Were Ananias and Sapphira Regenerate?

[Robert R. Higby]

Dear In Hymn:

You are certainly correct about Simon Magus; he was an enemy of the gospel as manifested by his life of opposition to it. There is no doubt as to the nature of the 'fruit' that he bore.

Ananias and Sapphira are more of a mystery. They sinned greviously in their lie about giving 'all' of the property. But we simply do not know anything about the remainder of the 'fruit' of their lives and testimony; we only know about this one thing. The point of scripture is that God made his judgment on their temporal sin an EXAMPLE of what he will do to ANY community of believers that slackens in their commitment to the implications of the gospel.

The Bible does not say whether the temporal judgment in this present age on A / S was an entrance for them personally into ETERNAL judgment.

[bgamall]

You know Bill, it seems pretty clear that these people were not saved. And I don't even think that Solomon was saved. He is conspicuously absent in Heb 11 and he tried to kill one of God's elect at the end of his time.

The difference between you and me Bill is that I see very few as being saved and you see many. Scripture is clearly on my side. Few are chosen. Many will say they did wonderful works.

I believe that those who teach that the law has power to bring people close to the gospel are lost. I believe that people who teach free will are lost. The reason both these groups are lost is because they do not understand the true gospel and how it works. They do not have a clue as to how Acts 2 works and how the gospel alone savingly cuts to the heart.

[Robert R. Higby]

bgamall:

You know Bill, it seems pretty clear that these people were not saved.

'Seems' is not enough. Without a sure and certain Word of prophecy, the Lord requires us to make no judgment on the final destiny of a soul. Surely you believe that!

And I don't even think that Solomon was saved. He is conspicuously absent in Heb 11 and he tried to kill one of God's elect at the end of his time.

Again, no sure and certain Word of prophecy. So the Lord does not require a judgment from us on the final destiny of Solomon.

The difference between you and me Bill is that I see very few as being saved and you see many.

Scripture teaches that both 'few' and 'many' will be saved; I won't quote verses as I'm certain that you already know them. But as to the proportion, it is very clear to me from the Bible that the great majority of Adam's biological race will come forth in the resurrection of damnation. So the assumption you are making about my doctrine has no basis in fact.

Scripture is clearly on my side. Few are chosen. Many will say they did wonderful works.

Well and good.

I believe that those who teach that the law has power to bring people close to the gospel are lost. I believe that people who teach free will are lost. The reason both these groups are lost is because they do not understand the true gospel and how it works.

I can agree only if the 'teacher' you refer to has cognitive and core belief of the propositions mentioned. But you cannot assume a person's core inward beliefs by every word that comes out of the mouth. Otherwise, sinless perfection is possible in this life.

[bgamall]

"Scripture teaches that both 'few' and 'many' will be saved" Many in an absolute sense because of the long time that few have been called over ages. Few in regard to how many people have lived. And in this day of Christ's imminent return few. Little faith on the earth right now.

With regard to the last statement you made, I am not certain that I fully understand it. Is it possible for a person who is elect to fall away from sound doctrine for a time? Yes. Is it possible that he will not be given the grace to eventually stand in the truth? No. There is a mystery in Paul's statement of wood, hay and stubble however the foundation is Christ. I take this to mean the foundation is the gospel, and not law or free will.

These two, law and free will, attack the gospel at it's root, and they destroy the foundation. They are rooted in natural conscience. That is why even a free willer like Billy Graham could say that a person should come to Christ while he is young, while his conscience is still accusing him. This is doctrine from hell, where I have no doubt that Billy Graham will end up unless God gives him true repentance.

As far as Annanias and Saphira are concerned, it appears to be more than wood, hay and stubble, but rather lying to the Holy Spirit. I don't think that is salvation. I am not absolutely sure, but I am fairly confident that these folks won't be numbered with the elect.

As for Solomon, the fact that he tried to kill an elect person is just not a manifestation of faith, but rather of unbelief. So, again, it makes sense that he is missing from Heb 11. I don't believe that he would have been excluded had he been saved. He was given gifts but not the esential gift. However, I am not certain because it has not been revealed to me that Solomon is lost. I just believe that he could very well not be numbered among the elect and that his behavior could indicate that quite profoundly.

[Skeuos Eleos]

You know Bill, it seems pretty clear that these people were not saved. And I don't even think that Solomon was saved. He is conspicuously absent in Heb 11 and he tried to kill one of God's elect at the end of his time.

The difference between you and me Bill is that I see very few as being saved and you see many. Scripture is clearly on my side. Few are chosen. Many will say they did wonderful works.

1 Chron 29:25::
And the LORD magnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed upon him such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in Israel.

2 Chron 9:23:
All the kings of the earth sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.

Ne 13:26b:
Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women.

Surely Solomon is among the Elect of God for he was loved by God!

Perhaps the "few" just increased a bit and scripture isn't quite so clearly on your side?

Martin

[bgamall]

That is an interesting scripture Skeuos. However in 1 Kings 11:26-40 we see that Solomon tries to kill the favored one. And He had wisdom put into his heart. But Heb 6 discusses that situation of someone having wisdom and gifts of God but not salvation.

Hosea 9:15 says, Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer LOVE them. I would suggest that this is exactly what happened to Solomon. He had the kingdom, in effect, ripped from his hands although not in his lifetime.

Never once did God say that Solomon was after His own heart. Those words were reserved for David. I am again not absolutely saying that Solomon was not among the elect, however, it is very possible according to the rules revealed by the various texts.

[Skeuos Eleos]

bgamall,

I understand and agree with your concerns. However, I note that 1 Kings 11:4 and 6 say that Solomon's "heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God" and he "did not follow the LORD fully" rather than saying that He turned away completely. Who of us can say that we are wholly and fully devoted to the Lord?

Anyway, my main concern is over the fact that it is recorded that God loved Solomon. How could that be called 'loving' to grant someone what is but a brief moment of prosperity compared to an eternity of damnation? To me, to say that God can love someone whom He then condemns to eternal damnation undermines the value of knowing that the God who is love loves me and hence undermines a believer's assurance. I see no other biblical basis for the notion that God can love someone whom he has decreed from eternity as a vessel of His wrath.

Grace be with you,
Martin

[bgamall]

With regard to God's love to the Jews, it was apparent in the fact that God was a husband to the Jews even though they were not all elect. It is fair to say he loved them but they were not elect. Indeed, few were elect. And Jesus cried out to the Jews even though they were not hearing. That is why I still don't really see Solomon as elect. Again, it would seem that he would have been included in the Heb 11 group. It is amazing that he would not be included if he were elect.

[Robert R. Higby]

In spite of disagreements expressed, I do not sense real differences of substance between us on this particular issue.

On the issue of Solomon not following the Lord fully, it is in contrast to his father David who did. David is reckoned to have followed the Lord fully, not because he was sinless at any time in his life (we know otherwise!), but because he NEVER tolerated the worship of one foreign/false God on kingdom soil (1 Ki. 11:33,38). Solomon compromised with the devil and allowed his pagan wives to seduce him into allowing foreign gods to be set up in certain portions of the kingdom. His incredibly stupid and godless act of 'tolerance' and muti-culturalism (performed by the 'wisest' man on earth) led to division of the kingdom. Yet the Lord did not perform it in his day. I believe this was because Solomon, like Samson who also sinned grievously, was still God's elect.

There is no question that Solomon's sin was deep and horrible, trying to murder one of God's annointed. David did the same thing and succeeded. But the argument comparing Solomon to the Northern tribes is wrong. God may indeed reject a nation that he formerly showed favor to. But he never changes his mind about an elect individual whom he loves.

[bgamall]

Of course he never changes his mind about the elect that He loves before the world was made. However, Solomon, in my mind was never elect, but favored only in the Old Covenant relationship God had with the Jews. Notice Samson was mentioned in Heb. 11. Solomon is skipped over in VS 32.

[Skeuos Eleos]

bgamall,

Does God love the reprobate in hell?

Assuming that you would answer "no" to that, then by saying that God can 'love' a reprobate on earth you are implying that he 'changes His mind' about them later. The reprobate is not deemed to be such based upon their actions but are vessels appointed unto wrath from the beginning by HIm in whom there is no shadow of turning. His disposition towards them never changes.

Compassion, provision, yes, God displays these towards the reprobate but 'love'? What value is a "love" that damns for all eternity?

Martin

[Skeuos Eleos]

Of course he never changes his mind about the elect that He loves before the world was made. However, Solomon, in my mind was never elect, but favored only in the Old Covenant relationship God had with the Jews. Notice Samson was mentioned in Heb. 11. Solomon is skipped over in VS 32.

But this is an argument from silence if ever there was one whereas I am speaking about the love that it is recorded that God had for Solomon.

Martin

[bgamall]

"Assuming that you would answer "no" to that, then by saying that God can 'love' a reprobate on earth you are implying that he 'changes His mind' about them later. The reprobate is not deemed to be such based upon their actions but are vessels appointed unto wrath from the beginning by HIm in whom there is no shadow of turning. His disposition towards them never changes."

Again, without beating a dead horse. God loved Israel. He was a husband to Israel. God divorced Israel. He quit loving them. Of course this has nothing to do with God's eternal and unchanging love to the elect, both in OT times and NT times. For you to say that God did not quit loving Israel is opposed to scripture. Hosea 9:15 is crystal clear. You are arguing with that scripture not with me.

Hosea says God quit loving them. It must be understood within the context of the Old Covenant which was a temporary covenant. God loved the reprobates of OT Israel and reached out to them continually and sincerely. So did Jesus. God was made angry by their refusal to love Him and do His will. Jesus wept over this rejection. This is played out over and over and has nothing to do with the eternal love to the elect which is undying and unchanging.

[Robert R. Higby]

BGA:
God loved Israel. He was a husband to Israel. God divorced Israel. He quit loving them. Of course this has nothing to do with God's eternal and unchanging love to the elect, both in OT times and NT times. For you to say that God did not quit loving Israel is opposed to scripture. Hosea 9:15 is crystal clear.

God loves a nation only because of the presence of his elect; so it is completely in harmony with scripture to recognize that God may stop loving a nation. He may even stop loving a professed Christian 'assembly' once it is devoid of the gospel and a significant presence of his elect: i.e., the seven in Revelation that Christ eventually spit out of his mouth. None of those assemblies exist today.

But when it says that God loved Solomon, that is it--no matter how great his temporal sin or even if such stumbling into it occurred later in life. The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

The Hebrews argument is moot; the list is obviously selective and it names only a lesser portion of the OT prophets who wrote scripture. Solomon was not a great example of faith in his great sin late in life; perhaps that is one reason he was omitted. But I have no doubt that God preserved Solomon's faith in the end.

The scriptures are full of examples of both prophets who boldly separated from sin (such as Joseph with Potiphar's wife); also prophets who sinned greviously. That is fact. I have no problem with the fact that the Lord forgave Solomon's sin, any more than I have a problem with the fact that he has forgiven ALL of my own great stumbling sins!

[bgamall]

We will have to agree to disagree. God loved Solomon as he loved all the Jews, in a sense that was not saving. The elect were eternally loved. The others were temporarily loved. Remember your distinction between Solomon and the nation is a straw man. The nation is made up of individuals and God loved the nation and those who were in it in a temporary sense.

If God had mercy on Solomon, then fine. I just don't see it. Heb 11 would have settled it but Solomon was omitted.

But Solomon tried to kill the elect King. John said that murderers do not have the love of God in them. Solomon did not murder but he tried. This is not like Paul before salvation.

[bgamall]

Bill, one more point. All Lot did was to leave the cities before the fire. He slept with his daughters, though drunk, towards the end of life, and yet he is featured in Heb 11. Yet Solomon wrote three books of the Bible and is passed over entirely in Heb 11. Makes you wonder.