A Free Grace Critique of Irresistible Grace1

 

By Timothy R. Nichols 
1 This paper was originally presented at the Chafer Theological Seminary Teaching Pastors’ Conference, March 10, 2005, in Santa Ana, CA.

Calvinism has a demonstrated tendency to take an extra step beyond the

biblical evidence. The Bible says the unregenerate are unable to please God;

Calvinists infer from this that the unregenerate are unable to believe. The

biblical evidence shows that believers are selected for glorification and

deliverance from Tribulation wrath; Calvinists infer that unbelievers are

selected for regeneration. The Scripture says that believers ought to walk

worthy of their high calling; Calvinists infer that believers will inevitably do

so.

One defense against the Calvinist position is the simple fact that the

biblical evidence does not go far enough to support the system fully. Since

Scripture is sufficient for both faith and practice, one should not accept a

system that has insufficient support from Scripture. Another defense is the

argument that the passages adduced to support Calvinism do not say what

Calvinists suppose they say. Both of these defenses are essentially negative in

character. They do not necessarily prove any position; they are designed only

to disprove a Calvinist position. This article will focus on a third type of

defense: an affirmative case for a different view, framed in its own—not

Calvinist—terms.

As long as Free-Grace theologians continue to frame their position as

non-Arminian anti-Calvinism, they will be a step behind. Scripture does not

frame its discussion of soteriology in terms of the five points of Calvinism;

thus, there is no reason why we ought to, if our presentation is to mirror

Scripture. At best, TULIP2 presents Free Grace with a useful foil, a heuristic

for communicating where we stand in relation to other beliefs. However, we

need to make a positive case as well as a negative case. While TULIP may be

a perfect foil for the negative case, there is no reason to prefer it for the

positive one.

2 TULIP is an acronym for the five points of Calvinism: Total depravity,

Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of

the saints..

A Third Position, Not a Mediate Position

The idea of not framing the Free Grace position in terms of Arminianism and

Calvinism only makes sense, of course, if the following propositions are true:

A Free Grace Critique of Irresistible Grace 

1) Free Grace is neither Arminian nor Calvinist.

2) Free Grace is not a mediate position between the two “extremes” of

Arminianism and Calvinism. 

 

The first proposition is generally recognized in Free Grace circles; the

second is not. How could it be that Free Grace is not a mediate position? By

definition, a mediate position moderates the extremes of Arminianism and

Calvinism on areas where they disagree. Free Grace does not do this; it

rejects a premise that both Arminianism and Calvinism accept—the essential

unity of justification and sanctification. Arminians teach that a believer who

loses sanctification also loses justification. Calvinists teach that a believer

who loses sanctification has never had justification. In both cases, the

rationale is that sanctification and justification cannot be separated. Free

Grace, by contrast, teaches that sanctification and justification ought not to be

separated but often are. That particular difference is a defining element of the

Free Grace position.

Calvinism and Arminianism share other premises that Free Grace

advocates often reject. Arminians and Calvinists both accept the idea that

unregenerate man is constitutionally unable to believe the gospel (although

Arminians go on to suggest that prevenient grace rescues man from this

position). A number of Free Grace advocates hold that unregenerate man is

constitutionally able to believe the gospel (for reasons discussed below).

Arminians and Calvinists both hold that scripture teaches individual,

soteriological election to eternal life; they differ only on the basis of that

election. A number of Free Grace advocates reject the idea that election to

eternal life is individual at all. There are other examples as well. The point in

cataloging these differences is to demonstrate that the Free Grace position

described in this article, is not a mediate position that falls somewhere on the

continuum between Arminianism and Calvinism. It is not between them—it is

other than they are, a legitimate third position.

Total Inability and Irresistible Grace

The Nature of Irresistible Grace

The nature of Irresistible Grace is such that if Total Inability is true (i.e.,

unregenerate man cannot believe the gospel), then Irresistible Grace must be

true. If unregenerate man cannot believe but can only resist God’s saving

grace, then he can only be saved by a grace against which his resistance

means nothing, i.e., by an irresistible grace. Consequently, in order to clear

the way for an attack on Irresistible Grace, one must first dispense with Total

Inability. A full treatment of the subject is beyond the scope of this paper, so

this discussion will address a single passage that makes a determinative case

against Total Inability. 54 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

Ephesians 2:1–9 and the Case Against Total Inability

The following six sets of syllogisms set forth the logic of a particular strand of

Paul’s argument in the text of Ephesians 2:1–9. The conclusions develop from

the eight points of data it contains. The biblical case for these points is solid;

moreover, the degree of agreement in the commentary literature on these eight

points of data is nothing short of remarkable. Nearly everyone agrees.

However, the conclusions which necessarily follow from these eight points

are rarely acknowledged. (The data points are marked with an asterisk.)

1–1* All believers were once dead.

1–2* Dead refers to spiritual death.

1–3 Therefore, all believers were once spiritually dead.

2–1* All believers were made alive.

2–2* Made alive refers to spiritual life (regeneration).

2–3 Therefore, all believers received spiritual life

(regeneration).

3–1* By grace you are saved (2:5) is parenthetical to made

alive (and raised up and seated).

3–2* The parenthetical relation indicates that made alive

(and raised up and seated) is equated with, or a

subset of, by grace you are saved.

3–3 Therefore, made alive (and raised up and seated) is

equated with, or a subset of, saved (2:5).

4–1 Made alive (and raised up and seated) is equated

with, or a subset of, saved (2:5).

4–2* By grace you are saved (2:8) resumes the topic of

discussion from 2:5.

4–3 Therefore, made alive (and raised up and seated) is

equated with, or a subset of, by grace you are saved

(2:8).

5–1* Through faith indicates the instrumental cause3

 of by

grace you are saved (2:8).

3

 It may be helpful to distinguish the terms instrumental cause and effectual cause. An

effectual cause brings about an effect by its own power; an instrumental cause brings

about an effect by another’s power. For example, when someone flips a light switch,

resulting in the lights coming on, flipping the switch is the instrumental cause; the

electricity is the effectual cause. In Paul’s discussion here, grace is set forth as the

effectual cause of salvation, and faith, as the instrumental cause.

A Free Grace Critique of Irresistible Grace 55

5–2 Made alive (and raised up and seated) is equated

with, or a subset of, by grace you are saved (2:8).

5–3 Therefore, through faith is the instrumental cause of

made alive (and raised up and seated).

6–1 Through faith is the instrumental cause of made alive

(and raised up and seated).

6–2 Instrumental cause necessarily precedes its effect.

6–3 Therefore, faith precedes being made alive

(regeneration).

Defining spiritual death in terms of inability to believe falls utterly flat in

this passage. Sadly, the vast majority of Reformed commentators agree with

the data at issue (the asterisked points above) and yet fail to draw the correct

conclusion. This passage removes Total Inability from consideration, because

it says plainly that dead men must believe in order to be made alive. Nor do

Arminians emerge totally unscathed. While Paul does not directly refute

prevenient grace in this passage, neither does he feel the need to adduce the

concept to explain how dead men could believe. For Paul, the idea that dead

men believe requires no further comment.

Grace Resistible, but Unresisted: Selected Passages

With Total Inability out of the way, it is now possible to address Irresistible

Grace directly. As discussed in the introduction, three possible avenues

appear:

1) Defensive: to demonstrate that Scripture does not fully support

Irresistible Grace

2) Defensive: to demonstrate that the passages that are thought to

support Irresistible Grace do not in fact do so

3) Offensive: to demonstrate the truth of a competing view

This paper will take the third course.

“Lest They Believe”: Matthew 13:19 // Mark 4:15 // Luke 8:12 and

2 Corinthians 4:3–4

The parable of the sower is much debated among commentators and

theologians, but most of the debate centers on the disposition of the stony and

thorny soils.4

 Virtually everyone acknowledges that the first soil, the hard

4

 For an excellent treatment of this issue, see Brad McCoy, “The Parable of the

Sower,” CTS Journal 5 (July–September 1999): 2–13.

56 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

ground by the wayside, indicates an unbeliever—and so it does. Jesus’

explanation of the hard ground appears in all three synoptic Gospels:

When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it,

then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart.

This is he who received seed by the wayside.5

 (Matthew 13:19)

And these are the ones by the wayside where the word is sown. When they

hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in

their hearts. (Mark 4:15)

Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes

away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

(Luke 8:12)

When the “wayside ground” person hears the word, he does not

immediately believe. In fact, Matthew tells us that he does not understand it—

and of course one cannot believe a proposition one does not understand.6

 But

most pertinent for the present discussion is Satan’s response to their lack of

understanding. Does he sit back, relax, and celebrate the fact that dead men

are too fallen to grasp the gospel? He does not. He comes and snatches the

word out of their hearts. Mark adds that he does this immediately. Why does

he do this? Luke tells us: Lest, by believing, they be saved.

7

 Satan, thus, treats

men as though they are able to believe—indeed, as though they will believe—

if they are sufficiently exposed to the Word of God. Accordingly, he does

what he can to limit their exposure. This ought not to surprise us, because

faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

8

Paul presents a similar picture in 2 Corinthians 4:3–4:

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those who are perishing, in

whom the god of this age has blinded their minds—the unbelievers—lest the

5

 All Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson,

1997), unless otherwise noted.

6

 People often respond to this line of reasoning by saying, “But we believe in the

Trinity, and we don’t claim to understand it.” This objection trades on two different

uses of the word understand in English: understanding a proposition versus

understanding how a proposition can be true. We believe that there is one God who

exists in three distinct but unified, coequal, coeternal persons. We understand the

content of that proposition and believe it. We say that we do not understand the

Trinity because we do not understand how all the parts of the proposition can be true

at the same time. Thus, we understand and believe certain things about the Trinity,

but we do not understand how all those things can be true at once.

7

 Author’s translation.

8

 Rom. 10:17.

A Free Grace Critique of Irresistible Grace 57

light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should

shine on them.9

Again, Satan blinds (i.e., veils) the minds of the unbelievers, in order that the

light of the gospel not shine on them. It is worthwhile to consider the image

Paul has chosen. There is no sense in veiling the eyes of a blind man. The

whole point of veiling unbelievers’ minds is that they are constitutionally able

to see.

Resisting the Lord: Romans 1, 9–11 and Acts 9:5

Despite Satan’s blinding “ministry,” no unbeliever will be able to claim on

Judgment Day that his unbelief is the Devil’s fault. All three of the Christian’s

enemies, the world, the flesh and the Devil, oppose the Lord and His Word,

therefore unbelievers (in their flesh) resist the truth on their own account, as

well as with the Devil’s help.

Paul bases his indictment of the heathen in Romans 1:18–32 on the fact

that they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. As his case unfolds, it is

apparent that he is not claiming the heathen are damned because of what they

do not know; rather, they are damned based on the fact that they reject facts

they do know—that God exists, that He is powerful and worthy of worship,

and that the creation is not worthy to be worshipped instead of the Creator.

Man does resist God’s revelation of Himself; he does so regularly and, too

often, successfully. When he does this, God gives him over to his sins.

Special revelation is also resisted regularly. In Romans 9–11, Paul

discusses Israel’s position in God’s plan during the present age, and

comments in 11:28: Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake,

but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. Israel

continues to resist the gospel, as they resisted all the prophets before Christ.10

To take a particular case, Saul of Tarsus resisted the gospel, even when it was

difficult for him to do so. We have this from no less an authority than Christ

Himself, speaking to Saul on the Damascus Road: It is hard for you to kick

against the goads.

11 Of course, Saul’s resistance had ceased when he asked,

Who are you, Lord? It is noteworthy that this occurred before he believed

(i.e., while he was still spiritually dead), because he did not yet know what (or

in whom) to believe. However, he was ready to believe whatever he was

told—he was through kicking against the goads.

9

 Author’s translation.

10 Acts 7:2–53.

11 Acts 9:5.

58 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

The Light That Shines: 2 Corinthians 4:5–6

Keeping Paul’s conversion experience in mind, return to 2 Corinthians 4. In

the preceding context, Paul has explained that Satan blinds the minds of the

unbelieving by veiling them from the gospel so that the light would not shine

on them. In verses 5–6, Paul comments on what happened to himself and his

believing audience when they came to Christ:

For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves

your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light

to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the

knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

This is a theological retrospective on coming to faith. Despite Satan’s best

efforts, God has turned up the intensity of the light, penetrating the veil and

shining the light into their hearts. Paul does not comment on how that

happened in this passage; he seems content to assert the fact that it did

happen.

Grace Resisted and Unresisted: John 6:22–7112

Scene: a synagogue in Capernaum, the day after the feeding of the five

thousand. The crowds have crossed the Sea of Galilee searching for Jesus,

who miraculously fed them barley loaves and fish the day before. They would

have made Him their king right then and there, but Jesus slipped away; then

crossed the Sea of Galilee at night. The crowds arrive in Capernaum the next

day, seeking Jesus. When they find Him, they ask Him when He arrived in

Capernaum. Rather than answering their question, Jesus challenges their

motives for seeking Him:

Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs,

but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food

which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the

Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.13

Jesus’ Diagnosis. Jesus’ diagnosis of the crowd is that they are seeking Him

for physical gratification, not because they have a spiritual hunger. He

challenges them to seek the means to eternal life rather than the satisfaction of

their physical hunger. The crowd responds to Jesus, “What shall we do, that

we may work the works of God?”

At first glance, it may appear that the crowd has had a change of heart.

Initially, they were seeking to fill their bellies, but now it seems they are

12 This section will contain quite a bit of free paraphrase and condensation, but

borrows wording from the New King James Version where it seems appropriate.

13 John 6:26b–27.

A Free Grace Critique of Irresistible Grace 59

interested in doing works for God. However, this is unlikely. In the following

verses, they attempt to manipulate the Lord into repeating the miracle of the

preceding day so that they can gratify their hunger. Throughout this passage,

their agenda does not change.

In light of that, the best way of understanding the genitive construction ta.

e;rga tou/ qeou / is as a subjective genitive: the works God does. The crowd is

asking for the ability to work miracles. Jesus has pointed out their reason for

interest in Him: He fed them. They respond by suggesting that He teach them

how to perform the trick. They want to know how to do the works God does.

If they can perform the miracle for themselves, they do not need to seek Jesus

when they are hungry. Jesus responds that the work God does is them

believing in the One He sent.14

Still intent on getting a meal, the crowd seeks to manipulate Jesus into

working another miracle by asking for a sign, in order that they may see it and

believe in Him. They further hint that providing a repeat performance of the

previous day would be a good sign: Our fathers ate the manna in the desert;

as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ Obviously, this is a

manipulation and not a sincere request. If providing a miraculous meal were a

sufficient sign to induce them to believe, they would all have believed the day

before and they would not require another sign now.

Jesus is not interested in gratifying their flesh. He responds that Moses

did not give the true bread from heaven, because the Father gives the true

bread of God, i.e., the One who comes from heaven and gives life to the

world. In other words, the “bread” they should be seeking is a person, not a

loaf, but they are so fixated on getting another meal that they miss the point.

They ask for the “bread of God” always, still thinking of it as a loaf, not a

person.

Making the Point. Jesus now makes His point inescapably clear:

I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who

believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me

and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the

one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down

from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is

the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose

nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him

14 There is no question that in John 6:29, believing is work. That is what the passage

says. The question is, whose work is it? Is belief a divine work, or a human work?

Unquestionably, God works toward this end: God shines light in our hearts, the Holy

Spirit convicts, and so forth. On the other hand, suggesting that belief is a human

work has theological problems.

60 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have

everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.15

Jesus tells them that He is the life-giving bread He has been telling them

about. He tells them that if they come to Him (i.e., believe on Him), they will

be satisfied, but He knows that they do not believe even though they have

seen Him (and the miracles He does). Even though they do not believe, all

those whom the Father gives to Christ will come to (i.e., believe in) Him, and

when they come, they will be secure. The ground for that security is not just

Jesus’ will, but the Father’s will, which Jesus will perform: the Father assures

that none of those He gives to Christ will be lost; all will have eternal life and

be resurrected on the last day.

Jesus’ response reads very much like an explanation of the crowd’s

unbelief: they do not believe in Jesus because the Father did not give them to

Jesus. At this point, one begins to wonder who these people are who are given

to Jesus by the Father, and why the crowd is not so given. Reformed

theologians are ready with an answer: those given are the elect, whom God

has chosen for Himself and who will inevitably come to Him because He

brings them. The next interchange, however, shows that this is not the case.

The Jews do not like hearing Jesus call Himself the bread from heaven.

Because they know His human parents, they do not believe that He also has

divine origins. Jesus responds by rebuking their complaints and then offers

further commentary on their unbelief. No one, Jesus says, is able to come to

(i.e., believe in) Him, unless the Father draws him—but the one who comes

will have resurrection. Jesus then says something crucial to understanding this

whole passage:

It is written in the prophets, “And they shall all be taught by God.”

Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to

Me.16

Understanding this verse is critical. The Old Testament quotation comes

from Isaiah 54:13. The context is a description of millennial blessing on

Israel: the people who are taught by God are the children of the Second

Coming generation of Israel. Why does Jesus quote this passage here? The

Second Coming generation will welcome the Messiah—they will be rightly

related to Him, and to the Father. In light of the prophetic correlation between

the right relationship with the Father and the right relationship with the

Messiah, Jesus argues that those who have been rightly related to the Father,

i.e., those who have heard and learned from the Father, will also believe in

15 John 6:35b–40.

16 John 6:45.

A Free Grace Critique of Irresistible Grace 61

Jesus, the Messiah.17 Thus, Jesus’ explanation of the crowd’s unbelief is that

they have failed to learn from the Father; had they learned, the Father would

have drawn them to Him, and they would have believed. Since they have

failed to learn from the Father, they are not drawn and, thus, cannot believe.

Thus while the drawing is particular, the opportunity to be drawn is universal.

What is Drawing? A brief consideration of the usage of the word elkw,

“draw,” is in order at this point. The vast majority of the uses of elkw in the

NT and the LXX involve movement on the part of the thing being drawn. If a

man ties a rope around a four-ton boulder and pulls on the rope, but the

boulder doesn’t move, can he really say that the boulder is being drawn

toward him? He cannot. This is exactly the pattern of usage found in John

21:6: the disciples were unable to draw the net into the boat because it had so

many fish. The passage does not say they drew it and it did not come; it says

they were unable to draw it. However, when they reached the shore, Simon

Peter went and drew the net onto land. The context of John 6:44, in which the

crowd’s failure to respond properly to the Father makes it impossible for them

to believe in the Son, suggests that John has the same sense of elkw in mind

here. The drawing contemplated here is not universal.18 it is what happens

after someone responds properly to the Father, and thus, it involves activity

by the Father to bring that person to the Son, and cooperation (nonresistance,

at least) by the person being drawn. It is also possible that the Father’s

drawing, and someone learning from the Father, are descriptions of the same

event from two different points of view. In this latter case, again, movement

by the person being drawn is implied.

Conclusion and Aftermath of the Bread of Life Discourse. After diagnosing

the crowd’s failure to learn from and, therefore, to be drawn by, the Father,

Jesus goes on to note that hearing and learning from the Father is not the same

thing as seeing the Father: only Jesus has seen the Father, and those who

believe in Jesus have eternal life. Unlike those who ate the manna and died,

those who partake of Jesus’ flesh, which He gives for the world, will live

forever.

The Jews, with their minds still on their bellies, misunderstand Jesus to be

talking about cannibalism. Jesus does not speak plainly to them, but continues

17 John 7:17 contains a parallel thought.

18 Some exegetes might object that elkw is used universally in John 12:32. For

example, Chafer, Systematic Theology 7:65, suggests that there is a universal as well

as a particular drawing, citing this passage for support. However, the context, with

Greeks asking to meet Jesus, suggests the likelihood of interpreting all here as one

would interpret it in 1 Timothy 6:10: “every kind of.”

62 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

to hammer on the metaphor: those who partake of His flesh and blood, who

feed on Him, will live because of Him, even as He lives because of the Father.

Jesus’ disciples find this discourse very hard to accept, and He does

nothing to alleviate the pressure they feel. Instead, he points out that, although

the subject of his origin and coming sacrifice is difficult, actually seeing it

come to fruition—seeing the Son of Man ascend to heaven—will be more

difficult still. He then offers them some encouragement: the Spirit gives life,

while the flesh gives no profit. The message Jesus gives, He tells them, is

Spirit and life. (Thus, no matter how hard it may be to accept, it will be

worthwhile.) But, He notes, some even among the disciples do not believe. In

an editorial aside, John tells us that Jesus made this statement because He

knew from the beginning who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

Jesus then adds, Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me

unless it has been granted to him by My Father.

19 Here again, he is dealing

with unbelief, with the reasons that some do not come to Him. This

summarizes His previous discourse with essentially the same message: correct

relationship with the Father is the gatekeeper for correct relationship with the

Son.

This particular discourse proves to be a decisive barrier even for many of

the disciples: from this time they no longer walk with Him. Jesus asks the

twelve if they want to leave as well, but Peter responds that they have

nowhere else to go, because Jesus has the message of life and they have

believed and known that He is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Jesus

responds that Peter is not quite speaking for the whole group: although Jesus

handpicked the twelve, one of them is a devil. John editorially adds that Jesus

is speaking of Judas Iscariot.

In the bread of life discourse, Jesus diagnoses the unbelieving crowd’s

reason for failing to believe Him: they have already failed to learn from the

Father. By contrast, all those who do hear and learn from the Father do come

to Jesus. In a series of parallel expressions, they are described as given by the

Father to the Son, drawn by the Father to the Son, and granted by the Father

to come to the Son. Thus, the passage affords a picture of two kinds of people:

those who resist God’s gracious revelation and are therefore unable to

stomach further revelation, and those who, having believed the light they are

given, are drawn to Christ. This is not irresistible grace—it is resistible grace

that some resist, and others do not.

Conclusion

The doctrine of Irresistible Grace depends heavily, if not entirely, on the

doctrine of Total Inability. Total Inability cannot stand the test of Ephesians

19 John 6:65.

A Free Grace Critique of Irresistible Grace 63

2:1–9, which demonstrates that spiritually dead men must believe in order to

be regenerated. The parable of the sower and 2 Corinthians 4 carry the

argument one step further by establishing that unbelievers are constitutionally

able to believe the gospel. At this point, Irresistible Grace stands on very

shaky ground indeed, for if dead men are able to believe the gospel, why

should saving grace be irresistible?

Romans 1 and Acts 9 add further depth to the picture by showing that

men regularly resist God’s revelation of Himself, but a man who ceases

resisting can believe once he has sufficient information. John 6 contributes a

picture of unbelievers who, having resisted prior revelation, are unable to

come to Christ, and believers who, having responded positively to prior

revelation, are brought by the Father to Christ—not because they are unable to

resist, but because they do not resist.

Thus, God places His revelation before man, and when any man ceases

resisting this revelation, God grants more; ultimately, those who allow

themselves to be borne along by the light God shines on their hearts are

drawn, and come, to Christ. This is not by works but through the faith that

comes as a result of revelation through God’s world and His Word.

Timothy R. Nichols received his most significant biblical education from his father,

Rev. Edd Nichols. He went on to spend three years at Florida Bible College, and

completed his B.S. at Southeastern Bible College in 1997. After a brief interlude, Tim

continued his education at Chafer Theological Seminary, graduating with a Th.M. in

2004. Tim presently ministers in Hemet, CA, and is an instructor at Chafer

Theological Seminary in Orange, CA. His email address is tnich77@yahoo.com.