The following article is my response to an article by Billy Stevens titled
"Calvinism and Calvinists" (Click title to view). I appreciate the invitation to respond and pray that the dialogue may honor our Lord and prove profitable for us and for all who read it.
Some Opening Thoughts
I want to be clear that the view I am putting forward
here is what I understand to be, not a mere “system” invented by a man or group
of men, but the biblical view of
soteriology. This view is now commonly referred to with terminology such as
Calvinism, Augustinianism, Reformed
Theology, the Doctrines of Grace,
Sovereign Grace, etc. The labels are
incidental. It is the doctrine that I am interested in preserving in the
interest of “rightly handling the word of
truth” and contending for “the faith
that was once for all delivered to the saints (2Tim. 2:15; Jude 1:3).”
It seems to me that the place to start here is with the
trustworthiness of God. God is trustworthy! Once this issue
is settled in a person’s mind it frees us to follow the revealed truth of
Scripture into considerations that we would never have been open to otherwise.
It should not surprise us that the study of God and His workings would lead us
to conclusions that we find unsavory (at least, at first); after all, the Lord
plainly avers through the mouth and pen of Isaiah, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
declares the Lord. For as the
heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my
thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Also, Paul declares that the depravity of the human mindset is such that we
boldly set ourselves in opposition to God and His revelation; “For the mind that is set on the flesh is
hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” (Romans
8:7). Indeed, the last phrase of that verse reveals that any favorable
disposition toward God is impossible for the person given over to a purely
man-centered or self-centered mindset – and that is every unbeliever.
It’s true, gloriously true, that this enmity toward God
and the aversion to His ways are overcome when a person is made regenerate by
the power of God; but while the general tenor of thinking toward and about God
is changed radically and immediately when we are born again, remnants of the
old self and the old selfish lifestyle remain and must be dealt with and
corrected in a life-long, sometimes agonizing process, we know as sanctification. To put it simply, though
we are radically changed at the time
of regeneration, we are not totally changed;
there is much work yet to be done and God is patient and gracious in
accomplishing it (Phil. 1:6). This slow transformation includes the way we
think about God, which in turn includes our level of trust in Him (i.e. trust regarding His love for us and
His goodness toward us, and the exercise of His rule in the cosmos). True, some
level of trust must be present from the beginning of our relationship with Him
or else we could not be saved; but we never reach a point of arrival on this
side of glory (Phil. 3:12) but, by grace, we continually move from “faith to
faith” (Rom. 1:17) and “glory to glory” (2Cor. 3:18). It is understandable then
(though never excusable) that even Christians do not trust God as we should. We
must “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord” which will result in
increased trust in Him.
Here are two truths concerning the nature and character
of God that should help us immensely as we consider the view of God’s
sovereignty embraced by Calvinists.
First, God is just! This truth is conveyed
in many forms throughout the corpus of Scripture. Due to space and time
constraints (as well as the assumption that we agree on this point) I will only
cite two: Isaiah 45:21 and 1 John 1:5.
And there is
no other god besides me,
a righteous God
and a Savior; there is none besides me. (Isaiah 45:21c)
God is light,
and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5b)
Both of these passages assert the immutable, undefiled
and consistent right-ness of God. He is just! That is, He does right – always!
Or to put it another way, since He defines “just” (and not vice versa), He
always acts in ways consistent with His own character, never deviating.
The second point flows from the first: God
always does what is best. Again, the aroma of this truth permeates
every page of Scripture. For a couple of examples see, Romans 8:28 &
Ephesians 1:11. My point is that, trust in God is well-placed and should guide
us in our truth-quest, including our wrestling with the difficult doctrines. Contrary
to the accusations of unbelievers, we are not moved by “blind faith” but a faith
solidly founded upon the good and trustworthy character of God. Like Abraham,
we go where we know not because we do know the One who calls and leads us. In
the arena of sound doctrine, once our minds are settled regarding the
righteousness and goodness of God, we are free to accept His definitions of
realities such as “love”, “free will”, “depravity”, “atonement”, “election”,
etc., rather than trying to force our own definitions upon Him.
Next, we have to ask ourselves if we are truth-seekers.
Do we intend to follow wherever the quest for truth leads, even if it is
uncomfortable or even down-right offensive to us? Is truth our ultimate aim or
are we simply looking for support for our presuppositions and preferences? Part
of the Lord’s indictment against some of the first century Jews as well as
those in Isaiah’s day was, “their fear of
me is a commandment taught by men” (Isaiah 29:13 & Mt. 15:9). Their
“fear of God” was merely the product of instruction they were receiving from
men rather than the work of God within and upon their hearts and minds. We all
have to be taught and should be thankful for gifted teachers, but we cannot settle
for outward-oriented Christianity. We must seek God earnestly, desiring to
understand His word and will for ourselves. We must love the truth, seek the
truth and follow the truth wherever it leads us (cf. John 16:13).
Some Thoughts on What Today Is
Called Calvinism
“I have my own
opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified,
unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it
Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can
preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor
unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor
unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love
of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the
special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ
wrought out upon the cross.”
I have never really been much on labels. From the
earliest days of my Christian journey I have mainly wanted to be known as a
Christian. The congregation which I currently serve could probably testify that
they have never heard me refer to myself as a Baptist. At the same time however,
I have been abundantly clear that, in terms of doctrine, I hold to historic Baptistic
views. This is not because I want to be identified as a Baptist or desire to
perpetuate the Baptist tradition, but because I believe those views are
faithful to Scripture. Fidelity to Scripture is what matters most in my view. Labels
are dispensable, doctrine is not. The same is true of “Calvinism.” What is
important is not the label but the body of biblical doctrine which the label
represents.
“Calvinism” is simply a way of describing biblical
soteriology
What we today call “Calvinism” did not start with John
Calvin. The truth is, “Calvinism”
predates John Calvin and James Arminius and could just as rightly be (and often
is) called Augustinianism. Far more importantly, as I have suggested
above, Calvinism is nothing more than a name applied to biblical soteriology. By
that I mean, it is nothing more than a systematized articulation of truth
revealed in Scripture regarding God’s gracious work in saving sinners.
Absolute SOVEREIGNTY: The Biblical View of God’s Rule
The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his
kingdom rules over all.
Psalm 103:19
God is not a figure-head like the queen of England. He
doesn’t just occupy the throne, He rules! – actively and absolutely.
In triumph and in trials; in peace and even in calamity, the consistent
testimony of Scripture is that God is in control.
I remember years ago after the Hussein regime was toppled
in Iraq and the rebuilding process was underway, as President Bush began to
outline the steps that we would take in order to encourage democracy in Iraq,
he spoke of granting the newly formed Iraqi government “limited sovereignty.” I remember thinking at the time, “‘Limited
sovereignty?’ Now that’s an oxymoron!” I understood what Bush was getting at;
we (the U.S. government) were going to allow the Iraqi government a limited
amount of control over their own
affairs in order to achieve progress toward national autonomy. In fact, in my
view, “limited control” would have been a more sensible term. The terms
“limited” and “sovereign[ty]” are just not compatible. Now my purpose here is
not to criticize President Bush, but to illustrate a problem that exists today
in the way many Christians think about the sovereignty of God. That is, while
many affirm God’s sovereignty, they nevertheless impose limits on it; usually
in an effort to preserve the “free will” of man. I suggest that this is the
real issue in the Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism debate – control. The disagreement
is over who’s in control. How much control does God have and exercise in
human affairs? How much control does He have period? How much control do human
beings have over our own destiny? I believe these concerns are central to the
issue. In other words, it’s the age-old struggle that began in the Garden of
Eden and was born out of dissatisfaction with God’s role, and with our own;
dissatisfaction that is expressed in an attempt to reverse the roles.
God Is Sovereign in the Affairs of Men
My own preferred designation for the biblical view of
these matters is “absolute sovereignty.” Again, it seems to me that this is the
real issue of debate. Is God absolutely
sovereign? While it should be sufficient
to use the term sovereign without the
adjective, the meaning of the term has become so diluted in our day that the qualifier
seems useful for clarity.
Far more can be said about this than time or space allows
and, since I presume we would agree on many points concerning God’s
sovereignty, I’m going to zero-in on two areas that I believe to be the most
controversial: 1) The absolute sovereignty of God regarding
evil done by people, and 2) the absolute sovereignty of God in His work
of rescuing sinners.
The Absolute Sovereignty of God Regarding Evil Done by
People
The following are examples from Scripture of evil deeds
committed by men and viewed in light of God’s sovereignty. Notice that in each
instance the evil actions of the people involved are presented as, in some way,
fulfilling God’s purpose.
Sihon: For starters, consider what we are told about Sihon in
Deuteronomy 2:30, But Sihon the king of
Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his
spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand,
as he is this day. Here is just one example of the truth of Proverbs 21:1, The king’s heart is a stream of water in the
hand of the Lord; he turns it
wherever he will.
The Rebellion of
the Children of Israel During the Wilderness Experience: In Moses’ reiteration of the law to Israel, as he
recounts their experience, he says, “But
to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see
or ears to hear. (Deut. 29:4). In Romans 11:7 Paul says the unbelieving
Jews of his day were “hardened;”
then, in verse 8, combines Deuteronomy 29:4 with Isaiah 29:10 to explain why.
The Canaanite
Kings: In Joshua 11:20 we are given the reason for the
unwillingness on the part of these kings to make peace with Joshua and the
children of Israel – “For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts that
they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted
to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Lord
commanded Moses.
Eli’s Sons: In 1 Samuel 2:25 we are told that the sons of Eli would
not heed their father’s warnings about their wicked deeds, “for it was the will of the Lord to put them to
death.”
David’s Census: In 2 Samuel 24:1 we are told “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited
David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” In verse 10
David confesses his fault saying that he “sinned greatly,” committed “iniquity”
and had “done very foolishly.”
The Egyptians: Reflecting backward on Israel’s experience in Egypt, the
Psalmist, in speaking of God’s dealings with Israel’s foes says, “He turned their hearts to hate his people,
to deal craftily with his servants.” (Psalms 105:25)
The crucifixion of
Jesus: In Acts 2:23, though Peter plainly states
that Jesus was “delivered up according
to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God”, he lays the blame squarely
at the feet of his hearers, “you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”
After Peter and John were threatened by the chief priests
and elders in Jerusalem, the disciples prayed, “for
truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant
Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the
Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan
had predestined to take place (Acts 4:27-28). Once again, though the crucifixion event is spoken of as
having been predetermined by God, blame is attributed to the people, i.e., Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and
the people of Israel.
Two things should be noted in regard to the terminology
used by the disciples in these passages.
First, the
term translated “foreknowledge” here
is prognwsiV. This is the same term used
by Peter (same speaker/writer) in 1 Peter 1:2, elect according to the prognwsin of God. It is
common for non-Calvinists to explain the passage in 1 Peter by suggesting that
God simply “looked down through time and saw who would believe in Jesus” then, it
is said, based on that “foreknowledge”, God “chose” those who would believe. Aside from the fact that such a view
of foreknowledge turns the whole concept of election on its head (which should
be of great concern to any serious exegete), if you try to apply the same
definition of foreknowledge to Acts 2:23, it simply doesn’t fly. The idea that
God’s foreknowledge of Jesus’ suffering consisted only of “looking down through
time” and seeing it, is, to put it mildly, an insufficient understanding of the
passage and of God’s foreknowledge. We should understand that God foreknew
Jesus’ murder, not merely in the sense of seeing it beforehand, but in the
sense of fore-ordaining it. That is, He decreed it! Likewise, the same
definition should be applied to the word in 1 Peter as well.
Much more could be said
about the concept of foreknowledge that I will not take the time to go into
here. I will simply suggest that careful attention to the use of “know” throughout Scripture will prove beneficial
in properly understanding God’s foreknowledge. In short, “to know” often represents intimate
knowledge in the sense of relationship; not mere cognizance (cf. Gen. 4:1, 25 & Mt. 7:23).
Foreknowledge then, as used in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2, connotes that kind of
intimate relationship beforehand (cf. Eph. 1:4). With this understanding of
foreknowledge it is clear that Acts 2:23 refers to the fact that God
fore-ordained, or decreed the cross-event and that passages such as Romans
8:29, 11:2 (verb form) and 1 Peter 1:2 speak of God’s love for and salvific-decree
regarding those whom He has determined to save. Compare also 1 Peter 1:20 where
Peter employs the verb form in reference to Jesus and where it simply would not
do justice to the meaning of the passage to understand it as merely seeing
beforehand.
Second, in Acts 4:24, the disciples pray addressing God as devspota – literally, Despot. The term usually,
if not always, has an evil connotation in today’s English. When we hear despot we think of people like Hitler
and Hussein. But the Greek term can serve to indicate absolute, unrestricted
authority, without moral implications. That is, a despot can be good, and
that is certainly the meaning here. So, by addressing the Lord as “Despot” in their petition, the disciples
acknowledge and place emphasis on the sovereignty of God; thus, the ESV
translates it, “Sovereign Lord.” Indeed, I do not consider it a stretch to
suggest that in the context of verses 23-28, they are emphasizing the
sovereignty of God over the evil intentions and actions of wicked people. They
called on God understanding His power of control over their persecutors (cf. John 19:11). God’s sovereignty is a
bedrock foundation for confidence in prayer!
Pharaoh: The last example that I want to consider is the Pharaoh
of the Exodus. Up to this point we have looked at these examples in Bible-book
order. I place Pharaoh last because of the explicit statements made about him
by Paul in Romans 9 which shed light on the Exodus account and on the absolute
sovereignty of God. First, notice God’s own testimony regarding the hardening
of Pharaoh’s heart,
“But I will
harden Pharaoh’s heart…Pharaoh will not listen to you” (Ex. 7:3-4).
Note also God’s reason for not simply destroying Pharaoh
and the Egyptians at an earlier date:
“For by now I
could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and
you would have been cut off from the earth. But for this purpose I have
raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all
the earth. (Ex. 9:15-16. Cf. Rom. 9:16)
Then the Lord
said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the
heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that
you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your grandson how I have dealt
harshly with the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them, that you may
know that I am the Lord.” (Ex.
10:1-2)
When Paul speaks of these events in Romans 9 he does not
attempt to soften the blow which the truth of God’s sovereignty inflicts upon
human pride. Instead, Paul asserts through the potter-clay analogy that God has
the right to form “lumps” as He wills – some to honor and some to dishonor (vv.
21-24). We will look more at Romans 9 below. For our purpose here, it will
suffice to note what these passages reveal about God’s sovereignty over
Pharaoh’s wicked intentions and deeds.
My point in offering the examples above is to demonstrate
that God is absolutely in control of
the affairs of men, including their evil deeds. It seems to me that Scripture –
God’s own testimony about Himself – presents nothing less than absolute
sovereignty on the part of God!
The Absolute Sovereignty of God Regarding the Salvation
of People
Salvation belongs to the Lord!
(Jonah 2:9)
It is hard to see how anyone could possibly be clearer regarding
God’s sovereignty in the salvation of sinners than Jesus is in the sixth
chapter of John. In unambiguous language Jesus declares, all who are given to
Him by the Father will come to Him (37a), He will not cast them out (37b) and
He will raise them up at the last day (39, 40, 44, 54). These statements cover
the entirety of our salvation from beginning to end, from calling to glorification.
It is difficult for me to see how a person who comes to this passage willing
to lay aside preconceived ideas and simply walk through these verses
following the flow of thought can come away from it embracing the idea that our
salvation depends in any measure upon an act of human will.
This part of the John 6 discourse records Jesus’ response
to a question posed by the crowd, “What
must we do, to be doing the works of God?” (28). Jesus responds, “This is the work of God, that you believe in
Him whom He has sent” (29). To paraphrase, “the work of God is believing on Me.” In verse 36 Jesus plainly
avers that they “do not believe” and
then, in the comments that follow, He explains why they do not believe – they
do not believe because they have not been given to Him by the Father and
therefore they will not come to Him. This is explicitly stated in John 10:26, “you do not believe because you are not
part of my flock.” Notice the consistency between the chain of events
described in John 10 with that of John 6 – given
by the Father; come to (i.e. believe
in) Jesus; kept for eternity.
26 you do not
believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me. 28 I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them
out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is
greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. (John
10:26-29)
This explains their inability to hear His word (8:43) and
therefore, unwillingness to come to Him (10:26).
Returning to John 6, Jesus is more explicit in verse 44,
“No one can come to me unless the Father
who sent me draws him.” This truth is actually stated two different
ways by Jesus. First, in verse 44, He speaks of believers having been drawn by the Father to Him, then, in verse 65, Jesus says our coming to
Him has been “granted” us “by the Father.” The drawing of verse 44 is often mischaracterized by lessening the
force of the verb by interpreting it to mean something like, “to woo.” But the
term translated “draws” (ESV) is the
Greek word, ejlkush/, which
means to drag. If we compare the
other New Testament uses of this verb we quickly find that “woo” is an
inadequate rendering. To “woo” a sword from its sheath (18:10), “woo” a net
into a boat or ashore (21:6, 11), to seize men and “woo” them into the
marketplace or out of the temple (Acts 16:19; 21:30), or to “woo” someone into
court (James 2:6) simply won’t do as a reasonable way of understanding these
verses.
The same mischaracterization of this verb is frequently
applied to John 12:32 as well. I think this is due, at least in part, to a
failure to understand that Jesus, in speaking of drawing all people to Himself, is speaking of the efficacious
nature of His atoning work at Calvary. In other words, through the cross-event,
Jesus secures a people to Himself. Compare Jesus’ claim in John 3:14-15 that,
just as those who gazed upon the bronze serpent in the wilderness escaped death,
so those who look to the crucified Savior will just as surly live and not die.
Additionally, in John 12:32, Jesus is not talking about a
“wooing” of every single human being
which has the potential to save them,
but of His certain procurement (drawing
or dragging) of those given to Him by
the Father from among all nations or people groups – His sheep, who will certainly come to Him and be saved. The
phrase “all people,” considered in
the context of the New Testament should be understood as a reference to the
inclusion of the Gentiles (i.e. all kinds or types of people). In other words, He draws, not Jews only, but all
people.
Again, far more can be said here than time allows. I will
close this section with three passages that speak clearly to this issue though many
others could be cited as well. The passages are John 1:12-13, 3:7-8 and Romans
9:16. The clarity of these verses with reference to God’s sovereignty in our
salvation hardly needs elaboration. I will just attempt to spotlight what is
there.
In John 1:12-13, referring to the reality of being born
of God, John unambiguously states that the phenomenon is not something
accomplished by or as the result of human will, “not
of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” It’s hard to imagine
greater clarity.
Again, speaking of the same
reality in His dialogue with Nicodemus, Jesus employs the “wind” analogy (3:8),
“The wind blows where it wishes, and you
hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes.” According to Jesus we see the effects
of the wind but have no control over it – it blows “where it wishes.” Then
Jesus applies the analogy to the new birth experience, “So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” The saving work
of the Holy Spirit is sovereign and mysterious, not initiated or guided by
human volition, but by the desire of the sovereign
God.
In Romans 9:16 Paul’s
assertion regarding the bestowal of God’s grace is in perfect harmony with the two
passages just cited, “So then it depends
not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” We should note
that these words come as part of Paul’s reply to the charge of injustice (v.
14) which he anticipates will emerge in response to his teaching about God’s
sovereign election of some individuals and judgment on others. In truth there
is no injustice in punishing the wicked for their wickedness. Yet, this fallacious
objection is echoed still today, apparently grounded in the persisting
assumption that God is somehow obligated, if He shows mercy to any, to show
mercy to all.
The bottom line is, God is absolutely sovereign in
salvation! Our salvation cannot be attributed to our own merit or volition in
any measure. It is a gracious work of God in its entirety. Soli Deo Gloria!
The “Five Points” and More
J. I. Packer correctly notes that the “Five Points”,
since they were formulated as a response to the Remonstrance, “present
Calvinistic Soteriology in a negative and polemical form, whereas Calvinism in
itself is essentially expository, pastoral and constructive. It can define its
position in terms of Scripture without any reference to Arminianism…”
Also, I am in agreement with Packer regarding the adjectives
employed in the “Five Points” formula, “The real issue concerns, not the
appropriateness of adjectives, but the definition of nouns.” In
other words, the real point of disagreement between us lies not in the
descriptive adjectives but in the very concepts of depravity, election,
atonement and grace. Here is a brief description for each concept in TULIP
order (without the adjectives) followed by a few more related points.
Depravity – The whole
of the person (every human except Jesus) is corrupted by sin – body, mind,
emotions & will. Simply put, no part of us is exempt from the effects of
the Fall; not even the human will. We are not sinners in theory but in
reality; not potentially but actually. We do not do right; and we do not do
right because we do not think right or desire right. We are never in a state of
neutrality. Like David, we are all conceived in sin (Ps. 51:5). Consequently,
we are born in sin and, if left to ourselves, we will remain in sin. The
testimony of Scripture regarding the depravity of man is crystal clear, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;
no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become
worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (Rom. 3:10-12. cf. Gen. 6:5; Psalm 14; Jer. 17:9).
Notice the universal scope (i.e. “none”, “no one”, etc.) and explicit nature of these statements. Note also
the extent of human depravity: the mind (thinking) is corrupted – “no one understands.” And yes, the will is
corrupted: “no one seeks for God.”
Apart from salvific grace, we do not desire (or will) to know God; consequently, we do not seek him. No part of us
is favorably inclined toward God or the things of God; indeed, the corruption
within us is so severe that we are rendered morally incapable of such an
inclination (Rom. 8:7; 1Cor. 2:14). Again, there is no exception to this – “no one”.
Election – The
doctrine of election is simply the teaching that God chose us. In other words,
those of us who believe on the Lord Jesus, do so because we have been chosen by
God before creation, predestined to adoption as sons through Jesus and given by
God to Jesus to be His forever (Eph. 1:4, 5, 11; John 6:37-40, 44-45, 65).
Consequently, the people of God are sometimes referred to in Scripture as God’s
elect, chosen or as those who are called
(Rom. 1:6-7; 8:28-33; 1Cor. 1:2, 9, 24; Col. 3:12; 2Tim. 2:10; Titus 1:1 &
1Pet 1:2; 2:9). Scripture teaches that all who believe in Jesus were chosen by
God before creation (Eph. 1:4), that our election was not due to anything
within us or done by us and that the reason for our election is rooted in God’s
own good purpose and pleasure (Eph. 1:4, 5, 9, 11; 2:8-9; Titus 1:5). As noted
above in my comments on foreknowledge, some suggest that we were chosen by God
because He looked down through time and saw that we would believe. In my
opinion, such an interpretation does violence to the concept of grace. See also
my comments below on grace.
Atonement – The
atonement of Jesus is not potential but actual; and certainly not failed (in
any measure) but entirely effective in accomplishing precisely what it was
intended to accomplish. Perhaps as an analogy it is helpful to think of the
initial Passover observance, i.e. where
the blood was applied, there was no death. Also, consider Jesus’ Shepherd/sheep
metaphors in John 10. The Good Shepherd lays down His life, not for goats or
wolves, but for His sheep. We should note as well Jesus’ assertion in John 8,
“If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sin” (8:21, 24). Unbelievers
die without atonement for their sins.
Grace –
Grace by its very nature is a gift. It is often rightly characterized as
“unmerited favor”. Anything else is not grace (Rom. 11:6). The saving power of
God does not depend upon a favorable response to the Gospel, it grants it! See
for example, Ephesians 2:8-9 and 2 Timothy 2:25b.
Perseverance – We
probably agree on this point, i.e.
all who truly come to faith in Christ will never totally fall away but will be
preserved by the power of God forever. But one thing we should note here is the
inconsistency of those who hold to a non-Calvinistic view and yet retain the
concept of eternal security. If our salvation depends initially upon our own
volition, I cannot see any reason that such a dependence should not continue.
If then at some point a regenerate person chooses to no longer be saved, why
should they not be “free” to forsake the faith and, ultimately, to perish? I
have never heard a convincing response to this from anyone in the non-Calvinist
camp.
Predestination –
Another related biblical truth (like election)
that needs to be carefully considered is predestination.
As you probably know, the Greek term is proorizw (See Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29-30; 1Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11).
It means to “before-determine” or “decide beforehand”. The meaning is clear
and no amount of semantic gymnastics can successfully make this word un-say
what it so clearly says. For example, the events of Jesus suffering mentioned
in Acts 4:28 and the “mystery” of
God’s redemptive plan accomplished in the cross-event and spoken of in 1
Corinthians 2:7 were predetermined or decided beforehand. Unless we embrace
Open Theism, we understand that God is not reacting in these instances but
that, in reality, He sovereignly planned-out the events of the cross and,
indeed, the whole of our redemption including all of the means of
achieving it before we even existed. I submit that the same definition is in
operation when the term is applied to our being “predestined” to adoption, conformity to Christ and final
glorification (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:5-12).
The Bondage of Man and the Myth of Free Will – My treatment here will be concise. For a more in depth
study, I highly recommend two books: The
Bondage of The Will by Martin Luther and The Freedom of The Will by Jonathan Edwards (preferably, to be read
in that order). These books, written in centuries past, have not been adequately
refuted to this day. The reason of course is because the thesis of each is
soundly based upon revealed truth in Scripture.
For my purpose here, just a few comments are in order.
First, we need to understand what the will is. We should understand that the
will is not itself an entity, certainly not an isolated entity. It is not an
organ of the body like the heart or liver. Jonathan Edwards defined the will
as, “that
by which the mind chooses any thing.” So when we speak of willing or an act of will, we are simply talking about choice, or the act of
choosing, nothing more.
Is it proper to speak of human beings as having or
exercising free will? Well, my answer
is, “Yes” and “No”. It depends on how the phrase “free will” is defined. Strictly
speaking, the concept of human “free will” is a myth. I do not think the idea
can be found in Scripture (though I am willing to be corrected if wrong).
Scripture presents man as bound not free. We are sinners by imputation and
action. Since we inherit the Adamic nature, we are sinners from conception and,
in time, who we are by nature manifests through our actions and, reciprocally,
our actions reveal who we are. According to Jesus, “everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34; cf. Rom. 6:16) and a “slave” is, by definition, someone who is
not free. The idea of an “autonomous slave” is an incoherent concept and, in
our natural state, we are bound by sin. In Romans 8 Paul describes our state as
one of enmity toward God that renders us incapable of being subject to Him and
His law.
One of the problems with the use of the word “free” in
relation to the human will is that it implies independence from all outside
influence. This is of course unrealistic. We are all products of influences
brought to bear on our lives. For example, we had no choice as to who our
parents would be, where we would be born, our ethnicity, our sex, siblings,
etc. All of these things were themselves determined apart from any volition on
our part and all of them play a part in determining who we are and how we think
and act. The human will does not function in a vacuum! Myriads of outside
influences come into play as well as our own inner corruption (i.e. the sin nature).
On the other hand, there is a way of understanding “free
will” that I think is correct. We are free in the sense that we act according to our desires. To put
it simply, we do what we want to do. So, as someone has said, “We are free to
do what we want to do, but we are not free to do what we ought to do.” We are
slaves to sin and as such, we want (desire
or will) to sin. In that sense we are
free, free to do what we want or desire.
Regeneration – Regeneration
is the miraculous impartation of life to an individual by God. It is monergistic
in nature. That is, it is solely the work of God. It should not be viewed as a
response by God but as an enabling by God in order that we may respond to Him.
This is wonderfully illustrated in the resurrection of Lazarus from physical
death. When Jesus calls Lazarus out of the tomb He simultaneously imparts life
enabling Lazarus to obey the call to come. Had Jesus not given Lazarus life, he
would have remained in the tomb, he would have remained dead. The same is true
of salvation (spiritual resurrection). If God does not impart life, we do not
come. The work of regeneration is God imparting spiritual life to us enabling
us to come to Christ through faith (Eph. 2:1-9).
To say that faith precedes regeneration is the equivalent
of saying that evidence of life precedes life. Or, to put it another way, it is
to suggest that one may have vital signs while dead. Such a view confounds the
order of cause and effect. In reality, life and its evidences may come simultaneously,
but evidence cannot precede that which it evidences. Passages such as Psalm
14:1-3, John 3:3-5, 8:34, Romans 3:10-18, 8:7, 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Ephesians
2:1 are clear regarding our pre-Christian state. Dead people do not have vital
signs and faith is certainly an evidence or vital sign indicating the presence
of spiritual life.
Consider the following analogy. While in one sense it may
be properly said that we live by breathing, it is not true that life is the
product of breathing. To the contrary, breathing is the product of life. Babies
live in the womb but they do not breathe. But in time and with proper
development a baby will begin to breathe. Faith is the “breath” of spiritual
life. It is not the cause but the product of it. Yet, it is proper to say that we
live by faith for, just as breathing is necessary for physical life (at least
outside the womb), so faith is an essential part of spiritual life – no faith,
no life. Saving faith is the product of the new birth. By faith we enter and
remain in the kingdom of God. But unless and until a person is born again there
is no faith and thus no entrance. To have faith is to “see” the kingdom (John 3:3). An unregenerate person can no more
exercise faith than a corpse can breathe or see.
The Freedom of God –
While the “freedom” of man is commonly overstated, far too little is said in
our day about the freedom of God. I suggest that we will find ourselves more in
line with the tenor of Scripture if we begin to place greater emphasis on this
truth. The focus of Scripture is not the greatness of man, but the greatness of
God! The themes of God’s transcendence,
omnipotence and utter independence flow throughout the pages of Scripture. God is
not bound by or subject to anyone or anything. To say it another way, there is nothing outside of or apart from
God that governs Him or by which He is in any way measured or held to account.
God is the Rule (Standard) and the Ruler! This means that God is totally free to
act according to His own pleasure and, as Psalm 115:3 informs us, He exercises
this freedom. Consider the following two statements and the passages of
Scripture that affirm them.
God’s will cannot be
thwarted
See now that
I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I
wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand. (Deuteronomy
32:39)
and I am God.
Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work,
and who can turn it back?” (Isaiah 43:12c-13)
God successfully orders all things according
to His own pleasure and will
I form light
and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things. (Isaiah
45:7)
Our God is in
the heavens; He does all that he pleases. (Psalms 115:3)
Whatever the
Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
(Psalms 135:6)
In him we have
obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of
him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
(Ephesians 1:11)
God is free in the bestowal
of His grace
In Exodus 33 Moses asks to
see the glory of God. In response, the Lord told Moses, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before
you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,
and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (33:19). This is one
reason that I believe a proper understanding of God’s sovereignty is so
important: it seems from this passage that a fundamental element of the goodness of God is the sovereign
bestowal of His grace and mercy. That is, the truth of God’s sovereignty in
applying His grace is central to the revelation of His glory. In the New
Testament we see this truth expressed in the ultimate display of God’s glory,
Jesus, His beloved Son – “the Son gives
life to whom he will” (John 5:2). For this reason Jesus boldly declares to
His disciples, “You did not choose me,
but I chose you and appointed you…” and again, “I chose you out of the world” (John 15:16, 19b).
We should also note that
when Jesus speaks of God’s sovereign grace, as He does for example in John 6 (see
comments above), He is not timid about it nor apologetic for it. Indeed,
according to Luke, Jesus rejoices in God’s sovereign disclosure of Himself,
finding within it evidence of the infinite wisdom of God that ignites the fire
of God-glorifying rejoicing.
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I
thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things
from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes,
Father, for such was your gracious will. (Luke 10:21)
Finally on this point, I
return once more to Romans 9 where Paul focuses attention on the fact that God
chose Jacob over Esau (v. 10). Two things should be noted here.
First, Paul explains that
the determination by God to love Jacob and hate Esau, as well as His
announcement that the elder would serve the younger, was made before the twins
were born. Indeed, Paul adds, before they had done “either good or bad” (v. 11). This was so, according to Paul, “in order that God’s purpose of election
might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls.” Paul clearly
attributes God’s choice of one over the other to God’s own purpose and not in
any way to any merit on the part of the two individuals or to any exercise of
their will (v. 16).
The second thing we should
pay attention to here is the objections to this doctrine anticipated by Paul in
verses 14 and 19. It is not unusual to encounter attempts to explain away the
references here to God’s sovereignty in His dealings with Jacob and Esau and
with the Pharaoh of the Exodus. It seems to me however that such attempts usually,
if not always, render the objections themselves, as well as Paul’s rhetorical
use of them, meaningless. In other words, if Paul is not speaking here of God’s
activity in bestowing His grace as a sovereign, monergistic work, it is hard to
see why he would have deemed such protests inevitable.
To the charge of injustice
regarding God’s dealings with Jacob and Esau, Paul echoes Yahweh’s own
self-disclosure in Exodus 33, by asserting God’s prerogative in having mercy
and compassion on whom He wills (v. 15. Cf.
Ex. 3:19). And, after citing God’s own declared purpose in raising up Pharaoh
in verse 17, Paul again asserts God’s sovereign prerogative saying in verse 18,
“So then he has mercy on whomever he
wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”
At this point Paul
introduces another objection that, to this very day, frequently surfaces in
this discussion – “Why
does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”. Perhaps this is a
reasonable inquiry when asked in sincerity with reverence, but it can also be
the expression of resistance to any rule other than self-rule, which seems to
be the way Paul presents it here. Paul’s answer here should provoke great
humility within us. This is a Job 38 type of response – “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job
38:2). This is the kind of answer that we do not like. There is no detailed
explanation given by God to the inquirers. No, instead, every human mouth
should be stopped at this point (Rom. 3:19b); we should all be quiet and know
that He is God (Ps. 46:10; Hab. 2:20)! He is the Potter, we are merely clay
in His hands (20-23).
Rather than being repulsed
by the sovereign works of God, we should, like Jesus, find in them reason to
exult in Him. Let us say with Paul after his consideration of these things, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and
knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his
ways! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his
counselor?’ ‘Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?’ For
from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever.
Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36)
Responses to Particular Statements
In Your Article
In my comments above my objective has been to address particular
issues which I view as the main points of disagreement in this discussion. In
that effort I have tried to give an accurate (albeit basic and relatively
concise) description of those issues as commonly held by those of us who
embrace the Reformed View of soteriology, also known as “Calvinism.” In the
following section I want to address specific comments you have made in your
article. In the interest of space and time, I cannot deal with all of them. I
will simply select some.
“Calvinists evangelize because Jesus
told them to…They are not rescuing anyone from impending perishing in hell, but
evangelizing on sheer obedience.”
You are partially correct in this section, we do
evangelize because we are told to (as every Christian should) and, hopefully,
we are motivated by Christ-like compassion as well. However, your comment,
“They are not rescuing anyone…” is certainly incorrect. Consider, Romans 11:14,
1 Corinthians 9:22 and Jude 1:23. Surely we would both agree that, technically
speaking, you and I don’t save anyone. God does the rescuing! Yet God at times
graciously uses language which speaks of us as doing the saving or delivering (see
references above). This seems to be a way of emphasizing the necessity of God’s
appointed means. The Calvinistic and Biblical view is that God rescues sinners
by sending people like you and I to proclaim the Gospel to them (Rom.
10:13-15).
I might add as well, mere obedience void of proper
motivation – i.e. faith & love –
is not only useless, but sinful. We
preach because we are told to (Mt. 28:19); because we believe that it is
God’s ordained means of rescuing sinners from perishing (1Cor. 1:21), because we
want to live-out the “Golden Rule” (Mt. 7:12) as well as the first and second
greatest commandments (Mt. 22:38-40) and because we desire to see God glorified
(1Cor. 10:31) through all peoples submitting to His Lordship, worshipping Him
and enjoying Him forever (Ps. 67:4; Rev. 5:9). We do not presume that there is
another means of saving sinners than that which God has ordained – the
proclamation of the Good News about Jesus through human means.
“Philosophical jumps”
The title that you have chosen for this point implies an
illogical “jump” in the “Calvinistic” chain of thought, yet in your explanatory
paragraph under the heading “Here is what
I mean”, you cite only one example of such a jump. The problem is, it is
one that does not represent historic Calvinism. I’ll come back to that
momentarily. In your first paragraph
under this heading you present your understanding of the logical flow within
the Five Points, but then you proceed by saying, “Since they begin their
theology with philosophical jumps…” without a single example of inconsistency
in the flow of thought. Where is the “philosophical jump” with which Calvinists
begin? Your statements imply that the connections between points that you have
outlined are invalid, but you fail to cite any flaw. Here is one example: “Since man is Totally Depraved and
cannot choose good or do the good, then God must overcome human’s total
depravity.” Where is the “jump” in this statement? It is clear from
Scripture that unregenerate man is unable to do and/or choose good (i.e. God, God’s ways, Jesus, obedience
to Jesus, spiritual things, etc.). This being the case, it seems perfectly
logical to conclude that this inability of man must be overcome from the
outside. In other words, if man cannot help himself, someone must intervene to
rescue him. Since then, man cannot choose God, God must choose man. It
seems to me that this is not only a logical deduction (as opposed to a
“philosophical jump”), but that it is the plain teaching of Scripture (Deut.
9:4-6; Neh. 9:7; John 15:16, 19; Eph. 1:4; 2Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:4-5).
I submit that Calvinism, while it certainly has
philosophical implications, is primarily and essentially theological. That is,
it is an articulation of biblical revelation. This is easily demonstrated by
tracing out the flow of logic in Scripture and by close examination of the
individual links in the thought-flow chain which you have cited and which are
systematized in the “Five Points” formula. Consider for example the teaching of
the Depravity of Man. This concept comes, not from philosophical
presuppositions (Indeed, what human would have ever contrived such a concept?
We think far too highly of ourselves!), but from such passages as Genesis 6:5,
Psalm 14:1-3, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:9-18, 8:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 2:14, just
to mention a few. One should consider the logical flow and check it against
Scripture – “examine everything
carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).
In the paragraph that follows, you cite one example of an
illogical “jump” but, it is one that most Calvinists would quickly condemn as
error. You have suggested that “some make the jump to God being the ‘author’ of
evil and creator of Satan and even sin.” This statement is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, in my
view, injecting this sort of issue into the discussion is a diversion from the
real issues. Why? Because, while it is probably true that “some” Calvinists
hold to this view, it is surely a minority. Besides that, the view does not
accurately represent the historic Calvinistic view. It is a deviation. A
parallel would be an argument against eternal security based on the fact that
“some” Baptists believe that you can live like a child of Satan and still be
saved – i.e. “once saved, always
saved” regardless of life and conduct. That’s not a sound argument. Even if a
majority of Baptists today believe such a thing it is still a misrepresentation
of historic Baptist doctrine. To argue against a particular doctrine based on a
perversion of that doctrine only muddles up the conversation. The hard work of
accurately representing those whom we oppose is essential to profitable
dialogue.
Another problem here is that you seem to suggest that
Satan had a creator other than God. Scripture is clear that God created all
things, that there was not anything made that was made without Him (John 1:2)
and that all things are “from Him and
through Him and to Him” (Rom. 11:36). I cannot imagine that you think there
is another creator or that you believe Satan is eternal. Perhaps your comment
was a misstatement.
“Determinism is simply the view that
God planned everything. Have the life God planned for you. In this view God
planned the life of John Calvin and Charles Manson to go exactly as it went. Humans
are nothing more than androids, robots, programmed by God to do exactly as he
planned.”
Considering your conclusion (which I have underlined), it
seems that there are certain
presuppositions at work here. In response, I submit that, while the Bible
unapologetically emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of God and the total
dependence of all creatures on our Creator, it never speaks of man in ways
which deny the moral nature and responsibility of man (as is implied with terms
such as “androids or “robots”). As creatures created in God’s image, we are
intelligent, moral beings who bear responsibility for our decisions. Second
causes are real and are not mitigated by the reality of a first cause. To say
otherwise is an assertion which, in my view, needs to be proven.
“In compatibalism God has determined
for these to only want to do those certain things. It looks like a choice but
it is not really a choice. You simply think you have free will, but God has
determined everything that you will like and not like, so you have a semblance
of free will.”
I think
these statements are based on a false premise. The false premise is the fallacious
notion that the proposition “God has determined everything” contradicts the
biblical concept of “free will.” The biblical concept of human freedom should
not be understood as referring to absolute autonomy or independence, but as a
person acting consistently with his or her own nature and desires. See my
comments above under the heading The Bondage of Man and the Myth of Free Will.
Also, you
are evidently saying here that a predetermined choice is no choice. This begs
the question, “Why not?” It is not sufficient to simply assert that something
is so (or is not so). Reasonable support for the assertion needs to be given.
The idea that a choice is
not a “real” choice if it is predetermined simply doesn’t stand. Scripture must
be our standard for understanding what a “real” choice is (among other things).
David made a real decision to number the people of Israel though we are told in
2 Samuel 24:1 that God “incited” him to
do so. And, consequently, David was held responsible for his choice. I have given an ample number of
similar examples above under the heading, The Absolute Sovereignty of God Regarding
Evil Done by People. Also, you and I are Christians today because,
according to Jesus, we were “given”
to Him by the Father and, Jesus says, “All
that the Father gives Me will come to Me.” Coming to Christ involves
a choice and is often spoken of in Scripture using “choice” language (Mt.
16:24). The fact that God predetermined our action in no way contradicts the
reality of human choice.
“Some of those who use the term
compatible mean that a person has free will and God is Sovereign but God does
not force his will on that person. They see free will and God’s sovereignty as
working together without any form of determinism.”
It
seems to me that the first sentence of this point stems from the following
presupposition, “If Calvinism is true then God forces His will upon people
against their own will.” This is a common fallacy. Since God possess and
exercises the power to change the human heart, it is unnecessary for Him to
move us to act against our own will. Edward’s definition of the will (above) should
be recalled here: the will is “that by which the mind chooses any thing.” When
God changes our minds through His work of regeneration our choices change
accordingly. A new heart has new desires: a God-hater becomes a God-lover, a
Christ denier becomes a Christ-follower, and so on. In other words, He changes
us, bringing our will into harmony with His (cf. Jer. 31:33 & Ezek. 36:26-27). No sinner commits sin against
their will. Sinners desire to sin, they sin by choice. And no one comes to
Jesus against their will. The new birth produces the desire (will) to follow
Jesus and so we come – willingly!
The last
part of this point (which I have underlined) seems to me to imply absolute autonomy apart from any outside
influence, which is not a realistic view of the human situation. I have already
tried to address this above under my heading, The Bondage of Man and the Myth
of Free Will. I refer you back to my comments and examples there. Here
I will only raise a question: Is it unreasonable to consider all influences
that have any bearing at all upon our decision making process as some form of
determinism?
“In compatibalism and determinism,
everything that happens to you and everything that, you do, good or bad, is
God’s will for you.”
This
statement is too vague and, therefore, can be misleading. It depends on what
you mean by “God’s will.” I think the traditional distinction between God’s “secret will” and His “revealed will” is an accurate and
helpful one. Your statement, viewed from the aspect of God’s secret will would
be in line with passages such as Psalm 115:3 and Ephesians 1:11. Viewed from
the perspective of God’s revealed will however, your statement is incorrect.
When we sin, for example, we cannot say that it is God’s will in this sense. In
fact, it certainly is not. Again, consider 2 Sam. 24:1 noted above.
“I do not find Scriptural evidence
for determinism or compatibalistic determinism.”
The
evidence is everywhere in Scripture. For some concise but strong statements, consider
Psalm 115:3; 135:6, Daniel 4:35, Isaiah 45:5-9; 46:10, Rom. 8:28 & Eph.
1:11 which speak of all things being ordered by God according to His own will. It should also be noted that the
biblical view of “determinism” or “pre-determinism” is not one of blind fate.
Rather, it is the teaching that an absolutely sovereign, personal, loving and
just God is in absolute control of all things and orders all things according
to His own good pleasure. This
teaching flows throughout the whole of Scripture. For some detailed examples, see my comments above under
the heading, Absolute Sovereignty: The
Biblical View of God’s Rule.
“I find contradictory evidence for
Limited Atonement. Christ died for the world.”
Two
things here: First, you fail to cite the “contradictory evidence” eluded to.
Second, your comment seems to imply that the fact that “Christ died for the
world” presents a contradiction to the doctrine of “Limited Atonement.” It does
not. The term “world” is used often in the New Testament to indicate the
inclusion of non-Jews (1 John 2:2). To say, as the believing Samaritans did,
that Jesus is the Savior of “the world”
(John 4:42) is to acknowledge that He is the Savior, not of Jews only, but also
of Gentiles (i.e. all non-Jews). This
is a major revelation in the New Testament which seems to be overlooked in much
modern exegesis. In my view, sufficient consideration of the cultural and
historical context in which the New Testament was produced is essential for
proper interpretation of many of the passages regularly disputed in the
“Calvinism” debate. The idea that God would show mercy to the non-Jewish world,
for example, was foreign to the first century Jewish mindset. Just contemplate
Peter’s slowness in accepting God’s intention for the Gospel to go to the Gentiles
in the narrative of Acts 10 and 11.
“I do not find Scriptural evidence
that God elects people to hell. People are going to Hell forever if they don’t
repent and believe the Gospel.”
The second half of this statement is of
course correct, but it in no way contradicts predetermination (as you seem to
imply). As already noted, the responsibility of man is a Scriptural concept (John
8:21-24; 2Cor. 5:10) and so is the idea that God has mercy on whom He wills and
hardens whom He wills (Ex. 33:19; Rom. 9:15-18). There is no genuine
contradiction in the two truths.
“I find contradictory evidence for
Irresistible Grace. People resist God’s grace.”
This is a classic example of a “straw man”
argument. Of course people resist God’s grace. I do not know of a single Calvinist
who disagrees with that. In fact, Calvinists emphatically affirm it. That is
the essence of “Total Depravity.” We
are all rebels or resisters and this resistance is found and expressed in every
human faculty, including the human will. It has been suggested that a more
helpful adjective would be “effective.”
I agree. The phrase “effective grace”
has the same meaning but better communicates the concept intended in the phrase
“irresistible grace.” When God bestows saving grace upon an individual, it is
effective. It never fails! Cf. Isaiah
55:1.
“I find contradictory evidence for
premise that regeneration occurs before faith.”
You do not offer the “contradictory evidence”
here so I do not know exactly what you have in mind. I will say that the notion
that faith precedes regeneration is exceedingly problematic and seems to
counter what Jesus says in John 3:3-5, as well as Paul’s teaching in Roman
8:7-8, Ephesians 2:1-9 and 1 Corinthians 2:14. Jesus is clear, you cannot enter the kingdom of God unless
you have been born again. Likewise, we learn from Paul’s epistles that the
disposition of the unregenerate is so averse to God that they are unable to
understand the things of the Spirit (Rom. 8:7; cf. John 14:17; 1Cor. 2:14). An unregenerate person cannot exercise
faith because no unregenerate person has faith! I have dealt with this in more
detail above under the heading The “Five
Points” and More.
“I surely do not see any evidence
for God being the source of sin, Satan, or evil.”
Nothing exists apart from God’s will. How
could it? But there seems to be an implication in your statement, namely –
“Those who hold to the Calvinistic or Reformed view believe that God is the
author of sin.” If you are implying this, let me say emphatically, we do not! If, on the other
hand, you intend to imply that, regardless of what we confess, the logical end
of our position makes God culpable for sin, then I have to respond by asking
for proof of that assertion from Scripture. I have already demonstrated above
that God uses the evil intentions and actions of wicked men to accomplish His
good purposes. Such action does not make God culpable. God does not sin;
nor is He to be blamed for the sins of men.
Calvin
did not hold to this form of Calvinism…John Calvin did not hold to limited
atonement as it taught in modern Calvinism…
These are rather strange claims. I use John
Calvin’s commentaries frequently and I can think of nothing in his own writings
(commentaries or the Institutes) that
would support what you say here. The one quote that you offer contains no
support for these claims as far as I can tell, nor does it suggest anything
contrary to “modern Calvinism.” I need further clarification here to see
exactly what you have in mind as support for your statements. In regard to
Calvin’s own view, consider his comments on 1 John 2:2.
And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of
amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made
by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
Here a
question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I
pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation
to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing
deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that
Christ {1} suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for
the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I
allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this
passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common
to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the
reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were
then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made
evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only
true salvation of the world.
While my understanding of this passage
differs somewhat from Calvin’s, it is clear nonetheless that he understood the
expiation achieved at Calvary to be applicable only to God’s elect. The
difference in Calvin’s view and my own is that, while Calvin saw the term world
as applying to believers worldwide, I understand it (as noted above) as
emphasizing the inclusion of all non-Jewish peoples. Calvin seems to have
understood a geographical focus while it seems to me the focus is more
multi-ethnic. Nevertheless, Calvin’s view, like my own, understands Christ’s
atonement as applied only to His chosen people, those given to Him by the
Father – all peoples in all places.
Conclusion
I have not attempted to address every point
of disagreement in this one article, but I have tried to speak to some of the
most common misconceptions and major points of disagreement. I conclude here by
answering one more statement found under your heading “Implications for
Ministry,” in your first point (a.), you express concern for the supposed “Calvinistic
answer” to parents who have lost a child to death. I would like to respond to
this with three thoughts; the third being applicable to the general discussion
as well as to this one specific aspect of it.
First, I offer a wise word of advice that I
once heard given by John Piper either in an interview or in one of his sermons.
I wish that I remembered the exact source but I do not. This is a loose quote
from memory. Essentially Piper said that pastors should faithfully and
consistently preach biblical truth at all times so that when tragedy strikes
people are already thinking biblically. So, at that point, in the midst of the
heartbreak, Piper suggests, all we have to do is be there and give hugs;
because the most pressing questions are already settled in their minds.
Secondly, you have suggested that the “Calvinistic
answer” to a grieving parent would be, “You have to trust in the sovereignty of
God.” While I would not phrase it that way (and I doubt that any Calvinist
would), I do not see how to “trust in the sovereignty of God” is any less than
to trust God Himself. After all, when we speak of God’s sovereignty we are
speaking of His absolute power to act according to His own good pleasure. If we
believe that God is good and just, we should see no problem with His will being
done. This is why I began this article with some comments about trusting God. Our
circumstances change but His trustworthiness does not!
Finally, I would like to suggest that the
best and safest approach, not only in tragic situations such as the loss of
a child, but in all biblical interpretation, preaching and teaching, pastoral
ministry, as well as the Christian life as a whole, is to stick with what
God has said about Himself in His word. The hard sayings and doctrines are
indeed hard; but it is wiser and safer to embrace them and to faithfully
communicate them rather than to attempt to soften them (Prov. 3:5). We must
present God as He has revealed Himself in His word if we are to be loyal
messengers (2Tim. 2:15). We must resist the temptation to adjust biblical truth
to our liking or to that of our hearers. Our job is not to amend it but to proclaim
it.
Thank you for including me in the discussion.
I hope the dialogue will continue. May our Lord grant us the desire and ability
to represent Him with clarity an accuracy; and may we seek to honor Him through
it all. Soli Deo gloria!
Grace and peace,
Skip Rainbolt
