Reeves - Mitchell Debate, K. Sharp
Thursday, April 26, Bruce Reeves affirmed, “The Scriptures teach that it is possible for a Christian, i.e. one who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ, to so sin as to be eternally lost.”
Bruce spent his entire first affirmative in an analysis of the book of Second Peter. His theme was “one having been justified can again be entangled in sin so as to be lost.”
He began by demonstrating from 2 Peter 1:1-4 that Peter wrote to those who were truly saved. The word “knowledge” in verse two is from the Greek ” ,” an intensive form of the word for “knowledge,” which always in Scripture signifies saving knowledge. According to verse three they had both experienced the new birth and had been divinely called. Furthermore, they possessed the great and precious promises of God and the divine nature, having escaped the corruption of the world (verse 4). Thus, Peter writes this little book to justified people (verse 1), those in grace and peace through knowing God (verse 2), partakers of life and godliness (verse 3), called out people (verse 3), possessors of the wonderful promises of God (verse 4), possessors of the qualities of their heavenly Father (verse 4), people who had actually “escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (verse 4).
But the apostle warns these people to give all diligence to add the seven attributes of character that reflect the divine nature (verses 5 -9). They must do this to make their call and election sure, for avoiding falling is conditioned upon (“if”) their doing so (verses 10-11). For this reason Peter found it necessary to remind believers of the “present truth” (verses 12 -15).
Peter delivers a stern warning to those who “have actually escaped from those who live in err or” (2 Peter 2:18; cf. 1:4; 2:20). He informs them if they are again entangled in sin and overcome “the latter end is worse for them than the beginning” (2:20).
The apostle declares that these people had once “escaped the pollutions of the world” (2:20; cf. 1:4) “through the knowledge (“epignosis”) of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2:20; cf. 1:3). Those disentangled from the world might become entangled again. They would then be worse off than before they were saved.
They had “known (“epiginosko”) the way of righteousness,” i.e., they had experienced righteousness, but they turned “from the holy commandment” (2:21). They had become clean both inside and out, but they reverted to their former condition of filth (2:22).
Why such dire warnings? To “stir up your pure minds by way of reminder” (2 Peter 3:1-2). Peter is addressing saved people. It is not God’s will that any perish (2 Peter 3:9). But through His holy apostle He warns saved people of the grave danger of being lost. Here divine sovereignty meets human free will, and the sovereign Lord will not violate the free will of one whom He has made in His own image. God loves all mankind redemptively. Each and every responsible human has the ability and opportunity to choose to come to repentance.
The apostle finally draws his little, farewell epistle to a close with an admonition and a warning. Since the day of the Lord is sure to come (2 Peter 3:3 -13), we must “be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless” (verse 14).
The message is clear. To the saved as well as to the lost, final salvation is conditional. We must be diligent.
You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:17-18).
Ron Mitchell briefly replied to all this in his second negative by asserting from 2 Peter 2:12 that these people had “head knowledge but not saving knowledge” and that the “if’ passages just stated a hypothetical which couldn’t really happen, giving 1 Corinthians 15 (“if Christ be not raised”) as his case in point. He denied that “fall” in 2 Peter 1:10 -11 meant a loss of salvation. Bruce pointedly inquired why God would warn His people of an imaginary danger.
Dr. Mitchell began his first negative with a nine and a half minute personal attack on Bruce (in violation of rules 3, 4, and 5 of Hedge’s 7 “Rules of Honorable Controversy”), in which he falsely accused Brother Reeves of a “tirade” of personal attacks on Dr. Raines. He further displayed his frustration by refusing to answer the agreed upon five written questions Brother Reeves had submitted. Then he admittedly refused to fulfill the proper negative role of answering affirmative arguments.
Dr. Mitchell presented one negative argument on the meaning of the word “apostasy.” Employing Hebrews 10:26-39; 1 John 2:19; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; and 1 Timothy 4:1 -2, Mitchell claimed that an apostate is who comes to a full knowledge of the truth and willfully rejects it. He identified Judas Iscariot as the classic apostate. He claimed that “knowledge” (” “) in Hebrews 10:26 is not “saving knowledge.”
Bruce pointedly demonstrated that when Mitchell appealed to Judas as an apostate he gave up this argument, for Judas was one of those the Father gave to His Son (John 17:12). Without referring to John 17:12, Mitchell asserted that Judas was “a devil from the beginning.” The phrase “from the beginning"is a figment of Baptists’ fertile imaginations (cf. John 6:70). Finally, at the very end of his last speech, Mitchell denied Judas was an apostate.
In his second affirmative Bruce ignored Ron Mitchell’s attack and continued to press his biblical argumentation. He first noted that “knowledge” in Hebrews 10:26 is the same term Peter employs in 2 Peter 1:2 and 2:20 (” “), which Vine defines as “exact or full knowledge” and which always in the New Testament refers to saving knowledge.
Mitchell had refused to tell the audience if he agreed with Dr. Raines that the fact Ananias called Saul “brother” meant he was saved. Bruce used this to telling effect, showing that “holy brethren” were in danger of falling away (Hebrews 3:1,12-14; 4:14-16).
Then Brother Reeves did a detailed study of Hebrews 10:26-39 in context (Hebrews 10:19-23, 26-39), demonstrating conclusively that “knowledge” in Hebrews 10:26 is saving knowledge. The inspired writer in Hebrews urges Jewish Christians (not just Jews as Mitchell alleged) to remain faithful to Christ rather than to turn back to the law and warns them of the real danger and terrible consequences of leaving Christ to return to Moses.
Dr. Mitchell had refused to answer whether or not he agreed with Dr. Raines that Israel was saved before they left Egypt. Brother Reeves forcefully demonstrated that the vast majority of You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ epignosis epignosis them fell in the wilderness. This is our example of the danger of a Christian losing his salvation (1 Corinthians 10:1-13).
In his second negative Dr. Mitchell again admittedly refused to deal with Brother Reeves’ arguments but introduced prepared negative arguments purporting to show that passages usually employed to teach the possibility of falling away from Christ really do not do so.
I think Dr. Mitchell made one of the more absurd arguments I have heard when he contended that John 15:1-8 doesn’t refer to loss of salvation but to a failure to grow in Christ.
Friday evening Dr. Ron Mitchell affirmed, “The Scriptures teach that it is impossible for a Christian, i.e. one who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ, to so sin as to be finally lost.”
In answer to a question, Mitchell denied that “knowledge” (” “) in 2 Peter 2:20 is saving knowledge, claiming it described the false teachers of 2 Peter 2:1 -3 (Which is blatantly wrong but still doesn’t overcome his difficulty, for they too had been saved. - 2 Peter 2:1 -2) But, to our bewilderment, as he went back to his seat after his last speech, Dr. Mitchell casually apologized and admitted “knowledge” in 2 Peter 2:20 is saving knowledge.
Dr. Mitchell squarely based his defense of the impossibility of a Christian being lost on the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination - the belief God chose specific individuals to salvation in eternity before time. His first major argument was the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 8:28- 30.
Some statements Mitchell made in connection with this argument were blatantly Calvinistic. “We cannot lose what we had no part in obtaining.” “God obligated Himself to maintain the faith of His children.” “It’s not so important to know God; does He know you?” (How does that stack up against 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9?) “We are not Christians because of what we decided about Christ but because of what God decided about us.” “We won’t do anything to bring them (the lost - KS) to salvation.” As Brother Reeves pointed out, Dr. Mitchell doesn’t believe any Christian can choose to be lost because he doesn’t believe any sinner can choose to be saved. His position implicitly denies free will.
Brother Reeves pointed out to the audience that Mitchell was teaching straight Calvinism and assured the Baptists in the audience he knew most of them didn’t believe Calvinistic predestination. The doctrine implies that God does not redemptively love all men (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) and that His invitation to all to come to Him is insincere. It means millions upon millions of people can never have any hope of salvation simply because God decided not to choose them. Further, it eliminates all comfort in our salvation, for logically we have no way of knowing whether we are really chosen by God. Reeves introduced several passages to demonstrate the impartiality of God (1 Timothy 2:3-4; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Acts 10;34 -35; 2 Corinthians 5:10).
Brother Reeves tellingly demonstrated that the context of Romans 8:28-30, verses 12 -13, forcefully teach the possibility of a Christian being lost. Romans 8:28 -30 is not about sinning Christians but suffering Christians under trial for their faith. Due to God’s faithfulness, Christians have assurance that their perseverance through trials will result in glorification (Romans 8:17, 18, 25, 28). There is no external force that can separate the faithful Christian from God (Romans 8:35-39; John 10:27-29).
Dr. Mitchell angrily denied he had taught unconditional election or Calvinism. (I never cease to be amazed how completely Calvinists blind themselves to their own self contradictions and double talk. - 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:10 -12).
I haven’t even come close to reviewing all the argumentation in the debate. I encourage you to get in touch with the Highway 65 North Church of Christ in Conway, Arkansas and get CDs of the entire debate. Listen to it all and keep a flow chart (parallel notes on each speaker on a legal pad) to see the arguments and answers. Apparently Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Raines are representative of many college men today who have returned to the Calvinistic roots of their denomination, while the common folk are clueless of the changes taking place. Calvinism is making a come back, and we must be prepared to meet it.
I commend Bruce and Don for their intense preparation, excellent team work, and attractive, accurate Power Point charts. I commend the elders and congregation of the Highway 65 North church of Christ for their support and encouragement of Bruce and the debate. I sincerely commend Central Baptist College, Dr. Steve Raines, and Dr. Ron Mitchell for having the moral courage to publicly defend their doctrine before their own students on their own campus. I commend Bruce for his calm, gentle, logical, clear, scholarly presentation of the truth and refutation of error and for being humble enough to ignore personal attacks, to keep the discussion on a high plain, and to keep the audience focused on the scriptural issues.