to influence not merely one’s thinking, but all of one’s life. Thus, he deals with the inescapable questions of life–questions that arise from the heart as well as the mind, from the marketplace as well as the classroom. Given this approach, the book provides an ideal opportunity for inquisitive laypeople as well as college and seminary students to approach the field of theology from numerous vantage points. Therefore, the book will be found useful as a college textbook or for introductory seminary courses in systematic theology. Yet, at the same time, the work will be helpful to pastors and scholars who will benefit from Forlines’ unique approach.

The first edition of this book, which appeared in 1975, was ahead of the game in anticipating some of the postmodern dissatisfaction with the detached rational analysis characteristic of Enlightenment thought. That edition, unlike his Romans commentary (1987), threw off some of the conventions of academic writing and assumed a more first-person, conversational style. Thus, Forlines does not hesitate to weave personal experiences and life-related illustrations into his theological exposition. His interaction with the reader feels more like a lively discussion than a staid, academic discourse.

One such experience was Professor Forlines’ six-month teaching tour of institutes and seminaries in Russia and Ukraine. This trip helped to fuel his interest in the growing intellectual phenomenon of postmodernism. Emerging from this experience, Forlines increasingly realized the importance of relating Christian theology to the intellectual currents of our day. Many of these trends seem to be propelling our culture away from notions of objective truth. Hence, the theologian is faced with the daunting task of trying to communicate truth about God and from God within a culture that undermines belief in the possibility of divine revelation. This book is Forlines’ attempt to explain traditional theological concepts in a way that is relevant to the contemporary intellectual landscape, which will help people to cope with current challenges to the Christian worldview. Readers who are familiar with postmodernism will be aided in their understanding of how to articulate Christian ideas in a postmodern setting. Conversely, readers who are unfamiliar with postmodernism will find themselves progressively better acquainted with it in this readable discussion.

This book includes a number of interpretations that make it unique. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these is Forlines’ Classical Arminian approach to the doctrine of salvation. Forlines’ Arminianism, like that of Jacobus (James) Arminius himself, differs from what most people think of as Arminianism. Forlines emphasizes human inability in salvation, as well as the priority and necessity of divine grace for salvation. He also subscribes to the Reformed view of the nature of atonement and justification (the view of both Calvin and Arminius). In this view, Christ’s atonement satisfies the just demands of a holy God and provides the believing sinner with Christ’s own righteousness, which is imputed through faith. Likewise, Forlines’ understanding of sanctification is Reformed. He eschews any notion of a second work of grace or entire sanctification. Yet he insists that sanctification, while distinct from justification, is the necessary outgrowth of it. Forlines’ view of perseverance also differs from that of most traditional Arminianism. He sees salvation throughout as the work of God which is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Yet, because of the believer’s freedom, the possibility of apostasy is real.

Forlines’ Classical Arminianism, it should be noted, is radically different from what has unfortunately come to be known as Freewill Theism–a view that posits, among other things, God’s limited omniscience or foreknowledge. Forlines articulates a contemporary reworking of traditional Arminian thought, which holds that God has perfect foreknowledge of the future, free acts of His creatures.

The first edition of this work was recommended by Christianity Today as one of the significant books of 1975. The book was soon translated into Spanish, and in 1996 it was translated into Russian. Since then, ten thousand copies have circulated in Russia and Ukraine. Thus, Systematics has influenced the lives of countless numbers of students, pastors, laypeople, and scholars. Professor Forlines has instructed them and has demonstrated for them how to do theology in such a way that it influences the whole personality–mind, heart, and will–and enables one to glorify God more effectively in all of life. There is no doubt that this revised and greatly expanded edition will affect many, many more. Because of the fresh and thoughtful insights, because of its thoroughly readable style, and because it presents a model of how to do theology within the postmodern culture of today, it is our sincere hope that this book will enjoy the wide readership that it so richly deserves.

Stephen M. Ashby and J. Matthew Pinson

Preface

It has been my privilege to teach systematic theology on the college level for forty years. My book Biblical Systematics, which I used as a text, was published in 1975. The 1975 edition was translated into Spanish. This translation has been used in ministering to Spanish-speaking people in the United States, Spain, Mexico, Uruguay, Panama, and Cuba.

A few years ago, Randall House Publications and I decided that I should revise the 1975 edition. At that time, Randall House scanned the book and put it on a computer disk. That has proved to be an invaluable asset in making the present revision possible.

In 1995, the Reverend Eugene Waddell and others representing the Free Will Baptist Foreign Missions Department went to Russia and Ukraine and met with Russian Baptist leaders. A decision was made to have Systematics translated into Russian. It was also decided that my wife Fay and I would go to Ukraine and Russia in 1996. I would lecture on Arminian theology.

I lectured on Arminian theology in Baptist Bible institutes and Baptist seminaries in Kiev, Odessa, and Moscow, and in churches in several other cities across Russia. Prior to going to the Former Soviet Union, I reorganized and enlarged the chapter on perseverance for translation into Russian. With still further revisions while I was in Russia, this became the chapter on perseverance. While in Russia, I also made limited revisions of the other chapters. This revised version was published by Bible for Everyone Publishing House in St. Petersburg (Leningrad), Russia.

In preparing the current book, I worked from the disks that were used for the Russian translation. The revisions and expansion are of such a nature that the current book is a new book. Chapters 2, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are altogether new chapters.

The Target Audience

The target audience of this book is upper-level college students, seminary students, pastors, and laymen who would like to think their way through the Christian worldview.

I have tried to write the book so that it can be understood by a broad audience. It has been my desire to deal meaningfully with substance, but at the same time to make it as easy as possible to be understood.

I was saved in 1944 just before I turned eighteen. Though I had been very regular in church and Sunday school for ten years, I discovered that I did not know how to be saved. The Reverend R. N. Hinnant was the revival speaker that year. He spoke with great clarity. He made it clear that the only way that anyone could be saved was by faith in Jesus Christ. He also made it clear that faith in Christ was the only condition of salvation. I gave my heart to Jesus Christ. The following Sunday afternoon I was baptized. That night I joined the Winterville Free Will Baptist Church in Winterville, North Carolina. About two years later, after going through a time during which the Holy Spirit made it unquestionably clear that He was calling me to preach His Word, I answered that call. In January of 1948, I learned about Free Will Baptist Bible College. I enrolled as a student in September 1948 to prepare for the ministry.

I had attended church for ten years before it was made clear to me how to be saved. This made a deep impression on me. As a result of that experience, I have always desired to make things as understandable as possible. I made a commitment that I would do my very best to communicate the Truth so that it could be understood. At the same time I have been motivated by the conviction that people need a meaningful grasp of the substance of truth. Layman need a grasp of the substance of their faith.

In order to live up to my commitment to make things as clear as possible, I prefer simple words to complex words. Yet I have made no attempt to shy away from important theological terms. It has been my aim to be sure that the meaning of these terms is made clear to the reader who may not already be familiar with them. I am particularly concerned that we make popular use of those theological terms that are also biblical terms such as justification, regeneration, sanctification, etc. If the terms are not familiar to people, they need to be used so much that they will become familiar.

In order to make the reading of this book easier to those who do not have a background in the subject, I have at times quoted what I have said previously in the book rather than referring the reader back to the earlier treatment. Occasionally, this may occur in the same chapter. Another reason for repeating what I have already said in previous chapters is that I know that many people will select a particular chapter to read. As much as is possible, I want what I am saying in these chapters to be understandable for the person who has not read the previous chapters. I do cross reference a good bit of what is said in the book when I think it will be helpful to the person in getting a better understanding of the chapter under study.

The reader may notice that I make liberal use of longer quotations. There are several reasons for this. My first reason is that I think the longer quotations will be helpful to those not familiar with theological works. Also, when I criticize what another person has said, I like to give enough of what he has said so that the reader can judge for himself whether I have properly understood the other person’s thinking. Are my criticisms of what the person said justified? Or, if I quoted the person as supporting my position, does what the person said really support my position? There are also times that I am depending on the expertise of the other person in an area in which I am not well qualified. I am using the person as an authority to back up what I am saying. In such cases the longer quotation will enable the reader to decide whether the other person is saying what I think he is. I think it would be in order to quote the words of Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff on this point. They comment:

Quoting other writers and citing the places where their words are to be found are by now such common practices that it is pardonable to look upon the habit as natural, not to say instinctive. It is of course nothing of the kind, but a very sophisticated act, peculiar to a civilization that uses printed books, believes in evidence, and makes a point of assigning credit or blame in a detailed, verifiable way.¹

For those who do not have a background of reading theology, I would like to offer this bit of advice. If you do not understand everything you read, keep reading as long as you feel like you are gaining worthwhile knowledge from what you read. That will go for reading other books as well as for reading this book. I use that principle to guide me in my reading.

The Paradigm Shift From Modernism to Postmodernism

In the Preface to the first edition, I said, Truth is unchanging, but the scene to which truth addresses itself, while having the common ingredient of sin and the need of redemption, undergoes change. I am even more convinced of the truth of that statement now than I was when I wrote it 25 years ago. I went on to say, While presenting timeless truth, I have tried to be aware of and address the current scene. I have been more concerned about the current scene [the 1970’s] as influenced by secularism than the current scene of conflict and controversy in the theological world, though the theological scene has not been totally neglected. I think that assessment is still true of this present work.

As I look back on it, I now know that the first edition was written when the secular culture was in the midst of a paradigm shift. In the current edition, I point out that from 1960-1990 secular culture in America, on the grassroots level, was undergoing a paradigm shift. I knew in the 1970’s that some drastic changes were taking place in our culture. But I had no idea that in 1975 we were halfway through a major paradigm shift in the secular culture.

The 1975 edition was basically addressed to the modernist secular paradigm. However, attention was given to Francis Schaeffer’s mention of the irrational upper story, which I recognize now was a part of the history of postmodernism. It has been said that Francis Schaeffer was a man ahead of his times. Though, in the index to his complete works, the word postmodernism does not occur, a reading of his works is essential for a person who would like to have a working knowledge of postmodernism.

A Total Personality Approach to Thought and Life

At the time I wrote the 1975 edition of Systematics, I was deeply concerned that my treatment of theology should speak to life’s concerns. That concern has grown over the years. At no point in my experience as a student or a teacher have I ever had any serious questions about my commitment and confidence in the truth of orthodox, conservative Christianity. But I had some deep struggles in bringing Truth and life together. Things were not as simple for me in the application of Truth to life as it seemed that others were saying that it was for them. The strong emphasis on integrity that was instilled in me by my parents made me too honest to claim that things were glorious when they were not. But I knew that it was the design of Truth to set people free. I knew that it had to be true because Jesus said so in John 8:32. I do not have time here to relive the journey of my struggles in coming to the confidence that I now have in the reality that the Truth makes us free. I have learned to take my hurts to the Bible and the Bible to my hurts.

I should make mention of a very significant factor in my interest in the relationship between Truth and life. At the time I wrote the book, I was Dean of Students at Free Will Baptist Bible College. For several years before, I had been Dean of Men. I felt that it was my obligation to help those who came to me for help to find answers to their problems. I refused to believe that there were no answers. There must be answers that will help people live in a world filled with harsh reality. My own struggles and my work with others as they dealt with the harsh realities of life were a very significant factor in developing my approach to theology.

By the time I wrote the 1975 edition, I had developed a strong interest in the total personality approach to apologetics and the study of the Bible and theology. That interest is present and far more visible in this book than it was in the first edition. In retrospect I believe that this total personality approach was preparing me to confront and minister to the postmodern culture once I was able to recognize it for what it was.

The concept of the design of God in the creation of man and the design of God in redemption was already a significant part of my thinking in the understanding of human needs and how God addresses those needs. My conviction about the importance of recognizing divine design is stronger now and receives more emphasis in the present book.

One of the products of divine design is what I call the inescapable questions of life. Every human being as he or she develops into adulthood is faced with questions such as: Is there a God? If so, what is He like? How do I know what is right and what is wrong? Is there life after death? and other such questions. What is the meaning of life? How can I have a meaningful life? The inescapable questions of life were in evidence in the first edition. They are a driving concern in this book.

The concern for the total personality approach is seen in the following quotation from the 1975 edition regarding the criteria for testing a system of thought that claims to give an explanation of the whole of reality:

So far as rational tests are concerned, a system that proposes to explain the whole of reality must prove to be satisfactory to our total personality as thinking, feeling, acting beings. Logic cannot divorce itself from life and become an accurate judge of a system. I believe the following tests are a step in the right direction to establishing criteria that will protect the interest of the total personality: (1) Is there internal consistency, i.e., is the structure logically related to the foundation? Do all the parts fit consistently together? (2) Is there internal sufficiency, i.e., are the causes adequate to produce the effects attributed to them? (3) Does it conform to that which is undeniably true? (4) Does it answer the inescapable questions of life? Regardless of how well a system passes the first three tests, if it cannot pass the fourth test, it is not an adequate system and must be rejected (Biblical Systematics, p. 9).

In the current book, that passage reads this way:

A system that proposes to explain the whole of reality (or a worldview) must prove to be satisfactory to our total personality as thinking, feeling, acting beings. Logic cannot divorce itself from life and become an accurate judge of a system. I believe the following tests are a step in the right direction to establishing criteria that will protect the interest of the total personality: (1) Does it answer the inescapable questions of life? (2) Is there internal consistency, i.e., is the structure logically related to the foundation? Do all the parts fit consistently together? (3) Is there causal adequacy? i.e., are the causes adequate to produce the effects attributed to them? (4) Does it conform to that which is undeniably true?

If a worldview cannot answer the inescapable questions of life, it is not worthy of our consideration. (Quest for Truth, p. 18)

The only difference in the wording is the change from Is there internal sufficiency? to Is there causal adequacy? This does not represent a change in substance. I think that causal adequacy is a better way of saying what I wanted to say. The significant change from the 1975 edition is seen in making the first test, "Does it answer the inescapable questions of life?"

In 1975, modernism was being challenged, but it had not been dethroned. With the emphasis that was given to reason in modernism, it was fitting to start with: Is there internal consistency, i.e., is the structure logically related to the foundation? Do all the parts fit consistently together? That was the rational test of coherence.

I was not familiar with anyone who had come up with a test that would forthrightly demand that a true worldview must be effectively life related; I stated that as "Does it answer the inescapable questions of life?" I felt driven to requiring that test by two different factors: First, the drive for the quest for Truth was motivated by the demands of my own inner nature. I was convinced that just as these questions were of deep concern to me, they were to others. While I believe in the uniqueness of each person’s experience, I also was convinced of the commonality of human experience

The second factor, and a very important one, was what I detected to be the driving force behind the hippie movement, the student unrest of the 1960s, and the rise and spread of the drug culture. As I perceived it, the real problem for these movements was that they had recognized that reason and science had not been able to minister to the deep inner needs of human nature. To use my terminology, "Naturalism had not been able to answer the inescapable questions of life." Science had performed wonders in the area of technology, but it had left people empty as it related to their deepest inner needs. Deep within every human heart is a deep need for purpose and meaning for life. I became strongly convinced that if a worldview does not answer the inescapable questions of life, it is not worthy of consideration.

In the preparation of this book, it became apparent that the test: Does it answer the inescapable questions of life? should be the first test. However, if it seems to pass that test it should be subjected to the other tests. We do not want to trust the care of our total being for time and eternity to that which is not true.

Feeling the pain that both modernism and postmodernism have inflicted on our culture, I believe that it is imperative that, as Christians, we must show to a hurting world that we feel their pain and let them know that we care. We must let them know that there is, to quote Francis Schaeffer, true Truth. We must let them know that the biblical accounts of the creation, the fall, the covenants made with Abraham and Israel, the birth, the life, His sacrificial death for our sins, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ are all factual historical realities. His promises are true. He will come again.

We must share with this hurting world that we believe the words of the Apostle Peter when he said, For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty (2 Pet. 1:16).

As a part of this total personality approach to Truth, I have abandoned the concept that objectivity should be the guiding ideal in our quest for Truth. I believe very strongly in objective Truth, but I do not believe that the best approach to finding Truth is a dispassionate search for Truth. Rather, I believe that our search for Truth must be a passionate search under the control of integrity. We should think and feel our way through a study of theology.

I do not believe that anyone will see, at any point in this book, where this emphasis on the total personality approach to Truth has weakened my commitment to objective Truth, the objective authority of the Bible, and a significant place given to reason. My favorite verse of Scripture is, And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (Jn. 8:32).

Differences Between the Current and 1975 Editions

As a technical point, I made a mistake in the 1975 edition when I said, I do not believe that knowledge of God is innate (p. 73). My problem was a misunderstanding of the meaning of innate. What I meant was that I did not believe that day-old babies have thoughts about God. While I am still of that opinion, that is not what is meant by saying that knowledge of God is innate. To say that knowledge of God is innate is to say that it is a natural byproduct of the image of God in a human being for him or her to believe in God. There is an inborn nature in a human being that in natural development leads to belief in God.

So far as the content is concerned, I think the current edition will reflect a maturing and a clarifying of what was in the first edition. The concept of worldview thinking was prevalent in the 1975 edition, but the term worldview did not occur in the book. The term worldview was around long before 1975, but it had not gained the prominence in use by that time that it has in recent years. I did not use the terms modernism or postmodernism in the 1975 edition. What I said in the book would have been addressed mainly to the modernist paradigm. But I think the total personality approach was significant preparation for addressing the postmodern paradigm. I was already heading in the right direction.

In order to deal adequately with modernism and postmodernism, it was necessary to add a new chapter, Chapter 2: The Acquisition of Upper Story Knowledge.

The subject of election was referred to, but was not developed in the 1975 edition. In this edition Chapters 15, 16, and 17 give a thorough development of the doctrine of election. Chapter 18, the concluding chapter, is entitled, Communicating the Christian Message in a Postmodern Culture. Though this chapter is not what one would expect to find in a treatment of systematic theology, I felt that since the ground work had been laid for it in the book, the need for such a treatment made it incumbent upon me to do so.

Though this edition covers areas not dealt with in the first edition, it still fails to cover a minimum of what should be covered in an introduction to systematic theology. Tentative plans have been made, perhaps on a joint authorship basis, to deal with ecclesiology and eschatology.

Where This Book Fits in the Theological Spectrum

This is a conservative treatment of systematic theology. I am strongly committed to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. I believe in the Trinitarian view of God. Without hesitation, I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that Jesus, though one person, was fully God and fully man (two natures), that His suffering and death on the cross paid the full penalty for our sins, that the same body that was placed in the tomb was raised by God and was God’s confirmation of the claims and the teaching of Jesus Christ. I believe in the bodily return of Christ. Though it is not dealt with in this book, I am premillennial in my eschatology. My thinking in this area is developed around the redemptive covenants. I believe in a conjunctive relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church, as distinguished from a disjunctive one.

As has already been indicated by my mention above of teaching Arminian theology in Ukraine and Russia, this book is a treatment of Arminian theology. My treatment of Arminian theology is what I have chosen to call Classical Arminianism. This is in distinction from Wesleyan Arminianism. The term classical is used because I think this view is in essential agreement with James Arminius. I believe that there are some important distinctions between my view and Wesleyan Arminianism besides that Wesleyan Arminians believe in a second work of grace. Wesleyan Arminians, for the most part, believe in the governmental view of atonement or some modification of that view. Classical Arminianism, in agreement with Arminius, is strongly committed to the satisfaction view of atonement.

In theological seminaries in the last thirty years or so there has been a revival of Classical Five-Point Calvinism and Four-Point Calvinism. (A strong trend in this direction has taken place in Southern Baptist seminaries.) As theological students moved on into upper-level seminary studies and into doctoral studies, they were confronted with far more scholarly treatments of Calvinistic theology than they were of Arminian theology. They were also confronted with the weakened form of Arminianism that was being promoted by scholars such as Clark Pinnock. Seeing those alternatives, many chose Four- or Five-Point Calvinism.

I think the climate is right for a revival of Classical Arminianism. On the grassroots level there is a growing discontent with the trend toward Calvinism. This is particularly true as it relates to the question of election.

I believe that Classical Arminianism is particularly suited to deal with the challenge. It has a strong view on the effect of the fall of Adam on the race. In agreement with Arminius, Classical Arminianism takes the position that the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to each member of the human race and that as a result of Adam’s sin every human being is born with a depraved nature. It takes the position that infants are saved rather than safe.

On atonement, Classical Arminianism is strongly committed to the penal satisfaction view. Justification is based on the imputation of the death and righteousness of Christ—that and that alone, nothing more and nothing less. The condition for receiving this justification is faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior—that and that alone, nothing more and nothing less. We are saved by Christ alone on the condition of faith alone.

No person can come to Christ apart from the drawing power of the Holy Spirit. That drawing power is extended to all. The drawing power of the Holy Spirit enables a person to come to a point that he can make a positive decision. But the person can resist and say no. The moment a person believes, he or she is instantly regenerated by the Holy Spirit and becomes a new creature in Christ. Sanctification begins at regeneration and progresses in life.

A person remains saved as long as he or she continues to keep faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. If there should be a wilful and defiant return to unbelief that person will cease to be saved and will be beyond redemption. It is important to keep in mind that Christians do not live without sin. It is not sinning through weakness that causes a person to cease to be saved. Rather, it is a wilful return to unbelief.

I do not believe that we are to achieve unity between Calvinists and Arminians by choosing to be silent. It is an abridged view of Christianity that does not deal with subjects like election, the extent of atonement, whether grace can be resisted, and the perseverance of the saints. We must be able to have Christian fellowship with one another and at the same time have forthright exchanges about these issues.

An Invitation for Criticism

In the 1975 edition, I said:

I have a high respect for the opinion of those who are devout scholars of the Bible, but I have not hesitated to be critical of their views when they appear to me to be in error. I expect my own ideas to be criticized by others (Preface).

I would affirm those same comments with respect to the current edition. One of the reasons for putting ideas into print is so they can be evaluated and critiqued by others. I want what I have said to be examined critically. I welcome responses.

A Word of Explanation About Use of Bible Translations

If it is not otherwise indicated, the KJV is used. I have a great deal of respect for the KJV, but I am not a KJV-only person. I have made frequent use of other translations.

In the 1975 edition I used the KJV as the basic text. As I have indicated earlier, the 1975 edition was scanned and put on a disk for me. I made use of the disk in preparing the manuscript to be used for the Russian translation. It was my intent to switch to using the NASB for that manuscript on the doctrine of perseverance. I thought it would be better for use in Russia. I was forced to abandon my plan.

There is more involved in changing from one Bible translation to another than meets the eye. It is not as simple as just going through and changing the wording of the verses. In discussing a passage, we use the wording of the verse in our comments about the verse. To change from the KJV to the NASB meant that I would have to examine the comments that I had made about the passage to be sure that the wording that was used in my comments was consistent with the wording in the NASB. For example, in Acts 3:19 the KJV says that your sins may be blotted out. The NASB reads, that your sins may be wiped away. If you use the KJV on Acts 3:19, in the comments you would speak about having your sins blotted out. If you used the NASB, you would speak of having your sins wiped away. The meaning is the same, but you would like to keep your wording consistent with the translation. I made changes when it seemed to be wise, but it saved considerable time to keep the KJV as the basic text.

No person is going to go very far in biblical and theological training without having at least a working knowledge of the language of the KJV. The great hymns of the past that inform our minds and bless our hearts are filled with thees and thous. Anyone who wants to do theological research is not going to go very far before he finds great theological works and Bible commentaries that were either written in Elizabethan English or were translated from another language into Elizabethan English.

Also, some of the terms used in the KJV have become fixed in theology and will not disappear from usage anytime soon. For example, the term the seed of Abraham. While it means descendant or offspring, a person will not get very far in a study of eschatology without becoming acquainted with the expression seed of Abraham. We are holding on to the KJV terminology when we speak of the imputation of Adam’s sin to the race or the imputation of the death and righteousness of Christ to the believer. We will not likely forfeit that terminology in theology.

Acknowledgments

This is the hardest part of the preface to write. There are so many that have in one way or another contributed to making this book a reality. I feel that it would be the height of ingratitude not to mention several who have made a significant contribution. But I am afraid that I will fail to mention some who have made a significant contribution.

I will start with my wife, Fay. She has read portions of the manuscript and has made valuable suggestions. She has held up the standard of excellence before me. Because of her, I have a much broader view of life than I would have otherwise had. She has stood by me in difficult times. It would be impossible for me to understand the many ways that she has contributed to making it possible for this edition of this book to come to pass.

I would be remiss if I did not mention my parents who gave me a Christian home and Christian background. Outstandingly strong was the character training in honesty, integrity, a sense of duty, loyalty, purity, fairness, thoughtfulness, and within the range of their limited means an emphasis on beauty and excellence.

I want to give thanks to the memory of the Reverend R. N. Hinnant, whom I have already mentioned, for making the plan of salvation clear to me. He laid it out so clearly before me that we are saved by faith alone. This has meant more to me than I will ever know. I have never wavered on that.

It would be impossible for me to explain how important the theological and biblical training that I received at Free Will Baptist Bible College has been to me. I owe much to Dr. J. P. Barrow, Dr. L. C. Johnson, Dr. LaVerne Miley, and Dr. Charles A. Thigpen for their example and their teaching of courses in Bible and theology.

The course that impacted the shaping of my theology more than any other course that I have ever taken was the course Arminian Theology which was taught by Dr. L. C. Johnson, the founding president of Free Will Baptist Bible College. It was in that course that the foundations were laid for what I am calling Classical Arminianism. In that class theology became alive to me. The greatest single contribution of the course for me was that it helped me nail down forever my belief in the penal satisfaction view of atonement.

Another significant person in those days was Robert E. Picirilli. We had had some exchanges on theology as students. He was in the class Arminian Theology. I joined the faculty at Free Will Baptist Bible College in 1953. He joined the faculty in 1954. We were working our way through issues. We had many strong exchanges that sharpened my mind and helped shape my thinking. You might say that we were sparring buddies. Dr. Picirilli later became academic dean. Both of us became too busy to hash things out like we once did. Those discussions were of great value to me.

I would also like to mention another one of my colleagues, Ralph C. Hampton. I have called his number many times over the years for information. It has always been helpful to talk things over with him.

In my seminary training, I had the privilege of being subjected to some of the greatest minds in the evangelical world from 1954-1970. I attended Winona Lake School of Theology, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Chicago Graduate School of Theology (formerly Winona Lake School of Theology). I would like to mention a few of the professors who contributed much to my thinking. Dr. Arnold C. Schultz, Dr. H. Dermot McDonald, Dr. Edward J. Young, Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, Dr. Milford Henkel, and Dr. Carl F. H. Henry have all made their impact on my thinking.

During the time that I have been working on the book, I have consulted with many different people whose suggestions and reassurances have been helpful. Among these have been Dr. Darrell Holley, Dr. Garnett Reid, Dr. Stephen M. Ashby, and the Reverend J. Matthew Pinson, Dr. Fisher Humphries, and Dr. Jonathan Wilson.

Steve Ashby and the Matt Pinson have read and commented on the entire manuscript. They have served as consultants. Dr. Ashby is assistant professor of philosophy and religion at Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. Brother Pinson is pastor of the Colquitt Free Will Baptist Church, Colquitt, Georgia. Matt is engaged in Ph.D. studies in church history at Florida State University in Tallahassee and part time instructor of history and religion at Bainbridge College, Bainbridge, Georgia. Both of these gentlemen are well acquainted with both theological education and university education. They are well grounded in theology and philosophy. They are abreast of the current scene in the culture. They have been an invaluable aid to me.

In the light of the paradigm shift from modernism to postmodernism, it has been particularly helpful to be able to consult with Steve and Matt as I went along. I called each of them often. Sometimes it was to toss around some ideas. Sometimes it was to be sure that I was on the right track, especially when it came to matters relating to the culture. Sometimes it was to check out the best wording to say what I wanted to say.

Ultimately, the responsibility of what is in the book is mine. I deeply appreciate the contribution that each of the above mentioned has made to helping this book become a reality.

Having brought this project to a close, I join with the hymn writer, George Keith, when he said, How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!

F. Leroy Forlines

Nashville, Tennessee

1

Introduction

I can remember as far back as the 1930s and the 1940s. Within my memory, the increase of people’s knowledge of the physical universe has been astounding. This includes making knowledge available to the masses that once was known only by a few, and many discoveries of which most had never dreamed. It is common knowledge now that the nearest star other than the sun is said to be four and one-half light years away, with a light year being the distance light travels in a year at the rate of 186,000 miles per second. We are also told that some stars are millions of light years away. The last 60 years introduced the splitting of the atom, the harnessing of atomic energy, television as a form of mass media, space travel, heart transplants, laser surgery, computers, etc. Someone has said, I was born in one age, and I will die in another. That applies to me.

At the same time that people’s knowledge of the physical universe has increased, the certainty that many had with regard to Christian truth has been widely diminished. The culture of my youth was strongly influenced by Christian thought. Such is not the case today.

Pluralism and relativism set the mood for the day. The only thing that some people are sure about is that nothing is true and nothing is false. Beliefs are determined by preference and culture. There is tolerance for everything except for those who believe that ultimate Truth exists and is knowable.

The Inescapable Questions of Life

The prevailing mood of doubt and uncertainty in today’s culture presents real problems for human beings. It is impossible for us to escape asking such questions as: Is there a God? If so, what is He like? How can I know Him? Who am I? Where am I? How can I tell right from wrong? Is there life after death? What should I and what can I do about guilt? How can I deal with my inner pain? These are what I call the inescapable questions of life. When an individual fails to find satisfying answers to these questions, he or she will fail to find meaning in life.

While it is true that some people have more of a passion for these questions than others, there is no one who has grown into adulthood without giving some attention to questions of this kind. In early 1996, my wife, Fay, and I spent four months in Ukraine and Russia. Nothing that I learned there raised any doubts in my mind about the universality of these observations. The influence of atheistic Russian communism had not by any means silenced these questions.¹

The Tragic Picture of Our Times

The person who has learned of the vastness of the universe and the potential that lies within it, but has found himself with no sure and satisfactory answers to the inescapable questions of life is in deep trouble. He is capable of experiencing a feeling of lostness that few people could have experienced before this present time. He is overwhelmed by the vastness of the universe. He is overwhelmed by the secrets that have been unlocked that have made so many inventions and discoveries possible. He is frustrated because scientists have been able to navigate the universe and send space ships to the moon and planets, but they have given him no means of answering these questions he cannot avoid asking. He cannot find purpose and meaning in life. He does not know how to deal with guilt, loneliness, depression, and despair. Out of his despair he cries out, Who am I? Where am I? What direction should I take? With his ear turned toward naturalism, he hears no voice that bears Truth that will set him free. Empiricism has no satisfactory answers to these questions. From the emptiness of unsatisfied thirst, many are turning to illegal drugs, alcohol, and promiscuous sex. These may bring temporary thrills, but in the long run they become a part of the problem. The odor of unbelief, uncertainty, fear, loneliness, boredom, depression, despair, and pessimism permeate the atmosphere.

We live in the midst of confused, and frustrated people. Jesus said, And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (Jn. 8:32, NKJV). It is my conviction that these words of Jesus are of particular importance for people experiencing the problems prevalent in our society. There is no remedy apart from Truth. The culture which denies that Truth exists or is accessible is in desperate need of Truth.

The Purpose of This Study

This study is designed to present the basic truths of the Christian faith. It is written out of a heart of redemptive concern. I am concerned evangelistically for the person who is not a Christian that he may come to know Jesus Christ, whom to know is eternal life (Jn. 6:68). I am concerned for the person who is already saved, that he or she may grow in the likeness of Christ (Rom. 8:29), and that he may be able to appropriate the all-sufficient grace of God in the midst of the complexities of life (2 Cor. 12:9). This redemptive concern has a twofold motivation: (1) that people may be delivered from both misery and distress that accompany the powers of darkness both in this life and the life to come, and further be translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son experiencing that joy, peace, and satisfaction that belong to Christ’s kingdom both in this life and the life to come (Col. 1:13) and (2) that God may be given His rightful place of honor and glory in our hearts and minds as our Sovereign Lord and Redeemer (Phil. 2:9-11).

The Approach of This Study

LIFE-ORIENTED

For a long time there was a tendency in the world of scholarship to make a sharp distinction between the academic, which deals with the content of Truth, and the practical, which deals with the application of Truth. In studying the content of Truth, the ideal was to be objective. It was felt that to combine the study of the content of Truth with the application of Truth was to contaminate objectivity with subjectivity. To be objective was to seek to be detached from the subject under study. A person was to study as if it made no difference what conclusions he reached. It was felt that objectivity was necessary in order to maintain intellectual honesty.

To challenge objectivity as a guiding ideal in the pursuit of Truth should not be considered a challenge to the notion that Truth itself is objective. Truth exists outside of the mind of the knower. At the same time Truth is for life. It is not just a cold, dry collection of abstract and impersonal ideas.

In my early years of teaching in the 1950s, I worked hard to maintain objectivity. I demanded that students write their papers in the third person. I insisted that in an exegetical paper that the students refrain from introducing anything into their papers besides bare exegesis of the text. I rebuked one student for placing a poem in his paper.

I have come to believe that there are some serious problems in trying to maintain objectivity as the guiding ideal in the search for Truth. Objectivity seeks to make a person a neutral investigator of Truth. Why is a person supposed to be more capable of discovering Truth if he is a neutral investigator rather than one who is deeply involved in what he is doing and who feels strongly about it? Who learns the most about art—a person who is neutral about art, or a person who loves art? Who learns more about baseball—one who studies with a feeling of detachment or one who is deeply involved? We are not to wring all the feeling out of Truth if we expect it to speak to life. Thinking and feeling must be found together.

It is an absolute must that we maintain honesty and integrity in our pursuit of Truth. To speak of a dishonest search for Truth is a contradiction of terms. However, to become married to objectivity as a means of trying to guarantee honesty means to divorce the mind from the rest of the personality. Truth is for the total personality. It may take a strong commitment to honesty to be honest when a person is deeply involved in a matter. Yet, this is what must take place. Honesty and deep involvement must be found in the same person in order to reach the highest degree of proficiency in discovering the Truth.

We are not spectators in our search for Truth. We are deeply concerned and involved. We study with a passion. It is particularly important that we study theological truth as interested and involved persons because theological truth is for life. It must not be a mere mental exercise. It must be experience oriented. As a person studies the breadth of material covered in a study of systematic theology, he or she should feel spoken to. He should experience a wide range of emotions. He may, depending on his or her relationship with Jesus Christ, experience feelings of fear, dread, rebuke, or relief, peace, satisfaction, calm and gratitude. He should develop an increased concern for other people. He should feel challenged and motivated. Life should take on meaning and purpose.

Many times authors have chosen to write in the third person as a means of maintaining a higher degree of objectivity.² This caused the author to write as a detached person. To a large extent, this removed his writings from life. There was a missing dimension that kept many outstanding works on theology from speaking to the heart. They were not designed to speak to the heart. That was left for devotional studies.

My aim here is not objectivity. I am writing as a deeply involved and deeply concerned person. I want the reader to feel that I care and that what I say is real to me. Therefore, I will write in the first person. I will endeavor to be honest. Since I am subject to human frailties, I may not always achieve this; nevertheless, this is my guiding ideal.

Combining the academic and the practical in this study does not presuppose that the full implications of the practical will be developed, as might be in a book more completely devoted to the practical. However, it will be life-oriented in its approach. Any presentation of Truth that does not speak to life has a missing element. We may not be able to show a life application from every sentence or paragraph, or even every page, but the process of discovering Truth should be a process of learning more about how to live in a complex world. I believe Truth is practical. Truth is for life.

SYSTEMATICALLY ORIENTED

When the term doctrine, as distinguished from systematic theology, is applied to a study of the Christian system of Truth, it refers to a topical study of basic Christian truths. As a rule, such a study is designed to set forth the biblical teachings on these subjects. Little or no attention is given to gaining a rational understanding of one’s faith and to showing the interrelatedness of doctrines one to another. Also, only limited attention is given to differing views of interpretation.

Systematic theology covers essentially the same areas that a more or less complete work on doctrine covers. It attempts to help a person develop a rational understanding of his faith. In its attempt to be systematic, it seeks to lay a foundation and build a structure of thought on that foundation. Attention is given to how the structure grows logically out of the foundation and how the doctrines relate one to another to produce harmony in the system. As a rule, a systematic theology is more thorough than a doctrinal treatment. It gives more documentation for what is set forth and gives more attention to different views. My experience has been in teaching systematic theology rather than doctrine. This study will be systematic in its approach.

It will be helpful at this point if we distinguish between systematic theology and that branch of theology called biblical theology. Biblical theology is a study of biblical teachings as they are progressively revealed, or as they are set forth in a particular section of the Bible, a particular book, or the writings of a particular author. In speaking of biblical theology, we talk about Old Testament theology, New Testament theology, Theology of the Pentateuch, Pauline theology, etc.

Systematic theology is a topical study of the whole of Christian Truth, using any and all sources of Truth, with a view to seeing the parts as making up an integrated and harmonious whole, resulting in a Christian worldview. To speak of biblical theology as distinguished from systematic theology, is not intended to suggest that systematic theology is not biblically based. When systematic theology is properly done, it rests squarely on the authority of the Bible. When speaking of biblical theology as a branch of theology, it seeks to show how a particular doctrine is unfolded and developed in the Bible. It does not have the same interest that systematic theology does in harmonizing doctrines and developing a total worldview.

The Presuppositions

By presuppositions, I mean the basic beliefs that are essential for a particular type of study to be conducted. At this point, I am not raising the question of how or whether these presuppositions can be proved. That will be discussed when these presuppositions come up for elaboration in the study. I am saying that at all times these presuppositions will be treated as true and that they are necessary for the study as a whole. There is no neutral platform from which to start. We cannot start from nowhere. We must start somewhere. Honesty requires us to make this admission.

• That God Exists As the Triune God and His Self-revelation Is Seen in:

1. Jesus Christ

2. The Bible

3. In nature and the experience of men

• That God’s Revelation Is for Man and Can Be Known by Him

Man is created in God’s image for a relationship with God. The Truth the Maker reveals is designed to meet the needs of the one He has made in the condition his experiences have put him. It is the very purpose of God’s Truth to set us free (Jn. 8:32). Truth must always be studied with that in mind.

The design of our being created in the image of God, along with the divine aid that is provided for us, creates the possibility for us to understand the Truth. Apart from this confidence there would be no proper theology.

• That Truth Is