WORDS OF CALVINISMAND

THE WORD OF GOD

The Teachings of Calvinism in Light of Scripture

Jeremy Myers

Default: NKJV

NIVNASBRheimsKJVESVNRSV

PREFACE

The rallying cry of the Reformation centers around five solas (or in proper Latin, the five solae): Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria. Though not actually stated in quite this fashion until the 20th century, these five statements summarize what the Refor-mation was about. The Reformation was about authority, tradition, and justification, and the leaders of the Reformation believed and taught that everything we have from God, is Sola Gra-tia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria. In English we might say that what we have from God is “by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the authority of Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone.”

Let me state from the outset that I affirm all five statements. I consider myself to be a child of the Reformation. Yet I do not identify with either of the two main groups that came out of the Reformation; I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. (I am not Lutheran either, for those Lutherans who see themselves as a group apart.) Certainly, there are many things I appreciate about John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, Martin Luther, and the other Reformers, but I have too many differences with the main theological arguments of each man to be comfortable identifying myself with the theological systems that bear their names.

Ironically, my main area of disagreement with Calvinism and Arminianism is that they do not take the five solas far enough. That is, the Reformers and their followers stopped short of fully reforming their theology around the five solas. Having begun with the revolutionary truths of the five solas, they failed to follow through on the full theological ramifications of these five state-ments. As a result, the Reformation sputtered to a halt and—in my opinion—ultimately failed.

How can I say this? If you were to compare the typical writings of the average Calvinist, Arminian, Lutheran, and Catholic theologians, you would discover that when it comes to the is-sues of faith, grace, the accomplished work of Jesus Christ, the authority of tradition over Scrip-ture, and the goal of glorifying God in all of life, there is very little distinguishable difference.1 It is not just me saying this. There have been talks in recent decades between prominent leaders of these various groups to all reunite into one group. The primary sticking points, it seems, have nothing to do with the five solas, but center instead on issues like Mariology, the veneration of the Saints, and papal authority.

I believe that if the Reformers and their followers had resolutely held to the five solas, the spiritual landscape of the world today would be much different. The Reformation would have continued to do its work, so that grace, faith, love, and freedom would flow out of the church to-day in ways that have not been seen since the church began nearly 2000 years ago.

1 I wrote an article on this topic several years ago. See Jeremy Myers, “The Gospel Under Siege,” JOTGES (Au-tumn:2003):43-48. http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003ii/myers.pdf Last Accessed July 10, 2014.

Of course, one cannot blame Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or any of the other Reformers for not fully following through on the ramifications of their own theological insights. Theological devel-opment is a multi-generational endeavor. We can, however, challenge both the contemporary and historical followers of the Reformers to advance upon the teachings of their forebears. No Re-former, I believe, ever thought that his beliefs were perfect and that nobody could ever improve upon his teachings or take his ideas further. They would agree, I think, with what some people say about the Reformation: “Always reforming; never reformed.” The reformation of church and theology is never over. Just as the Reformers sought to reform the church of their day, so also, they would want those who came after them to continue the reforms “till we all come to the unity of the faith” (Eph 4:13).

That is the purpose of this book. I hope that the information contained within this book will build upon the reformations that began during the Reformation and will lead to further reforma-tion in the future. Specifically, I want to provide Calvinists and non-Calvinists with a perspective on certain passages of Scripture which will hopefully allow people to see that there are viable al-ternatives to Calvinism and it’s theological opposite, Arminianism. There is a balanced and bibli-cal middle ground.

As we go through what Calvinists teach and compare it with what is found in Scripture, we will see that Calvinism, though it claims to defend sola fide, actually undermines it with every point of its theological system. We will also see that one need not be a Calvinist to believe in radical, outrageous, shocking, scandalous grace, and in fact, being a Calvinist might be detrimen-tal to grace. I cannot write about faith or grace without mentioning Jesus Christ, and all of this will revolve around what the Scripture says, rather than on human or religious tradition. Ulti-mately, the entire discussion is for the glory of God as I seek to help others see the radiating grace of God in the face of Jesus Christ as He died on the cross for the sins of the whole world.

Hopefully, by the end of this book, you can cry aloud with me: Sola Gratia! Sola Fide! Solus Christus! Sola Scriptura! Soli Deo Gloria!

MY HISTORY WITH CALVINISM

Before we jump into the discussion of Calvinism, it might be wise for me to summarize my own history with Calvinism.

I am not really sure when I fully embraced Calvinism, but I do know that by the time I was in my early 20s, I was a five-point Calvinist. Since Calvinism was so inherently logical and appar-ently biblical, I was fully persuaded in my own mind that “Calvinism is the gospel, and the gospel is Calvinism” (as some Calvinists claim). I vividly remember debating Calvinism with many of my non-Calvinist friends, trying to convince them of what was eminently obvious to anyone with a working brain.

However, it was not long after this that one of my Calvinistic friends declared that he was no longer a five-point Calvinist, but was now a four-point Calvinist. He no longer believed in “Lim-ited Atonement.” I told him that he had begun to slide down a slippery slope, for the five points of Calvinism are like five links on a chain: they stand or fall together and if one link in the chain breaks, it is only a matter of time before the whole system unravels.0 My friend assured me that nothing of the sort would happen to him, and he was still fully convinced of the other four points of Calvinism. I was skeptical, but he and I talked about it, studied the Scriptures, and read nu-merous books. It was not long before I too had given up on Limited Atonement as well. But I

0 Cf. a similar statement made by {Palmer, 1980 #665@27}

was convinced that I would remain a four-point Calvinist, just like my friend. As it happened, what I told him about the links in the Calvinistic chain turned out to be true—at least for me.

Later that year, I sat through a Bible College class on the General Epistles in which the pro-fessor, Dr. John Hart, had us read numerous books which challenged the fifth point of Calvinism: the Perseverance of the Saints. Among the books he had us read were two that really challenged my thinking and helped me see certain key texts in a new light: They are The Epistle of James by Zane Hodges and The Reign of the Servant Kings by Joseph Dillow (a revised and updated edi-tion of the book is now titled Final Destiny). There were numerous other books I read and the class lectures of Dr. John Hart were influential as well, so within a year I had abandoned my be-lief in the Perseverance of the Saints, and was now a three-point Calvinist.

I stayed this way for quite a while, until, after Seminary, I began my first pastorate in Mon-tana. It was there, where the rubber of theology hits the road of life, where the final three points of Calvinism finally fell. The sources of influence were numerous and varied. One elder named Bob Weaver challenged me to view God differently than I had before. I read some books which were recommended to me by others. God’s Strategy in Human History was helpful, as were vari-ous books by Samuel Fisk, Harry Ironside, C. Gordon Olson, Laurence Vance, and Dave Hunt. Also, I was preaching at this time through the book of Ephesians, and my research and study on Ephesians 1 helped me to see that this chapter does not teach Unconditional Election as many Calvinists claim. Somewhere during those first five years as a pastor, all three of the remaining points of Calvinism crumbled in my mind.

It was an exciting but scary time. It was exciting because my theology was changing and I was discovering new vistas on about the grace of God and the role of faith and works in the life of believers. But it was scary because I kept wondering how deep the rabbit hole went. I didn’t want to be an Arminian, but at the same time, I knew I could no longer be a Calvinist. In an at-tempt to stay true to my quickly fading Calvinistic beliefs, I read every Calvinistic book I could get my hands on. Not only did I read John Calvin, I also read John MacArthur, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, James Montgomery Boice, Philip Graham Ryken, A. W. Pink, Edwin Palmer, and dozens of other such authors, all of whom vigorously defended Calvinism. In the end, though, none of them wrote anything in their books which persuaded me that my new belief system was wrong.

In fact, it often seemed to me that these Calvinistic authors themselves had never heard of the views which I myself held. They kept arguing against non-Calvinistic beliefs which I, as a non-Calvinist, did not believe! It seemed to me that they had not read any of the books I had read, or even knew anything about the way of reading Scripture which I had adopted. At the time, I did not know exactly if these Calvinistic authors were trying to refute Arminian beliefs (which I had not read much of), or if they had simply erected anti-Calvinistic straw-man beliefs which were then easily knocked down. Looking back now, and having read many books on Arminian theol-ogy, I have to say that it was the latter. Most Calvinists, it seems, rarely read books or listen to teachers that are not Calvinistic. It is exceedingly rare to find a defense of Calvinism which actu-ally deals with the documented beliefs and ideas of Calvinistic opponents. A typical Calvinistic defense seems to consist of stating the Calvinistic beliefs, quoting numerous Calvinistic authors, and referencing several biblical texts which seem to support the Calvinistic perspectives.

This pretty much brings me up to the present day. Over the past fifteen years, I have contin-ued to read both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic authors, and study biblical texts from the various perspectives. With every passing year, I am more and more convinced that Calvinism reads

Scripture incorrectly, distorts the gospel of Jesus Christ, and has ultimately abandoned the roots of the Reformation. All this will be seen later in this book.

THE APPROACH OF THIS BOOK

Based on my experience of reading numerous books defending Calvinism which seemed not to deal with most of the basic arguments against Calvinism, I wanted this book to reveal that the Calvinistic arguments I hope to refute are actually held by Calvinists. So rather than tell you what Calvinists believe and then seek to provide a different perspective, I will do my best to al-low the Calvinists to speak for themselves.

Each chapter will begin with a brief summary of the Calvinistic idea that will be considered in that chapter. I will present a summary of what Calvinists believe and then a short explanation of what I believe Scripture teaches on this matter. Following this, each chapter will include a sec-tion which contains numerous quotes from Calvinistic authors regarding the topic at hand. In this way, I will allow them to share their views in their own words. Finally, each chapter will con-clude with a section in which we look at numerous biblical texts which Calvinists often use to defend their theological beliefs, and I will provide an explanation of how these texts can be un-derstood differently.

The book begins with two introductory chapters. Chapter 1 contains a brief history of John Calvin as well as a brief summary of Calvinism. In other words, it provides an overview of John Calvin and Calvinism for those who are unfamiliar with either. Chapter 2 begins where every ar-gument should begin: with defining the terms. I often find that arguments erupt between people groups simply because one group defines a term differently than the other, and if they could come to an agreement on the definition of words, most of their debate would simply fade away.

Following these two introductory chapters, the final six chapters consider the Five Points of Calvinism. Why are six chapters needed to consider five points? Because although Calvinism traditionally has five points, there is a sixth point of Calvinism which often goes unnoticed and which undergirds and supports the other five. The fact that that this sixth point forms the founda-tion of the other five logically makes it the one and only point of Calvinism, but I will deal with it in the last chapter since it is not formally one of the Five Points of Calvinism.

Obviously, this book will not persuade all. Even after reading it, many will still have ques-tions, concerns, and criticisms. Some Calvinists will feel that, despite my best efforts to let Calvinists speak for themselves, that I have unfairly represented Calvinism. There will undoubt-edly be prominent Calvinistic scholars I have not consulted and numerous biblical texts which are used to support Calvinism which I do not explain. Nevertheless, I hope that the information shared in this book will provide non-Calvinists with a framework by which to live within the five solas of the Reformation without succumbing to the Five Points of Calvinism, and I hope that Calvinists will be able to see that their system of theology is not so impregnable as often claimed, and that there is a logically reasonable, exegetically biblical, theologically viable, God glorifying, church edifying, faith building, grace focused alternative to the system of belief known as Calvinism.

PART 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO CALVINISM

Introductory Notes and themes?

JOHN CALVIN AND CALVINISM

If you are familiar with John Calvin and Calvinism, you may be quite shocked to learn that there are numerous people in the church today who have never heard of either. Yet, more surprising still (at least to me) is how many of these people who know nothing specific about John Calvin or Calvinism, are still quite Calvinistic in their thinking and theology. Some of this, I believe, is because Calvinistic theology is quite pervasive in many church circles, and in fact, was probably the most dominant theological perspective of western Christianity during the last 500 years. One could argue that certain forms of Calvinism even predated John Calvin himself, since John Calvin simply borrowed or restated most of his ideas from St. Augustine, who lived and wrote in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. When reading Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, it often seems that Calvin references Augustine more than he references Scripture.

Be that as it may, none of this either proves or disproves Calvinism. I am simply pointing out that whether or not people have heard about John Calvin and Calvinism, almost all western Christians have been significantly influenced by Calvinistic ideas. I have personally talked with many Christians who are quite Calvinistic in their theology, but who adamantly deny any knowl-edge of Calvinism. As far as I can tell, this is either because the pastors and elders of certain churches are teaching Calvinism to their people without labeling it as such, or maybe the pastors and elders are ignorant Calvinists as well, and they themselves do not know that what they are teaching is Calvinism. Either way, Calvinism is extremely influential and widespread.

I understand that labels are off-putting, and so I am not eager to call someone a Calvinist if they don’t want to be named as such. But whether someone calls themselves a “Calvinist” or not, I nevertheless want people to understand what Calvinism is, so that if they find themselves at-tending a church or reading a book that teaches the basic tenets of Calvinism, at least they can recognize the source and origins of their beliefs, and also recognize that there are viable, alterna-tive perspectives on how to read Scripture and how to understand God’s involvement in the world.

This chapter will seek to provide a short history of John Calvin’s life and a short summary of the system of theology which bears his name.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF JOHN CALVIN

John Calvin was born in France in 1509 and was raised as a Roman Catholic. His father initially intended John to enter the priesthood, but realized later in life that there was more money to be made in law, and so in 1525, sent John to become a lawyer. It was during this time that the ripple

effects of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses (published in 1517) were beginning to be seen throughout all of Europe. In 1533 John Calvin experienced his conversion, and later that year, one of John Calvin’s close friends, Nicolas Cop, publicly sided with the Reformers in calling for changes in the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, Cop was condemned by the Catholic Church as a heretic, and was forced to flee for his life. Calvin was also implicated in the condemnation and was also forced to go into hiding.

In 1536, Calvin published his first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, which was initially intended to be a short explanation and defense of the teachings and ideas of the Re-formers. The book went through numerous subsequent expansions over the course of John Calvin’s life. A short time later, during one of his travels, John Calvin traveled to Geneva, and a man there named William Farel convinced John to stay and help reform the church in Geneva. He agreed, and in 1537 he was selected to be a pastor of the church. However, by the end of the year, the church council forced Calvin to resign his position and leave Geneva because he wanted to force church members to sign his doctrinal statement and articles of church organiza-tion (which few people wanted to do), and because he refused to serve communion with unleav-ened bread on Easter Sunday.

Calvin traveled to Strasbourg, which was a city of refuge for Reformed people, and over the course of the next three years, preached and taught in three different churches. He also worked on an updated version of the Institutes and published his Commentary on Romans. During that time, the church in Geneva dwindled in size and was facing pressure by the Roman Catholic Church to return to Catholicism. By way of response, the Genevan church called upon Calvin to write a letter in their defense, which he gladly did. They were so pleased with his letter, they asked him to return to Geneva and take up the pastoral position once again.

In 1541, Calvin returned to Geneva under the condition that the church accept and adopt his proposed reforms. They agreed. Calvin ministered in Geneva for the rest of his life, until he died in 1564. The first few years of his ministry were busy and productive. He preached an average of five sermons a week, and wrote numerous books, tracts, as a well as a set of commentaries on al-most every book of the Bible.

However, his ministry in Geneva was not without opposition. Not all agreed with Calvin’s teaching and theology, and many accused Calvin of teaching false doctrine. From 1546 to 1553, Calvin’s power and influence steadily waned. There were frequent attempts by both sides of the debate to undermine, arrest, and even kill members of the other party. In one case, a man named Jacques Gruet was arrested and, under torture, confessed to writing an anonymous letter in oppo-sition to the church leaders. Gruet was beheaded in July of 1547. Eventually, the opposition to Calvin became so fierce, that in July of 1553, Calvin offered to resign his position a second time. His request was refused, because those who opposed him knew that an uprising and church split would likely occur if they accepted Calvin’s resignation.

One month later, in August of 1553, all of Calvin’s fortunes changed when a man by the name of Michael Servetus arrived in Geneva. Servetus also was a Protestant Reformer, but had been condemned as a heretic by both Catholic and Protestant church leaders for his writings against the Trinity and infant baptism. Though Calvin and Servetus had debated these issues by letter for many years, they had never met in person, yet when Servetus stopped in Geneva on his way to Italy, he was recognized and arrested. A trial ensued, in which Servetus was once again con-demned as a heretic, and on October 27, 1553, was burned at the stake on top of a pile of his own books.

As a result of his involvement in the arrest, trial, and execution of Servetus, John Calvin was acclaimed across all of Europe as a defender of Christianity. Over the next two years, his power and fame grew as never before, and in 1555, all who had previously opposed John Calvin either fled Geneva or were rounded up and executed. From 1555 until his death in 1564, Calvin’s posi-tion, power, and reputation went almost completely uncontested. He did experience some contro-versy with Martin Luther over the issue of consubstantiation, but even this controversy with Martin Luther—the “father” of the Reformation itself—only solidified Calvin’s position of prominence in the minds of many.

During these final years, he continued to write, preach, and teach, and he also founded several schools, including Calvin College. In 1558, he finished his final edition of the Institutes, and he preached is last sermon on February 6, 1564, before dying on May 27, 1564. After his death, Theodore Beza took over Calvin’s position in Geneva and helped carry on his work and ideas.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF CALVINISM

Some say that John Calvin was not a Calvinist. In some regards, this is probably true. There are one or two points of Calvinism which John Calvin is less than clear about in his writings. In some places, he seems to say one thing, and in other places, he says the opposite. This is not too surprising, especially for someone who wrote as voluminously as did John Calvin. But the real reason we can say that John Calvin was truly not a Calvinist is because he himself did not de-velop the system of theology which bears his name.

Several years after John Calvin died in 1564, a man named Jacobus Arminius traveled to Geneva to study under Theodore Beza, who was Calvin’s successor. After he completed his stud-ies in 1587, he moved to Amsterdam to pastor a church there. As he as preaching through Ro-mans in the years that followed, he developed several points of disagreement with the theology of John Calvin. In fact, it was actually in seeking to defend the teachings of Calvin against some detractors that led Arminius to have doubts of his own. So just as Luther and Calvin had sought to reform the church of their day, Arminius sought to reform Calvinism.

After Jacobus Arminius died in 1609, some of his followers put together a document called “The Five Articles of Remonstrance.” In much the same way that Martin Luther had posted his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517, for the purpose of stating his objections to the abuses he saw within the Roman Catholic Church and inviting church leaders to gather and discuss these items, so also, the Five Articles of Remonstrance were an invitation by the followers of Arminius to the followers of Calvin to gather for the purpose of discussing these issues.

Instead, the followers of John Calvin met in Dordrecht, Netherlands from 1618 to 1619 and crafted what has become known as the Canons of Dort. This consisted of a point-by-point refuta-tion and condemnation of the Five Articles of Remonstrance. As such, there were five main points to this second document. It is these five main points in the Canons of Dort that have be-come known as “Calvinism.” The five Canons of Dort are often summarized today by the acros-tic TULIP:

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited Atonement

Irresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints

TULIP Calvinism begins with the idea that mankind is completely sinful and cannot do any-thing to contribute to his salvation (Total Depravity). As a result, we are totally dependent upon God to initiate salvation for us, which He did in eternity past by choosing to save some, without any condition or merit on the part of those whom He chose (Unconditional Election). In order to accomplish this salvation of those whom He had previously chosen, God sent Jesus to die specif-ically and only for the sins of those whom He had chosen so that they might have eternal life (Limited Atonement). Those whom God has chosen, and for whom Christ died, will be irre-sistibly drawn by God’s grace into God’s family (Irresistible Grace). Since God’s will cannot be thwarted, none whom God has chosen, for whom Christ died, and whom were drawn and trans-formed by God’s grace, can ultimately be lost. They will all be glorified. Due to this gift of grace in their life, all who are delivered by God’s grace in this fashion will give evidence to it by living a life of perseverance in faith and good works (Perseverance of the Saints). The so-called sixth point of Calvinism, which of course is not mentioned in the five points above, but which under-girds them all, is the Sovereignty of God. One can see that God’s complete control over all things is behind each of the five points. God must be in control, and God must accomplish every-thing, from first to last, if humans are to have any hope of salvation, and if God is to be certain of defeating sin, death, and the devil in the ultimate end.

Not all Calvinists will be happy with this brief summary, but I have tried to state the view as succinctly and clearly as I know how. In fact, I tried to write that summary in a way that almost nobody could disagree with it—not even most non-Calvinists. If you are trying to figure out what Calvinism is all about, it is likely that as you read through that brief description of the five points of Calvinism, you though, “Yeah? So? That’s what I believe. That’s what the Bible teaches, isn’t it?” Yes, well, that is what this book seeks to determine.

Nevertheless, so that you can know that I have not misrepresented Calvinism, and so that any Calvinists who are reading this can know that I have tried to fairly and accurately summarize ba-sic Calvinism, let me provide a summary of the Five Points of Calvinism from Calvinists. Though their summary is a bit longer than mine, here is what David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn have written in their book The Five Points of Calvinism:

Because of the Fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free; it is in bondage to his evil nature. Therefore, he will not—indeed, he cannot—choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ. It takes regeneration, by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation, but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation. It is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.

God’s choice of certain individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely on His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any forseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause, of God’s choice. Elec-tion, therefore, was not determined by, or conditioned upon, any virtuous quality or act forseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing ac-ceptance of Christ. Thus, God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substiutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sin-ners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything nec-essary for their salvation, including faith, which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly ap-plied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation.

In addition to the outward general call to salvation, which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected. However, the in-ternal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call, the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited to His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and will-ingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit, are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of almighty God, and thus persevere to the end.0

So that is a brief summary of the theological system known as Calvinism. Other Calvinists might summarize the Five Points of Calvinism somewhat differently, but this summary from three leading Calvinists is fairly typical. However, here is one super succinct summary, from leading Calvinistic pastor and author, John MacArthur:

(1) Sinners are utterly helpless to redeem themselves or to contribute anything meritorious toward their own salvation (Rom. 8:7-8). (2) God is sovereign in the exercise of His saving will (Eph 1:4-5). (3) Christ died as a substitute who bore the full weight of God’s wrath on behalf of His people, and His atoning work alone is efficacious for their salvation (Isa 53:5). (4) God’s saving purpose cannot be thwarted (John 6:37), meaning none of Christ’s true sheep will ever be lost (John 10:27-29). That is because (5) God assures the perseverance of His elect (Jude 24; Phil 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5). 0

As you read over these summaries, you may not see anything that stands out as overly objection-able. You might think that based on the statements above, Calvinism sounds pretty reasonable, and quite biblical. Yes, that is one of the strengths of Calvinism. Yet as we look at each of the Five Points in more detail in subsequent chapters, we will make room for other Calvinistic voices to be heard as well, and as we look at the biblical passages they use to defend their theology, we will see that Calvinism may not be as reasonable or biblical as it first appears.

It should be noted before closing out this chapter that Calvinism goes by various names. Sometimes it is called “The Doctrines of Grace” and other times it is referred to as “Reformed Theology.” I would like to suggest that such titles are misnomers, for despite the claims of some Calvinists, many people who are not Calvinists still believe in grace, and not all the Reformers were Calvinistic. It is inaccurate for Calvinists to attempt to appropriate the words “grace” and “reformed” for their own system of theology, especially when, in my opinion, many Calvinists know less of grace than their opponents, and numerous others have stopped seeking further theo-logical reformation. As I mentioned earlier in this book, though I am not a Calvinist, I hold to radical, outrageous, scandalous grace (a grace which is more gracious than the grace of many Calvinists), and I believe that as fallen and sinful human beings, we should always be about the

0 {Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@5-8}0 {John MacArthur in \Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@139-140}

work of reforming ourselves and our theology and never consider ourselves fully reformed. So despite the tendency of some to refer to Calvinism as “The Doctrines of Grace” or “Reformed Theology,” I reject both titles as misleading and inaccurate. Such titles have sought to appropri-ate for Calvinists that which does not belong solely to Calvinism.

In the pages that follow I hope to show that while I am not a Calvinist, I stand fully within the Reformation emphases of grace, faith, Jesus Christ, Scripture, and the glory of God. Though I have sometimes joked that I am a two-and-a-half point Calvinist, it is only because I hold to half of each point of Calvinism, which is really no Calvinism at all.

I believe in depravity, but not total depravity. I believe in election, but not unconditional election.I believe in the atonement, but not limited atonement. I believe in grace, but not irresistible grace.I believe we are saints, but not in the perseverance of the saints.

The following chapters will explain more clearly what Calvinists believe, where I believe differ-ently, and what theological and biblical basis I have for my beliefs. But before we can delve into Calvinism, we must begin by laying some groundwork. That is, we must begin with a dictionary.

CALVINISM AND THE DICTIONARY

Do you know why John Calvin wrote the Institutes of the Christian Religion? He claimed that it was to serve as a supplement to his commentaries on the Bible. One difficulty with writing com-mentaries on every book of the Bible is that the Bible contains so many themes and ideas that are repeated over and over. So rather than repeat the same ideas over and over, Calvin decided to compile them all into the Institutes of the Christian Religion and allow the reader of his commen-taries to “be spared great annoyance and boredom, provided he approach Scripture armed with a knowledge of the present work, as a necessary tool.”0

This chapter serves the same purpose for the rest of the chapters in this book. There are cer-tain key words, terms, and ideas which are frequently repeated in the main biblical texts used to defend and teach Calvinism. And while I could repeat over and over ad nauseam the same expla-nations for the same words and ideas every time they come up in a text, I fear, along with John Calvin, that this would lead to great annoyance and boredom on the part of the reader. So this chapter seeks to rectify that problem by briefly surveying some of the key words, terms, and

0 {Calvin, 1960 #1100@5}

ideas that will be referenced frequently in this volume, and explain them from a biblical and the-ological perspective.

Do not be tempted to skip over this chapter. Believe it or not, most of the debate surrounding Calvinism centers on the definition of words. In fact, you could almost read this chapter and skip the rest of the book! It is sometimes said that the first and most important step to argumentation is the proper definition of terms. This is true of the debate over Calvinism as well. Once you grasp the ideas and the proper definition of words as put forth in this chapter, you will have nearly all the tools necessary to properly understand any biblical passage that is usually put for-ward in defense of Calvinism. You will not need my help in understanding these passages out of Scripture, but will be equipped to understand them on your own.

Note that as I want to make this volume as accessible as possible to people of all education levels, I will spend as little time as possible referring to the Greek and Hebrew languages in the discussion below. But do not think that this is because I failed to consult the Greek and Hebrew. I did. Extensively. There are numerous hours of detailed research and word study investigation behind each one of the sections below. I do not say this to boast, but only because I know that there will be some Calvinistic critics of my definitions below who will say that I am wrong be-cause I didn’t consult the Greek and Hebrew. They are free to disagree with my definitions if they want, but not on the basis of my failure to consult the original languages. So with that in mind, let us define our terms.

FAITH

Defining “faith” (Gk., pistis) and the verb “believe” (Gk., pisteuō) is a bit like trying to define love. We can look up the words in Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and compare how the words were used in various ancient contexts, but when it comes down to how the word is used in real life, the way the word is used today bears little resemblance to the way the word was used in bib-lical times.

With love, we go through our days talking about how we love football, love pizza, love our cars, and love our spouse, and then we read in Scripture about how we are to love God and love one another, and although we know there is a difference between the various forms of love, we don’t really think about it too much or understand the ways that biblical “love” might be differ-ent than our modern use of the word.

It is similar with “faith” and “believe.” Often, when people use these words today, it means little more than “hope.” Though someone might say they believe the Bears will win the Super Bowl this year, they know, as does everyone else, that their faith is little more than hope. You even sometimes hear people say “I believe I will win the lottery!” In this case, the word “be-lieve” does not even rise to the level of hope, but is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Sometimes when “faith” is used today, it means “trust.” Banks talk about the “full faith and credit” of the United States Government in insuring our deposits, meaning that we trust that if the bank loses our money, the government will give it to us. Or as another example, you may have heard the story about a man who crossed Niagara Falls while pushing a wheelbarrow, and then asked the watching crowd if they believed he could do this same feat with a person in the wheelbarrow. They all enthusiastically shouted “Yes!” but when he asked for volunteers, nobody came forward. This illustration is sometimes used to suggest that faith without follow-through is not really faith; but what it really proves is that there is a difference between faith and trust.

In light of this, people get confused—and rightfully so—when they read about faith and belief in the Bible. They are not sure whether they should understand faith to be more like hope, wish-ful thinking, trust, or maybe something else. A lot of the confusion arises from something Plato taught more than 2000 years ago. N. T. Wright summarizes it well:

Plato declared that belief was a kind of second-rate knowing, more or less halfway between knowing and not knowing, so that the objects of belief possessed a kind of intermediate ontology, halfway be-tween existence and nonexistence. This way of thinking has colored popular usage, so that when we say, “I believe it’s raining,” we are cushioning ourselves against the possibility that we might be wrong, whereas when we say, “I know it’s raining,” we are open to straightforward contradiction. But this usage has slid, over the last centuries, to the point where, with a kind of implicit positivism, we use know and knowledge for things we think we can in some sense prove, and believe and its cognates for things that we perceive as degenerating into more private opinion without much purchase on the wider world.0

Even if Plato was right (and I don’t think he was), this common usage of belief today is not the way it was used in Scripture or in the writings of early Christians. In Scripture, belief is an-other way of speaking about knowledge. If you know something, you believe it. When it comes to the biblical definition of faith, it is probably best to think about faith (and the verb “believe”) as a confidence, persuasion, or conviction that something is true. While it need not rise to the level of certainty—for we have all know that beliefs can change when we are presented with new evidence—faith is being fully persuaded by the evidence we now have.

This does not mean that faith is certainty. Lots of people think that to believe something, they have to be absolutely certain about it, which is nearly impossible. In his book, The Benefit of the Doubt, Gregory Boyd does an admirable job disproving the “certainty-model” of faith.0 How-ever, by using his analogy of a “house-of-cards” certainty-model of faith, Boyd ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Boyd writes that every time stopped believing something he had been taught as a youth, or changed a belief, he felt like his entire belief structure collapsed like a house of cards, and he had to painstakingly rebuild it from the ground up.

While Boyd is absolutely correct that faith is related to imagination,0 I would suggest that rather than thinking about faith as a house of cards, a better analogy for faith would be an Excel spreadsheet. Each belief resides in its own cell, and nearly all the cells are interconnected by functions. Therefore, when one cell changes, it causes a cascading, rippling effect throughout the rest of the spreadsheet. This is not something to be feared, but something to be embraced and en-joyed, for which each change comes a spreadsheet that is more accurate than it was before. Thankfully, God does not require a spreadsheet of beliefs which is without error. To the contrary, He desires a spreadsheet of beliefs that is constantly shifting and changing as we bring our life and thoughts into conformity with Jesus Christ and the revelation of Scripture.

Furthermore, each cell adjustment opens up new vistas of investigation, so that even beliefs which had not seen change for decades might need to be reconsidered in light of new evidence. In this way, while we can have reasonable conviction or confidence about the accuracy of any single cell (or belief), we nevertheless know that the content of that cell might be based upon

0 {Wright, 2014 #1102@42-43}0 {Boyd, 2013 #1134}0 Along with Boyd’s book, see ***Walter Bruggemann, Prophetic Imagination. Thinking about faith as imagina-

tion helps understand what Jesus was talking about when He spoke of “faith like a child” (Matt 18:3; Luke 18:17). Faith like a child is not ignorant faith or uninformed faith, but is faith that is full of imagination, wonder, creativity, playfulness, and hope.

conditional beliefs or cells, about which we are less confident. To put it another way, the com-plete confidence of one belief can be based upon less confident beliefs.

For example, when it comes to believing in a person, such as Jesus Christ, there enters into belief a bit of uncertainty. We have all had the experience of believing something to be true, or believing that someone will come through for us, only to discover later that our beliefs were to-tally and completely unfounded. This experience causes us to never fully be confident in anyone or anything. That is, we are often unable to say that we are 100% sure of anything. I think this is partly because of the dynamics of relationships and because of living in a fallen world where so many variables swirl around every event and every fact.

To put “faith in Jesus” in spreadsheet terminology, I am completely confident that those who believe in Jesus receive eternal life. I am confident in this truth because Jesus clearly says this over and over again in the Gospel of John (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47). However, if I am honest with myself, this belief is based on several beliefs about which I am less confident. For example, this belief is based on my belief that the authors of the Bible accurately recorded what Jesus said, that those who transcribed and passed down the Bible have accurately passed down to us what was written, and that I have accurately understood what is written. Furthermore, my confidence is based on what I believe the Bible says about the existence of God, the origin and consequences of sin, the importance and necessity of eternal life, the deity, humanity, and sinlessness of Jesus, and a whole host of other beliefs. Some of these beliefs I am less confident about than others. Nevertheless, if all these things are as I believe them to be, then I am fully convinced and per-suaded that Jesus gives eternal life to those who believe in Him for it.

This brings us to another issue about faith. When it comes to believing in Jesus, it may be best to place less emphasis on the belief itself, and more emphasis on Jesus. While it is true that we can never fully be certain of our belief in a truth or person, the more we learn about Jesus, the more certain we become that He is worthy of our belief. The more we believe in Him, the more we discover that our faith in Him is well founded. Faith, then, depends less on the amount of faith we have, or the certainty of our faith, and more on the object of faith, namely, Jesus. Faith is not about pulling ourselves up by our mental bootstraps or mustering up our faith until it achieves certainty in all areas, but simply about knowing that Jesus can be trusted and He is reli-able and faithful to make good on what He promises. This is partly why Jesus talks about “faith like a mustard seed” (Matt 17:20; Luke 17:6). The amount of faith is not what matters. Even the tiniest little bit will do. What matters is the object of faith.

Nevertheless, we must be careful in talking about the “amount of faith” for faith really doesn’t come in “amounts.” Though lots of people like to talk about “degrees of faith” this is not a proper way of thinking about biblical faith. Faith is more like a light switch than a dimmer switch. Just as a light is either on or off, so also, you either believe something or you don’t. If you are not sure whether or not you believe something, then you don’t believe it. If you are par-tially convinced, but not yet fully convinced, then you do not believe. Though Scripture does talk about “little faith” and “great faith” (Matt 8:10, 26), this is not a reference to the degree of faith someone has, but to the difficulty of the truth believed. Some things are easier to believe than others, and so when someone does not even believe the simple and obvious things, they have lit-tle faith, whereas, when someone believes things that are difficult to believe, they have great

faith.0 Great faith believes the hard to believe truths of the Bible. Great faith has nothing to do with the size of your faith. Rather, it's about the difficult truths you do believe.

What all of this means is that we cannot exactly “choose” to believe something. Belief, or faith, is not a decision we make. It is something that happens to us when presented with convinc-ing and persuasive evidence. Sometimes we might not be able to believe something until we see it with our own eyes. Other times, we might come to faith through reason, logic, and the weight of argumentation. Occasionally, we even come to believe something despite our desire not to be-lieve it. For example, if a father was told that his son was a mass-murderer, the father might not want to believe it, and would not believe it. But if the father sat through the trial of his son, and saw the weight of the evidence, and maybe even heard the confession of his son to his crimes, the father would be forced to believe what he did not want to believe. The father did not choose to believe, but was persuaded or convinced by the evidence presented, and came to believe something he did not wish to be true.

In many of his letters to various people, C. S. Lewis wrote about how he came to faith. He was persuaded against his will about the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Later in life, as people faced similar experiences of faith in their own life, Lewis wrote to them with counsel that just as they cannot fight faith, so also, they cannot force it. Faith happens to us as we the light of God shines in our life. This does not mean we have no responsibility in faith, but that we must respond positively to the revelation God has given to us so that we can receive more revelation from Him. Here are a few examples of what Lewis wrote to various people:

If you think [Christianity] is false you needn’t bother about all the things in it that seem terrible. If you decide it is true, you needn’t worry about not having faith, for apparently you have.0

If you don’t think [Christianity] is true why do you want to believe it? If you do think it is true, then you believe it already.0

No one can make himself believe anything and the effort does harm. Nor make himself feel anything, and that effort also does harm. What is under our own control is action and intellectual inquiry. Stick to that.0

C. S. Lewis is right. We cannot force ourselves to believe something, but at the same time, nor can we fight it. Faith happens to us when we are persuaded by the evidence presented. Of course, faith is not always the result of evidence and logic, but can also come through experience and emotions. While facts, logic, and reason can lead to faith, so also can experience, relation-ships, and revelation. Even hope and trust, which are not themselves faith, can be transformed into faith. Faith itself can lead to faith, for once we believe some things about God, it becomes easier to believe other things. Divine revelation itself can lead us to believe things about God, ourselves, and eternity which we may not have believed otherwise (Rom 10:17).

This leads to the truth that faith is not a work. If we do not choose to believe something, then it cannot be said in that faith is meritorious. That is, faith does not contribute in any way to our goodness before God. Calvinists often argue that if man “contributes” faith to the process of sal-

0 For more on this, see the article I published on this topic here: Jeremy Myers, “Now That’s Faith!” Grace in Focus Newsletter (January-February 2008). http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y2008/faith.html Last Accessed July 20, 2014.

0 ***C. S. Lewis, Yours, Jack. 910 ***C. S. Lewis, Yours, Jack. 1250 ***C. S. Lewis, Yours, Jack. 126

vation, then man has done a good work to earn that salvation, which therefore makes salvation not a gracious gift of God but a transaction between God and man. But if faith is not something we choose, but is rather something that happens to us when we are persuaded or convinced that something is true, then we cannot say in any way that faith is a work. Besides, Paul pretty clearly contrasts faith and works in Romans 4:5.

Yet despite the fact that faith is not something we choose but is that which happens to us based on the evidence presented, we must not go to the other extreme and say that faith is a gift. Faith is not a gift. Though there is a spiritual gift of faith (1 Cor 12:9), this is not to be confused with the faith that leads to eternal life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47, etc.). Though some claim that the “gift” which Paul refers to in Ephesians 2:8-9 is faith, the Greek word “that” (“that not of your-selves, it is the gift of God) is neuter and the Greek word for “faith” is feminine, which means the gift of God is not faith, but rather the entire “salvation package” which originated with God (i.e, “by grace you have been saved”).0

What then is biblical faith (or belief)? In the end, we can do no better at defining faith than does the author of Hebrews. He writes: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). To expand on this a bit, we could say that faith substantiates, or sees as reality, that which we previously only hoped to be true; it is the evidence, conviction, or confidence in things we cannot see. Certainly, some things we believe in can been seen, but the great faith described in the rest of Hebrews 11 is the faith that is confident in God’s promises based on what is known about God’s character and God’s Word. Faith is the confidence or con-viction that something is true based on the evidence presented.0 Faith is seeing what is true based on what we know to be true.

GOSPEL

You don't have to believe the entire gospel to receive eternal life. And even if you believed in the gospel, you might not be saved.

Do such statements shock you? They should—especially if you hold to one of the traditional (yet not so biblical) definitions for the words “gospel” and “saved.” When most people today hear the sentence “You must believe the gospel to be saved” what actually goes through their mind is this: “Here are the things you must believe in order to go to heaven when you die” (And of course, everyone has a different idea about what we must believe). So people are often shocked to learn that the biblical word “gospel” (Gk., euangelion) means way more than what a person need to believe to receive eternal life. Similarly, the biblical word for “salvation” (Gk., sōteria) has very little to do with going to heaven when you die. To see what each word means, we will look at the word “gospel” in this section, and “salvation” in the next.

The word “gospel” means “good news.” And although it almost universally today refers to good news about forgiveness of sin and the offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ, the word it-self carries no such connotations. In ancient and biblical times, the word is often used regarding things like children who recovered from sickness, a battle which was won, or a successful trad-

0 For a more detailed explanation, I recommend René Lopez, “Is Faith a Gift from God or a Human Exercise?” Bibliotheca Sacra 164 (July–September 2007): 259-276. http://www.dts.edu/download/publications/bibliotheca/Bib-Sac-Lopez-IsFaithAGiftfromGodoraHumanExercise.pdf Last Accessed July 13, 2014.

0 Cf. a similar definition in {Hawley, 2013 #1129@125} He writes, “… to have faith is to be persuaded that something is true. It is to be fully convinced that what God says is true.”

ing voyage.0 Just as the words “good news” can refer to almost any sort of happy event or posi-tive outcome today, so also, the phrase could refer to almost anything good in biblical times as well.

In the New Testament itself, though, the phrase has a more focused meaning. Though it can sometimes refer simply to an encouraging message (1 Thess 3:6), and Jesus often used the term to describe the coming of the Kingdom of God (cf. Matt 4:23; 9:35), Paul is the one who used the word in his writings, and he uses the word most often in reference to describe the complete chain of events regarding what God has done for sinful humanity through Jesus Christ to provide eternal life for them. And when I write “the complete chain of events” I mean the complete chain, beginning with God eternal love for humanity, including the creation of mankind and their subsequent fall, and going through God’s calling of Israel, His work through them during their checkered history, the birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and look-ing forward to the return of Jesus and the new heavens, the new earth, and our eternal existence with God. The biblical “gospel” includes all of this. Every bit.

While the term gospel is a non-technical term for any good news, the NT usage seems to define it as good news for everybody, whether Jew or Gentile, believer or unbeliever, regarding the benefits and blessings which come to us from the person and work of Jesus Christ. It includes everything from “the eschatological expectation, the proclamation of the [kingdom of God] ... the introduction of the Gentiles into salvation history, [and] the rejection of the ordinary religion of cult and Law.” This gospel contains everything related to the person and work of Jesus Christ, including all of the events leading up to His birth, and all the ramifications from Christ’s life, death, and resurrection for unbe-lievers and believers.0

Based on this understanding of the word “gospel” it is not wrong to say that the biblical gospel is Jesus Christ, including everything about Him and related to Him. The gospel is cen-tered on Jesus Christ, and everything that emanates from Jesus is “gospel truth.” And what is it that emanates from Jesus Christ? Everything! From the creation of the universe to the future of the universe, all is dependent upon Jesus Christ. The truths about reconciliation, redemption, and resurrection all require Jesus Christ. Without Jesus, there is no such thing as forgiveness, grace, mercy, hope, or healing. Why did God create mankind? Because of Jesus. Why did God, out of all the people of the world, choose Abram and the nation that would come from Him? Because of Jesus. Why was God patient with the Israelites in the wilderness? Because of Jesus. Why did God raise up Judges, Priests, Kings, and Prophets? Because of Jesus. Moving into the New Tes-tament, why did God send the Spirit to birth the church at Pentecost? Because of Jesus. Why did God send the church out into the world to proclaim a message of God’s love? Because of Jesus. Why is God going to restore the world and remake heaven and earth so that we can dwell with Him for all eternity? Because of Jesus! It’s all because of Jesus. Jesus is the gospel and the gospel is Jesus. There are no four laws, five points, or six steps to the gospel. There is only Jesus.

This is why, in my opinion, it is the height of idolatry to say, as some Calvinists do, that “Calvinism is the gospel, and the gospel is Calvinism.”0 No, it isn’t. That honor belongs to Jesus Christ alone. Even if Calvinism were true, the most that could be said of it is that Calvinism is one small aspect of the gospel. But to equate Calvinism with the entirety of gospel is to replace

0 For more on the origins and definition of the word “gospel” see Jeremy Myers, “The Gospel is More than ‘Faith Alone in Christ Alone’” JOTGES (Autumn: 2006): 33-56. http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2006ii/03%20Myers%20-%20Gospel.pdf Last Accessed July 18, 2014.

0 Ibid, 50. 0 Cf. statements by {Custance, 1979 #1095@302;Engelsma, 1986 #1096@18;Spurgeon, 1990 #1097@129}

the infinite glory of Jesus Christ with a small, manmade system of theology. Such an idea is completely contrary to the Reformation principles of Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria.

But here is the point: If the gospel is Jesus Christ and all the truth that emanates from Him, then this means that it is completely impossible for any finite human being to ever believe the gospel. Why? Because just as Jesus and the truth about Him is infinite, so also, the gospel is infi-nite. It is impossible to ever believe everything there is to know about Jesus, who He is, and what He has done.

Yet if the biblical gospel is infinite then it would be impossible to ever “preach the gospel” (Luke 4:18; Acts 16:10; Rom 1:15; etc.) or “believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). However, Jesus and the apostles seem to have done so quite well. Nevertheless, when these various gospel-preaching events are compared, one discovers that there is no set list of ten gospel truths, or four laws, or six principles that are always presented in every situation. Sometimes the one proclaim-ing the gospel talks about sin; sometimes not. Sometimes they talk about the Kingdom of God; sometimes not; Sometimes they talk about grace, mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation; some-times not. Sometimes they talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus; sometimes not. Some-times they talk about the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus; sometimes not.

What is the point? The point is that all of these truths which get shared at one time or another in the New Testament as part of the “gospel” are simply examples of some of the truth that em-anates from the person and work of Jesus Christ, who IS the gospel. When a person is presenting “the gospel” they obviously cannot share everything, and so they do their best (along with the help of the Holy Spirit) to pick and choose which truths of the gospel should be shared in that particular context to those particular people. Just as the same person in a different context would share different gospel truths, so also would a different person in that same context. This is one of the beautiful things of the gospel. Because there is so much truth to the gospel, there is no such thing as one set of truths that must always be shared. Since different people are in different places with their walk with God, and each of us have different personalities and different levels of knowledge, God allows each of us to share whatever we know with the people in front of us in whatever way we think best. That’s liberating, isn’t it? If we simply share Jesus with people, we are sharing the gospel, whether it is by word or action, in a few seconds or over the course of many years, or to a large crowd or to only one person. The goal of sharing the gospel, of course, is to draw a person closer to Jesus, whether they are already a “Christian” or not, for Christians need to hear gospel truths just as much as so-called “non-Christians.”

Hopefully now you can understand my provocative statement at the beginning of this section. I stated that “You don't have to believe the entire gospel to receive eternal life.” If the gospel is Jesus Christ and all truth is related to Him, then it is impossible to believe the entire gospel. The most we can do is believe certain truths of the gospel. When we say we “believe the gospel” or “believe in Jesus” this is a shorthand way of saying that we believe certain truths of the gospel. Since each person is at a different place in their theological development and their walk with God, it is likely that each person believes a different set of gospel truths.

In fact, it is quite likely that there are billions of people on earth today who believe certain truths of the gospel, and yet have not received eternal life. Why not? Because they haven’t yet believed the part of the gospel which pertains to eternal life, namely, that eternal life is given to those who believe in Jesus for it (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47). One gospel truth is that we are sinners. And most people believe this truth. But nowhere does Scripture say that believing we are sinners results in receiving eternal life. So also with the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Countless millions of people believe that about 2000 years ago, there was a man named Jesus

who lived in Israel, preached sermons, performed miracles, was crucified on a cross, was buried, and rose again three days later from the dead. But—are you ready for this?—although these truths are extremely central to the gospel, nowhere does Scripture say that those who believe these things have received eternal life. Many of those who believe these wonderful truths about the gospel, have not yet believed in Jesus for eternal life, but are instead, believing in them-selves, their good works, their “being a good person”, their religious activity in a particular church, or a whole variety of others human ideas about how to receive eternal life.

It is one of the greatest tragedies of church history that millions of people can believe hun-dreds and maybe even thousands of gospel truths, but not believe the one truth which is found at the very heart of the gospel, which is that God gives eternal life to anybody and everybody who simply and only believes in Jesus Christ for it. Though one does not need to believe the entire gospel to receive eternal life (and nobody can believe all of it anyway), one of the central truths at the heart of the gospel which must be believed is the truth about God’s absolutely free offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ. Eternal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.

SALVATION

Like the word “gospel,” the word “salvation” means much more and much less than usually as-sumed. At the beginning of the previous section, I stated that “even if you believed in the gospel, you might not be saved.” We could take this provocative statement a bit further and say that even if you believed in Jesus for eternal life, you might not be saved.

This is true because, just like the word “gospel,” the way the word is often used today is very different from the way the word is used in Scripture. When people talk about “salvation” today or “being saved,” what they most often have in mind is the idea of receiving the forgiveness of sins so we can escape hell and go to heaven when we die. But in biblical usage, the noun “salva-tion” (Gk., sōteria) and the verb “save” (Gk., sōzō) very rarely have anything to do with receiv-ing eternal life or going to heaven when we die. Instead, the words are most often used in con-nection with some sort of temporal or physical deliverance. We can be saved from enemies, saved from sickness, saved from drowning, saved from suffering, or even saved from a prema-ture physical death. While “salvation” is sometimes used in connection with sin, this is only be-cause sin often has devastating physical and temporal consequences in our life. To be saved from sin means to be delivered from the destruction and damage of sin in our lives.

One resource that shows this quite clearly is Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary. Under the entry for “Save, Saving,” the dictionary includes the following options:

(a) Of material and temporal deliverance from danger, suffering, etc., e.g., Matt 8:25; Mark 13:20; Luke 23:35; John 12:27; 1 Tim 2:15; 2 Tim 4:18; Jude 5; from sickness, Matt 9:22; so Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48; Jas 5:15

(b) Of the spiritual and eternal salvation granted immediately by God to those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, e.g., Acts 2:47, 16:31; Rom 8:24; Eph 2:5, 8; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5; of human agency in this, Rom 11:4; 1 Cor 7:16; 9:22

(c) Of the present experiences of God’s power to deliver from the bondage of sin, e.g., Matt 1:21; Rom 5:10; 1 Cor 15:2; Heb 7:25; Jas 1:21; 1 Pet 3:21; of human agency in this, 1 Tim 4:16

(d) Of the future deliverance of believers at the second coming of Christ for his saints, being deliver-ance from the wrath of God to be executed upon the ungodly at the close of this age and from eternal doom, e.g., Rom 5:9

(e) Of the deliverance of the nation of Israel at the second advent of Christ, e.g., Rom 11:26

(f) Inclusively for all the blessings bestowed by God on men in Christ, e.g., Luke 19:10; John 10:9; 1 Cor 10:33; 1 Tim 1:15

(g) Of those who endure to the end of the time of the Great Tribulation, Matt 10:22; Mark 13:13

(h) Of the individual believer, who, though losing reward at the judgment seat of Christ hereafter, will not lose his salvation, 1 Cor 3:15; 5:5

(i) Of the deliverance of the nations at the Millennium, Rev 21:240

Though I would not state this list of various definitions quite this way, and would put many of the references from definition (b) into other categories, it nevertheless shows that the words “save” and “salvation” in the Bible have a wide variety of meanings.

To help the reader of Scripture know what sort of “salvation” is in view when they are study-ing it, I recommend that whenever you comes across the words “save” or “salvation” in Scrip-ture, you stop, replace it mentally with the word “deliver” or “deliverance” and then ask yourself, “Deliverance from what?” If you look in the surrounding context, you will quickly discover that the deliverance in view has nothing to do with gaining eternal life or going to heaven when you die.

When I was a pastor, Dr. Earl Radmacher once came and spoke in my church. I introduced him as the author of numerous Christian books, the editor of the best-selling NKJV Nelson Study Bible, and the president emeritus of Western Seminary. At that time, one of his most recent books had been Salvation, which is part of the Chuck Swindoll Leadership library, and is a book I highly recommend. After this introduction he got up to teach and began with a word of prayer. He said this:

Father, I thank you for bringing me to speak to these men and women today, and I pray that as I speak to them, many of them would be saved this hour, and I pray also, that you would save me this hour as well. Amen.

I knew this was coming because this is something Dr. Radmacher often did when he spoke in churches, but it was still enjoyable to glance around at the people in the church and watch them open their eyes and blink in confusion at each other. You could almost hear their thoughts: “Did I just hear what I thought I heard? Did this author, preacher, seminary president, and Bible scholar just ask to get saved? Did our pastor invite one of those unsaved liberal Bible scholars we’ve heard rumors about into our pulpit today?”

Dr. Radmacher went on to explain that his prayer was not only genuinely spoken, but was also an opening illustration for what he wanted to teach. He truly did want to get saved that hour as he spoke—saved from preaching or teaching anything that might be in error. He also wanted his hearers to get saved—saved from believing some wrong things about the word “salvation.” He went on to show what the words “save” and “salvation” mean in Scripture, and how many

0 {Vine, 1985 #1094@547-548}

tricky and confusing passages can be immediately cleared up simply by recognizing that when the text talks about “being saved” it is not talking about gaining eternal life or going to heaven when you die.

If there is one word which causes the most confusion in Christianity today about the nature and conditions of our eternal life, it is this word “saved.” Take for example, the debate that rages over the phrase “Once Saved, Always Saved.” When some people talk about “Once Saved, Al-ways Saved” they have some verses which seem to indicate “salvation” lasts forever, but those who are opposed to eternal security point out numerous verses which say that “salvation” de-pends on continued obedience, faithfulness, and good works. The debate is easily solved, how-ever, when we realize that almost none of those verses which talk about “salvation” are actually talking about eternal life. We can hold to eternal security while still affirming that most verses that talk about "salvation" affirm a conditional deliverance from some sort of temporal and phys-ical calamity.

Then there is the whole debate which rages over the statement in James 2 that faith alone does not save. What a confusing text! But it is not nearly as confusing once we realize that to be “saved” in James 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with gaining eternal life and going to heaven when we die.

And we must not forget the statement by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:15 that women will be saved through childbearing. Due to a misunderstanding of the word “saved” this verse has been tragi-cally used by some misogynistic authoritarian male religious leaders to require women to remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, because otherwise, they cannot be “saved.”

As we study Calvinism, we will see that a large number of the texts used to defend Calvinism depend on a faulty understanding of the word “saved.” Due to the fact that it is understood to be referring to eternal life and going to heaven when we die, numerous texts are misinterpreted and misapplied so that what should be understood as a passage that encourages and instructs us on how to live our lives so that we can experience God’s life now becomes a passage on how to live our lives so that we can prove that we will have eternal life in the future. We will see this as we go through the various texts.

What then is the definition of “save” or “salvation”? It means “deliverance.” Most of the time, this deliverance has nothing to do with gaining eternal life or going to heaven when we die, but instead, refers to some sort of temporal deliverance from calamity. This deliverance might be physical, psychological, emotional, relational, spiritual, or financial. There are, of course, eternal consequences which we can be delivered from as well, such as a loss of reward at the judgment seat of Christ, but we will reserve this discussion for later in this chapter when we talk about re-wards.

For now, let us move on to defining a word that is closely related to salvation (as defined above), namely, forgiveness.

FORGIVENESS

When seeking to understand the biblical definition of forgiveness, it must first be understood that there are three Greek words for forgiveness.

The first type of forgiveness is charizomai. This is the kind of forgivenss we often think of as “God’s unconditional forgiveness.” This makes sense, because it is based on the word charis, which means “grace.” As such, we could understand this type of forgiveness as the act of being gracious. It refers to the removal of guilt, but not necessarily the removal of consequences.

Charizomai is God’s free pardon (cf. Luke 7:42-43; 2 Cor 2:7, 10; 12:13; Col 2:13; 3:13), and is offered freely, to all, with absolutely no conditions. This kind of forgiveness is a free gift of God to every single person on earth, emanating purely from God’s love and grace. Due to this sort of forgiveness, you have been forgiven of every sin, no matter what. You are forgiven whether you ask for it or not, whether you accept it or not, and whether you know it or not.

The second kind of forgiveness is aphēsis. It is best to think of aphēsis as release. The verb form means to let go or remit. It is used of the release of captives and slaves, of the cancellation of debt, or even of divorce (LXX: Isa 61:1; Jer 34:8-17; Ezek 46:17; Matt 6:12; Matt 13:36). Un-like charizomai forgiveness, aphēsis forgiveness is usually not without condition. This second sort of forgiveness is usually conditioned upon confession and repentance. In other words, there is no aphēsis forgiveness unless there is confession and repentance first (cf. Luke 1:77; 3:3; 4:18; 24:47; Eph 1:7; Heb 9:22; 10:18). This makes sense when we understand that sin enslaves us and puts us in bondage. If we do not repent of our sin, that is, if we do not turn away from it and turn back toward God, how can we gain freedom, liberty, or release from it? We cannot.

Note that even if we do not gain aphēsis,we still have charizomai from God. He freely for-gives us out of His grace, and calls us to repent so that we might also gain aphēsis. If we do not, He still loves as forgives us (charizomai), but we will continue to experience bondage and en-slavement to sin.

Finally, there is the third kind of forgiveness, which comes from the Greek word apoluō. Apoluō is based on the Greek word luō, which means “I loose.” So this sort of forgiveness is to be loosed, or set free. This word is nearly indistinguishable from aphēsis, and may be nearly syn-onymous. There may be some small shades of differences, but nothing worth noting here.

So how does all this help us understand the biblical concept of forgiveness? First of all, we need to understand that we are forgiven, freely, by God’s grace, of all our sins,

no matter what. God has graciously forgiven us (charizomai) of all our sins—past, present, and future—whether we confess and repent of these sins or not. All people have this gracious for-giveness (charizomai) from God, whether they are a Christian or not. As far as God is concerned, your guilt has been removed from you. Your sin is no longer an issue with God.

However, we all still struggle with the consequences of sin in our lives and in our relation-ships. The biblical answer to this problem is to first of all recognize that we have the gracious and loving forgiveness of God, but then to admit to God that we have actually messed up our lives by failing to live according to His instructions, and then seeking to take steps and make changes which allow us to live according to God’s will. The biblical words for what I have just described are confession (admit, agree) and repent (turn from sin and turn toward obedience). When we do this, we receive release (aphēsis) from the captivating power of sin in our lives.

When understood this way, we see that aphēsis forgiveness (and apoluō) has absolutely noth-ing to do with whether or not a person goes to heaven when they die. Aphēsis forgiveness is about whether or not we live in bondage and enslavement to sin here and now in this life. This sort of forgiveness is not about whether or not God “forgives” us. He does and He has! No, seek-ing to gain release (aphesis) from our sins through confession and repentance is about whether or not we gain freedom from the destructive power of sin in our lives which seeks to wreak havoc in our lives, our health, our marriages, our family, our finances, our jobs, and pretty much every-thing else.

God does not want us to live our lives surrounded by destruction, addiction, and enslavement, and so He encourages us to confess and repent from the sins He has already forgiven us for, and in so doing, gain release, freedom, and liberty from the damaging consequences of sin. This is

why, by the way, forgiving others is so important. In Matthew 6:14-15, Jesus is talking about aphēsis forgiveness. When we forgive others in this way, it is just as much for us as it is for them, because harboring a spirit and attitude of unforgiveness is emotionally and spiritually dam-aging. This is how God “releases” us when we “release” others. When we release or forgive oth-ers, we ourselves are released from the destructive and damaging consequences of unforgiveness.

So when we read the Bible and encounter the words “forgive” or “forgiveness,” how should we understand these words? One thing to do would be to get an interlinear Bible so that you can see when the text is talking about aphēsis forgiveness and when it has charizomai in view. But if you don’t have an interlinear Bible, you can simply look in the context of the verse which talks about forgiveness, and if there are conditions involved to receive this forgiveness (such as re-penting, confessing, or forgiving others), you can be almost certain that the forgiveness in ques-tion is aphēsis. If, however, the forgiveness is being offered freely by God to all without condi-tion, then you can be confident that the forgiveness in question is charizomai.

Faith alone in Jesus Christ grants us eternal life. But all Christians still struggle with sin. Many still sin just as much as they did before they were Christians. Though they have believed in Jesus for eternal life, there is still a pattern of sin in their lives from which they just cannot break free. As a result of this ongoing power of sin in their lives, some of them begin to wonder if they are truly Christians. Sadly, many books, pastors, and Christian leaders only reinforce this idea. They teach that if you have patterns of habitual sin in your life, you have good reason to question whether or not you actually have eternal life.

But instead of this damaging line of thought, it is much better to realize that the way to gain release from the power of sin in our lives is not by wondering whether or not God has truly for-given us and accepted us into His family (He has!), but by accepting by faith that God loves us completely, and wants us to break free from sin even more than we do. This process of release (aphēsis forgiveness) begins by agreeing with Him that we have sinned (confession), and then making the changes necessary in our lives (repentance) to get back onto the path of righteous-ness. With this in mind, it would be wise to turn next to defining the term “repentance.”

REPENTANCE

What the Bible says about repentance is quite controversial. In some circles, repentance is a nec-essary first step to conversion, usually preceding faith. Those who hold this view often say things like “Repent and believe.” The idea, of course, is that in order to receive eternal life, people must first repent of their sin, and then secondly, believe in Jesus. Passages such as Mark 1:15 where John the Baptist calls on people to “repent and believe the gospel” seem to support such a view.

However, since turning from sin as a precondition for faith is a form of good works, many Christians are uncomfortable with defining repentance this way, and so think of it instead as a synonym for faith. They note that the Greek word for repentance (metanoia) literally means “to change the mind” and so those who hold this view argue that repentance is simply the process of changing the mind about the source of one’s eternal life. While previously we might have thought that we could gain or earn eternal life through our own merit and good works, once we recognize that we are sinners in need of God’s grace, we change our mind about how to receive eternal life (that is, we repent), and believe in Jesus for eternal life instead. In this way, repen-tance and faith are two sides of the same coin.

I am convinced that both views are partially right and partially wrong. While it is true that re-pentance literally means “to change the mind,” the term is almost always used in reference to sin

and so it is accurate to think about repentance as a turning away from sin and back toward God. When we repent, we change our mind about our behavior, and in so doing, actually change our behavior as well. Yet despite the fact that repentance refers to a turning from sin and turning to-ward obedience, this does not in any way mean that repentance helps us earn or merit eternal life. Eternal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Turning from sin is not re-quired.

It is probably best to think of repentance as an aspect of discipleship. Both believers and un-believers can understand God’s instructions in Scripture, see the devastating consequences of sin in their own lives, and as a result, repent of their sin and seek to follow God instead. If unbeliev-ers do this, such repentance may help bring them to the place where they believe in Jesus for eternal life, but if this happens, such repentance does not in any way contribute to their eternal life. Of course, once a person believes in Jesus for eternal life, they can still (and should) repent of sin that they commit so that their lives can be transformed more and more into the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.

So what is repentance? It is a turning from sin and returning to the life God wants for us. This turning from sin does not help us earn or keep eternal life, but does help us follow Jesus on the path of discipleship. Repentance helps us gain freedom from the damaging and addicting power of sin in our lives. Remembering this will help clarify the scores of passages in the New Testa-ment which talk about repentance. These passages are not calling people to make changes to their behavior so that they can receive eternal life. No, passages on repentance are calling all people to change their lives so that they can avoid the negative and physical consequences of sin and live the life of joy and freedom that God wants.

Repentance is vitally important for living life with God and with each other the way life was meant to be lived, but repentance is not one of the conditions for receiving eternal life from God. Thankfully, eternal life is a free gift of God to anyone and everyone who believes in Jesus for it. But what is “eternal life”? Let us look at this term next.

ETERNAL LIFE

The definition of eternal life is simple: Eternal life is life that never ends and cannot be lost. Eter-nal life is life without end. There is probably not much dispute over this, and so you may be wondering why this term was included in a list of controversial word definitions. The reason is not because of the term “eternal life” itself, but because of all the other terms in Scripture that are often (and wrongfully) equated with eternal life.

One of the reasons people get so confused about the conditions for receiving eternal life is that they equate terms and ideas in the Bible with eternal life which do not refer to eternal life. Ever since the Black Plague swept through Europe, Western Christianity has had an unhealthy preoccupation with what happens to people after they die, and as a result, has often read the Bible through life-after-death colored glasses so that everything seems to be teaching about what happens to people after they die.

The truth is that there is relatively little in the Bible about what happens to people after they die, and most of the terms and ideas in Scripture which we think teach about heaven or the after-life are actually teaching about how to live our lives here and now on earth.

Numerous problems arise in the thinking of many Christians from the mistaken belief that the Bible has numerous synonyms for eternal life. It doesn’t. Most often, when the authors of Scrip-ture want to write about eternal life, they use the words “eternal life” (or “everlasting life” in

some translations). However, there are numerous other terms and phrases in the Bible that mod-ern readers often confuse with “eternal life,” and as a result, end up with confused theology as well. Below is a brief description of five of these terms with an explanation of what these terms actually mean.

Saved and salvation. We have already discussed this word above, but the misuse of this word as a synonym for eternal life is so prevalent, I thought it would be wise to mention it here again. When the Bible uses the words “save” or “salvation,” it is almost never talking about eternal life, but is instead referring to some sort of temporal or physical deliverance from sickness, death, en-emies, or other calamity. Sin has disastrous consequences in our life, and when Scripture talks about being saved from sin, it is not referring to deliverance from hell and going to heaven when we die, but about being delivered from the damaging effects of sin in our lives here and now.

Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God. Many Christians believe that these terms refer to “heaven” itself, and more specifically, when Scripture talks of entering or inheriting the King-dom, that this refers to going to heaven when we die. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are two terms which refer to the rule and reign of God. God does reign, of course, in heaven, but God also seeks to rule and reign in our lives, and on this earth. This rule and reign of God is accomplished in various ways, but primar-ily as people start living according to the principles of God’s guidelines for how life is to be lived. This begins in our own life, and moves outward from there. As such, entering and inherit-ing the Kingdom of Heaven is not about receiving eternal life or going to heaven when we die, but is concerned with how we live our lives right now on this earth as citizens of God’s King-dom.

Inheritance and inheriting. The Bible often talks about the Christian inheritance or what we can inherit as followers of Jesus. As this inheritance is almost always associated with obedience or a life of faithful living, people who think that our inheritance is the same thing as eternal life from God will get very confused about how to receive eternal life. But once we realize that our inheritance is something above and beyond the reception of eternal life, most of these passages become quite clear. Eternal life is a free gift of God to all who simply and only believe in Jesus for it. When we believe, we are adopted into God’s family and become His children. But God’s inheritance of honor, privilege, and recognition at the Judgment Seat of Christ is reserved for those children who live as Jesus lived and follow God’s will and ways for our lives. Just as rebel-lious and unfaithful children are sometimes written out of their parent’s inheritance in this world, so also, while God will never abandon or forsake His children, we can lose some of our inheri-tance if we fail to follow Him.

Reward. The concept of rewards is almost identical to that of inheritance. Most people do not realize it, but the biblical teaching on rewards is one of the most prevalent teachings in the New Testament. The concept is everywhere. And much like inheritance, the biblical teaching on re-wards often includes calls for faithfulness, obedience, self-sacrifice, and loving service. So if people think that when the Bible talks about reward, it is actually referring to eternal life, it is no wonder that people get confused about how to receive the free gift of eternal life. But again, just as with inheritance, as soon as we realize that there is a difference between a gift and a reward, all of those confusing texts make much more sense.

Again, this way of reading Scripture is simply common sense. Nobody ever receives rewards for their birthday or for Christmas; we receive gifts. On the other hand, if you heroically rescue your neighbor from a fire, or perform excellently at work above and beyond what was expected, you do not receive a gift for your actions, but a reward. It is similar when it comes to Scripture

and how God deals with us. Eternal life is a free gift of God’s grace. It is given simply because God loves us. Reward, on the other hand, is an added bonus or additional incentive God offers as a way to encourage faithful living and self-sacrificial love for others. Keeping this in mind helps clarify scores of New Testament passages.

Justification-Sanctification-Glorification. Obviously, this is not one word, but three. I have included them here, however, because I sometimes find that people get these three words con-fused with each other, and—more importantly for our study—sometimes confuse one (or all) of these words with the free gift of eternal life. Let’s take them one at a time, beginning with justifi-cation.

While it may be true that justification and eternal life are very closely related, they are never-theless distinct in biblical theology. To be justified is to be “righteousified.” That is, justification is to be declared or considered righteous by God. It is not the same thing as being “made right-eous.” It may be best to think of justification as being “in right standing” with God whereas eter-nal life is the actual reception of God’s life in us. The two are closely related and occur simulta-neously when we believe in Jesus, but are still distinct. The critical point to remember is that nei-ther the reception of eternal life, nor the declaration of righteousness actually makes one right-eous in all their thoughts, actions, and behaviors. If it did, we would never sin again. But we do sin.

It is because of this ongoing sin that we need sanctification. This is the life-long process of being sanctified, that is, of becoming more holy. Sanctification occurs as we follow Jesus in dis-cipleship and learn to love others like Jesus through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Sanctification often leads to the temporal experience of eternal life, but is not eternal life itself. Through sanctification we begin to understand what it means to live under the rule and reign of God, and we begin to see other people as God sees them, and ourselves as well. Based on this brief description, you may realize that sanctification is vitally important for the Christian life. In-deed, it is probably not an overstatement to say that the vast majority of the New Testament is concerned with Christian sanctification.

Glorification then, is the future event when we finally gain our perfect, glorified bodies. It is with these redeemed and sinless bodies that we will live forever with God and will serve Him and one another for all eternity. Though it is an oversimplification, we could say that if justifica-tion is deliverance from the penalty of sin, and sanctification is the deliverance from the power of sin, then glorification is the deliverance from the presence of sin.

So justification, sanctification, and glorification are not themselves eternal life, but maybe it would be safe to say that they are aspects of eternal life. Justification is when we receive eternal life; sanctification is when we learn to live within eternal life; and glorification is when we fully experience eternal life.

Hopefully, the brief discussion above about some of the words that get confused with eternal life will help bring greater clarification to your mind about what eternal life is and is not. Most importantly, I hope this clarification will allow you to grasp the central idea of this book, that eternal life is not gained by anything we can do, but is an absolutely free gift of God’s grace. It is with the word “grace” we close out this chapter.

GRACE

The bottom line to every key word above is grace. Grace is the key to everything. And I am not referring to the week-kneed, limp, powerless, feeble grace that you find in most Christian theol-

ogy today, but the shocking, outrageous, scandalous, indiscriminate, senseless, irrational, unfair, irreligious, ridiculous, absurd, offensive, infinite grace which Jesus exhibited during His life. The only people who really object to this kind of grace are the religious people who think that their behavior merits them some sort of special privilege or position with God and are offended that the so-called “sinners” are put on equal footing with them before God. But that is exactly what God’s grace does. By grace, God loves all, forgives all, and accepts all, with no conditions, no strings attached, no fine print, no qualifications, no limits, and no ongoing requirements. The grace of God is so outlandish and foreign to every human way of thinking and living, I believe that it is absolutely impossible for any human being to place too much emphasis on grace.

But what is grace? Grace is often defined as God’s unmerited favor, or, in everyday terminol-ogy, God giving us something good that we do not deserve. Grace is different from mercy, which could be defined as God not giving us something bad that we do deserve.

I do not think that there is too much disagreement in many Christian circles on the definition of grace, and so I do not want to spend too much time trying to defend a specific definition of grace. What we do see, however, is that certain groups try to limit, restrict, or modify grace so that it is not as shocking or scandalous as it first appears.

One way that many use to limit the extent and effectiveness of grace is to connect it with the crucifixion of Jesus. It is not uncommon to hear sermons or read books where it is claimed that it is only because Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world that God can now show grace to-ward people. If Jesus had not died, we are told, then God could not have extended His grace to-ward sinners.

But once again, such an idea strips grace of all its meaning and power. Grace, by definition, is unmerited. There is nothing that can be done (or not done) to earn or merit or deserve grace. If God could not extend grace unless someone died (whether it was us or Jesus), then God’s grace is not grace at all, but is a transaction. The extension of God’s grace toward humanity was not preconditioned upon the death of Jesus on the cross. Grace does not demand payment in any way, shape, or form. Grace is not the act of God paying the debt of sin by sacrificing His own Son on the cross as our substitute. Grace has always been extended by God simply on the basis of His love. Grace would still be extended even if Jesus never died on the cross. The death of Je-sus on the cross was because of God’s grace; not the grounds for it.

It is this fundamental flaw in modern theology’s understanding of grace that has caused so much trouble in many other areas of theology as well. But once we see that God gives grace for no other reason than because God is gracious, it is only then that we begin to understand the true nature of grace. So don’t limit God’s grace by thinking that God could only extend it by sacrific-ing Jesus to pay the debt of our sin. That’s not grace.

Another way that people limit grace is when some authors and teachers try to differentiate be-tween “cheap grace” and “costly grace,” or start trying to limit the application of God’s grace by using theological terms like “prevenient grace” or “efficacious grace.”

The truth is that grace ceases to be grace whenever we seek to modify or limit its application, extent, or effectiveness. You cannot cheapen grace; but you can misunderstand it. Similarly, grace is always costly to the one who extends it, but absolutely free to the one who receives it. There is no other kind of grace. If one must ask for it, work to deserve it, obey to keep it, or live in a way that proves they are worthy of it, then it is not grace. Grace is extended freely to all, with no strings attached before, during, or after the reception of grace. Since we can do nothing to earn grace, we can do nothing to lose it. Grace, when it is truly given, expects nothing in re-turn and demands nothing by way of thanks.

Below, as only he can say such thigns, are some quotes from Robert Farrar Capon’s excellent book about grace, The Mystery of Christ … & Why We Don’t Get It.

… the mysterious, reconciling grace that was revealed in Jesus is not something that got its act in gear for the first time in Jesus; rather, it is a feature of the very constitution of the universe—a feature that was there all along, for everybody and everything.0

[Our] promises to God ... are not capable of getting us either accepted by God or damned by God. Ac-ceptance, according to the Gospel, is a free gift bestowed on a world full of four flushers. And it’s given to them despite their four flushing, right in the midst of their four flushing. It is not a reward for hotshot behavior in the promise-keeping department. And damnation is not a punishment for breaking promises to God—or even for breaking the commandments of God himself; it’s a consequence of stupidly throwing away the free gift of acceptance.0

God’s love and forgiveness toward us knows no bounds. He loves us completely, infinitely, and without restriction. It is extravagant, outrageous grace which shocks all sense of propriety. God is shameless in His love for us, so that even when we say and do things that would chase off any human being, God sticks with us and by us. As soon as we seek to limit God’s grace or re-strict to a holy few, we have stopped believing in grace, and have plunged headlong into the hell of religion. Grace is free! Absolutely free. It has no limits, borders, restrictions, or conditions. It is freely given and freely received, and as such, can never be rescinded or revoked.

I can hear the objection already: But if grace is how I have been describing it above, won’t people take advantage of this kind of grace? The answer to that is “Of course they will!” But grace that comes with restrictions to avoid being abused is no longer grace.

Inevitably, whenever I speak or write about grace this way, someone objects that I am contra-dicting Paul who said in Romans 6:1 that we should not continue in sin so that grace may abound. Whenever someone asks this question, I am always pleased, because it shows that they are finally beginning to understand grace. In Romans 4–5, Paul has been writing about the radi-cal, scandalous, outrageous grace that I have been presenting here as well. Note that Romans 6:1 is an objection to Paul’s teaching about grace. It is only because of what Paul has written that someone raises the objection that if what Paul is saying is true, why can’t people sin all they want? Paul goes on to explain why people should not, but he never says they cannot. And nowhere does Paul say that if people continue to live in sin, they will come to the end of God’s grace, or will prove that they were never truly justified in the first place. No, Paul argues that if a person truly understands the love and grace of God, and what God has done for them in Jesus Christ, this knowledge will lead them to live free from sin, not to live in sin even more.

This is why I like to say that Romans 6:1 is actually the litmus test for anybody’s teaching on grace. If someone is teaching about the grace of God, and after they are done, nobody raises the objection that is raised in Romans 6:1, then the teaching on grace was not truly teaching grace. A biblical explanation of grace will always lead people who have been paying attention to say, “But wait! If what you are saying is true, then why can’t I just go out and sin all I want?” If you are teaching or writing about grace and you get this question, rejoice, for you have helped some-one see the shocking, scandalous, and outrageous nature of God’s grace.

0 {Capon, 1993 #966@26}0 {Capon, 1993 #966@4}

CONCLUSION

There are numerous other words that could have been looked at as well. Words like fruit, dead, justification, sanctification, predestination, election, chosen, and numerous others, but these words are not quite as frequent as the words discussed above, and so these other words will be looked at briefly as they come up in the discussion of various biblical passages in the chapters that follow.

The bottom line to remember is that rallying cry of the Reformation was right on target: Eter-nal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, and for the glory of God alone. As long as we resolutely hold to these central convictions, we will see that any passage which seems to make our eternal life based on our own good works or personal merit will always mean something else, and the clues to what this “something else” might be are always found in the context of that particular passage. This is what we will see time and time again as we look at the words Calvinists use to define their theology, and compare these words with what Scripture says.

PART 2: CALVINISM AND SCRIPTURE

Part 2 of this book contains an analysis of the 5 Points of Calvinism as summarized by the acros-tic TULIP, and concludes with a chapter on the so-called “One Point of Calvinism,” the Sovereignty of God. It has been my experience to note that Calvinists love to simply state what Calvinists believe, and then quote a bunch of Scripture verses which (supposedly) prove the point they have just stated. They seem to assume that the sheer number of biblical texts which they have referenced is adequate proof of the truthfulness of their position. The assumption seemed to be that one would become a Calvinist simply by reading the Bible. I remember sitting in a debate on justification in which the Calvinist James White spent most of his 20 minute open-ing statement simply reading Bible verses. A book which does something similar is The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. Five of the chapters of this book contain a brief explanation of one of the five points of Calvinism. Yet the explanation of the particular point consists of little more than some introductory statements fol-lowed by a long list of Bible verses with little to no comments on the verses whatsoever.

My approach in this book will be somewhat similar, except that I will let Calvinists speak for themselves, and I will provide an explanation of pertinent biblical texts rather than just a long list of Bible verses. So toward this end, each chapter will contain three parts.

The first part of each chapter is titled “In Their Words,” and will begin with a brief explana-tion of the particular point of Calvinism under discussion. Although I will try to briefly summa-rize the Calvinistic perspective, the first section of each chapter will primarily contain quotes from various leading Calvinists so that Calvinists are allowed to present their views in their own words. The reason for this is because I want the Calvinist views to be fairly presented. I have dis-covered that when Calvinists respond to critiques of their positions, they often say that they have been misrepresented and their views misstated. I am certain that this will still happen with this book, but I will try to ward off such a critique by allowing Calvinists to speak for themselves when it comes to what they believe. Of course, since not all Calvinists agree on how to explain and defend all the points of Calvinism, I will try to present various views and perspectives as well.

The second part of each chapter is titled “In The Word” and will contain an examination of several of the key biblical texts which are often used to defend that particular point of Calvinism. Undoubtedly, Calvinistic critiques of this book will say that although I provided novel and unique interpretations to several of the key biblical texts, the fact that I ignored scores of other Calvinistic proof texts shows that I am in error. So in an attempt to ward off this sort of criticism before it is given, I want to state here at the outset that my selection of texts in the chapters that follow is by no means comprehensive. Instead of dealing with every text which Calvinists use to

defend their views (it would be impossible to ever compile such a list), I have tried to focus on the few texts which are used most often in the defense of Calvinism. My belief is that once the student of Scripture sees how these key Calvinistic proof texts do not, in fact, support Calvinism, he or she will then be able to apply similar interpretive principles to any other passage as well.

Finally, each chapter will conclude with a section called “The Last Word” which summarizes what I believe to be the biblical teaching on this particular point of Calvinism, and how this be-lief lines up with the five solas of the Reformation, specifically in regard to “grace alone” and “faith alone.” I am calling these sections “The Last Word” not because I think I have the final word on the subject (far from it!), but simply because it is the last part of each chapter.

Before we launch into the first chapter, however, a word should also be said about my choice of Bible translations. I will be using the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible. It com-bines the accuracy of the New American Standard (NAS) and the readability of the New Interna-tional Version (NIV) with the poetry and dignity of the King James Version (KJV). But more importantly for our purposes, the NKJV translation has not suffered from the blatant Calvinistic interpretive bias which is found in various other Bible translations. I am convinced that one rea-son for the rise of popular-level Calvinism in the United States over the past 30 years is because of the popularity of the NIV. The NIV (as well as the ESV, the English Standard Version) is ex-tremely Calvinistic.

People often think that Bible translators are theologically neutral. They are not. The act of Bible translation is theological interpretation. That is, when a scholar translates biblical Hebrew and Greek into English, their translation will often reflect their theological bent. So it is not sur-prising that the NIV, whose committee of translators heavily consisted of Calvinistic scholars, has a decidedly Calvinistic slant.0 I sometimes find that a verse in the NIV which seems to ir-refutably support a Calvinistic position becomes much less supportive when other translations are consulted. This is especially true in 1 John. I sometimes wish that Christians who use the NIV for their Bible study would simply rip 1 John out of their Bibles. This is not because I object to what John wrote—far from it! I love it!—but because the NIV translation of 1 John is so shockingly bad.

But I am getting ahead of myself. We will discuss some of the key texts of 1 John in some of the chapters that follow as we look at the key words of Calvinism and compare them with the Word of God.

,

0 The committee contained leading Calvinistic scholars such as R. Laird Harris, Harold Stigers, Leon Morris, William Mounce, Gordon Fee, John Stek, Bruce Waltke, Douglas Moo, Roger Nicole, Simon Kistemaker, Marten Woudstra, Edwin Palmer, J. Burton Payne, and Charles Pfeiffer. See any NIV Bible for a list of members, or see http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-translators.html (Last Accessed August 6, 2014) for an online list.

TOTAL DEPRAVITYIN LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE

The first point of Calvinism’s TULIP is Total Depravity. This point forms the logical and theo-logical foundation for the rest of the Calvinistic system, and as such, we will spend additional space laying out what Calvinism teaches about Total Depravity, and how it forms the foundation for everything that follows. If we can grasp all the intricacies and implications of Total Deprav-ity, and see how it does not fit with Scripture, the rest of the Calvinistic system will fall like a set of dominoes. It is not an overstatement to say, as does R. C. Sproul, that all five points of Calvin-ism stand or fall on the basis of Total Depravity.

If one embraces this aspect [inability] of the T in TULIP the rest of the acrostic follows by a resistless logic. Once cannot embrace the T and reject any of the other four letters with any degree of consis-tency.0

Though my journey away from Calvinism ended by dropping Total Depravity, Sproul is correct: Total Depravity is foundational to TULIP Calvinism. As a result, this chapter may be a bit longer than the others in this book, simply because it is important to understand all that Calvinists mean when they talk about Total Depravity.

On the surface, the doctrine of Total Depravity seems acceptable. In fact, it is because of the surface level explanation of Total Depravity that I believed it for so long. Just as many evange-lists today begin their gospel presentation with the “bad news” about our sinfulness before God, so the five points of Calvinism also begin with the sinful condition that mankind finds itself in. The term “Total Depravity” refers to the sinfulness of humanity in relation to God’s righteous standards, and especially to our inability to do anything that helps us earn or merit eternal life from God. I agree with this. The reason I finally rejected Total Depravity, however, is not be-cause I believe that people can “save themselves” or earn their way into heaven, or do anything good to merit eternal life. I believe nothing of the sort. Instead, I eventually rejected Total De-pravity because I understood what most Calvinists meant when they talked about Total Deprav-ity. For them, it means way more than just sinfulness. But let us allow Calvinists to define and explain Total Depravity in their own words.

0 {Sproul, 1997 #674@128}

IN THEIR WORDS

Many people, including many Calvinists, object to the term “Total Depravity” because it gives the impression that human beings are totally and completely sinful. When some people hear about “Total Depravity” they think of someone who always and only does the most evil thing possible. This clearly does not happen. No person in history always does the most evil thing they can do in every situation. Thankfully, Calvinists recognize this as well and so are careful to clar-ify that the teaching on Total Depravity is not the same thing as “absolute depravity,” and that in general, humanity is not without some good. They say instead that Total Depravity means that mankind is as bad off as man can be.0

Total depravity does not mean that each man is the epitome of the devil. For, as a matter of fact, man does not commit all the sins possible; and those he does commit are not always as bad as possible. Furthermore, we see that he can even perform a certain amount of relative good. … Total depravity means that natural man is never able to do any good that is fundamentally pleasing to God, and, in fact, does evil all the time.0

Human nature has been and is utterly corrupted by sin so that man is totally incapable of doing any-thing to accomplish his salvation.0

When Calvinists speak of man as begin totally depraved, they mean that man’s nature is corrupt, per-verse, and sinful throughout.0

Total Depravity means that unregenerate man is hopelessly enmeshed in sin, bound by Satan with the chords of spiritual death, and wholly disinterested in the things of the Creator.0

To be totally depraved, however, does not mean that a person is as intensively evil as possible, but as extensively evil as possible. It is not that he cannot commit a worse crime; rather, it is that nothing that he does is good. Evil pervades every faculty of his soul and every sphere of his life. He is unable to do a single thing that is good.0

What total depravity is meant to convey is the idea that sin has affected the whole person down to the very core or root of his or her being.0

By nature we are slaves to sin. This does not mean that the fall has destroyed or eradicated the human will. Fallen man still has all the faculties to make choices. We still have a mind and a will. The prob-lem is not that we cannot make choices. Natural men make choices all the time. The problem is that, in our fallen condition, we make sinful choices. We make these choices freely. We sin precisely be-cause we want to sin, and we are capable of choosing exactly what we want to choose.0

For the most part, though I would not state it in exactly the same way, I am not that opposed toward the teaching on Total Depravity as expressed in the quotes above. I firmly believe that in

0 {Spencer, 1979 #1101@32}0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@13}0 {Rose, 1996 #1098@2}0 {Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@18}0 {Spencer, 1979 #1101@36}0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@9}0 {Boice, 2002 #676@71}0 {Sproul, 1997 #674@130}

and of ourselves, there is nothing we can do to earn or merit eternal life before God, or even to place ourselves in good standing with God. We cannot become righteous on our own. Even all of our righteous works are like filthy rags (Isa 64:6). On this, I am in agreement with Calvinism.

Total Inability However, when most Calvinists speak of “Total Depravity” what they really have in mind is something they call “total inability.”0 This is where the trouble with Total Depravity gets intro-duced. Here is what Calvinists have to say about Total Depravity as total inability:

As a creature the natural man is responsible to love, obey, and serve God; as a sinner he is responsible to repent and believe the Gospel. But at the outset we are confronted with the fact that the natural man is unable to love and serve God, and that the sinner, of himself, cannot repent and believe.0

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin. Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.0

Inasmuch as Adam’s offspring are born with sinful natures, they do not have the ability to choose spiritual good over evil. Consequently, man’s will is no longer free (i.e., free from the dominion of sin) as Adam’s will was free before the fall. Instead, man’s will, as the result of inherited depravity, is in bondage to his sinful nature.0

Natural (soulish) unregenerate men cannot comprehend the things of God. They are the unborn dead (spiritually) who know only darkness. They are totally depraved, wholly incapable of thinking, per-ceiving, or doing anything pleasing to God.0

In and of himself the natural man has power to reject Christ; but in and of himself he has not the power to receive Christ.0

In summary, total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this re-bellion is sinful, our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore to-tally deserving of eternal punishment.0

There is a fundamental incapacity in the natural man. He does not accept the things of the Spirit of God (willful rejection), for they are foolishness to him. Why are they foolishness? Because he is not a spiritual man. He cannot (not “does not” or “normally chooses not to”) understand them. This is an-other phrase of inability…0

Free WillOften wrapped up in a discussion of Total Depravity and total inability is a discussion of free will. Though it is variously stated, most Calvinists believe that humans do not have a free will.

0 {Boettner, 1932 #1103@60;Palmer, 1980 #665@14;Seaton, 1970 #1104@8;Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@18} 0 {Pink, 2009 #1099@187} 0 {, 1619 #1105 http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort Last Accessed August 6`,

2014.@III/IV:3} 0 {Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@19} 0 {Spencer, 1979 #1101@35}0 {Pink, 2009 #1099@128}0 {Piper, 2014 #1107@22}0 {Hunt, 2004 #1106@69}

Some argue that humanity did have a free will before Adam and Eve rebelled against God and fell into sin by eating fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Others argue that a form of free will is awakened in the minds of the Christian. What almost all agree on, however, is that no unregenerate person has free will. Of course, even here, you will occasionally run across a Calvinist who claims to believe that unregenerate people have a free will, but that the free will of unregenerate people is only a free will to do evil. In other words, though people can choose of their own free will to do what they want, their choices are only between various forms of evil, and they cannot choose to do any good.

Here are some quotes from Calvinists on this subject:

Free will is nonsense.0

Free will is the invention of man, instigated by the devil.0

Free will makes man his own savior and his own god.0

The heresy of free will dethrones God and enthrones man. … The ideas of free grace and free will are diametrically opposed. All who are strict advocates of free will are strangers to the grace of the sover-eign God.0

To affirm that [man] is a free moral agent is to deny that he is totally depraved.0

In matters pertaining to his salvation, the unregenerate man is not at liberty to choose between good and evil, but only to choose between greater and lesser evil, which is not properly free will... As the bird with a broken wing is ‘free’ to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able.0

Inasmuch as Adam’s offspring are born with sinful natures, they do not have the ability to choose spiritual good over evil. Consequently, man’s will is no longer free (i.e., free from the dominion of sin) as Adam’s will was free before the Fall. Instead, man’s will, as the result of inherited depravity, is in bondage to his sinful nature.0

Dead in SinWhen talking about Total Depravity, total inability, and the bondage of the will, it is quite popu-lar among Calvinists to talk about mankind being “dead in sin.” The Bible frequently makes mention of people being dead in sin, or being spiritually dead, and this terminology is often used to defend the Calvinistic concepts of total inability and the bondage of the will to sin. Here are some quotes from Calvinists showing how they understand and explain the “dead in sin” imagery in Scripture.

A dead man cannot exercise faith in Jesus Christ.0

0 {Spurgeon, 1977 #1108@3}0 {Wilmoth, September 16`, 1989 #1109@5}0 {Ross, 1991 #1110@56}0 {Best, 1977 #1111@35`, 43}0 {Pink, 2009 #1099@138} 0 {Boettner, 1932 #1103@62} 0 {Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@19}0 {Clark, 1984 #1112@102}

A dead man is utterly incapable of willing anything.0

A dead man cannot cooperate with an offer of healing.0

The corpse does not restore life to itself, after life is restored it becomes a living agent.0

Because we were dead to God, we were dead to truth, righteousness, peace, happiness, and every other good thing, no more capable to respond to God than a cadaver. [Unregenerate sinners are] spiri-tual zombies, death-walkers, unable to even understand the gravity of their situation.0

The Calvinist holds to the plain teaching of Scripture and says: “No; he is dead. He cannot even open his mouth. Nor does he have any desire to call a doctor to help him. He is dead” … The Calvinist … would compare man to one who jumps off the top of the Empire State Building and is spattered over the sidewalk. Even if there were anything left of him when he landed, he could not know that he needed help, let alone cry out for it. That man is dead—lifeless—and cannot even desire to be made whole … And that is the picture of the sinner. He is dead in his sins and trespasses (Eph. 2:1, 5). He does not want to be made whole, let alone even know that he should be made whole. He is dead. When Christ called to Lazarus to come out of the grave, Lazarus had no life in him so that he could hear, sit up, and emerge. There was not a flicker of life in him. If he was to be able to hear Jesus call-ing him and to go to Him, then Jesus would have to make him alive. Jesus did resurrect him and then Lazarus could respond.0

Could the Word of God show more plainly than it does that the depravity is total? And that our inabil-ity to desire or procure salvation is also total? The picture is one of death—spiritual death. We are like Lazarus in his tomb; we are bound hand and foot; corruption has taken hold upon us. Just as there was no glimmer of life in the dead body of Lazarus, so there is no “inner receptive spark” in our hearts. But the Lord performs the miracle—both with the physically dead, and the spiritually dead; for “you hath he quickened—made alive—who were dead in trespasses and sins.” Salvation, by its very nature, must be “of the Lord.”0

[A sinner] has all the passive properties belonging to a corpse…0

The natural man is enslaved to sin; he is a child of Satan, rebellious toward God, blind to truth, cor-rupt, unable to save himself or to prepare himself for salvation. In short, the unregenerate man is dead in sin, and his will is enslaved to his evil nature.0

Faith is a WorkOne of the central ramifications to the Calvinistic understanding of Total Depravity as total in-ability is the idea that people are not even able to believe in Jesus for eternal life. The reason Calvinists have this idea is because they view faith as a meritorious act of the will. In other words, due to their emphasis on the inability of mankind to do anything good at all, and because of the impression that faith is something we do, Calvinists conclude that humans cannot believe

0 {Pink, 2009 #1099@141} 0 {Gerstner, 1960 #1113@18}0 {Dabney, 1992 #1114@35}0 ***MacArthur, Faith Works, Dallas, Word, 1993, 64-650 {Palmer, 1980 #665@17-18}0 {Seaton, 1970 #1104} Also available online at: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/five-

pointsseaton.html Last Accessed August 19, 2014. 0 {Boice, 2002 #676@74} 0 {Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@19}

in Jesus for eternal life. Calvinists argue that if people were able to believe in Jesus for eternal life, then this is something that they are doing, and therefore, their faith is meritorious before God. All of this is because of their view that faith is a sort of good work. Here is what they have to say about it:

Faith itself is man's act or work and is thereby excluded from being any part of his justifying right-eousness. It is one thing to be justified by faith merely as an instrument by which man receives the righteousness of Christ, and another to be justified FOR faith as an act or work of the law. If a sinner, then, relies on his actings of faith or works of obedience to any of the commands of the law for a title to eternal life, he seeks to be justified by works of the law as much as if his works were perfect. If he depends either in whole or in part, on his faith and repentance for a right to any promised blessing, he thereby so annexes that promise to the commands to believe and repent as to form them for himself into a covenant of works. Building his confidence before God upon his faith, repentance and other acts of obedience, he places them in Christ's stead as his grounds of right to the promise and so he demonstrates himself to be of the works of the law and so be under the curse.0

According to the Reformed doctrine, total depravity makes man morally incapable of making a virtu-ous choice [of faith] … If total depravity does anything, it renders a man totally unable because he is indisposed to respond to the overtures of grace. If [a person] maintains that man is morally able to re-spond to the gospel, then [that person] does not believe that man is totally depraved at all.0

The Arminian acknowledges that faith is something a person does. It is a work, though not a meritori-ous one. Is it a good work? Certainly it is not a bad work. It is good for a person to trust in Christ and in Christ alone for his or her salvation. Since God commands us to trust in Christ, when we do so we are obeying this command. But all Christians agree that faith is something we do. God does not do the believing for us. … Then why say that Arminianism “in effect” makes faith a meritorious work? Be-cause the good response people make to the gospel becomes the ultimate determining factor in salva-tion. I often ask my Arminian friends why they are Christians and other people are not. They say it is because they believe in Christ while others do not. Then I inquire why they believe and others do not? “Is it because you are more righteous than the person who abides in unbelief?” They are quick to say no. “Is it because you are more intelligent?” Again the reply is negative. They say that God is gra-cious enough to offer salvation to all who believe and that one cannot be saved without that grace. But this grace is cooperative grace. Man in his fallen state must reach out and grasp this grace by an act of the will, which is free to accept or reject this grace. Some exercise the will rightly (or righ-teously), while others do not. When pressed on this point, the Arminian finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that ultimately his salvation rests on some righteous act of the will he has performed.0

To rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other.0

Faith is a GiftYet if faith is something good that we do, if faith is a work, why does God call people to place faith in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47)? Why does God seem to hold people respon-sible for something which they are not able to do? The Calvinistic answer to this is that faith it-self is a gift of God. Since God requires faith in Jesus, and since God knows that it is impossible

0 {Colquhoun, 2012 #1116} http://www.the-highway.com/lawandgospel2_Colquhoun.html Last Accessed Au-gust 28, 2014.

0 {Gerstner, 2000 #1117@109} 0 {Sproul, 1997 #1118@25-26} 0 {Packer, 1957 #1120@59}

for the unregenerate person to place faith in Jesus, the Calvinist argues that God Himself gives faith to the person so that they can then believe. So then, faith becomes a gift of God.

Genuine faith … is granted by God … faith is a supernatural gift of God … faith is not something that is conjured up by the human will but is a sovereignly granted gift (cf. Php 1:29).0

Faith is God’s gift. In no degree could a natural man produce faith. It is utterly beyond him. Let us adore the God who gives it.0

Faith and repentance are divine gifts and are wrought in the soul through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.0

Faith, too, is His gift. We are saved by mean of faith “which is not of ourselves.”0

Faith is a gift from God … it is permanent … the faith that God gives begets obedience … God gave it to you and He sustains it … May God grant you a true saving faith, a permanent gift that begins in humility and brokenness over sin and ends up in obedience unto righteousness. That’s true faith and it’s a gift that only God can give, and if you desire it, pray and ask that He would grant it to you.0

Regeneration Precedes FaithBut this leaves the Calvinist with a problem even more difficult. According to the Calvinistic teaching of Total Depravity (and total inability), the unregenerate person cannot do anything good—they cannot even have faith in Jesus. Therefore, even if God graciously gave faith to an unregenerate person, it would not matter because the person—as an unregenerate—would not be able to believe! God’s gift of faith to the person would be ineffectual. To get around this, Calvin-ists often teach that regeneration precedes faith. That is, before God gives a person the gift of faith so that they can believe in Jesus for eternal life, God knows that He must first remove the problem of “total inability.” So God sovereignly regenerates the person before He gives them the gift of faith so that they are now able to believe when God gives them faith.0 Calvinists often teach that regeneration precedes faith. That is, before God gives a person the gift of faith so that they can believe in Jesus for eternal life. “Calvinists put the new birth before faith, since they be-lieve that spiritually dead humans cannot exercise faith and, therefore, need to be born again be-fore they can believe.”0

If this is difficult to understand, maybe it would be better to let Calvinists explain it in their own words:

When Christ called to Lazarus to come out of the grave, Lazarus had no life in him so that he could hear, sit up, and emerge. There was not a flicker of life in him. If he was to be able to hear Jesus call-ing him and to go to Him, then Jesus would have to make him alive. Jesus resurrected him and then Lazarus could respond. [Similarly,] the unsaved, the unregenerate, is spiritually dead (Eph. 2). He is

0 {MacArthur, 1994 #691@172-173} 0 {Wells, 1983 #1121@55}0 {Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@60}0 {Spencer, 1979 #1101@36}0 John MacArthur, Transcribed from John MacArthur's tape GC 90-21 dealing with Lordship Salvation.0 Calvinists are often careful to note that this is a logical priority, not a temporal priority. They typically say that

God’s regeneration and a believer’s act of faith are simultaneous in time, but separated only by the necessity of logic. This argument is called the ordo salutis, or the order of salvation. See, for example, {Sproul, 1997 #1118@193}

0 {Olson, 2002 #636@39}

unable to ask for help unless God changes his heart of stone into a heart of flesh, and makes him alive spiritually (Eph. 2:5). Then, once he is born again, he can for the first time turn to Jesus, expressing sorrow for his sins and asking Jesus to save him.0

Abraham Kuyper observed that, prior to regeneration, a sinner ‘has all the passive properties belong-ing to a corpse … [Therefore] every effort to claim for the sinner the minutest co-operation in this first grace destroys the gospel, severs the artery of the Christian confession and is anti-scriptural in the highest degree.’ Like a spiritual corpse, he is unable to make a single move toward God, think a right thought about God, or even respond to God – unless God first brings this spiritually dead corpse to life.0

Man is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). He cannot make himself new, or create new life in him-self. He must be born of God. Then, with the new nature of God, he sees Christ for who he really is, and freely receives Christ for all that he is. The two acts (new birth and faith) are so closely connected that in experience we cannot distinguish them. God begets us anew and the first glimmer of life in the newborn child is faith.0

The reformed view of predestination teaches that before a person can choose Christ his heart must be changed. He must be born again … one does not first believe, then become reborn. … A cardinal doc-trine of Reformed theology is the maxim, “Regeneration precedes faith.” … In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire Him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith.0

Faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it.0

A man is not saved because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he is saved.0

A person is regenerated before he believes.0

If we are as desperately lost as the Bible say we are, then no one can come to God, choose God, or even believe on Jesus Christ and be saved—unless God first makes that person alive in Christ and draws him.0

The Calvinist says that life must precede faith, and is logically the cause of faith. Faith did not cause the new birth, the new birth caused faith.0

… Regeneration logically must initiate faith.0

0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@18-19}0 {Boice, 2002 #676@74}0 {Piper, 2014 #1107@35}0 {Sproul, 1986 #1123@10`, 72`, 118} 0 {Pink, 2009 #1099@73}0 {Boettner, 1932 #1103@101}0 {Best, 1993 #1128@34}0 {Boice, 2002 #676@79}0 From a tract entitled “Which Comes First In Conversion–Life or Faith?” By C.D.Cole. Published by Chapel Li-

brary, Venice, Florida. http://sglblibrary.homestead.com/files/Defdoc2/DEFDOC2.P2.12.htm Last Accessed August 19, 2014.

0 {MacArthur, 1993 #692@62}

Faith follows the giving of life. … [Man] is saved by the grace (“unmerited favor”) of God who first gives him life and then instills faith in his heart as a free gift.0

Reformed theologians … place regeneration before faith, pointing out that the Holy Spirit must bring new life before the sinner can by God’s enabling exercise faith and accept Jesus Christ.0

A man must be born again in order to exercise faith.0

The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed in-ternally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.0

And a long quote from R. C. Sproul:

After a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step is the work of God and of God alone.

The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we can- not. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.

When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor Angelicus of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries his theological teach-ing was accepted as official dogma by most Catholics. So he was the last person I expected to hold such a view of regeneration. Yet Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not co-operative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration.

These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration oc-curs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.0

0 {Spencer, 1979 #1101@35}0 {Killen, 1975 #1122@1449}0 {Wells, 1983 #1121@58}0 {Sproul, 1997 #1118@23}0 R. C. Sproul, “Regeneration Precedes Faith.” http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/

sproul01.html Last Accessed August 21, 2014. Daniel Musick contests the idea that Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Whitefield, and Aquinas taught that regeneration precedes faith. See Daniel Musick, “Faith Precedes Regeneration.” http://danmusicktheology.com/faith-precedes-regeneration/ Last Accessed August 21, 2014.

Do you see how the theological dilemmas and philosophical difficulties begin to pile up and multiply? Of course, just as with any theological debate, there is a wide diversity of opinions even among Calvinists on the ideas that faith is a work, faith is a gift, and regeneration precedes faith.

Numerous other Calvinistic authors and teachers could be quoted to show what Calvinists be-lieve regarding Total Depravity and the related ideas, but the quotes above are fairly typical and adequately represent the Calvinistic teaching on this issue. Let us now turn to examine several of the main texts from Scripture that Calvinists use to defend their teaching on Total Depravity.

IN THE WORD

There are a wide variety of texts used by Calvinists to defend their doctrine of Total Depravity. While a few texts are used to specifically defend only one of the subpoints of Total Depravity (such as the ideas that we have no free will or that faith is a gift), most of the texts are used to de-fend several (or all) of the various arguments that surround Total Depravity. As such, rather than try to divide the passages that follow into the various arguments and subpoints, I will just lump them all together and deal with them in the order in which they are found in the Bible, beginning with Genesis 6:6 and 8:21.

Genesis 6:5; 8:21Two key texts for the Calvinistic teaching on Total Depravity are Genesis 6:5 and 8:21. Both verses state that all the intents, thoughts, and imaginations of mankind are only evil continually.

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen 6:5).

And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done (Gen 8:21).

Regarding these verses, Edwin Palmer says this:

Note carefully the description of the wickedness. It was great. It penetrated to the deepest recesses of man. Not only to his heart, not only to the thoughts of his heart, but also to the imagination of the thoughts of his heart. Such innermost attitudes, according to the Bible, were only evil and that was continually so—all the time. Genesis 8:21 adds the information that this was not only when man was fully matured but also from his youth.0

There are numerous problems with the Calvinistic understanding of these texts. First, the texts are not statements about the sinful condition of all people throughout time, but are specifically about the people who lived at the time of the flood.

Second, the statements in these verses are not saying that men are inherently wicked in every-thing they do, but that the people at that time became wicked in everything they did. This is seen in part to the mysterious pairing of the sons of God and the daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4, but also to the fact that when the evil intentions of mankind is described, it is their violent actions that are specifically mentioned (Gen 6:11-13).

0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@13}

The truth that humanity became evil is further supported by the Hebrew word for “intent” (Heb. yetzer) in 6:5 and “imagination” in 8:21 is the same word used in Genesis 2:7, 19 to de-scribe how God “formed” man from the dust of the ground. The point is that just as God formed man to be good, now man is “forming” his thoughts and his actions to be only evil. Humanity was not evil inherently, but was forming himself to be evil continually.

Furthermore, if Genesis 6:5 meant that mankind had always been evil continually (since the fall of Adam and Eve), there would be no explanation for why God was only now upset at their evil, and was only now acting to stop the spread of violence upon the earth (Gen 6:6-7). If mankind had always been this way, God’s sorrow at the state of mankind and His decision to al-low the flood waters to cover the earth make no sense. If mankind had always been this evil, then God should have always felt this way.

Then there is the problem of Noah himself. Though the proponents of Total Depravity claim that Genesis 6:5 and 8:21 describe all of humanity all the time, Genesis 6:8-9 and 7:1 indicate that Noah was perfect in his generations and righteous before the Lord, and so was not subject to the depravity, evil, and violence that had covered the earth. Though Calvinists may claim that Noah was only “perfect in his generations” because of God’s irresistible grace upon Noah’s life, the text of Genesis 6:8 indicates that “Noah found grace” in the eyes of God, not that God irre-sistibly gave grace to Noah.

It should be pointed out that there are some who argue that the righteousness of Noah had nothing to do with morality, but with the purity of his bloodline. The evil and violence that had come upon the earth, it is said, was a result of the pollution of the human race by the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4. In this case, the fact that Noah was “perfect in his generations” (6:9; cf. 7:1), does not mean that he was holy and faithful, but that the bloodline of his ancestors had not yet been corrupted by intermarrying with the “sons of God” (whatever they were) or their off-spring, the Nephilim (again, whatever they were).

None of this, however, is really the point of Genesis 6–8, which only goes to show how diffi-cult it is to draw clear theological principles from ancient biblical texts, and especially from those that are as controversial as the flood account in Genesis 6–8. One of the main points of Genesis 6–8 is to show what humanity has done with the knowledge of good and evil gained by eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. It has not brought anything good, but has re-sulted in only evil, violence, death, and destruction.

This point is proved by the fact that Genesis 6:5 and Genesis 8:1 form an inclusio around the flood account of Genesis 6–8. An inclusio is a form of writing which emphasizes the point of a text by putting the main idea at the beginning and end of a text to serve as “bookends” around the text. These bookends draw the attention of the reader to the main theme of the text.

Since the account of the flood begins and ends with two verses about the universal sinfulness of humanity, these two texts are making a critical point about the reason and results of the flood. What is most surprising is the point that is made. Genesis 6:5 is written to provide an explanation for why the floodwaters came upon the earth. The idea is that the waters cover the earth because violence covered the earth (Gen 6:11).

Yet after the event of the flood, God says the most startling thing: Despite having nearly wiped humanity off the face of the earth, the drastic measure of the flood did nothing to fix or correct the human condition. All the thoughts and imaginations of man’s heart is still only evil, even from youth (Gen 8:21). The sinfulness of humanity after the flood is the same as the sinful-ness of humanity before the flood!

Does it mean that God failed in His attempt to wipe evil off the face of the earth? No, it means something else entirely. It means that while death and destruction is the result of evil, death and destruction cannot solve the problem of evil either. It is always a temptation for individuals, rulers, and governments to think that they can defeat evil with violence, but here, in three of the opening chapters of the Bible, we are told that violence and destruction does not and cannot eradicated evil.

But beyond this, the fact that evil continued to exist in the hearts of men after the flood serves as a warning for all who live after this terrible event. Through the story of the flood, the author of Genesis is telling his readers to understand that when we form our thoughts after evil instead of after God, only death and destruction follows. Noah serves as a positive example of what hap-pens to those who follow God and faithfully obey Him, even though the entire surrounding soci-ety and context is engaging in evil continually.

When read this way, Genesis 6–8 is not a passage about humanity’s inability to hear God or follow Him, but rather, is the exact opposite! Genesis 6–8 is a text which warns the reader that if they form the thoughts of their hearts after evil, only death and destruction will result. If, how-ever, like Noah, they form their thoughts after righteousness and godliness, they will find grace in the eyes of the Lord, and He will guide them, protect them, and even deliver them from the floods of violence and destruction that come upon the evildoers.

Due to God’s destruction of humanity in the flood because of the sin which is described in Genesis 6:5, some might be tempted to think that God had wiped out evil for God. But Genesis 8:21 proves that just as evil existed before the flood, it exists after the flood as well. Evil is all around us and even in our own hearts, but we must choose whether to form our hearts after evil, following those who died in the flood, or form our hearts after righteousness, like Noah who sur-vived the destruction of the flood.

So although Genesis 6–8 does reveal that sin and depravity lie within the hearts of all people, these chapters also include a call for all people to form the thoughts and imaginations of their hearts after the holiness and righteousness of God, rather than after the evil and wickedness of the world.

Psalm 51:5Psalm 51:5 is often used to defend the idea that humans are sinners before they are born.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me (Ps 51:5)

In his commentary on this text, John Calvin wrote that this proves that David was a transgressor before he ever saw the light of the world.0 This sort of idea is then used to prove that people are totally depraved, even from conception, not because of what they do but because depravity is part of who we are.

There are, however, several other ways of understanding this statement of David in Psalm 51:5. First, David could be saying that since he was born as a human, he learned to sin, in the same way that infants and toddlers learn to talk. It is not uncommon for the Biblical authors to speak of being “born into” something in just this way. For example, Acts 2:8 refers to people who were born into a language, but clearly, they were not born already knowing this language, but had to learn it just like everyone else. If this is how to understand Psalm 51:5, David is say-ing that since he was born in sin, he learned to sin just like everyone else.

0 {Calvin, 1960 #653@Psalms v2: 290}

Second, it could be argued that what David meant was that he was born into a world of sin. The phrases “in iniquity” and “in sin” would thus be understood as metonymy for “a world full of sin.” Metonymy, where a word or phrase is used in place of a different word or phrase with which it is associated, is frequently used in Scripture, and even in modern everyday speech (e.g., “the White House” is often used to refer to the President of the United States, his staff, and the decisions and policy that come from them). So in the case of Psalm 51:5, David could be refer-ring to the world of sin in which he was conceived and subsequently born.

Third, we could simply say that Psalm 51:5 is poetic hyperbole. David is, after all, confessing his sin of committing adultery with Bathsheba, and so in the midst of this confession, he my seek to exaggerate his own sinfulness by saying that he has always been sinning, even from concep-tion. The Psalms are full of such exaggeration, as are the rest of Scriptures. In one place, the Psalmist writes that he drowns his bed with a single tear (Ps 6:6; the Hebrew word for “tears” is singular), and even Paul writes that he is the chief of sinners (1 Tim 1:15). Even today, people often use hyperbole in exactly the same way. It is not uncommon to hear a child who misses sev-eral problems on a math test to cry out in despair, “I never get any problems right!” In reality, they get most of the problems right most of the time, and in fact, got most of the problems right on that very test. So this is a possible explanation for David’s statement as well.

One final possibility is based on a traditional Jewish reading of Psalm 69. According to vari-ous Jewish historical writings, David’s father and brothers thought that David’s mother, Nizbeth, had committed adultery and borne him out of wedlock.0 They thought David was a bastard (the word “stranger” in Psalm 69:8 has the same Hebrew root as muzar, meaning “bastard”). The truly guilty one was David’s father, Jesse, who, as a result of having Moabite blood (from Ruth) and due to some strange twists of Jewish law, believed that his marriage to Nizbeth was illegiti-mate and stopped having sexual relations with her to keep her from sinning. Yet he also feared that his seven sons were illegitimate, and so he had sought to gain a legitimate heir for himself by sleeping with his wife’s maidservant (Yes, it sounds strange, but you have to understand Jew-ish law for it to make sense).

Anyway, Nizbeth’s maidservant loved her mistress dearly, and so switched places with her before Jesse entered her bed, much like Leah and Rachel had switched places so many years be-fore on Jacob’s wedding night. So Jesse ended up sleeping with his wife, even though he thought it was his wife’s servant. Nizbeth became pregnant, but never told her family how she had be-come pregnant, because she wanted to protect Jesse from public shame. The result, however, was that Jesse, their seven sons, and the entire community came to believe that Nizbeth was an adul-terer. The town urged Jesse to stone his wife for adultery, but out of love for her, he refused, and several months later, David was born.

So David grew up in a family in which he was despised, rejected, shunned, and outcast. He was treated with scorn and derision (Ps 69:7-8). The community followed the example of the family, and assumed that David was full of sin and guilt (Ps 69:11-12). If something turned up missing, they believed he stole it, and forced him to replace it (Ps 69:4). He was often the object of jokes and pranks, filling his plate with gall and his cup with vinegar (Ps 69:20-21).

There are numerous other details to this story, but the point for our purposes here is that this may be what David is referring to in Psalm 51:5. If this Jewish history is true (and we have no good reason to believe otherwise), then almost everybody—including David’s own father and

0 {, 2005 #1124@Baba Batra 91a`, 271;Pinter, 2002 #1125@187;Weisberg, 2006 #1126@187;Kitov, 1997 #1131@3:849-857} See also Yalkut Makiri Tehillim 118,28; Sefer HaTodaah, Sivan and Shavuot.

brothers—believed that David was born as a result of adultery, which is why David writes, “I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin my mother conceived me.”

But no matter which of the views above we adopt, the view that is most unlikely is the Calvin-istic idea that David is making some sort of theological statement in Psalm 51:5 about the univer-sal total depravity of all humans. This sort of theologizing was not David’s intention and it does not fit the context of the chapter. There are numerous other explanations for this verse which make much better sense of the verse itself and the context as a whole.

Psalm 143:2 Sometimes verses like Psalm 143:2 are referenced by Calvinists to defend their doctrine of Total Depravity.

Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For in Your sight no one living is righteous (Ps 143:2)

There are other verses throughout the Bible that say similar things. But there is a vast difference between Total Depravity as defined by the Calvinist and not being righteous in God’s sight.

It is a biblical fact that no one is righteous before God. We are all sinners (Rom 3:23). We have all done what is wrong. No one has the positive righteousness of God, and no one can do enough good works or become holy enough in order to attain this infinite righteousness. This lack of righteousness is all that passages like Psalm 143:2 are teaching. In and of ourselves, we have no merit, nor any basis on which to stand to gain favor with God. But this does not mean that we cannot believe in Jesus for eternal life, or cannot accept the good gift of God’s grace when it is offered to us. Such an acceptance of God’s gift is non-meritorious, and to the contrary, is based upon the fact of us not having any merit.

So we can affirm the truth of passages like Psalm 143:2, that before God there is no one who is righteous, without having to add to this core biblical idea the unbiblical concept of total inabil-ity.

Ecclesiastes 7:20, 29; 9:3These texts from Ecclesiastes are nearly identical in message and meaning as the verse we just looked at. They simply teach that all people sin.

For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin (Eccl 7:20).

Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes (Eccl 7:29).

This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all. Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead (Eccl 9:3).

In seeking to understand these verses, we must remember that the author of Ecclesiastes has a fairly pessimistic outlook on life, which is somewhat coloring his perspective on humanity. Nev-ertheless, this does not mean that what he says is not true. What he says is true: All people are sinners. Everybody sins. God has made us upright, but we seek out many schemes (Eccl 7:29). God made us inherently good, but each of us has turned away. We are sinful.

It could be argued, of course, that the statement in Ecclesiastes 7:20 says more than that peo-ple sin, for it also says that there “is not a just man on earth who does good.” In other words, not

only do people sin, but all they do is sin. Many modern people would object to this idea, saying that most people perform all sorts of good deeds in their lives. I would argue, however, that even when we do good things, there are always hidden agendas and secret ambitions of the heart which lie behind the good things that we do. In doing good, we often seek to stroke our pride, have other people praise us, look good to our friends, or gain love, affection, and recognition from others. Sometimes we do good simply because it makes us feel good. So in this sense, we can agree with the statement in Ecclesiastes 7:20 that no one does good, for even the good things we do are tainted with ambition, pride, and selfish motivations.

But nevertheless, this is still a far cry from the Calvinistic idea of total inability. Believing in Jesus for eternal life is not something we “do.” It is not a work. Believing in Jesus for eternal life is the opposite of work, and in fact, is founded upon the recognition that we cannot work for eter-nal life (Rom 4:4-5). Faith in Jesus is required because of the fact that “there is not a just man on earth who does good.” So passages like these in Ecclesiastes are not saying we cannot believe; they are simply saying that our works are not good.

Isaiah 53:6; 64:6As we looked briefly at a few verses from Ecclesiastes above, you might have noticed numerous echoes to passages like Isaiah 53:6 and 64:6. These two texts are quite popular once gain for pointing out the Total Depravity of mankind.

All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6).

But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away (Isa 64:6).

While these texts do teach that all people sin, and in fact, even the works which we believe to be righteous are viewed as filthy rags in God’s eyes, there is nothing in these texts which teach the idea of total inability. In fact, the first verse, Isaiah 53:6, could be understood to teach the oppo-site.

Isaiah 53:6 says that all of us have gone astray, that each of us has turned to his own way. The Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity does not teach that each of us goes astray or turns away, but rather that we are born that way, that before we can even make a choice for good or evil, we are predisposed to only choose the evil. Yet Isaiah 53:6 seems to teach that a genuine choice is made, that we choose to go astray and turn to our own way. In other words, we become this way. We grow into our sinfulness.

Isaiah 64:6 also says that in God’s eyes, even our righteous acts are like filthy rags. Many have rightfully pointed out that the Hebrew term for “filthy rags” in this verse has been softened by our English translations. What the Hebrew really says is “menstrual cloths.” This idea would have been particularly repulsive for Jewish people living according to the Mosaic purity laws.

Some point to Isaiah 64:6 and say that if even the works that humans view as righteous are like menstrual cloths in God’s eyes, then how much more filthy are the normal, everyday works in God’s eyes, not to mention the sinful deeds which we ourselves view with revulsion? But I am not sure if this is the right way of reading this text. It seems more likely that Isaiah is saying that that the righteous acts are especially filthy to God. Why? Because people often perform right-eous acts in an attempt to merit favor with God or to please and appease God. When works are righteousness are done with this as the motivation, they not only unrighteous acts before God,

but are the worst kind of unrighteousness. Righteous acts which are intended to merit God’s grace and favor are disgusting and filthy to God. His grace is given to us freely. We do not need to work to achieve, earn, keep, or prove the grace of God toward us.

Some might argue with this by pointing to the preceding verse where Isaiah says that God meets with people in their rejoicing and in their righteous deeds (Isaiah 64:5). So how can Isaiah say that God meets with him who does righteous, but in the very next verse, say that righteous deeds are like filthy rags? Isaiah is actually contrasting what God does do for people who are truly righteous, with what God is currently doing for the Israelites as a result of their fake and feigned righteousness. For though God would meet with people who rejoice in Him and do what He desires, the people to whom Isaiah writes do not even call on God’s name or stir themselves to take hold of God (Isa 64:7). Whatever righteous works they do perform is all a sham. They are going through the motions. Their heart is not in it. They are doing what they do because they think they have to and because they think it is the activity of sacrifice and singing that God wants, when in reality, God simply wants their hearts. He wants a genuine relationship with His people, not faked religious activity so that people appear righteous before others.

These passages from Isaiah then, are not really referring to the Total Depravity or total inabil-ity of mankind at all, but are rather teaching the important truth that while we are all sinners, the worst sin we can commit is the religious sin of performing empty and meaningless acts of right-eousness which are intended to please and appease God and trying to make ourselves look holy and righteous in the eyes of others. These verses then, and especially Isaiah 64:6, are not a blan-ket condemnation of all people around the world as being totally depraved, but are rather a con-demnation of religious behavior that appears righteous, but is only outward and which tries to manipulate God.

Jeremiah 17:9 Jeremiah 17:9 is frequently used by Calvinists to defend the idea of Total Depravity.

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? (Jer 17:9).

According to Calvinists, this means that the human heart can do nothing but evil, and even when we think we are doing good, we are only deceiving ourselves, for even that which our sees as good is actually wicked.

Once again, I generally agree with the Calvinistic interpretation of this passage about the gen-eral message it contains. Nearly all people know how easy it is to justify our own sinful actions and deceive ourselves into doing things that we normally would not do, or that we know to be wrong. But again, as with the other Calvinistic proof texts, I am just not sure we can extrapolate total inability from this text. It is true that the heart is deceitful, but this does not mean that we are unable to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

Calvinists will occasionally argue that a deceitful heart means that a person cannot even think reasonably about what is right and wrong. Yet I find it ironic that many Calvinists will then try to reason with unbelievers about how they need Jesus, and also reason with non-Calvinists about the rationality of Calvinism.

Regardless, even Jeremiah himself explains in the surrounding verses that a deceitful heart does not mean that people cannot do any good. Prior to verse 9, Jeremiah pronounces a curse upon those who trust in man and whose hearts depart from God (Jer 17:5). In other words, Jeremiah states that our hearts can choose whether to trust in men or God.

Immediate following verse 9, Jeremiah says that God searches the heart, and gives to every man according to his ways, that is, according to what he has done (Jer 17:10). So when the entire context is considered, what Jeremiah means is that we should choose to trust in God rather than men, but we often fail in this. When we do, nobody can fully understand the thoughts and inten-tions of their own hearts—let alone the heart of others!—except God Himself.

Far from being a text about the total inability of mankind, then, this is a text of encourage-ment. There is great hope in this text. After calling people to trust in God rather than men, Jeremiah admits that sometimes our hearts deceive us. But when we look around and realized that our hearts have led us astray, we can know that God searches our hearts, observes the inten-tions of our mind, understands what we were trying to do, and leads us in His ways.

John 3:3John 3:3 is one of the verses used by Calvinists to defend the idea that regeneration precedes faith.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

According to Calvinists, when Jesus says that “unless one is born again, he cannot see the king-dom of God,” this means that unbelievers are spiritually blind, and cannot even see the offer of the kingdom of God, or see their need for grace and everything else that comes with the kingdom of God, unless and until they are born again. In other words, according to Calvinists, one must be born again before he or she can see anything related to the kingdom of God, including the gospel, the forgiveness of sins, and God’s offer of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.

From this statement alone, it would be difficult to know what Jesus meant. Certainly, He could mean that people cannot even observe their need of grace and forgiveness, or see anything at all related to spiritual matters. The Greek word for “see” (Gk., eidon) can refer to seeing, per-ceiving, or understanding something. Yet this is not the only way this Greek word can be under-stood. It can also refer to experiencing something (1 Pet 3:10; Luke 2:26; Heb 11:5), or of visit-ing a place or person (Luke 8:20; Acts 16:40, 1 Cor 16:7).0 With these various interpretations, how can we know what Jesus meant when He said that unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God? By looking in the context.

John 3:3 is found near the beginning of a conversation Jesus has with Jewish religious leader named Nicodemus about how to be born again. After Jesus makes the statement in John 3:3 about being born again, Nicodemus gets confused, and asks Jesus to clarify (John 3:4). So in John 3:5, Jesus rephrases His statement. He tells Nicodemus that there are two births, the first birth is physical, and consists of being born of water, that is, from a mother’s womb. The second birth is spiritual, which requires being born of the Spirit. We have physical life from our mother by being born of water, but we also need spiritual life by being born of the Spirit.

But Jesus does not stop with clarifying what it means to be born again. He also clarifies His statement about seeing the kingdom of God. Following this clarifying statement about being born again, Jesus says that unless one is born again, they cannot “enter the kingdom of God.” In this way, Jesus clarifies exactly what He meant earlier when He spoke of seeing the kingdom. He meant that only those who are born again may enter the kingdom.

In other words, John 3:3 is not a verse at all about humanity’s total inability to understand, comprehend, or even see anything related to the kingdom of God, but is rather a statement about

0 {Bauer, 1979 #591@220-221}

humanity’s inability to enter into or experience the rule and reign of God in the life (which is what the kingdom of God is) unless they have first been born again.0 John 3:3 is not a verse which defends the Calvinistic teaching that regeneration precedes faith, but is rather a verse which teaches the biblical idea that regeneration precedes life in the kingdom of God. To enter into the kingdom of God, we must first be born of God. To experience the life of joy, fulfillment, satisfaction, and purpose that God wants for us, we must first be born of the Spirit so that God’s new life dwells within us. Jesus goes on to explain this very clearly to Nicodemus in John 3:15-18. Jesus does not say that unless a man is born again, he cannot believe in Jesus for eternal life.0 He says that unless a man is born again, he cannot “see the kingdom of God,” that is, he cannot enter into and experience the rule and reign of God in his life.

So there is nothing in John 3:3 about mankind’s inability to see or comprehend anything about the gospel or the kingdom of God unless they are first regenerated by God. To the contrary, as seen by Jesus’ own example with Nicodemus in this very text, the call of the gospel and the offer of life with God in His kingdom is one of the primary ways by which we can point unregenerate people to Jesus so that they might believe in Him and find life. It is because people can under-stand the hope, grace, love, and mercy found the gospel of Jesus Christ that so many people find the gospel compelling. It is because the biblical teaching about the kingdom of God promises joy, contentment, and significance to those who live under the rule and reign of God that the in-vitation to enter into the kingdom by faith in Jesus Christ has such persuasive power. When the gospel, the kingdom of God, and the offer of eternal life are rightly proclaimed, they have great drawing power to all who are unregenerate, for they contain the light and life that people have been searching for, but not finding.

John 6:44John 6:44 is a popular Calvinistic verse for numerous reasons. While John 6:44 is often used to defend Total Depravity, this verse (and the surround passage) is also used to defend three of the other points of TULIP. It says this:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:44).

So when Jesus says “no one can come to me” Calvinists see the idea of Total Depravity (and specifically, total inability). When Jesus speaks about the drawing of the Father, Calvinists see this is as evidence of Unconditional Election. Calvinists infer Limited Atonement from the con-texts of these verses. And when Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless it was granted to him by the Father, this is seen as proof for Irresistible Grace.

So although this verse could be discussed under any of those other sections, it will be dis-cussed here because Total Depravity forms the foundation for those other doctrines. Besides, Calvinists tend to primarily use these verses to defend Total Depravity. Here, for example, is what R. C. Sproul writes:

This statement is a universal negative proposition. It states a universal inability. The word can does not describe permission, but power or ability. To say no one can do something is to say they are un-able to do it. The stark truth expressed by Jesus is that no person has the ability to come Christ on his or her own. For a person to be able to come to Christ, it must first be granted or “given” to that person

0 {Bauer, 1979 #591@221}0 {Vance, 1999 #642@225}

to come to Christ. God must do something for us to overcome our moral inability to come to Christ. We cannot embrace Christ in the flesh. Without the aid of the Holy Spirit, we cannot come to Christ.0

Several things can be said against the Calvinistic understanding of John 6:44. First of all, what Jesus says is absolutely true: no one can come to the Father unless the Father draws him. How-ever, later in the Gospel of John, Jesus states that the Father draws all people (John 12:32; 16:8). The work of God drawing people to Jesus Christ through the convicting work of the Holy Spirit is necessary. Nobody denies that. On our own, without this drawing work of God, no person would ever seek God or turn to Him. But saying that God draws all people is not to say that God regenerates all people, or even that, as a result of God’s drawing, people are unable to believe in Jesus for eternal life. As a result of God’s drawing work, any person can believe in Jesus for eter-nal life, as Jesus Himself states (John 6:40, 47).

One will occasionally also run into Calvinists who try to say that the word Jesus uses for “drawing” (Gk., elkō) means “dragging.”0 Based on this, they may argue that sinners are dragged to Christ against their sinful will. Of course, this sort or argument is rarely used by Calvinists be-cause it contradicts their teaching that once a person has been regenerated by God, their will has been irresistibly changes so that they come willingly to faith in Jesus Christ. Regardless, this sort of idea is not backed by the Greek either. While it is true that elkō can be used to drag someone against their will (cf. Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jas 2:6), when elkō is translated as “drag” it is always with malicious intent. When used in this way, it carries the connotation of mistreating someone or dragging them away for punishment.0 Clearly, Jesus is not referring to any sort of punishment or mistreatment by God in John 6:44, and so it cannot mean “drag.” Furthermore, this sort of dragging away for punishment is only when the word is used of a literal action. When elkō is used figuratively, as it is John 6:44, it refers to “the pull on man’s inner life.”0 So the word “draw” in John 6:44 refers to God’s pull or persuasive influence upon the heart and mind of the unregenerate.

Support for this understanding is found right in John 6:45 as well where Jesus says that all will be taught by God. This is another way of explaining the work of God to draw people to Himself. This teaching from God is carried out through conscience, creation, the convicting and convincing work of the Holy Spirit, and through special revelation such as that found in Scrip-ture. Of course, not all who are drawn or taught by God respond positively to God. Those who hear what God teaches, and learn from it, will respond by coming to Jesus in faith. This idea is supported by both Peter (1 Pet 1:23) and James (Jas 1:18), both of whom write that hearing and responding to Scripture is part of the process which leads up to the new birth.

In response to this, Calvinists will sometimes argue that if all are drawn by God, then all will receive eternal life from God. But to say that all who are drawn by God are also regenerated by God is to confuse offer of eternal life with the actual reception of it. Just because God draws, calls, woos, or invites all people to believe in Jesus for eternal life, this does not mean that God universally and irresistibly regenerates all people. Though all are drawn, eternal life is given only to those who believe.

Furthermore, some argue that the “all” of John 6:45 refers only to “all children of God.”0 They often go on to say that Jesus can only be referring to the children of God since Jesus says in

0 {Sproul, 1997 #674@136}0 {Sproul, 1997 #674@153}0 {Bauer, 1979 #591@251}0 {Bauer, 1979 #591@251}0 {Piper, 2014 #1107@27-30}

John 6:46 that no one sees God except him who is from God. Of course, this is reveals a terrible misunderstanding of this text as well. Jesus is not referring to the children of God in John 6:46, but to Himself! It is He who has come down from God, just like the manna in the wilderness (John 6:41, 48), and therefore, His words can be trusted, and in His words are life.

John 6:44 then, far from being verses about exclusion and inability, are staggering statements from Jesus that in Him, all are accepted, all are invited, and all are welcome. Jesus has come down from heaven, not to start another religious club for a secret set of special chosen ones, but to throw open the door to God for all people. Jesus has come to reveal Him Whom no man has ever seen, so that through Jesus, God might draw all men to Himself. God desires that all people have life, and so God sent His Son, Jesus, into the world, so that in Jesus we might see God, and might believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

John 8:43Calvinists often refer to John 8:43 as evidence that the mind of the unbeliever is so enslaved to sin and bound to darkness that far from being able to do anything to please God, they cannot even hear or understand the truth of Scripture. Here is what Jesus says:

Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word (John 8:43).

In the context of this passage, Jesus is chastising some of His Jewish audience for not compre-hending His message. He then asks the question about why they do not understand, and His an-swer is that they do not understand because they are not able to listen to what He is saying. Since Jesus talks about their inability, this text is a favorite text for the Calvinistic idea of total inability (cf. John 8:47). However, is this really what Jesus is saying?

First of all, it should be pointed out that an inability to hear and understand the message of Je-sus is not necessarily the same thing as an inability to believe in Jesus for eternal life. Nowhere in this chapter does Jesus say that the people to whom He speaks cannot believe. He says they cannot hear, which means they do not grasp, comprehend, or understand the truth of what He is saying.

But even this inability to understand Jesus was not a permanent condition. The Jewish people to whom Jesus spoke had developed this condition, and in John 8, Jesus warns them about it, inviting them to reject the lies they had come to accept, and believe in Him instead. The real is-sue, then, is how they had come to believe the lies in the first place. To understand this, we must understand what had happened during the ministry of Jesus up to this point.

Jesus had come as the fulfillment of Jewish Messianic hopes, but since Jesus challenged many of the traditional Jewish teachings and traditions and refused to engage in a military campaign against the Romans, many of the Jewish people rejected Him as the promised Messiah (cf. John 1:11; 2:18; 5:31-47; 6:41-42; 7:25-31, 40-44). The consistent message of Jesus to the Jewish people is that if they continued to reject Him as the Messiah, they would eventually become completely blind to His message and ministry. As they continued to reject the clear teaching and the accompanying signs of Jesus which proved He was the Messiah, they sank deeper and deeper into darkness (cf. Matt 12:31-45). Along the way, Jesus continued to warn them and plead with them, but they refused to repent and believe.

What this means is that the condition of being unable to understand what Jesus is saying is not something that the Jewish people began with from birth, but is a condition that developed over time as they continued to deny the truth they had heard and ignored the signs they had seen. Rather than believe the truth about Jesus, they had chosen to believe a lie. In John 8 and other

similar texts, Jesus warned them that although they had made their choices, they were coming to the point where their choices were making them. They had denied the truth about Jesus for so long, they were now at the point where they were completely blind and deaf to the truth when it was presented to them.

This self-deception was not permanent, and could be reversed if only the people who listen to Jesus and believe in Him. Even in this very chapter, Jesus tells them the truth and invites them to believe (John 8:24, 45-46) before their unbelief become permanent. “From a not wanting to hear develops a not able to hear, an incapacity of giving a hearing to the message of Jesus. Unbelief has become an attitude of life.”0

Interestingly, one famous Calvinist agrees with this explanation:

Jesus does not say they fail to grasp his message because they cannot follow his spoken word, his id-iom, but that they fail to understand his idiom because they cannot “hear” his message. The Jews re-main responsible for their own “cannot,” which, far from resulting from divine fiat, is determined by their own desire (theolusin) to perform the lusts (tas epithumias) of the devil (8:44). This “cannot,” this slavery to sin (8:34), itself stems from personal sin.0

So John 8:43 is not a statement about the lifelong inability of some people to believe in Jesus for eternal life, but is a warning to those who reject the Gospel, continuing instead to deceive themselves. The longer we reject the truth, the harder it becomes to believe it. Jesus wanted peo-ple then (and now) to believe in Him for eternal life so that they did not die in their sins.

John 15:4-5The teaching of Jesus in John 15 about the vine and the branches is sometimes used by Calvinists to support the idea of total inability, especially when Jesus talks about how without Him, people can do nothing.

Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, nei-ther can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing (John 15:4-5).

Calvinists focus on the statements in these verses that a “branch cannot bear fruit of itself” and that without Jesus “you can do nothing” and claim that these statement prove that people cannot do anything on their own, including believe in Jesus for eternal life.

[Jesus] used the illustration of a grapevine and its branches. In speaking of the inability to do good works, He said: “Just as the branch is not able by itself to bear fruit—unless it abides in the vine—so neither can you unless you abide in me. … Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:4-5). That’s total inability.0

So how can we understand John 15:4-5? First of all, it is important to note that this chapter is part of the “Upper Room Discourse” of John 13–15. It takes place in the upper room of a house in Jerusalem where Jesus and His disciples shared their last supper together, which was a Passover meal. After the meal, Jesus washed the feet of His disciples (John 13:1-17) and then proceeded to give them some final words of instruction and encouragement. So when Jesus

0 {Beasley-Murray, 1987 #1132@135}0 {Carson, 1981 #1130@166}0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@14-15}

spoke the words which are recorded in John 15:4-5, Jesus was not speaking to people who did not have eternal life, but to those who did. That is, He was speaking to His disciples, to those who were already regenerate.

Among many other things He told His disciples during the Upper Room Discourse, John 15:1-8 is about how the disciples can be productive and fruitful as followers of Jesus. He basi-cally tells His disciples that they must not try to engage in ministry on their own strength, but must abide and remain in Him. They must stay attached to Jesus. They must look to Him for guidance, wisdom, and strength. If they try to work in the world under their own power, they will not get very far. They will accomplish nothing.

The illustration Jesus uses for this lesson is the vine and the branches. Just as a branch cannot bear any fruit unless it remains attached to the vine, so also, the disciples of Jesus will not be able to accomplish anything for the kingdom of God unless they remain connected to Jesus by looking to Him for guidance and direction.

So when John 14:4-5 is studied in context, it quickly becomes obvious that these verses have absolutely nothing to do with the inability of unbelievers to do anything. Jesus isn’t talking about unbelievers at all! Instead, Jesus is talking to believers, and specifically to His disciples, telling them (and all future disciples as well) that if we want to minister faithfully within the kingdom of God as followers of Jesus, they must abide in Jesus. That is, they must look to Him for guidance, seek to follow His example, learn to listen to His voice for wisdom, and depend upon Him for strength. John 15:4-5 is talking about total inability, but not the total inability of unbelievers. In-stead, Jesus is teaching about the total inability of disciples to do anything in the Kingdom of God by their own strength and resources.

Romans 3:9-20Of all the various texts used to defend the Calvinistic teaching on Total Depravity, Romans 3:9-20 is one of the most popular (another being Ephesians 2:1-3). Rather than quote the entire pas-sage, a few select verses from the beginning of this section are representative of the whole.

As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one” (Rom 3:10-12).

It is not difficult to see why these texts are popular among Calvinistic defenders of Total De-pravity. The text clearly teaches that nobody is righteous or does any good, which sounds like Total Depravity, and that nobody understands or seeks after God, which seems to infer total in-ability. Below are a few quotes from Calvinists on Romans 3:9-20.

The text … moves in a remarkable way from the general to the specific. Not only does it say there is none righteous, but it says there is none who does any good, no, not one. We are not considered un-righteous because the dross of sin is mixed together with our goodness. The indictment against us is more radical: in our corrupt humanity we never do a single good thing.0

According to Romans 3, no one unaided by God 1) has any righteousness by which to lay a claim upon God, 2) has any true understanding of God, or 3) seeks God.0

0 {Sproul, 1997 #674@120} 0 {Boice, 2002 #676@79}

Despite these sorts of statements from Calvinists, Romans 3:9-20 does not actually teach ei-ther Total Depravity or total inability. While Romans 3:9-20 does teach that all are sinners (cf. Rom 3:23), the overall context of this passage must be understood in light of the progression of Paul’s argument if we are to grasp his point. In other words, though this passage does seem to defend both Total Depravity and total inability when quoted out of context, when studied in its context the passage teaches something else entirely.0

To fully grasp the argument, a complete analysis of Paul’s entire letter would be necessary. But since that is impossible to do here, let me try to just point out a few of the highlights. First of all, it is critical to note that the overall message of Romans is not about justification or how to re-ceive eternal life. In other words, Romans is not primarily directed toward unbelievers. Instead, the message of Romans is primarily directed toward believers, and specifically, how they can live and function as followers of Jesus who live according to the gospel of Christ (Rom 1:16-17).

Related to this, it is important to note that “salvation” in Romans is not about how to go to heaven when you die, but about the salvation (or deliverance) that God provides to believers. Lots of people think that Romans is just about how “unsaved” people can get “justification” so they can go to heaven when they die. But this approach to Romans doesn’t really know what to do with Romans 9–11 when Paul seems to suddenly switch gears and start talking about God’s covenant with Israel. However, if we understand that Paul is primarily writing to believers and instructing them about the deliverance available to them in this life, then Romans 9–11 becomes immediately applicable, for Paul uses the example of Israel to show what happens when God’s people do not live by faith, and as a result, are not delivered. And don’t think that Paul is threat-ening believers with hell. Hell is nowhere in Paul’s discussion (not even in the phrase “the wrath of God”). So when Paul writes what he does in Romans 3:9-20, he is writing a warning to believ-ers in Rome about becoming proud of their privileged position before God. In this section of Ro-mans, Paul is pointing out that all people are on equal footing before God. There is no privileged position.

Third, and related to this, it is critical to understand exactly how Paul goes about making his argument. He is using specific rhetorical rules from the first century called epistolary diatribe ar-gumentation. Paul didn’t just sit down and write Romans based on whatever he wanted to say. No, in writing Romans, Paul followed a set pattern and structure which was quite common in the first century for when scholars, philosophers, and teachers wanted to refute the ideas of an oppo-nent. A large part of this diatribe structure involved quoting the ideas and words of your oppo-nent so that you might then turn around and refute them. This means that some of the statements in Romans which have traditionally been attributed to Paul are actually the ideas and statements from an opponent of Paul, whom Paul quotes so that he can then refute those ideas.0

So Romans 3 is not exactly a continuation of Paul’s own argument and logic, but rather, a continuation of the argument Paul is having with an imaginary objector. In other words, Romans 3:9-20 is part of Paul’s rebuttal of an opponent, not a continuation of his own argument. In this way, Paul’s collection of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in Romans 3:10-18 is intended to show his objector that despite being the chosen people of God and having the Law and the Prophets, the Jewish people are just as guilty as the Gentiles. Up to this point, Paul’s objector

0 There are some who argue that much of Romans consists not of a long teaching by Paul, but a debate between Paul and one of his imaginary objectors. See {Campbell, 2009 #1133} I see lots of merit to this view as it helps make sense of Paul’s over all argument in Romans, but even in that scenario, Romans 3:9-20 contain Paul’s words, not those of his objector. See also {Brookins, 2012 #1135}

0 To learn more about this, I highly recommend {Campbell, 2009 #1133} See the following link for a quick sum-mary: http://girardianlectionary.net/special_series/Romans1-3_read-in-light-of-Campbell.htm

was trying to argue that only the Gentiles were guilty, and that the Jewish people had a privi-leged status before God. Paul’s point in Romans 3:9-20 is that if the Jewish people did have a privileged position by virtue of having the “oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), then these oracles of God condemn them all as sinners, which puts them right back on equal footing with the Gentiles. Paul defends this point by quoting numerous texts from the Hebrew Scriptures which condemns them all as sinners.

Even if one does not accept the idea that Romans is an “epistolary diatribe,” the point of Ro-mans 3:9-20 is still the same. In this case, Paul himself is saying that Jewish people have tradi-tionally thought that as God’s elect, they existed in a privileged position before God. In a sense, God needed them to carry out His plan and purposes for the world, and so even if they sinned and fell away from Him, He would eventually rescue and redeem them so that His promises to them could be fulfilled. One of Paul’s points in Romans 1–3 and 9–11 is that this is not necessar-ily so.

Paul’s collection of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in Romans 3:10-18 is intended to show his readers that despite being the chosen people of God and having the Law and the Prophets, the Jewish people are just as guilty as the Gentiles. Paul’s point in Romans 3:9-20 is that if the Jewish people did have a privileged position by virtue of having the “oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), then these oracles of God condemn them all as sinners, which puts them right back on equal footing with the Gentiles. Paul defends this point by quoting numerous texts from the Hebrew Scriptures which condemns them all as sinners.

Of course, Paul is not at all denying that Gentiles are sinners. To the contrary, he states in Ro-mans 3:9 that “all” Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin. But Paul is not intending to make a statement about the universal Total Depravity of mankind. Instead, his point is that when it comes to being in right standing before God, Jews are on the same footing as Gentiles. What-ever Jews want to say of Gentiles is also true of Jews. To prove his point, Paul quotes numerous texts from the Hebrew Scriptures (Rom 3:10-18). Laurence Vance is absolutely right when he says this about Paul’s point in Romans 3:

Paul, in establishing the universal guilt of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 3:1, 9), quotes from the Old Testament to give weight to his arguments, not to charge each individual of the human race in particu-lar with every indictment, nor to teach the inability of the unregenerate man to believe on Jesus Christ. There is a difference between establishing the universal depravity of man and charging indi-vidual men with sins.0

Fourth, it is important to note that Romans 3:10-12 are quotations from Psalm 14:1-3 (cf. also 53:1-3). Many modern people like to say that Psalm 14 and 53 are condemning atheists when the Psalmist says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” But in the Psalmist’s day, there was no such thing as atheism. Everybody believed in a God or gods. There were, however, many people who chose to live “godless” lives, that is, to live for themselves and not serve God. They believed that God existed, but they chose to not obey Him or follow His commands. It is this sort of person that the Psalmist has in mind in Psalm 14:1 (cf. 53:1). Therefore, the rest of the state-ments in Psalm 14 describe this sort of person. Psalm 14 then, is not a chapter describing the To-tal Depravity of all people everywhere throughout time, but rather, the specific behavior of the people who choose to live with no regard for God in their lives.

Some argue from Psalm 14:7 that this Psalm was written during Israel’s captivity, and so those who live without regard for God are the foreign captors who worship their own god but do

0 {Vance, 1999 #642@229}

not accept or believe in the God of Israel. However, if this were the case, Paul would not be able to quote from Psalm 14 as a way to show that the Jews were just as guilty as the Gentiles. It seems better to understand Psalm 14 as a Psalm which calls to account those Jewish people who turned away from worshipping the God of Israel after being taken into captivity. Maybe they started worshipping foreign gods, or maybe they just decided to live without any god whatso-ever. Either way, note what the Psalmist says about these people. He does not say that they were born this way, or that they have always been this way. No, the Psalmist specifically says that they have become this way. He writes that they have “turned aside … become corrupt” (Ps 14:3). These Jewish people have chosen to abandon the worship of the God of Israel, and have turned aside into corruption and sin.

Furthermore, when the entirety of Psalm 14 is read, it becomes obvious that the Psalmist is using poetic hyperbole to describe the sin into which God’s people have fallen. Just like most po-ets, those who wrote the Psalms often used exaggerated imagery to make their point. This is true of the author of Psalm 14 as well. For example, Psalm 14:4 says that the workers of iniquity “eat up my people as they eat bread.” They are not literally eating God’s people; they are not canni-bals. No, this is an exaggerated and poetic way of saying that these people who live without re-gard for God are misusing, abusing, and destroying God’s people. So also with the rest of the Psalm. The Psalmist is not saying that these people can never do any good whatsoever at all. No, he is using poetic hyperbole to point out the error of their ways. It is likely that Paul understands this, and has the same point in mind. His quotation from Psalm 14 is not a statement about the to-tal depravity of mankind, but a statement about how Jews too have fallen into sin, just like the Gentiles. Ultimately, as Paul states, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). While Romans 3 does not teach Total Depravity, it does teach universal sinfulness.

Romans 3:11, often thought to be a statement about the total inability of mankind, is also bal-anced by the fact that it comes from the exaggerated statements of Psalm 14, and is further bal-anced by the numerous statements in the Bible which says that humans can and do seek God (1 Chr 16:11; 2 Chr 11:16; Lam 3:25; Isa 55:6-7; Jer 29:13; Amos 5:4). Furthermore, it is critical to remember that one does not gain eternal life by seeking God, but by believing in Jesus Christ (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47), which all people can do, for along with humanity’s ability to seek God, Jesus seeks after people (Matt 18:11; Luke 19:10), and in doing so, calls on all to believe in Him for eternal life. Many do not seek God, not because they cannot, but because they are proud and refuse to seek him (Ps 10:4).

So by way of summary, Romans 3:9-20 does not teach Total Depravity or total inability. While the chapter can be used to teach the universal sinfulness of humanity, the real point of this section of Paul’s letter is to show that the Jewish people are on equal footing before God with the Gentiles. There is no privileged position before God, not special status as God’s chosen people. Jewish people are sinful just like Gentile people. Both are equally in need of God’s righteous de-liverance, which He offers freely to all through Jesus Christ.

Romans 7:15-20Calvinists sometimes quote from Romans 7 as a text which teaches Total Depravity and total in-ability, for Paul seems to describe a lack of ability to do anything good (7:15, 19, 24), and refers to being captive and enslaved to sin (7:14, 23). Paul says that although he wants to do what is right, he ends up doing what is wrong. Romans 7:19 one such verse which sums up the struggle nicely:

For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice (Rom 7:19).

Part of the problem with Romans 7, however, is that people from all streams of Christianity are all over the map about whether Romans 7 describes Paul’s experience as a Christian or as a non-Christian. While everybody agrees that Paul is writing about a struggle with sin, there is lit-tle agreement about whether Paul is describing how a Christian struggles with sin or a non-Chris-tian.

There are many who believe that Paul is describing his own experience as a Christian. It is pointed out that Paul uses the personal pronoun “I” and numerous present tense verbs throughout this passage. Furthermore, Paul references the “inward man” (7:22) and his “mind” which is at war with his “flesh” (7:23, 25). Some argue that only a regenerate person has an inner man or a renewed mind which is able to war against the flesh. Finally, nearly all Christians struggle with sin on a daily basis, and many note that the experience Paul describes seems to fit our own expe-rience perfectly. It is comforting to know that even Paul struggled in this battle against sin.

Others argue, however, that there are good exegetical reasons to think that Paul may be refer-ring to his past struggle against sin as an unregenerate religious Jew. For example, although Paul does use first-person pronouns and the present tense, he did not use this sort of grammar in Ro-mans 6, the first part of Romans 7, or on into Romans 8 where it is perfectly clear that Paul is talking about regenerate people. It is suggested that Paul switches pronouns and verb tense in Romans 7:14-20 because he does not want to describe the experience of regenerate people, but describe rather his own personal experience as a religious Pharisaical Jew. He had the law of God, and tried his hardest to obey it, but completely failed. Finally, many believe that a Christian who is truly indwelled with the Spirit of God should have more victory over sin than what Paul describes in Romans 7:15-20.

Like all other brands of Christianity, Calvinists do not speak with a unified voice in this de-bate. For example, J. I. Packer says that, “Grammatically, … the natural way to read it would be as a transcript of Paul’s self-knowledge at the time of writing ...”0 However, a leading Calvinist professor like Anthony Hoekema declares the opposite:

The mood of frustration and defeat that permeates this section does not comport with the mood of victory in terms of which Paul usually describes the Christian life. The person pictured is still a cap-tive of the law of sin (7:23), whereas the believer described in 6:17-18 is no longer a slave to sin.0

Yet no matter which view a Calvinist takes, this passage creates problems for their system of theology. If the Calvinist agrees with J. I. Packer that Romans 7 is a description of the ongoing struggle with sin that every Christian faces (including the Apostle Paul), then this passage creates problems for the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. We will see how in the chapter on that topic. But if a Calvinist takes the alternate opinion, along with Hoekema, and says that Romans 7 describes the condition and experience of the unbeliever, then this text cre-ates problems for their teachings on total inability.

As seen earlier in this chapter through numerous quotes from Calvinists, total inability teaches that mankind does not have a will to do anything other than sin. They do not have the will to comprehend, understand, or choose to do the will of God. Yet Paul writes that he does will to do the good (7:15, 19, 21). He even delights in the law of God (7:22) and does not will to do what is evil (7:19). None of this sounds at all like the total inability described by Calvinists.

0 {Packer, 1984 #1136@264-267} 0 See {Anthony A. Hoekema`, "Response to Walvoord" in \Dieter, 1987 #689@232}

To understand Paul’s point in Romans 7, it is important to delve briefly into the realm of bib-lical anthropology. The Bible seems to present humans as consisting of three parts: body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess 5:23; Heb 4:12). This is called the “tripartite” nature of man. Much like the divine Trinity, the three aspects of a human make one being. Though distinct, the three parts work together to live, exist, and interact with God and creation.

The body is the physical side of a person. It touches the material world through the five senses of sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch. The spirit is the spiritual side of man. It interacts with God and the spiritual realm through its own set of “senses,” things like faith, hope, and prayer. The soul is the life of a person. It is the animating principle of a person, and is responsible for imagi-nation, memory, reason, and emotions. As such, the soul serves as the command center for the person. Neither the body nor the spirit can function on its own; both look to the soul for direction and action.

When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they died spiritually and sin corrupted their body, so that it too began to die. Nevertheless, they remained “alive” because their soul re-mained. Yet the soul, the animating principle of a person, can only function through the spirit or through the body. The spirit, which was dead, was separated from God and could not interact with Him as it was meant to. The body, however, was only dying, and so the soul could function through the body. Yet because of the corruption of sin, the body produced only sin and death. This is what Paul refers to as “the flesh.”

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God promised to give a new Spirit to His people (Ezek 36:26), which we now know was the “Holy Spirit” that came at Pentecost (Acts 2). The Bible also says that in the future resurrection, we will be given glorified and incorruptible bodies (1 Cor 15:52). When that happens, each person will once again be as God intended and planned, perfect in body, soul, and spirit so that we can live and function as a whole, united person. But that time is not yet.

In the present age, unbelievers have a soul which often seeks and wills to do good, but since they do not have the Holy Spirit, they cannot interact properly with God. And since their body is corrupted with sin, the soul cannot obey God through the flesh either. Once a person believes in Jesus for eternal life (this is a function of the soul), God sends the Holy Spirit to regenerate, in-dwell, baptize, and seal the new believer. Through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, the spirit of man is now enabled to interact with God as it was meant to. As a result, the soul of be-liever can choose to walk in the Spirit or walk in the flesh (Gal 5:16-26). However, due to the force of habit, addiction, bad choices, or just plain ignorance, we often choose instead to life through the flesh, which results in sin. Though we may desire to do something else, and now have the ability through the Spirit to actually live differently, the body of sin drags us down into death and destruction with it (Rom 7:24).

All of this then helps us understand what Paul is talking about in Romans 7. The traditional question regarding whether Paul is talking about his experience as a Christian or a non-Christian can now be answered: He is talking about both! People who became Christians as adults know from experience that prior to believing in Jesus, they often struggled with sin and fought against the desires of their flesh, usually to no avail. Success in one area often came at the expense of greater failure in another. Yet although Christians gain the illuminating and empowering influ-ence of the Holy Spirit when we first believe in Jesus for eternal life, we all know that the strug-gle with sin did not cease. It continues daily. Yes, victory is now possible, for greater is He that is in us than He that is in the world, but this does not mean that the struggle against the flesh is gone. We too, along with Paul, often cry “Who will deliver me from this body of death?”

This understanding of Romans 7 once again undermines the Calvinistic doctrine of total in-ability. Though it is true that the soul of an unregenerate man cannot do anything good through his dead spirit or dying and corrupted body, the ability to believe in Jesus for eternal life does not depend upon the spirit or the body, but is a function of the soul alone. Faith, remember, is being convinced or persuaded that something is true. Though the soul often receives bad data from the body and the spirit, and poorly reasons as a result, the soul is still able to believe in Jesus when the offer of eternal life is presented to it. Romans 7, then, does not teach Total Depravity or total inability, but is rather a description of the constant struggle with sin that all people face, whether regenerate or unregenerate.

Romans 8:7-8Another passage from Romans that is often used to defend Total Depravity and total inability is Romans 8:7-8.

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can it be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:7-8).

Regarding this text, Calvinist commentator John Murray says that “Enmity against God” is noth-ing other than total depravity and “cannot please God” nothing less than total inability.0

But as we have just seen under the discussion of Romans 7, it is important to know what Paul means when he writes about “the flesh” in his letters. The flesh is dead and dying. The flesh is separated from God, is corrupted, and when the soul attempts to operate through the flesh, only sin-tainted behavior results. The unbeliever, of course, since He does not have the Spirit of God, has no choice but to operate through the flesh. As we have seen, however, this says nothing whatsoever about the ability (or inability) of the unregenerate person to believe in Jesus for eter-nal life. It is not “the flesh” that believes in Jesus, but the soul.

So while Paul is absolutely right that the flesh cannot please God, we should not understand Paul to be saying that a person cannot believe in Jesus for eternal life. God calls all to believe in Jesus, and since faith is not a work of the soul through the corrupted flesh, the soul is able to be-lieve in Jesus and receive eternal life from Him.

Of course, having said this, it is important to note that the unregenerate person is not the sub-ject of Paul’s statement in Romans 8:7-8. Instead, Paul is writing about the experience of believ-ers. In Romans 7, he wrote about the ongoing struggle with sin that every person experiences (both believer and unbeliever alike), and concluded that description by rejoicing that God has provided a way through Jesus Christ for people to be freed from the bondage to decay and cor-ruption that was brought about by the body of death. As a result of Jesus and the indwelling Holy Spirit, our mind can now serve the law of God, even though the flesh still serves the law of sin (Rom 7:25).

Based on this understanding, Paul goes on in Romans 8 to call believers who have received the Spirit of God to live according to the Spirit, and not according to the old man, the corrupted flesh. In Romans 8, Paul calls believers to stop walking according to the flesh, and start living according to the Spirit (8:1). He invites us to no longer set our mind (our soul) on the flesh, but to set our mind (our soul) on the things of the Spirit (8:4). He goes on to explain that when be-lievers live according to the flesh, we are carnally (or fleshly) minded, which leads to death. But if we live through the Spirit, we will finally discover the life and peace that we have always de-sired, but could never accomplish through the flesh (8:6). Paul says that since we have the Spirit,

0 {Murray, 1965 #1137@I:287}

we can now live for God (8:9), but we must make the choice to do so, for even though the Spirit of life is in us, the body of sin is still there as well, seeking to lead us back into death, decay, and destruction (8:10-15).

What this all means then is that Paul’s statement in Romans 8:7-8 about the carnal mind not being able to please God is that Paul is not primarily referring to unregenerate people, but to those who are regenerate, who have the Spirit of God, but who choose to live according to the flesh. Such behavior, though carried out by Christians, is not pleasing to God. He gave us His Spirit so that we might live a new life, a life free from the damaging and destructive conse-quences of sin. By choosing to live through the flesh, we invite the natural consequences of sin down upon our heads (Paul calls this wrath), which saddens and troubles God. God wants us to be delivered from sin, not just in our position of being “in Christ,” but also in our daily experi-ence. This, in large part, is what the book of Romans is all about. It is not primarily about how people can escape hell and go to heaven when they die. Romans is about how Christians can be delivered from the consequences of sin and experience the life God wants for us, and thus, invit-ing the world into our experience of the rule and reign of God.

Romans 8:7-8, then, says nothing about Total Depravity or total inability of unregenerate peo-ple. Instead, these verses are an invitation from Paul to believers to reject the way of death, and choose the way of life instead.

1 Corinthians 2:14First Corinthians 2:14 seems to be the perfect passage to defend the Calvinistic teaching of total inability, for it seems to say that the natural man cannot accept or understand the things of God.

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14).

Regarding this verse, Calvinists are not shy in stating their beliefs about what it teaches.

This does not mean that a person cannot have a rational understanding of Christianity or of what the Bible teaches apart from the illumination of his or her mind by the Spirit. In one sense, a scholar can understand and even teach theology as well as any other branch of human knowledge. … [But] if they are asked their personal opinion of what they present, they say that it is all nonsense. It is in this sense that they, not being “spiritual,” are unable to understand Christianity.0

Man cannot see or know the things that relate to the kingdom of God, without being regenerated first by the Holy Spirit. A dead spirit perceives only the things of man and Satan.0

The reason that the brilliant minds do not accept Christianity is that all minds are blind, unless they are regenerated. … Without the Holy Spirit one is not able to understand the things of God.0

As can be seen from these quotes, Calvinists use 1 Corinthians 2:14 to support the idea that unbelievers cannot grasp or understand the things of God. For this, they first need to be regener-ated.

Calvinists have also been known to use this verse against other Christians who disagree with the Calvinistic teachings and doctrines. If a brother or sister in Christ takes a stand against

0 {Boice, 2002 #676@78}0 {Spencer, 1979 #1101@34}0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@16}

Calvinistic theology, there are some Calvinists who will accuse this dissenter of having their minds darkened, of living without the Holy Spirit, and of being unable to spiritually discern the truth of Calvinism. I myself have had this charge leveled against me by Calvinists. The implica-tion, of course, is that only Calvinists are truly Christians.

Sadly, such divisiveness within the Body of Christ is caused by a grave misunderstanding of Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 2:14. In Corinth there was much divisiveness as well, and one of the purposes of Paul’s letter was to correct the issues that led to this divisiveness. Paul knew that sometimes, correcting those who err is what leads to healing and unity. The faction in Corinth which was causing the problems believed in a hyper-spiritual form of Christianity. These “spiri-tual elites” are referred to throughout Paul’s letters as “the spiritual [ones]” (Gk., pneumatikoi). They believed they had special knowledge and wisdom from God, special gifts from the Holy Spirit, and special insights into death and resurrection. This sort of hyper-spirituality led them to make a dualistic division between the physical realm and the spiritual realm, so that anything they did in the flesh did not affect their spirit, and vice versa. Such a belief had devastating con-sequences on the behaviors of the Corinthian believers, so that one of their leaders was even hav-ing sexual relations with his mother-in-law, and they were all proud about it (1 Cor 5:1-2).

It is within this context that 1 Corinthians 2 must be read.0 Paul is trying to show them where true wisdom comes from, and how people learn about the things of God. Within the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 2:14, Paul talks about three types of people: the natural–soulish (Gk., psuchicos) man (2:14), the spiritual (Gk., pneumatikos) man (2:15), and the carnal–fleshly (Gk., sarkinois) man (3:1).

These three types of people reflect the three part of a person which we looked at in the discus-sion of Romans 7. But one should not read into these three divisions some sort of classification about whether or not people have eternal life. After all, though many identify the spiritual man with those who have eternal life, and the fleshly man with those who do not, what then are we to do with the soulish man? Instead, it seems best to see that Paul is talking about how all people learn spiritual things, whether they are regenerate or not. And how is that? People learn spiritual things through their spirit. Spiritual truth is spiritually discerned.

This is why, Paul goes on to say, he could not teach the Corinthians very much when he was with them previously. When he was there, they were operating out of their flesh, and so he could only provide them with milk teaching, not solid food for the mature (1 Cor 3:1-2). And indeed, though they now believe they are super-spiritual, Paul says they are still carnal, for they exhibit all the signs of operating through the flesh.

Again, all of this goes back to an understanding of how a person functions. The soul is the an-imating principle of a person, and it can operate through the spirit or the body. Since the soul is the seat of the imagination, memory, reason, and emotions, when a soul functions through the spirit, we can talk of a person being spiritually minded. But when a person operates through their flesh, they are carnally minded. Paul is saying that the Corinthian believers, though they have the Spirit of God, are carnally minded (1 Cor 3:1-17).

0 Understanding the context of 1 Corinthians is also dependent in large part upon the realization that in this letter to the Corinthians, much like in his letter to the Romans, Paul is using epistolary diatribe argumentation. Throughout this letter he uses slogans and teachings of real (and imaginary) objectors, so that he can then use their teachings as a learning opportunity for all. First Corinthians 2:15 is likely one of these “slogans” or quotes from the interlocutor Paul is refuting. See Timothy A. Brookins, “The Wise Man among the Corinthians: Rethinking Their Wisdom in the Light of Ancient Stoicism and Studies on Ancient Economy,” Ph.D. Dissertation at Baylor University, May 2012. See also Denny Burk, “Discerning Corinthian Slogans through Paul’s Use of the Diatribe in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20,” BBL 18:1 (2008), 99-221.

This then brings us back to 1 Corinthians 2:14. When Paul says that the “soulish” man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, he is simply saying that the soul of a person, by itself, with only imagination, memory, reason, and emotions to guide it, cannot grasp spiritual truth. Spiritual truth is learned through the spirit. Spiritual truth is not learned through the soul, nor through the flesh, but only through the spirit. Of course, as we saw in the discussion of Romans 7, the unregenerate person is spiritually dead, which means their spirit is separated from God and thus, they cannot properly receive spiritual truth from God until they receive a new Spirit, which is the Holy Spirit.

So in 1 Corinthians 2:14, Paul is simply saying that spiritual truth is not a product of reason, imagination, or emotions. Spiritual truth is spiritually discerned. That is all Paul is saying. Speak-ing to the Corinthian believers as he was, Paul is inviting them to not seek to learn about God by their reason and emotions alone, but through the Spirit of God which was in them. Of course, this does not set aside reason and emotions either, for these can operate through the spirit to discern spiritual truth.

The bottom line is that Paul is giving a warning to believers in 1 Corinthians 2:14 to not de-pend solely on their imagination, reason, or emotions to learn about God. In this way, though im-plications for unbelievers could be drawn from 1 Corinthians 2:14, this verse is not primarily about unbelievers at all.

This is partly why the NIV translation of 1 Corinthians 2:14 is so tragic. I indicated earlier that the NIV translation of the Bible leans heavily toward Calvinistic thinking and theology, and 1 Corinthians 2:14 is an example of one such place. Where most Bible translations accurately translate the Greek as saying something along the lines of “The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God,” the NIV reads Calvinistic theology into this verse, and assumes that the natural man does not even have the Spirit, and so translated the verse this way: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God.” But as pointed out earlier, the “natural man” might be better translated as “soulish man” and has nothing what-soever to do with whether this “man” has the Spirit of God or not. The soulish man is simply contrasted with the spiritual man and the carnal man of the following verses, showing the three realms within which a person can dwell.

William Barclay sums up the message of 1 Corinthians 2:14 quite well:

So in verse 14 Paul speaks of the man who is psuchikos. He is the man who lives as if there was noth-ing beyond physical life and there were no needs other than material needs, whose values are all physical and material. A man like that cannot understand spiritual things. A man who thinks that nothing is more important than the satisfaction of the sex urge cannot understand the meaning of chastity; a man who ranks the amassing of material things as the supreme end of life cannot under-stand generosity; and a man who has never a thought beyond this world cannot understand the things of God. To him they look mere foolishness.0

The natural man, or soulish man, then, is not the man without the Spirit, or even the carnal man. The natural, soulish, man is simply referring to the person who relates to life solely through his intellect, emotions, and will, without regard to spiritual truth. While this may describe many people who are unregenerate, it by no means describes them all, and in fact, accurately describes quite a few Christians as well. A person who has the Spirit of God can be a soulish man just as much as one who does not have the indwelling Spirit. Numerous other lines of evidence could also be drawn out from this verse to show that Paul is saying nothing whatsoever about the unre-

0 {Barclay, 1969 #723@28}

generate person’s inability to understand or believe the gospel. For example, it could be argued that the “things of the Spirit” that Paul is referring to are about the deeper truths and mysteries of the gospel that Paul has been referring to previously in 1 Corinthians 2:9-15.0 This would then have nothing to do with whether or not the unregenerate person could understand the offer of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, and believe in Him as a result.

Furthermore, it could also be argued that when Paul says the natural man “does not” receive the things of the Spirit of God, “nor can he know them,” he is not referring to an inherent inabil-ity to do so, but rather to an antagonistic mindset that refuses to seek the truth and understand these things. Why would a person refuse to seek the truth and understand the gospel? Because men love darkness rather than light (John 3:19). As Paul writes elsewhere, the mind that is set on the flesh (rather than the Spirit) is hostile and antagonistic toward God (Rom 8:7). People know that seeking the truth, believing in God, and following Jesus will require them to change their lives, and most are unwilling to do so. Paul’s “soulish man” is simply the person who does not obey the truths of the gospel because they are unwilling to learn the truths of the gospel.

Most dangerous of all was a mindset that was prevalent within the Corinthian church, which is also quite prevalent in various forms of the modern church, especially among those sorts of groups (like Calvinists and Charismatics) that require some sort of special knowledge, experi-ence, gifting, or insight into the “deep things” of God in order to truly grasp the gospel and be used by God. This sort of teaching was part of the Gnostic heresy in the early church, but has worked its way through numerous forms of the modern church as well. On this subject, Philip J. Lee writes this:

Americans in the two opposing strains of Protestantism, the evangelical and liberal, along with many adherents of Pentecostal and holiness cults, would agree that religious knowledge is special knowl-edge that cannot be taught or learned by ordinary means.0

Can unbelievers understand the Scriptures? Of course they can. We are not Gnostics, and the Bible is not a book of mysterious magic and arcane knowledge which can only be grasped by ini-tiates who have the sacred decoder ring. No, while understanding the Scriptures certainly takes serious effort and years of study, it can be understood and grasped by anyone who seeks to do so. To say that only the “elect” or only a special class of gifted Christians can understand the Scrip-tures is to fall into the ancient error of Gnosticism. Paul does not fall into this error, but instead says that if one is to understand spiritual truth, it must be spiritually discerned, which means that it must be studied through the use of the spirit.

So in the end, 1 Corinthians 2:14 is not about an unbeliever’s inability to understand the things of God, but about the incapacity of reason and emotions to understand the things of God on their own. When properly paired with the Spirit, the soul, or mind, of a person can grasp and understand spiritual truth.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4It is common among Calvinistic teachers and authors to say that the reason unbelievers cannot believe the gospel is because their minds have been darkened by the god of this age. The primary proof text for this idea is 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

0 {Vance, 1999 #642@231} 0 {Lee, 1987 #1049@113}

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the im-age of God, should shine on them (2 Cor 4:3-4).

Calvinists focus in the statement about the minds of the perishing being blinded by the god of this age, and from this, teach that unregenerate people need the divine gift of regeneration before they can believe the gospel. Here is one such explanation:

Since men are blind to the worth of Christ, a miracle is needed in order for them to come to see and believe. Paul compares this miracle with the first day of creation when God said, “Let there be light.”0

But if this is not what Paul is teaching in 2 Corinthians 4:4, what is he saying? First, as with all the other passages which Calvinists quote, it is critical to understand the sur-

rounding context. In the immediately preceding passage, Paul is explaining that the new covenant in the Spirit has replaced the old covenant of the law (3:6). He goes on to say that even though the new covenant is exceedingly more glorious than the old covenant, the Jewish people do not accept it because their minds have been veiled (3:14-15). In fact, Paul even says that their minds are veiled regarding the proper way to read the Old Testament as well (3:14). The only way to read the Old Testament, he says, is through Jesus Christ. If someone does not believe that Jesus is the Christ, the veil remains.

This helps us understand what Paul is referring to when he says in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 that the gospel is veiled to those who are perishing, and their minds are blinded. While Paul could be re-ferring primarily to the Jewish people who are still unable to properly read and understand the Old Testament because they do not read it through the lens of Jesus Christ, it seems more natural to read Paul’s statement in light of his ministry to the Gentiles. “The ‘veil’ doesn’t just apply to Jewish people … it applies to people of all sorts.”0 Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, undoubt-edly ran up against this blindness on numerous occasions, and he is providing a brief explanation here for why some people do not respond to the gospel when it is proclaimed to them.

Paul, however, does not say that these people can never believe and will never believe. Quite to the contrary, Paul has clearly stated how the veil is removed, thereby implying that it can be removed. How is this? Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 2:16 that “when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” While initially it might seem that Paul is referring to the initial act of faith in Je-sus Christ by which people receive eternal life, the following verse shows that this is not at all what Paul is referring to.

In 2 Corinthians 2:17, Paul clarifies that “the Lord” he has just mentioned in verse 16 is not Jesus, but the Holy Spirit. He says, “Now the Lord is the Spirit.”0 What this means is that when Paul talks about blindness and the veil in 2 Corinthians 2–3, he is not talking primarily about how a person receives eternal life by faith in Jesus Christ, but about all the other truths of the gospel which are contained in the rest of Scripture, and which are centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ. The “gospel,” remember, is not simply the message that eternal life is given to those who believe in Jesus for it. This truth is central to the gospel, but it is not the en-tirety of the gospel. The biblical gospel contains everything related to the person and work of Je-sus Christ and the ramifications of these truths for our lives as His followers.

0 {Piper, 2014 #1107@34}0 {Wright, 2004 #1138@42} 0 N. T. Wright argues that the Spirit of the Lord is active in the fellowship of the saints, and this is where and

how the veil is removed. See {Wright, 2013 #1139@II:726}

With all of this in mind, what Paul is saying is that nobody can understand the gospel unless they turn to the Holy Spirit for illumination and guidance. Once we do this, He not only removes the veil from our minds, but also helps us live out the truths of the gospel so that we are trans-formed “from glory to glory” (2 Cor 3:18).

In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul is saying that people who do not want to see the glorious truth of the gospel will remain darkened in their mind because the god of this age is certainly not going to reveal it to them. If they want to understand the gospel, all they need to do is turn to the Spirit of God for understanding, and he will remove the veil from their hearts and the blindness from their eyes so that they might be understand and obey the gospel of God. “Paul knew that … the gospel could and did pierce the veil.”0

That this is the proper way to read 2 Corinthians 4:4 is supported by the verse itself. Paul writes that those who are perishing “do not believe, lest the light of the gospel … should shine upon them.” Paul does not write that they do not believe because they cannot believe, or because the god of this age is preventing them from doing so. No, Paul says they do not believe, because they do not want the light of the gospel to shine into their lives, thereby calling them to submit to Jesus Christ and Lord and follow Him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Paul is not the only one to make this sort of statement in Scripture. The Apostle John writes similarly in his Gospel, where he explains that although Jesus came unto His own people, they did not accept Him (John 1:1-8). And why did they not accept Him. John explains why later. He says that they did not accept Him because their deeds were evil and they loved darkness rather than light (John 3:18-21). They did not want the light to shine in their lives, because they knew that if it did, they would have to change their beliefs and their behaviors, and so they chose to re-main in darkness. Nevertheless, such a condition is not permanent. Jesus himself says that veil of darkness can be removed when the gospel is preached (John 6:45). All of this is exactly what Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 3–4.

Ephesians 2:1-3The passage that is used most frequently to defend the idea of Total Depravity is Ephesians 2:1-3 where Paul writes about people being dead in sin.

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others (Eph 2:1-3).

Due to the popularity of this passage among Calvinists, it would be possible to produce scores of quotes from various authors and writers who quote this text as proof for their doctrine of Total Depravity and total inability. I have already listed several of these quotes in the section above about how Calvinists understand the phrase “dead in sin,” so let me provide just a few additional quotations here which are fairly typical of how Ephesians 2:1-3 is understood.

The Calvinist often equates Paul’s image of being dead in sins for total inability.0

To be dead in sin is to be in a state of moral and spiritual bondage. By nature we are slaves to sin.0

0 {Wright, 2004 #1138@42} 0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@16-19;Spencer, 1979 #1101@35}0 {Sproul, 1997 #674@130}

Now it will surely be admitted that to be dead, and to be dead in sin, is clear and positive evidence that there is neither aptitude nor power remaining for the performance of any spiritual action.0

Boice writes approvingly of John Gerstner’s idea that unregenerate humans are like zombies:

John Gerstner … compared Paul’s description of our sinful state to what horror stories call a zombie. A zombie is a person who has died but who is still up on his feet walking around. It is a gruesome concept, which is why it appears in horror stories. But it gets worse. This upright, walking human corpse is putrefying. It is rotting away, which is probably the most disgusting thing most people can imagine. But this is a fair description of what Paul is saying about human nature in its lost condition. Apart from Jesus Christ, these sinning human corpses are “the living dead.”0

The basic approach to explaining Ephesians 2:1-3 is to focus on the phrase “dead in trespasses and sins” and then draw an analogy from this that just as physically dead people cannot do any-thing, so also, those who are “dead in sin” cannot do anything spiritually. Those who are dead in sin are incapable of doing anything good, of comprehending the things of God, or of believing in Jesus for eternal life. In order to do these things, the Calvinist contends that the person who is dead in sin must first be regenerated by God, and only then can they believe in Jesus or obey God in any way.

Since Calvinists focus on the word “dead” in their quotes, the best way to approach Ephesians 2:1-3 is to similarly focus on this word to see what it means. In the New Testament, the word “dead” (Gk., nekros) means “lifeless, useless, or separated.” Never does it mean “nonexistent.”0 Very rarely does it refer to something that is completely unable to act. So, for example, the prodigal son was “dead” to his father while he was separated from him (Luke 15:24, 32). While the prodigal son was in the far country, he certainly existed and was certainly active, but was not functioning properly in his role as a son. In James 2, which we will look at later in this book, faith is described as “useless” and “unprofitable” when it is separated from works. Dead faith is not a nonexistent faith, but a separated or useless faith. This means that even Christians can have dead faith. This idea is brought out by the Apostle John as well in the last book of the Bible, when he records the Letters to the Seven Churches. In Revelation 3, even living Christians can be described as “dead.” In the Letter to the Church of Sardis, the Christians are described as having life, but being dead, because there was a problem with their works (Rev 3:2-3). In all these examples, the word “dead” can be best understood as “separated,” or “ineffective and use-less at its intended purpose.”

Once we begin to see that this is the definition of “dead” in Scripture, we can discern at least seven different kinds of death (or separations) in the Bible. There is spiritual death, where the spirit is separated or cut off from God, and so is ineffective or useless in helping the person con-nect with God and live as they should (cf. Gen 2:17). There is physical death, which is where the body is separated from the soul and the spirit (Heb 9:27; John 11:11-17). It is physical death that most people think of when they refer to “death.” Thirdly, there is eternal death, which is when a person is separated eternally from God (Rev 20:14; Matt 25:46). There is positional death, which occurs when believers die to sin as a result of undergoing death and resurrection through Jesus Christ (Rom 6:3-6; Gal 2:2). There is relational death, which occurs when we are separated from friendships and relationships as a result of sin (Luke 15:24; 1 Tim 5:6; Rev 3:2-3). Sixth, there is an operational death, which is when we are unable to function and operate for our intended pur-

0 {Boettner, 1932 #1103@65-66}0 {Boice, 2002 #676@74}0 {Vance, 1999 #642@220}

poses because we rely upon works of the flesh or refuse to act upon what we believe (Jas 2:14-26; Heb 6:1; 9:14). Finally, there is sexual death, which occurs when a person’s sexual organs are no longer able to function as they were intended (Rom 4:17-19).

As can be seen, in every single case, good synonyms for “death” might be “separation” or “uselessness.” Spiritual death is separation from God, or uselessness for God. Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body, and when this happens, the body become useless. Eter-nal death is separation of the body, soul and spirit from God forever. Positional death is separa-tion of the believer from what he used to be in the old man, so that in our new man, are no longer useful for sin, death, and the devil. Relational death is the separation of fellowship from friends, family members, and even from God. Operational death is separation from right living, and a right testimony toward others. Finally, sexual death is a separation from the ability to physically reproduce.

Obviously, none of these uses of the word “dead” in Scripture imply “total inability.” Quite to the contrary, we often find that after people are described as being “dead” in one of the ways listed above, they are then invited in the following context to turn from death and practice life. So in passages like James 2:14-26 and Revelation 3:1-6, people are called to reverse their state of death by energizing their faith or repenting and returning to the way they used to live. At the same time, when Paul writes that in Christ we are “dead to sin” (Rom 6:3-6; Gal 2:2) this does not mean that Christians have a “total inability” to sin, or that there is no sin in the Christian’s life. Far from it! We all sin every day. What Paul means is that the Christian is separated from sin. We are no longer ruled by sin. We are no longer in bondage to sin. But we do still sin, as ev-ery Christian knows.

All of this helps us better understand what Paul is saying in Ephesians 2:1-3. In Ephesians 2:1, where Paul says that as non-Christians, we were “dead in trespasses and sins,” he is not say-ing that we are unable to believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life, or that the capacity for faith is non-existent. Rather, Paul is simply (and clearly) saying in Ephesians 2:1 that as non-Christians we were separated spiritually from God. As we saw in the discussion on Romans 7:15-20, those who are spiritually dead are separated from God and cannot interact with Him as they were meant to. But this says nothing about their ability or lack of ability to do anything good, let alone their ability or lack of ability to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

Quite to the contrary, in the immediately following verses, Paul writes that when we were dead in our trespasses and sins, God made us alive in Jesus Christ. How did this happen? It was not by regenerating us prior to us believing in Jesus for eternal life, but the other way around. Af-ter stating that God made us alive in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:5), Paul explains that this life is given to those who believe (Eph 2:8). Yes, the offer of eternal life by grace through faith originated with God (we will look at the so-called “gift of faith” of Ephesians 2:8-9 in the next section), but the fact remains that the way to be transferred from death to life is not by waiting for God to regen-erate us, but rather by believing in Jesus for eternal life.

We know that is what Paul means because he later calls on people to wake up and rise from the dead so that Christ may give them light (Eph 5:14). If Paul really meant that the dead cannot wake from their sleep, cannot see the truth, and cannot hear the Gospel, how then could he call on the dead to wake up and respond to the offer of eternal life in Jesus Christ? He could not logi-cally do so. For Paul, those are dead in trespasses and sins can remedy their situation by respond-ing to the call of the Gospel and believing in Jesus for eternal life. When this happens, God sends light and life into their heart and mind, so that they can respond further, and live in the way God desires for them.

So the one who is “dead in trespasses and sins,” is not unable to respond to the Gospel or be-lieve in Jesus, for “dead” does not mean “non-existent” or “unable,” but refers instead to the sep-aration from God that the unregenerate person experiences. Paul himself described their condi-tion earlier, when he said they were “strangers … without God … far off … alienated from the life of God” (Eph 2:12-19; 4:18). These sorts of synonyms reveal that being “dead in sins” is not inability but separation. Nor is their situation is hopeless, for Paul invites those who are dead to awake, arise, and believe (Eph 5:14; 2:8-9).

Ephesians 2:5, 8-9Part of the doctrine of Total Depravity is the idea that God regenerates people before they be-lieve in Jesus (regeneration precedes faith). If you have never encountered this Calvinistic idea before, let me try to summarize it for you. The logic is as follows:

First, as sinful, unregenerate human beings, people can do nothing good for God, nothing to earn or merit eternal life, and nothing which might put them in God’s good graces. Frankly, I agree with this, as do most Christians. It is because Calvinists use this widely-accepted Christian idea that their system of beliefs gains acceptance as well. Usually, once a Calvinist is able to gain assent to this first idea of their doctrine, they quickly move on to the second main point of Calvinism, that of Unconditional Election. We will look at this point in the next chapter, but for now, we need to slow down and consider several steps within the Calvinistic logic which occa-sionally go unmentioned.

Based on the idea that a person cannot do anything good to please or appease God or to earn eternal life, the Calvinist, if pressed, will say that this includes faith. They would argue that “be-lieving in Jesus” is a good thing, and since we cannot do anything good, we cannot even believe in Jesus. In this way, they are saying that faith is a good work, or that faith is meritorious. Earlier in this chapter we looked at several Calvinistic quotes which stated this very thing. But of course, this is exactly where the discussion of Total Depravity begins to get off course. Faith is not a work, and is not meritorious. We will see why later in this chapter, but for now, let us continue to follow the Calvinistic logic.

Following on the idea that faith is meritorious, and therefore impossible for an unregenerate person to do, Calvinists nevertheless recognize that there are scores of passages all over the New Testament which call unbelievers to believe in Jesus for eternal life. So they say that since God requires people to believe in Jesus for eternal life, but knows that they cannot, God Himself gives the “gift of faith” to people so that they can then believe in Jesus. They have a couple texts they use to defend this idea, one of which is Ephesians 2:8-9, which will be considered below.

Some people object, of course, to the idea of God giving the gift of faith to unregenerate peo-ple, for if unregenerate people can do nothing good—not even believe—then the gift of faith to unregenerate people is worthless, for the unregenerate person would be able to do nothing with it. In other words, if unregenerate people can do nothing good, then they cannot believe even if God gives them the gift of faith. So to solve this problem, the Calvinist says that “regeneration precedes faith.” In other words, God regenerates a person before they believe, in order that they can use the gift of faith which He gives to them. Again, there are numerous quotes above in the section called “Regeneration Precedes Faith” which allows Calvinists to explain this idea in their own words. No matter how it is explained, however, this idea is more blatantly wrong than any of the other logical steps leading up to it. Scripture everywhere states that people are given life (or regenerated) in response to their faith; not as a precondition to it. In Colossians 2:12, for ex-ample, Paul states that we were raised with Christ (that is regenerated, or “made alive,” 2:13), through faith (cf. John 3:16-17; Acts 5:32; 15:7-9; 16:30; 1 Pet 1:22). People are regenerated by

God because they believe; not so that they can believe. One of the key texts to support his idea is Ephesians 2:5.

Though many Calvinists use Ephesians 2:5 and Ephesians 2:8-9 to teach that “regeneration precedes faith” and “faith is a gift of God,” a careful examination of these texts reveals that they teach the opposite. The understanding of both texts builds upon what Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:1-3, which we looked at in the previous section. If you do not recall how those verses are to be understood, you may want to go review that section before reading further in this one.

Here is what Paul writes in Ephesians 2:5, 8-9:

[God] … even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) … (Eph 2:5).

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast (Eph 2:8-9).

To begin with, Ephesians 2:5 does seem to support the idea that regeneration precedes faith. After all, Paul has just explained that even though all of us were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1, 5), and now he says that God, out of His great mercy and love, made us alive together with Christ. There is no mention here of faith in Jesus Christ, but only the grace of God.

However, this is a classic example of a verse that, when taken out of contexts, sounds like it is teaching the opposite of what it really is. God’s activity in salvation is the theme of Ephesians 2:1-10. In this passage, Paul takes his readers from the depths of sin in Ephesians 2:1 to the heights of God’s righteous plan for our lives from before the foundations of the world in Eph-esians 2:10. The “salvation” in this passage, by the way, fits the same definition we saw earlier in this book. Salvation in Ephesians 2:1-10 is not simply justification or receiving eternal life, but also includes sanctification (Eph 2:10) and glorification (Eph 2:6).

So when Paul writes in Ephesians 2:5 about God raising us up in Christ, he is not stating ev-erything there is to know about being raised up to new life, but is simply introducing a theme which he will explain further in the following verses. After a brief explanation about what this life in Christ, this “salvation” entails (Eph 2:6-7), Paul picks back up the “by grace you have been saved” statement in Ephesians 2:8-9 and explains it further. And what is it Paul says? He modifies what he wrote in Ephesians 2:5 by pointing out four additional things about this life which we received by the grace of God: He says this life is also (1) through faith, (2) is not of yourselves, (4) it is a gift of God, and (3) is not by works.

You may notice a bit of a chiastic structure in these four items, where “through faith” is fur-ther explained by “not by works” and “not of yourselves” is further explained by “it is a gift of God.”

Main Point: By grace you have been savedA Through FaithB Not of yourselvesB' The gift of GodA' Not by Works

This helps us see several beautiful things about Paul’s point. First, by clarifying as he has about how this life is received, Paul clearly puts faith prior to regeneration. By stating that we are “saved through faith,” Paul indicates that faith is a condition to receiving new life in Christ. Yes,

there would be no life whatsoever without the grace of God, but in the same way, God does not force His life on others without them first believing in Jesus for it. Regeneration does not pre-cede faith; faith precedes regeneration.

Secondly, Paul is clearly contrasting faith and works, as he does elsewhere in his writings (cf. Rom 4:4-5). As seen above, Calvinists sometimes argue that faith would be meritorious if people could believe in Jesus for eternal life, and therefore, faith is a work. Paul does not agree. By con-trasting faith with works, Paul shows that the life we receive from God is not by works, but it is by faith. If faith were a work—even if it was a work of God—Paul’s point would be reduced to gibberish for he would be saying that salvation is not by works but it is by the work of faith. When we allow the clear contrast between faith and works to stand, Paul’s points is clearly seen. Yes, we cannot in any way work to earn or merit eternal life in Christ. We can, however, believe in Jesus for eternal life. Faith is not a work, but it is the avenue by which we receive the life of Christ.

Finally, the middle two items of the chiasm reveal that this salvation package from God did not originate with man, but with God. It is His gift to humanity. As can be seen through compar-ative religion, no human philosopher or religious leader has ever invented the idea that God fully and freely accepts human beings without any effort or work on their part. Instead, every human philosophy and religious system is filled with ideas about working our way back into the good graces of whatever deity is being worshipped, and about pleasing and appeasing the gods who are angry with us. It is about sacrifice, fear, and effort. But not so with the God revealed in Jesus Christ! He gives the salvation package–from sin and death and slavery to exaltation in the heav-ens (Eph 2:1-3, 6-7)—freely, by His grace, without any human works, effort, or sacrifice in-volved. No human could have dreamed this up, but God did, and God gave this revelation to us as a gift.

This then leads us to understand what Paul is referring to when he says “it is the gift of God” in Ephesians 2:8. Again, many Calvinists look at this verse and notice that a few words earlier, Paul mentioned faith, and based on this, argues that “faith is the gift of God.” R. C. Sproul, for example, argues that “The faith by which we are saved is a gift of God.”0 Elsewhere he states that “The rules of Greek syntax and grammar demand that the antecedent of that be the word faith.”0 Despite Sproul’s bold claim, he is exactly wrong. The theology, the Greek syntax, and the grammatical layout of this text demand that the antecedent of the word “that” cannot be “faith.”

In Greek, pronouns must agree with their antecedent in gender and number. English some-what does this with pronouns like “he” and “she” but other pronouns like “they” and “it” are more difficult to determine. No so in Greek. All pronouns in Greek have gender and number, and they must always agree in gender and number to the noun they are pointing to, whether it is mas-culine, feminine, or neuter. In Ephesians 2:8-9, the word “that” (Gk., toutō) is neuter, but the word “faith” (Gk., pistis) is feminine. So also is “grace” (Gk., charis). In fact, if we keep looking for a neuter noun to which the pronoun “that” can refer, we will search in vain. There are neuter nouns in the context, but they make no sense as an antecedent. So when Paul says “and that … is the gift of God,” to what is he referring?

There are five views on how to understand Paul’s statement. First, some just say that Eph-esians 2:8 contains a grammar mistake or an exception to the rule. They argue that contextually, the word “that” refers to faith, regardless of the fact that this contradicts basic rules of Greek

0 ***Sproul, Chosen by God, 1190 {Sproul, 1997 #674@156}

grammar. In this view, Paul is saying, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and faith is not of yourselves, faith is the gift of God.”0 The second view is similar, but argues that instead of “faith,” the pronoun refers to “grace.” Again, those who hold this view must argue that the verse contains a grammatical mistake or an exception to the rule. In this second view, Ephesians 2:8 says this: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and grace is not of yourselves, grace is the gift of God.” Neither option is likely, since this sort of basic grammatical mistake is not found elsewhere in Scripture, nor is there any example of this “exception to the rule” being used elsewhere.

The third view is that Paul is using the phrase “and that” (Gk., kai toutō) in an adverbial way, to add emphasis to “faith.” In this view, Ephesians 2:8 could be read this way: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and it is especially not of yourselves, it is especially the gift of God.” The idea is that Paul specifically and intentionally changed the case of the pronoun to add force and emphasis to what he was writing about faith being a gift. However, in the twenty-two instances where the phrase “and that” is found, none of them change the gender for emphasis. This view seems to be a case of desperately reading one’s theology into a text in order to force it to say what you want.

The fourth and fifth views are similar. Both views note that the neuter demonstrative pronoun “that” (Gk., toutō) can refer to a concept or phrase, rather than to a single word. Where it refers to a multi-word concept, the gender of the pronoun remains neuter, regardless of the gender of the antecedent (cf. Luke 3:20; 5:6; John 11:28; 18:38; 20:20; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor 7:37; Php 1:9, 28; Heb 6:3). Based on this observation, the fourth view is that the pronoun is referring to the entire “by grace you have been saved through faith” concept, and the fifth view is that the pronoun only refers to the concept which Paul has stated twice in the context, namely, “by grace you have been saved” (Eph 2:5, 8).

It seems that one of these two final views is the best, but which? Those who argue for the first view are still able to say that faith is a gift of God to the unbeliever because it too is part of the package of “by grace you have been saved through faith” which was given by God. Of course, even if this fourth view is correct, it does not necessarily require faith itself to be a gift of God. If this fourth view is correct, Paul could simply be saying that the gift of God is the entire plan of salvation, which means that God decided before the foundation of the world to make salvation available by His grace and through human faith.

Nevertheless, it seems best to adopt the fifth and final view, for it not only places emphasis on the conceptual phrase which Paul has stated twice, but it also takes notice of the chiastic struc-ture which Paul uses to further explain the gift of God. As seen in the chiastic structure noted above, the parallel statements “not of yourselves … the gift of God” are not explaining “faith” but are explaining “by grace you have been saved.”0 In this case, we once again see that the sal-vation-by-grace package originated with God in eternity past, is received by human faith (not by works), and is not something that we dreamed up, but is a gift of God to all people. This seems to be the best way to understand Ephesians 2:8-9.

In this chapter, then, Paul is not teaching total depravity, total inability, that regeneration pre-cedes faith, that faith is a work, or that faith is a gift. When properly understood in it’s historical, cultural, grammatical, and contextual contexts, Ephesians 2 is a chapter which does not defend the Calvinistic system of theology, but disproves it at every turn.

0 Note that in this example (and those that follow), I include the phrase twice in verse, even though the Greek pronoun toutō is only stated once. This is to help smooth the translation from Greek into English, for though the pro-noun is only used once, it has two dependent clauses.

0 ***Lopez, article, 271-273

Ephesians 4:17-19This text from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is often quoted along with 1 Corinthians 2:14, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, and Ephesians 2:1-5 as evidence that the unregenerate person has no ability to understand, comprehend, or respond to the truth of God and the gospel.

This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness (Eph 4:17-19).

Note several things about this passage. First, Paul is calling upon his readers to stop walking in the way that other Gentiles walk. While Paul’s readers are most likely regenerate, Paul’s ex-hortation implies that walking in darkness is a distinct possibility for believers. This will be seen more later when we look at the Calvinistic doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints.

Secondly, however, and more to the point about Total Depravity, it appears that even these Gentiles who walk in the futility of their mind do so because they have chosen to do so. In Eph-esians 4:17-18, Paul strings together several perfect participles, which means that they are depen-dent upon the time of the main verb in his statement. The main verb is the past-tense (aorist) found in Ephesians 4:19 where Paul says that “they have given themselves over.” In other words, this means that the reason these Gentiles are futile in their minds, have their understanding dark-ened, have blindness of their heart, and are past feeling, is because they gave themselves over to lewdness, uncleanness, and greediness.

There is no doctrine of Total Depravity or total inability here. What there is, however, is the all-important biblical message that first we make our choices, and then our choices make us. Paul is saying that the Gentiles of whom he is speaking made the conscious choice to live in sin, and as a result, they have become darkened in their mind, feelings, and understanding. We might say that their conscience is seared, that they live in willful ignorance, and their past choices are reap-ing present results.

Based on this understanding, it only makes sense then, that Paul warns his believing readers to not make the same choices. Choices for sin, though they do not cause someone to lose their eter-nal life once they have it, can cause serious long-term consequences in the life of the believer. Paul wants his readers to put off that old way of conduct, and live their new life in the Spirit with the new man which was created by God for righteousness and holiness (Eph 4:22-24).

Ephesians 4:17-19 is not teaching about Total Depravity or total inability, but about the dev-astating results of choosing sin over righteousness. These truths apply not just to unbelievers, but to regenerate believers as well.

Titus 1:15Though not as common as some of the previously mentioned texts, Titus 1:15 is sometimes ref-erenced as further proof for the doctrine of Total Depravity and its twin, total inability. The text says this:

To the pure all thing are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15).

Pulled out of context, this passage appears to be quite similar to some of the others we have looked at above, and similar arguments could be used to understand Paul’s point. Upon closer in-

spection within the context, however, Paul’s argument contains a surprising point we have not yet specifically encountered. This verse contains a warning about those types of “Christian” the-ologies that condemn other people and other things as being impure and depraved. In other words, although Calvinists sometimes use Titus 1:15 to defend their doctrine of Total Depravity, this verse might actually condemn theologies that include teachings like Total Depravity as being “unchristian.”

To see this, we must understand that Paul was writing a letter to a young pastor named Titus who was ministering in Crete but was facing numerous problems in the church. Chief among these problems were certain teachers who had risen up within the church and were leading peo-ple astray by what they taught. Though we cannot know everything these false teachers in Crete were saying, the context does give some indication about their ideas and words.

Apparently, certain Cretan Christians were teaching the ideas and theology of a group called the “Judaizers.” The Judaizers were not necessarily Jewish in heritage (though many of them were), but might also have included Gentile coverts to Judaism. In Titus 1:10, Paul calls them “the circumcision.” Due to Paul’s emphasis on grace, he encountered opposition from these Ju-daizers almost everywhere he went. His letter to the Galatians is written against the influence of the Judaizers, and there are numerous hints in his others letters about his opposition to their teachings (e.g., Col 2:22).

The main teaching of the Judaizers was that they wanted all followers of Jesus to continue to obey the Mosaic Law. Though these Judaizers considered themselves to be Christians and pro-fessed to know God (Titus 1:16), they believed that Jesus, as a Jew Himself, wanted all His fol-lowers to practice and obey the Law of Moses, including the laws of the Sabbath, the laws of cir-cumcision, and the laws of ceremonial and personal purity.

One of the specific things these Judaizers were teaching was the necessity of keeping the Mo-saic purity laws. The Mosaic Law stated that if a person became unclean through touching a dead body, having an emission of blood, or getting a disease like leprosy, they polluted everything they came into contact with. If someone who was pure touched someone who was impure, the impurity passed to the pure person as well, making both impure. This is why Paul says that “to the defiled … nothing is pure” (Titus 1:15). He is not saying that certain people sin all the time or that they do not and cannot understand the things of God. To the contrary, Paul is referencing a point drawn from Jewish purity codes that impurity passed from that which is unclean to that which is clean, and not the other way around. One who was clean could not cleanse the unclean by touching it, but would instead become unclean himself. As will be seen, Paul does not agree with this idea, but he references it because this is what the Judaizers were teaching.

It appears that these Judaizers in Crete were teaching that everything was impure, everything was sinful, everything was wicked, evil, and depraved, and so in order to remain pure, believers needed to keep themselves separate from the “impure” people of this world. They could not have “impure” friends, could not eat with “impure” Gentiles, and could not spend time with “impure” sinners lest they themselves become impure (cf. the teachings of the Judaizers in Galatians). The Judaizers taught that all unbelievers were impure sinners who should be shunned and avoided.

A specific example of their own teaching is found in Titus 1:12, where Paul quotes one of these Cretan Judaizers as saying that “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” It is extremely unlikely that all Cretans acted this way, and Paul knew it. Such a statement is a preju-diced stereotype. Paul knows this statement is a racist stereotype, which is why he says, “This testimony is true” (Titus 1:13). As Grant Hawley, author of The Guts of Grace pointed out to me, when Paul says this, he is not stating agreement with this blanket condemnation of Cretans, but is

stating that he has accurately reported what one of these Cretan prophets has said. In other words, when Paul writes, “This testimony is true,” he is not saying, “I agree,” but rather, “I am not making this up! He really said that!”

Paul includes the quote from this Cretan Judaizing prophet because he wants to use this false teacher’s own words against him to show how foolish this teaching really is. So after quoting this racist condemnation of Cretans, Paul tells Titus to rebuke the Cretan Judaizers who teach these things (Titus 1:13). Why? Because if all Cretans are liars, evil, and lazy, then this must be true as well of the Cretan Judaizers as well! Therefore, they should be rebuked.

Paul builds on this idea in Titus 1:15, stating that “to the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure.” It is possible the Judaizers were teaching something similar, and it may be that this is another example of where Paul is using a literary technique called epistolary diatribe to quote and refute the false teachers, but either way, Paul’s point is clear. According to a legalistic interpretation of the Mosaic Law (which Jesus Himself rejected time and time again), God’s people needed to stay separate and distinct from the defiled and unclean “sinners” of this world, because eating with them and hanging out with them causes the defilement of the “pure.”

The example of Jesus and the instructions of Paul reveal the exact opposite: that the righteous-ness of God in our lives has a redemptive and reconciling effect on the world. We bring light and love to the world by befriending sinners and living among them with grace, mercy, and forgive-ness. The impure do not defile the righteous, but the righteous help sanctify the impure.

To sum up then, in Titus 1:15, Paul is saying that if the Judaizers are right in teaching that im-purity makes everything it touches impure, then the fact that they are Cretans and all Cretans are liars, evil, and lazy, means that according to the theology of these Judaizers, even their mind and conscience are defiled. In other words, if the Judaizers are right, then they are wrong. If the Ju-daizing theology is correct and that which is impure makes everything it touches impure, then the thought process of Cretan Judaizers is impure for all Cretans are lazy, evil, and liars. And if their thought process is impure, then their theology cannot be trusted either. It too must be wrong.

Paul is not teaching some sort of doctrine of Total Depravity or total inability. Instead, using a brilliant strategy of using his opponent’s teaching against them, Paul shows that those who teach that everybody else is evil and defiled have painted themselves into a theological corner. Their own logic disproves their position. Therefore, it is highly improper to apply Titus 1:15 to the un-regenerate person. This verse is more applicable to the religious teacher who legalistically hangs on to the principles of the Mosaic Law as guidelines for followers of Jesus, and specifically for those who teach that all people are liars, evil, lazy, corrupt, and depraved.

1 John 1:8, 10; 5:19The book of 1 John is popular among Calvinists for multiple reasons, but much of this is due to faulty interpretations of various texts (frequently found in the NIV and ESV), and poor under-standing of some of the key words in 1 John, such as “to know” and “to abide.” Many of these key texts will be looked at in later chapters of this book. There are, however, a few verses that are sometimes used to defend the idea of Total Depravity. Three of these are 1 John 1:8, 10 and 5:19.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8).

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us (1 John 1:10).

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one (1 John 5:19).

The first two texts, 1 John 1:8, 10 do not require much explanation. It is obvious that John is not teaching any sort of doctrine of Total Depravity, but is simply saying that everybody sins, and that if anybody claims to be without sin, they are sinning by making such a claim. No non-Calvinist disagrees with this. Almost all Christians of all types believe that everybody sins. It is a straw-man fallacy and non-sequitur to say that if a person denies the Calvinistic idea of Total De-pravity then they don’t believe that all people are sinners. You can deny Total Depravity and still accept the biblical teaching about the universal sinfulness of humanity.

The third passage quoted above, 1 John 5:19, is sometimes quoted in reference to total inabil-ity. Like 1 Corinthians 2:14 and 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, 1 John 5:19 is used to say that people are under the control of the devil, and therefore, cannot see or understand the truth of the gospel, nor respond to it, for the devil, who controls them, will not allow it. The first thing to note about 1 John 5:19 is that the words “control” or “sway” are not found in the Greek at all. These words are added by the translators in an attempt to make sense of what John writes. The addition of these words is due in large part to a second translation issue in this verse.

The second difficulty with 1 John 5:19 is with the phrase “the wicked one.” Technically, the word “one” in “wicked one” is not there. This is why the King James Version, for example, translates the word as “wickedness” rather than “the wicked one.” The Greek word is a substanti-val adjective, which means that it is an adjective used in the place of a noun. We do this in Eng-lish, as with the Clint Eastwood movie, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” So in 1 John 5:19, translators have to decide whether the substantive adjective (Gk., tō ponērō) is referring a thing (wickedness) or to a being (the wicked one). Those translators that opt for “a being” called “the wicked one” then add additional words to the verse to show how the world lies on the wicked one. They say it lies under “the power” or under “the sway” of the wicked one (NIV, NAS, NKJV). Those translations that opt for a thing, “wickedness,” need no additional words to ex-plain John’s point (KJV, Rheims).

I am generally uncomfortable in adding words to the biblical text to smooth over translations, and so prefer what is found in the KJV on this text. John is saying the world lies in wickedness. It is covered in wickedness. This point would be identical to what John wrote earlier in his letter, that everyone is a sinner (1 John 1:8-10). Even if, however, we accept what is found in the ma-jority of other modern translations, and John is understood to be saying that the world lies under the power, control, or sway of the wicked one, this verse still does not teach total inability for at least two reasons.

First, since the words “power,” “control,” or “sway” are not found in the text, the translator is free to add whatever words he wants to help the reader understand what John is saying. Usually the translator will try to add words that fit best with the overall context of the passage and book, but more often than not, the translator will add words that also fits with their own preconceived theology. This is why the NIV, which is heavily influence by Calvinistic scholars, chose the word “control.” This is the strongest of the possible words that could have been used here, as it implies that Satan is in complete control of this world and therefore, unregenerate unbelievers have no ability to understand, respond, or believe the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The NKJV, however, uses the much more ambiguous word “sway.” This does not imply complete control, but instead is closer to the idea of “influence” or “guidance.” Obviously, I prefer this sort of idea, for it better matches my theology. Calvinists may criticize me for choosing a transla-tion of this text which matches my theology, but that is exactly the point. This verse is ambigu-

ous, and all sides of the debate need to understand that we tend to force our theology upon the text to get it to say what we want, rather than allow it to remain ambiguous and move on to other texts which might be more clear.

Nevertheless, there is at least one additional reason from the context of 1 John for why the Calvinistic teaching of total inability cannot be found in 1 John 5:19. Even if we say that the verse is properly translated as Calvinistic theology requires, and we allow John to be saying that the “whole world is under the control of the evil one,” this does not mean that the whole world is unable to believe in Jesus for eternal life. Earlier in his letter, John has written about the “whole world” and has stated that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). We will look at this verse in more detail when we discuss the Calvinistic idea of Limited Atone-ment, but for now, it is enough to note that even if the whole world lies under the control of the wicked one, Jesus has done what is necessary to liberate the whole world from the evil one so that they can respond to the gospel and believe in Jesus for eternal life (cf. 1 John 5:7-13).

The entire book of 1 John is engaged in this idea about good and evil, light and darkness, truth and error, and John is intent on showing his readers that based on who God is and what Jesus has done for all people, we can choose to live in love, light, and righteousness, rather than abide in hatred, darkness, and evil. That is how to understand John’s final exhortation of his letter. John is not making a statement about Total Depravity or total inability, but is calling upon his readers to “Choose this day whom you will serve.”

1 John 5:1One final text that will be considered in this chapter on Total Depravity is 1 John 5:1. This text is sometimes cited in reference to the Calvinistic idea that regeneration precedes faith. The state-ment in question is found in the first part of the verse, as quoted below:

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God … (1 John 5:1a).

In his article about the Calvinistic teaching that regeneration precedes faith, Dr. R. C. Sproul cites 1 John 5:1 as evidence for this teaching.0 In doing so, he quotes from the NRSV translation of the Bible, which more clearly brings out the point that Sproul is trying to make: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” Note that by translating the verse this way, being “born of God,” or regeneration, seems to precede faith, which in context is the belief that Jesus is the Christ.

R. C. Sproul is not the only Calvinist to have this understanding of 1 John 5:1. The view is quite common. Here, for example, is a quote from leading Calvinistic author and apologist, James White:

And what is the inevitable result of being born of God? Belief that Jesus is the Christ. ...this means that in 1 John 5:1 the belief in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born of Him. ... Therefore, sheer consistency leads on to the conclusion that divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ as well as good works.0

Calvinistic scholars and commentators defend such a view by pointing to the Greek tense in the text. The word for “believe” is in the present tense participle, and the verb for “born” is in the perfect tense. Since the perfect tense can carry the meaning of past action with present results,

0 See R. C. Sproul, “Regeneration Precedes Faith.” http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html Last accessed October 18, 2014.

0 ***James White, The Potter’s Freedom, p.288

and since the participle “believing” is in the present tense, it is argued that being born of God in the past results in faith in the present. It is also pointed out that the perfect tense verb “has been born” is in the passive voice, which means that God alone accomplishes this birth, with no help or requirement from humans.

I don’t want to get too lost in the technical weeds on this text, which would be easy to do, since there is a great debate among top Greek scholars about how to understand the “time” of present participles in Greek. For now, let me just say that 1 John 5:1 is not the only place in John’s writings where he pairs a present participle with a perfect tense verb. In John 3:18, for ex-ample, John quotes Jesus as saying, “He who believes [present participle] in Him is not con-demned [perfect tense verb].” I do not think that even Calvinists would say that people believe in Jesus as a result of not being condemned. To the contrary, according to the Calvinists, the whole world lies under condemnation, and even though they would say that regeneration precedes faith, I have never heard of any Calvinist who claims that being freed from condemnation, or being de-clared “not guilty,” or being justified, precedes faith as well. In the typical Calvinistic ordo salutis (“order of salvation”), while regeneration precedes faith, justification follows faith.

In the more immediate context, 1 John 5:10 is also helpful. John writes that “he who does not believe [present participle] God has made Him a liar [perfect tense].” It seems quite obvious from this verse, that God being made a liar does not precede a person refusing to believe God, but vice versa. When a person does not believe God, it is as if they are claiming that God is a liar. The perfect tense, “making God a liar,” is a result of the present participle, “not believing.”

We could go on and provide numerous similar examples, not just from the writings of John, but from other New Testament authors as well, but we have seen from just a couple of examples that present participles in connection with perfect tense verbs do not clearly indicate anything about the timing of one compared to the other. To say that they do is to read one’s theology into a text in order to get it to say something it does not.

Some Calvinists recognize this, and so avoid the “verb tense” argument and point instead to the Greek word for being born (Gk., gennaō) in 1 John 5:1. They argue that wherever this word is used in 1 John, it produces various results. Along with faith, they say that being born of God produces righteousness (2:29), the ability to stop sinning (3:9), and love for God and others (4:7). In every one of these cases, the verb for “born” is in the perfect tense, matching almost perfectly the tense usage in 1 John 5:1. And since practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, and loving God and others are all results of being born again, rather than conditions to it, it seems that faith also must be a result of being born again, rather than a condition of it.

There is an alternative understanding to 1 John 5:1, however, that does not resort to the idea that regeneration precedes faith. In this first letter of John, he is describing the conditions and characteristics for fellowship with God and with one another (1 John 1:3). He is not giving tests of life or doctrinal and behavioral indicators by which to determine whether or not you have eter-nal life. No, John is writing to believers who are facing an early form of Gnostic heresy and is in-structing them to turn away from that false dualistic teaching, and instead come into a fuller un-derstanding of God who is light and love. In this way, they will have true fellowship with God and with one another.

Related to this, the idea of being born (Gk., gennaō) in John’s letter is the way he is describ-ing the new life which all believers share with God and through which we come to know Him more intimately. The phrase “born of God” which is frequently found in the letter, is not exactly a reference to being justified or having eternal life, but is a way of speaking about the new divine characteristic that is created inside each and every believer. To use Pauline terminology, being

“born of God” is to be new creation, to have a new man (cf. Col 3:9-10). So when John writes about being “born of God,” he is describing the characteristics of this aspect of our life, and con-trasting it with the part of us that is “of the world.” Again, Paul would write about being “of the flesh.”

This helps make sense of what John writes in 1 John 3:9 where he says that “Whoever born of God does not sin.” He is not saying that true Christians never sin, for that would blatantly contra-dict what he wrote earlier in his letter, where he said that everybody does sin, and the one who claims he does not sin is a liar (1 John 1:8-10). Instead, what John is saying in 3:9 is that sin does not come from the “born of God” part of us. Just as God is light and love and there is no dark-ness in Him (1 John 1:5), so also, the part of us that is “born of God” is light and love and there is no darkness in it. The “born of God” part of us does not sin. It cannot sin, because it is born of God. When sin comes, as it always does (1 John 1:8-10), it does not come from the “born of God” part of us, but from the world and the flesh (1 John 2:16).

This helps us make further sense of the various places in 1 John where we read about what it means to be “born of God.” The part of believers that is “born of God” helps us practice right-eousness (1 John 2:29), helps keep us free from sin (1 John 3:9), helps us love God and others, (1 John 4:7), and helps us continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 5:1). When understood this way, it becomes clear that 1 John 5:1 is not referring at all to the initial faith which grants a person eternal life, but rather to the ongoing faith which is necessary for sanctification and godli-ness. Certainly, as believers in Jesus we need ongoing faith, and what would be more natural and right than for the new birth to serve as an instrument of God whereby our faith in Christ grows and multiplies?

The Christians to whom John was writing were already believers, but they were in danger of falling prey to unhealthy teaching about God. In writing to them, John encourages these believers to rely upon their new birth in God for teaching, instruction about righteousness, abiding in faith-fulness, and remembering that Jesus is the Christ, and that by Him, they have life in His name.

So 1 John 5:1 is not a verse which proves that regeneration precedes faith. But nor is it a verse which proves that faith precedes regeneration. John is not concerned with that question at all. In-stead, John is concerned that these genuine believers to whom he is writing—who already have been regenerated, who already have eternal life, and who are already born of God—will abide and remain in that position of being born of God, so that their righteousness, fellowship, and faith will grow and increase daily. He wants them to live in the light they already have, and not be swayed by darkness and lies of the false teachers in their midst.

THE LAST WORD

This chapter began by looking at some of the key ramifications and ideas which are behind the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity. We saw that although Total Depravity seems to be the clear teaching of Scripture, it is the oft-unspoken implications and corollaries of Total Depravity which causes the doctrine to go off the biblical rails. Among these are the ideas of total inability, a lack of free will, and being dead in sin.

One key ramification to the doctrine of Total Depravity is actually three ideas wrapped up as one. Based on the true idea that we can contribute nothing to our eternal life, it is taught that we cannot even contribute faith, because faith would then be a good thing, a good action, or a good work which we were performing. Yet since we must have faith in order to receive eternal life, it

is taught that God must give us faith as a gift. This, however, can only be done if God first regen-erates a person so that they can exercise the faith He gives.

In the conclusion to this chapter, I want to look briefly at each of these concepts one last time and summarize what I believe about each one. Though we have looked at several of the key bib-lical passages above, and I have often stated what Calvinists believe about these texts, I want to state as clearly as I can what I believe the Bible teaches about Total Depravity and its related doctrines. Please note that since these concepts are all so closely related, there will be some over-lap and repetition of ideas in the discussion below.

Total InabilityAs indicated earlier in the chapter, I am in basic agreement with Calvinists that there is no good work by which a person may earn or merit eternal life from God. Though there is much good that unregenerate people do, none of it is meritorious before God. He recognizes their good work and can even praise them for it, but these works in no way help them earn eternal life. Humans do not contribute the tiniest bit to the free gift of eternal life. The free gift of eternal life is given com-pletely by God’s grace. If eternal life is by grace alone, then there is nothing—absolutely noth-ing!—we can do to earn, keep, or prove God’s free gift of eternal life. Eternal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. We are not able to save ourselves or reform our-selves or do anything to produce or secure eternal life for ourselves.

But our complete inability to contribute to our eternal life is quite different from our inability to receive the free gift of eternal life by faith. Believing in Jesus for eternal life is the polar oppo-site of trying to gain, keep, or prove eternal life by our own good works. As such, there is no boasting in faith or merit to faith. If someone freely offered $1 million to a homeless person—or even to another millionaire—it would be ludicrous to say that the recipient of that gift somehow earned the $1 million because they received it with gratitude and joy. Imagine if there was a re-word ceremony for this generous gift, and as the giver wrote out the check for $1 million, the re-ceiver said, “I deserve this $1 million because when it was offered to me, I said yes. I earned this money!” The idea is preposterous. There is no merit or effort of any sort involved in receiving a free gift. “Who would accuse a beggar of working by holding out his hand to receive a dollar bill? No one!”0

Nowhere does Scripture teach the inability of individuals to respond to God’s drawing. In fact one finds just the opposite.0

Some might say that there is merit or effort involved in understanding that a free gift is being offered. In the case of the offer of eternal life, some argue that unbelievers are unable to even un-derstand their condition of being unregenerate sinners, or understand their need of eternal life as a free gift from God, and so while the reception of the free gift of eternal life by faith might not be meritorious, the “work” of understanding the need for that free gift is meritorious. Returning once again to the analogy of the free gift of the $1 million, the Calvinist would say that when the person is offered the $1 million, they either cannot even understand what is being offered, or they deny that they even need it.

In terms of eternal life, before a person can believe in Jesus, they first need to understand that there is a God, that God is righteous, that we are unrighteous, and that God offers His righteous-ness to those who will believe in Jesus for it. Many people must also understand that Jesus is

0 ***Rene Lopez, bib sac article 2660 ***Rene Lopez faith a gift article, 262

God incarnate, lived a sinless life, died on the cross, and rose again from the dead. It is these sorts of truths that a Calvinist says an unregenerate person is unable to understand and believe on their own.

And I would agree. But thankfully, God has not left us on our own. He has sent Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). He has sent the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). He has given us Scripture, by which we can learn more about God’s ways in history and the revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ. He has given us other believers, who may share the truth of the Gospel with us. He has given us cre-ation, which is a visual testimony of His character and power. He has given us a conscience, wis-dom, reason, feelings, and desires, all of which may lead us to the truth. God may even use an-gels, visions, and dreams to impress upon someone the necessity and importance of believing in Jesus for eternal life.

Based on what the Scripture teaches, it seems that all of the things God has given to humanity are sufficient to persuade and convince a person to believe in Jesus for eternal life. While I may disagree that regeneration precedes faith, I wholeheartedly defend the truth that revelation pre-cedes faith. People are able to believe because God has revealed Himself to humanity in numer-ous ways. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17). And the Word of God comes, not just through the pages of Scripture, but through the self-revelation of God in all its forms. God enables people to believe because He has reveals Himself to them. The follow-ing discussions of free will, sin, faith, and regeneration will explain this in more detail.

Free WillThe term “free will” is highly problematic, for in reality, there is no such thing as a “free will.” All our so-called “free choices” are not only influenced by our mental, emotional, and physical state of being, but also by our genetics, the environment in which we live, the situation in which we find ourselves, the relationships in our lives, and even by things like how much sleep we got last night and what we ate for lunch. “Freedom is not the absence of influences.”0

Even God, I would argue, does not have a completely “free” will, for He too is influenced by the Trinitarian Godhead, by His creation, by His goal to glorify Himself, and by His own charac-ter. Though God is the most free being, even His will is not completely free to do anything. For example, He cannot sin, as this would be contrary to His nature. Nor can He do that which is log-ically impossible, such as make a round square or create a rock too heavy to lift. Also, God can-not break the rules He has set up for Himself regarding the governance of His creation. For ex-ample, if He has given humans the freedom to make choices, He cannot stop them from choosing things He does not like.

So rather than “free will,” it might be best to talk about “true will.” That is, can a person make genuine decisions, or are all decisions subject to something like fate or divine predetermination? We will talk more about predetermination and foreordination in the chapters about Unconditional Election and the Sovereignty of God, so I don’t want to use a lot of room to discuss these issues here, except to say that Scripture, reason, and experience all seem to point pretty clearly to the fact that God expects us to make wise choices and holds us accountable for the choices and deci-sions we make. If our decisions were fated or predetermined by God, then God could no more hold us accountable for the decisions we make than we could hold accountable a wind-up toy car for driving off a table if we are the ones who wound it up, put it on the table, and sent it driving off toward the edge. Or to use a more complex example, though most modern people have had

0 {Vance, 1999 #642@202}

the experience of yelling at our computers in frustration for what they do, we all know that the fault is never with the computer, for it is simply doing what we (or some computer programmer) have told it to do.

I would argue further that sin is the greatest proof for the existence of human true will (or free will, if you prefer that term). Why? To begin with, given the facts that God has a will and that sin exists, we are only left with a few options as the origin of sin and evil: We must say either that God willed sin into existence or He did not. We will see in the chapter on the Sovereignty of God that Calvinists are divided on this issue. Most Christians, however, agree that God did not will sin into existence. And if He did not will sin into existence, then it had to have come from some other will—a will outside of God’s will. Sin cannot have come from God’s will, for sin is con-trary to and opposed to God’s will. Therefore, sin must have its origination in a will that is sepa-rate from God, or else God would be divided against Himself. Since all people sin, the will of an individual person must be one such will that is separate from God. Curiously then, the sinfulness of mankind does not disprove the existence of the will of man, but proves it! Self-caused actions founded in the wills of men are the best explanation for the origin of evil.

If, therefore, self-caused actions help account for the origin of evil, then the origin of evil helps prove the existence and reality of self-caused actions. In other words, if there is no true will, we would have no way to explain the origin of evil unless it were attributed to God. But since evil cannot have its origin in God, the origin of evil must be explained through the real de-cisions of God’s creatures. He created beings with true wills, knowing that they might misuse and abuse this amazing gift for the purpose of rebellion, but also knowing that without such a gift, there could be no way for Him to receive the goal and purpose of a true will, namely, true love. God knew that without a true will there could be no true love; and God, desiring to have loving relationships with His creation, decided that the gift of a true will to His creatures was worth the risk.

When Adam and Eve misused their wills in the Garden of Eden by eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, sin entered into the world, and with it came death, decay, and destruction. Earlier in this chapter, in the discussion on Romans 7:15-20, we saw that when Adam and Eve sinned, they died spiritually and sin corrupted their body, which also began to die.0 But what about the soul? Was it corrupted by sin? Did the soul also begin to die? Scripture seems to indicate that the death which affected the bodies and spirits of people, does not affect the soul in the same way. We cannot speak of soulish death the same way we can speak of physi-cal or spiritual death. The reason is because the soul is the “life” of a person. It is the breath of life, the animating principle of a human being (cf. Gen 2:7). To speak of soul death would be to speak of life death, which makes no sense. Though the Bible occasionally speaks of the death of the soul (cf. Ezek 18:4; Matt 16:25-26; Jas 1:21; 5:20; 1 Pet 1:9) these texts do not refer to the death of the soul itself, but to the separation of the body from the soul, which results in physical death.0 When there is no “life” (soul) in the body, the body is dead. Though the soul can live without the body, the body cannot live without the soul.

0 See the helpful discussion by {Olson, 2002 #636@87-97}0 On these texts, see the following articles by Bob Wilkin: “Soul Talk, Soul Food, and Soul Salvation,” http://

www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1991/91dec2.html; “Saving the Soul of a Fellow Christian (James 5:29-20) ,” http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1992/92jan3.html; “Saving Your Soul By Doing Good (James 1:21) ,” http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1992/92feb2.html; “Gaining by Losing (Matthew 16:24-28),” http://www.-faithalone.org/magazine/y1992/92march2.html; “Suffering which results in Abundant Life (1 Peter 1:9),” http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1992/92may3.html. Last accessed October 25, 2014.

All this is to say that the faculties of the soul, which include imagination, memory, reason, and emotions, were not themselves damaged by sin. Certainly, since these faculties of the soul are dependent upon the health of the physical brain, and the brain is dying as a result of being part of the physical body, our imagination, memory, reason, and emotions are not used to their full capabilities. Nevertheless, the soul is able to utilize its capacity to imagine, create, remem-ber, reason, and feel emotions. The will, being an interplay of all of these soulish capacities, is therefore also able to function. It interesting that those who teach the inability of the human will to function almost never teach the inability to function of the imagination, memory, reason, and emotions. Just as these are able to function, so also is the will.

Therefore, it is no surprise that Scripture contains frequent calls for people to exercise their wills in the practice of obedience and righteousness. From the very beginning with Cain, God wanted him to turn from His sin so that He might escape the disastrous consequences of it (Gen 4:7). Through the periods of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Twelve Patriarchs, and into to the days of Moses and the Judges, and into the times of the Kings and the Prophets, God constantly and unceasingly calls on all people to turn from their wicked ways and follow Him (Deut 30:19-20a; Josh 24:15; 1 Kings 18:21; Isa 1:18-19; etc.). Even Jesus, during His ministry, constantly pled with people to leave their sin and follow Him (John 5:39-40; 7:17, 37-38; Matt 11:2-8; 22:3; 23:37-38). The preaching of Peter, Paul, and the other apostles all contained the same message. Even the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit is to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judg-ment (John 16:8-11).

Yet note that although the practice of obedience and righteousness is called for in Scripture, this in no way means that such practices result in eternal life. Even if someone was as good as Mother Theresa or Gandhi, they could not earn their eternal life by their good works any more than could Hitler or Pol Pot by their evil works. I point out the biblical call for people to respond to God, not to say that people can contribute to the reception of eternal life, but only to show that if God expects people to hear His truth and respond, who are we to teach that they cannot do so? Furthermore, if humans do not have free will and are unable to respond to the call of God, then all the calls of God in Scripture are little more than farcical games in which God taunts humans to do something they cannot actually do.

Here then is where we arrive at the point: Just as God calls people to respond to His Word with obedience and righteousness through the exercise of their choices (non-meritorious though they might be) and fully expects them to be able to do so, in the same way, God calls people to believe in Jesus for eternal life, and fully expects them to be able to do so (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

The difference between faith and works, of course, is that while the latter are “works” and no one can have enough works to earn or merit eternal life, faith is not a work, is not meritorious, and does not help a person earn or gain eternal life. Faith is the simple reception of a gift freely offered. Yes, faith is a function of the will, but since the will has the ability to function, it is not unreasonable for God to invite people to believe in Jesus for eternal life. And if it is not unrea-sonable for God, it is not unreasonable for evangelists and missionaries, as they go about loving others and proclaiming the gospel, to invite people to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

If this is the case about the true will of mankind, then how can God guarantee that anyone will actually believe? Is God up in heaven wringing His hands with worry saying to Himself, “I hope they believe and this all works out”? Is God’s plan of salvation threatened when He gave mankind the freedom to believe?

To ask this question is to answer it. If God’s plan of salvation were threatened by giving mankind the freedom to believe, God never would have done it! God is not so impotent and fool-ish as to put Himself and His plan of redemption at risk due to the simple and rebellious wills of mankind. No, like the perfect chess player, God knows that no matter what move His creatures make, He has a wide variety of moves which can direct His creation in the direction He wants it to go. God is so supremely and infinitely wise, He can give genuine freedom to His creatures without any threat or risk whatsoever to His ultimate goals and plans. It is only a foolish god who must control every though, action, word, and deed in order for his plans to not be thwarted. But our God is not foolish. He is wise, loving, kind, merciful, and gracious. He wants everyone to come to a knowledge of the truth, and calls everyone to believe in Jesus for eternal life, which is possible through the will.

The primary objection to this, of course, is that it seems to make eternal life at least somewhat dependent upon humans. In other words, if people do not receive eternal life unless they believe in Jesus for it, and their belief is a function of their own will, then are not humans in some way responsible for their own eternal life, even if faith itself is not meritorious? The answer, of course, is “Yes!” God has given us responsibility. As free beings, we are responsible. He holds us responsible. If we were not responsible, God would not be just in giving eternal life only to a few and sending the rest away into eternal separation from Him. The only way God can avoid the charge of being unjust is to give the responsibility of receiving the free gift of eternal life from Him by faith. But again—and I cannot emphasize this enough!—faith is not a work. Faith is not meritorious. Being responsible to believe in Jesus for eternal life is not at all the same thing as working to gain, prove, or keep eternal life. Faith is not a work, but since God cannot and does not force eternal life upon all people whether they want it or not, He gives to humans the respon-sibility to believe in Jesus for the free gift of eternal life. This is not eternal life by works; this is eternal life by grace along through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

Why then do some believe and others not? Can those who believe in Jesus for eternal life somehow take credit that they were good enough, wise enough, or smart enough to understand the free offer of eternal life and respond by believing in Jesus for it? Can Christians after all give themselves a pat on the back and congratulate each other for being better and smarter than the rest of the humanity? Never! While much of it remains a mystery and I do not know how it will all work out in God’s economy or in eternity, we know from Scripture that each person on earth is given enough revelation from God to respond positively to Him, even if this revelation is only through creation and conscience. This does not mean that what is revealed through creation and conscience is sufficient in itself to grant eternal life to those who believe in what is revealed to them. No, it means that God calls people to respond by faith to the revelation that they have been given, and when they do, God makes sure that they receive further revelation. Romans 1 and other biblical texts state that God has revealed certain truths about Himself in nature so that men are without excuse. I think that as people respond to the revelation they have received, God obli-gates Himself to provide more revelation to them, so that they receive enough revelation from God to either accept the offer of eternal life by faith alone, or to reject such an offer.0

So why does one person believe and another not? If two people hear the same exact gospel presentation, and one believes while the other does not, was there something in the person who believed which made them better or smarter than the one who did not believe?0 I do not have an

0 Jeremy Myers, “What About Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel?” http://www.tillhecomes.org/what-about-those-who-have-never-heard-the-gospel/ Last Accessed October 25, 2014.

0 This exact question is raised by {Sproul, 1997 #674@156} and by his son in ***R. C. Sproul, Jr. Almighty Over All, 156

answer to this any more than the Calvinist has an answer for why God chooses to regenerate some and not others.

Nevertheless, an answer to this question can be attempted. First, even if two people heard the exact same gospel presentation, this does not mean that they both have lived the exact same lives. No two lives are identical. So while one believed and the other did not, this does not make one person better or smarter than the other, but simply means that something about the course of events which led up to hearing that gospel presentation allowed that person to become persuaded of the truth that God gives eternal life to anyone who believes in Jesus for it. Furthermore, sim-ply because one person believes upon hearing a gospel presentation while a second person does not, this in no way means that the second person will never believe. In God’s infinite resource-fulness, this second person also may come to the place where they believe in Jesus for eternal life. Faith has nothing to do with one person being better or smarter than someone else, but ev-erything to do with timing, opportunity, life history, and a whole host of other factors out of our personal control.

If I were to look into my own life, I am tempted to say that I believed in Jesus, not because of anything good in me, but due to a variety of circumstances and situations which include a combi-nation of (1) the Holy Spirit convicting me of sin, pointing me toward righteousness, and warn-ing me of coming judgment, just as He does with everybody in the world; (2) common grace which is shown to all; (3) being born in a “Christian” nation; (4) Godly parenting; and (5) natural and divine revelation being impressed upon me by God and others in my life.

Note that I was not responsible for a single one of these. All of them were out of my control. They all “happened” to me. Other than the first two, which God gives to all people, it could be argued that the people who were not “lucky” enough to have the final three circumstances in their lives are at a distinct disadvantage to being able to believe in Jesus. I would agree. But I also believe that God knows where each person is at, and He knows what circumstances each person is in, and God will hold each person accountable for the revelation they have received (Luke 12:48). Also, as stated above, I believe that God obligates Himself to make more revela-tion available to those who believe and follow the revelation they have been given.

An extended quote from Robert Wilkin provides further insight into why some believe in Je-sus and others do not, and also what God is doing to help all people believe in Jesus for eternal life:

Unbelievers are capable of responding to God. However, no unbeliever would seek God on his own initiative (Rom 3:11, “There is none who seeks after God”). God is drawing all people to Himself (John 12:32, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself”). Because of that, they can respond.

… Unbelievers … are not incapable of seeking God. And, as we have already seen, God’s work in the life of unbelievers does not wait until He opens their hearts. He is continually drawing people every-where to Himself.

God has determined that anyone who diligently seeks Him will ultimately find Him: “He has made from one blood every nation ... so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27); “He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Heb 11:6); “In every nation whoever fears Him and works right-eousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:35).

… God has given enough information for us to know both that God is sovereign and that we are capa-ble of responding to Him. No one is saved apart from God's drawing him and opening his heart. Yet God doesn’t force anyone to be saved and He doesn’t hold anyone responsible for something which he can’t possibly do. All who are born again have freely responded to God’s drawing and have trusted in Christ and Him alone for eternal life.0

All people have the ability to respond to the light of revelation that they have received, and if people respond, God has obligated Himself to make sure that they receive more light so that they too may believe in Jesus for eternal life. This function of the will, though it is the responsibility of a person, is not meritorious in any way, for faith is not a work (Rom 4:5), but is simply being persuaded or convinced about what is true, which, in the case of eternal life, is being persuaded that eternal life is the free gift of God to all who believe in Jesus for it.

Dead in SinThe Bible does teach that people are dead in sin, but this does not mean that unregenerate people can do nothing. Understanding what it means to be “dead in sin” requires looking at what the Bible teaches about how God put human beings together and how sin has affected these various parts. The most common view among people from all theological perspectives is that each per-son consists of three parts: a body (or flesh), soul (or mind), and spirit. Most Calvinists agree with his as well. The area of disagreement centers on what happened to Adam and Eve (and all humans after them) when they sinned. There is also a big debate about whether or not sin is im-puted to subsequent generations of humans, but we are not going to delve into that debate here.

Most Calvinists believe that when Adam and Eve sinned, their entire beings became com-pletely corrupted and depraved. This is what they mean by “Total Depravity.” Whether Calvin-ists believe in three parts (body, soul, and spirit) or two (body and soul/spirit), they believe that every part in its entirety was affected by sin and became incapable of responding in any mean-ingful way to God. We will see in just a bit, however, that although this is what Calvinist’s teach, such an idea is impossible to apply biblically or evangelistically. Along with God, even Calvin-ists call upon unregenerate people to respond to God.

One alternative view to Calvinism (which has been presented in this chapter) is that when Adam sinned, death came upon both the flesh and the spirit. The soul, which is the life of the person, is immortal and does not die. One cannot speak of “soulish death” any more than one can speak of “life death.” The two words are, by definition, logically incompatible and mutually ex-clusive. So while we can say that since the soul operates through the body and the spirit and de-pends upon the proper functioning of the brain, the soul too was affected by sin, it is not theolog-ically accurate to say that the soul is “dead” or “dying.” The soul is not “dead in sin” in the same way as the human body and human spirit.

Nevertheless, due to the deadness of the human body and human spirit, the soul is severely handicapped and limited in what it can do. The soul is where the will resides and as such, the soul (or mind) makes the decisions about what a person believes and how a person acts. It can choose to act through two realms or spheres: the fleshly sphere or the spiritual sphere. Due to spiritual deadness, or separation, the soul is unable to act through the human spirit. The soul can, however, function through the body, but since death and corruption has also entered the body as a result of sin, everything the soul does through the body is tainted and depraved. As a result, the

0 Bob Wilkin, “The Lord Opened Her Heart,” http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1995/95E2.html. Last Ac-cessed October 25, 2014. Cf. also Bob Wilkin, “What About Those Who Die Without Hearing the Message of Christ?” http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y2013/13B3.html. Last Accessed October 25, 2014.

soul can do nothing but sin through the body. This does not mean that every action or behavior is as evil as it possibly can be, but rather, that everything a person does is polluted, stained, and corrupted by sin. Such actions, as good as they might be, have no merit or righteousness before God. On this, Calvinists are absolutely correct.

But to say that all works are tainted and blemished by sin is not the same thing as saying that people are unable to believe what God says about sin, righteousness, judgment, and the free offer of eternal life. Faith is not an act of the either the flesh or the spirit, but is something that happens within the mind (or soul). Faith, therefore, is not disabled by sin. The human soul can believe. Since faith is not a work, but is the opposite of works (Rom 4:5), the soul can respond to the rev-elation which it has received from God. And since God offers eternal life to any person who be-lieves in Jesus for it, the soul of a person is able to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

So while being “dead in sin” does mean that people are unable to obey God, reform their lives, or do anything meritorious regarding salvation, it does not mean that they cannot believe in Jesus for eternal life, for faith, being an aspect of the will which resides in the human soul, is the opposite of works and is the means by which humans received the free gift of eternal life from God.

Spiritual death in the Bible means fallen people are totally separated from God, not completely oblit-erated by Him. They lack spiritual life, but they’re still humans with all their God-given faculties. Isa-iah put it this way: ‘Your iniquities have separated you from your God’ (59:2). In brief, it does not mean a total destruction of all ability to hear and respond to God but a complete separation of the whole person from God.0

This is exactly what was seen earlier when it was suggested that the word “dead” is best un-derstood in Scripture as referring to “separation.” Those who are dead in sin are not unable to act; they are simply separated from God, from each other, and from being whole human beings. Furthermore, the Bible speaks frequently of what those who are dead in sin are able to do. Along with some of the sinful tendencies—such as walking in trespasses and sins, following the course of this world and the prince of the power of the air, living in the passions of the flesh, and carry-ing out the desires of the body and mind (Eph 2:2-3)—unbelievers can also do some positive things—such as act in accordance with their conscience, hear and respond to God (Gen 3:5-13), know the truth about God and understand his invisible attributes (Rom 1:18-20), repent of sins (Luke 15:18-19), seek God (John 3), fear God (Acts 10:2), and even pray to God (Acts 10:2). None of these positive behaviors are meritorious, of course, but they are good actions which can be committed by unregenerate people, and some of these actions may even be used by God to bring the person to the place where they can believe in Jesus for eternal life. In fact, Jesus Him-self says in John 5:25 that the dead can “hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.”

Calvinists, of course, still want to say that if faith is something we “do” or is the human “re-sponse” to God’s free offer of eternal life, then humans are still contributing to their eternal life. They argue further that to be dead in sin means that humans cannot do anything to move them-selves closer to God (which I agree with), including believe in God or God’s offer of eternal life.

I understand the concern, but if we remove “faith” as the proper response of humans to God’s offer of eternal life, what then can we say when people ask, “What must I do to receive eternal life?” In other words, since, according to Calvinists an unregenerate person cannot respond to

0 *** Geisler, Chosen But Free, 63

God in any meaningful way, and cannot even believe in Jesus for eternal life, how then do Calvinists go about presenting the offer of eternal life to those who want to receive it?

Surprisingly, the Calvinist will often give people a whole host of good works to participate in, none of which involve belief! Calvinists typically do not call upon unbelievers to believe in Jesus for eternal life, for according to the Calvinistic teachings on total inability, the unregenerate per-son is unable to believe. So instead, the Calvinist invites the unbeliever to wait upon God for the gift of faith, and as they wait, the unregenerate person is invited to participate in a wide variety of religious activities. William Shedd, for example, writes that since sinners cannot believe the gospel, they should engage in other religious activities while they wait for God to grant them the gift of faith. These spiritual activities include reading the Bible, giving serious application to the truth, and praying for the conviction and regeneration of the Holy Spirit.0 This is a far cry from “Believe in Jesus for eternal life” (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

Calvinistic author J. I. Packer writes in the same vein:

And to the further question still “How am I to go about believing on Christ and repenting, if I have no natural ability to do these things?” it answers: look to Christ, speak to Christ, cry to Christ, just as you are; confess your sin, your impenitence, your unbelief, and cast yourself on His mercy; ask Him to give you a new heart, working in you true repentance and firm faith; ask Him to take away your evil heart of unbelief and to write His law within you, that you may never henceforth stray from Him. Turn to Him and trust Him as best you can, and pray for grace to turn and trust more thoroughly; use the means of grace expectantly, looking to Christ to draw near to you as you seek to draw near to Him; watch, pray, read, and hear God’s Word, worship and commune with God’s people, and so con-tinue till you know in yourself beyond doubt that you are indeed a changed being, a penitent believer, and the new heart which you desired has been put within you.0

So while the Calvinist criticizes the non-Calvinist for calling people to “contribute to their own salvation” by believing in Jesus for eternal life, it is they who tell people that if they want eternal life, they need to look to Christ, speak to Christ, cry out to Christ, confess their sin, cast themselves upon the mercy of Christ, ask Him to grant a new heart, true repentance, firm faith, pray for grace, read the Scripture, worship with God’s people, and continue in such actions and behaviors until God grants “the gift of faith.”

In such a scenario, who really has “contributed” to their salvation? Is it the person who simply and only believes that Jesus has given them eternal life as an absolutely free and gracious gift? Or is it the person who engages in a whole host of spiritual and religious activities in the hopes of gaining the so-called “gift of faith”?

To put it another way, the Calvinist criticizes the non-Calvinist by saying, “If you can believe in Jesus, you are working for eternal life,” but meanwhile, in answer the question, “How can I re-ceive eternal life?” the Calvinist answers, “I prayed, I pled, I read, I turned, I trusted, I repented, I confessed, I worshiped, and I continued in all these actions until God granted me the faith to believe.” Who truly is undermining the free gift of eternal life by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone? I agree with Roy Aldrich who wrote:

A doctrine of total depravity that excludes the possibility of faith must also exclude the possibilities of ‘hearing the word,’ ‘giving serious application to divine truth,’ and ‘praying for the Holy Spirit for

0 *** W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 472, 512, 513.0 *** J. I. Packer, The Quest for Godliness (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994), p. 144. A nearly identical statement is

found in JI Packer, Introductory Essay to John Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/deathofdeath.html

conviction and regeneration.’ The extreme Calvinist deals with a rather lively spiritual corpse after all.0

Maybe the better question is to ask how Jesus invited people to receive the free gift of eternal life? The Gospel of John was written with the purpose of informing people how they might re-ceive eternal life (John 20:31), and over and over in this Gospel, Jesus says that whosoever be-lieves in Him has everlasting life (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47, etc.). The same message is also found in the preaching and teaching of the Apostles in the Book of Acts, and throughout the Pauline Epistles and General Letters. Nowhere is any person ever told that in order to receive eternal life, they must pray, trust, wait, cry out, confess, worship, commune, and hope. Instead, the clear and consistent invitation is that whoever wants eternal life may receive it by believing in Jesus Christ for it.

Though people truly are “dead in sin,” this condition does not stop them or hinder them from believing in Jesus. Quite to the contrary, believing in Jesus is the only proper response to hearing the gospel, and is the only response which an unregenerate person is able to have, and thankfully, is the only response which God looks for and desires. Those who are dead in sin cannot do any-thing to merit or earn eternal life, but they can believe in Jesus, which is the exact opposite of meritorious works, and which enables God to raise the person up so that they are no longer dead in sin, but alive in Jesus Christ.

Faith is Not a WorkThough discussed briefly in the discussion above about free will, it is important to once again emphasize the truth that faith is not a work. It helps to remember the definition of faith which we learned in Part 1: Faith is being convinced or persuaded that something is true. As such, we can-not choose to believe. Faith is not a work and is not meritorious because faith happens to us. We are convinced, we are persuaded, as God reveals Himself to us through His various forms of rev-elation.

With this definition of faith in mind, we see that it is absolutely true what most Calvinists say, that God must take the first step. In fact, God has taken more than just the first step; He has taken the first billion steps. He provides revelation through creation, conscience, Scripture, dreams, vi-sions, and angelic messengers. He sends prophets, missionaries, pastors, teachers, and evange-lists to share the Gospel. He sent Jesus to fully reveal His character and nature to humanity. He sends the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and uses the Holy Spirit to draw all people to Himself (John 6:44; 12: 32; 16:7-11; Acts 16:14, 29-30; 24:25). He sends forth His grace and mercy upon all people (John 1:9; Titus 2:11). He forgives all sin, and is patient, loving, and kind to all. These steps, and countless more specific steps in the life of each and every person, are the sorts of things God has done on our behalf to call each of us to believe in Jesus for eternal life. Human faith, then, is not the first step, or even the millionth step, in the process of coming to God or believing in Jesus for eternal life. People are able to believe in Jesus for eternal life because God has first done absolutely everything that is within His power, made everything available to us by His grace, and flung open the door to eternal life by His will. It is only because of this multitude of “first steps” by God toward us that anyone and everyone who wants to receive God’s offer of eternal life may do so by simply and only believing in Jesus Christ for it.

Once we have believed in Jesus for eternal life, this does not mean that faith has no more place in the life of the believer. Just as we have received Jesus Christ Jesus, so also we must con-

0 ***Roy L. Aldrich, July, 1965 issue of Bibliotheca Sacra “The Gift of God” (pages 248–253).

tinue to walk with Him (Col 2:6). And how is it that we received Jesus? By faith. Future faith builds upon our former faith. Believing simple and elementary things allows us to later believe more difficult and hard things. This is what the Bible means when it talks about going from “faith to faith” (cf. Rom 1:17). But even this ongoing, sanctifying faith is not a work. In order to move from believing one truth to believing another truth, it is true that we must act upon the faith we already have, and pursue the truth that follows. But even this sort of ongoing, sanctifying faith is not meritorious (Rom 4:16). It is simply faith at work; faith that energizes our life. We will talk more about James 2 in the chapter on Perseverance of the Saints, but as a bit of a pre-view, James has been widely misunderstood to be saying that an inactive faith is a non-existent faith, when in reality he is saying that an inactive faith still exists; it is simply unproductive. James does not want unproductive faith. He wants us to act upon our beliefs. James is not saying that faith is a work, nor is he saying the true faith always reveals itself through works. James and Paul are in full agreement: faith is the opposite of works (Rom 4:5), but faith energizes our works (Jas 2:14-26) and leads us on toward greater faith.

So no matter what stage of faith we are talking about, faith is not a work. There are different things people can believe which lead to different results. But no matter what is believed, the faith involved in that belief is not a good work. It is simply being persuaded and convinced about what we have been told. When we believing in Jesus for eternal life, we have become persuaded that Jesus, as the author and finisher of our faith, loves us, forgives us, and freely grants eternal life to us, not because of anything we have done but simply and only because of God’s grace toward us.

Some people object that John 6:28-29 teaches that faith is a work. John MacArthur, for exam-ple, uses John 6:29 in The Gospel According to Jesus to teach that faith is a work, and therefore, not something human beings can accomplish. He says that since faith is a work, it cannot be “merely a human work, but a gracious work of God in us.”0 Several things can be said against this, beginning with what Jesus was actually saying in John 6:29.

In this text, Jesus says “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” From a cursory reading of this text, it certainly seems that Jesus is equating faith with a work. But when the verse is read in context, it shows the opposite. In the immediately preceded con-text, Jesus has told some of His followers that they should “not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life” (6:27). In response, some of the Jewish people who were listening to Him ask, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” (6:27). Jesus answers by telling them that the work of God is to believe in Him, that is, in Jesus (6:28).

Jesus says this, not because He is trying to say that faith is a work, but because He is pointing out to the Jewish people that God was not looking for works, but was looking for faith. Many Jewish people of that day (like many Christians today) were overly focused on pleasing God through the works of the law. By saying that the work God wants is for people to believe in Je-sus, Jesus was saying that the work that God desires is not work at all, but the opposite of works, which is faith. God does not want us to “do” anything for Him, for He has already done every-thing for us. He simply wants people to believe in Jesus for eternal life, thereby recognizing that everything which needs to be done has been done in Jesus.

Beyond even this, however, the idea that faith is a work, and therefore a work of God in the heart of the unbeliever is “a theological fiction which cannot be supported from Scripture.”0 The Bible everywhere contrasts faith and works so that if one attempts to accomplish something by faith, it cannot be said to have been done by works, and vice versa.

0 ***John MacArthur, Gospel according to Jesus, 330 ***Kevin Butcher, “A Critique of The Gospel According to Jesus,” JOTGES 2 (Spring 1989), 38.

Faith involves the abandonment of any attempt to justify oneself and an openness to God which is willing to accept what he has done in Christ. The same applies here in regard to salvation. Faith is a human activity but a specific kind of activity, a response which allows salvation to become operative, which receives what has already been accomplished by God in Christ.0

So faith is not a special sort of human work, nor is it a divine work in the heart of the unbe-liever. Rather, faith is not a work at all. Faith is the opposite of works. Just as we do not receive eternal life by faith and works, so also, we do not receive eternal life by faith that is a work. Just as faith cannot be part of the definition of works, so also, works cannot be part of the definition of faith. The two are not related in any way, but are polar opposites. Both faith and works, by definition, are mutually exclusive. Grant Hawley, in his book The Guts of Grace, says this:

Phrases like, “For by grace you have been saved through faith … not of works …” (Eph 2:8-9), and, “to him who does not work but believes” (Rom 4:5), are complete nonsense, if works are part of the definition of the words faith and believe. If a woman at a wedding reception said, “The one who does not move, but dances, enjoys the reception,” you would wonder if she had had too much to drink be-cause moving is part of the definition of the word dances.0

Faith is being persuaded or convinced that what God says is true. One of the things God says is that He gives eternal life to anyone who believe in Jesus for it. Because of all that God has done in history, through various forms of revelation, and by His Holy Spirit, people are able to believe in Jesus for eternal life. This faith is not a work, but is the opposite of works, and as such, faith is in no way meritorious.

A few words from Clark Pinnock appropriately close out this section:

God’s grace may be genuinely extended to people, but unless it meets the response of faith … it has no saving effect…

The standard criticism leveled against a theology of this kind is synergism. It is supposed to bring into the event of salvation a decisive human work, and thereby destroy its purely gracious character. But this is simply not the case. Faith is not a work at all (Rom 4:16). It is not an achievement and has no merit attaching to it. It is simply the surrender of the will to God, the stretching out of an empty hand to receive the gift of grace. In the act of faith, we renounce all our works, and repudiate completely every claim to self-righteousness. Far from encouraging conceit and self-esteem, faith utterly ex-cludes them (Rom 3:27). … Faith not the condition of grace, which originates in the counsels of eter-nity. Faith is rather the response to grace God calls for through which salvation becomes a reality in the individual concerned. WE are saved by God’s grace through faith.0

Faith is Not a GiftRelated to the idea that faith is not a work is the twin teaching that faith is not a gift. Some teach that faith is unilaterally given by God to certain people. There are several reasons this idea is taught, none of which hold merit. First, some believe that since unregenerate people are “dead in sin,” they cannot even exercise faith. However, we have already seen in numerous ways that al-though unbelievers truly are “dead in sin,” this does not mean they cannot believe. When we study the Bible, we not only see God everywhere calling people to believe Him, and faith is ev-

0 ***Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC, Dallas, Word, 1990, 1110 {Hawley, 2013 #1129@124}0 ***Pinnock, ed., Grace Unlimited, Minneapolis, Bethany, 1975, 15

erywhere ascribed to man, not to God (Matt 9:2, 22, 28-29; 10:52; Luke 7:50; 8:50; 17:19; 18:42; etc.).0

The second reason some people teach that faith is a gift is because they think that faith is a meritorious work. If faith is a good work, and people are the ones who believe, then it logically follows that people contribute some sort of good work to the reception of eternal life. But again, as we have seen in numerous ways above, this problem is easily solved by recognizing that faith is not a work, but is instead the opposite of works. And since faith is not a work, faith is also not meritorious. Therefore, those who are dead in sin can believe, and since faith is not work, all of the arguments for the idea that faith is a gift become logically unnecessary.

Nevertheless, in a vain attempt to defend a doctrine which is required by faulty theology, vari-ous Scriptures are referenced as evidence that faith is a work (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 13:48; 16:14; 18:23; Eph 2:8-9; Php 1:29; 2 Tim 2:25; Rom 12:3; 1 Cor 12:8-9; 2 Pet 1:1). However, a careful analysis of these texts reveals that each one has been pulled out of context and does not teach that faith is the gift of God.0

But aside from not being logical or Scriptural, the idea that faith is a gift of God creates nu-merous practical problems for the thinking theologian. For example, how could demonic activity restrict the faith of some (Luke 8:12; 2 Cor 4:4)? Why is it harder for some people to believe than others (cf. Titus 1:12-13)? What would be the point of the drawing work of the Holy Spirit (John 6:44; 12:32), or of evangelism and missions? Why was Jesus sometimes amazed at peo-ple’s lack of faith (Matt 8:26; 14:31; 16:8)? Why are there so many Christian in Europe and America, and so few in North Africa and the Middle East? On this last question, missiologist C. Gordon Olson writes that if the Calvinists are right about faith being a gift of God, then “one if forced to the conclusion that God is partial and loves Americans more than others.”0

In his excellent article, “Is Faith a Gift from God or a Human Exercise?” René Lopez lists several other theological problems with the idea that faith is a gift from God.0 First, he writes that the idea of faith being a gift from God resembles the sacramentalism of the Roman Catholic Church, in that faith is transmitted from God to men. He correctly points out that this confuses the gift of eternal life from God with the instrumentality of faith, whereby that gift is received.

Second, Lopez says that “if God divinely imparts faith, then human responsibility is nulli-fied.”0 There would be no reason to hold people responsible for believing or failing to believe in Jesus if the unregenerate person cannot actually believe. If God is the one who imparts faith to the unbeliever, then the responsibility to believe lies not with man but with God, and therefore, God can have no basis on which to judge people for failing to believe.

Third, although the Bible calls people to believe in Jesus for eternal life, Lopez points out that if faith is a gift that comes as a result of regeneration, then people should not be called to believe in Jesus (for they cannot), but should instead be called to hope and pray to God that He might re-generate them. Yet although there are numerous calls throughout Scripture for people to believe in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; etc.), there is not only place in Scripture where people are invited to hope and pray to God for regeneration.

The final reason faith is not a gift from God is related to sanctification. If faith is the auto-matic gift of God to those whom He sovereignly regenerates, then it only makes sense that God

0 Cf. {Olson, 2002 #636@225}0 We looked at a few of these texts earlier in this chapter, but for a brief analysis of some of the others, see

***Lopez article, faith a gift? 266-2740 {Olson, 2002 #636@227}0 See ***Lopez, 274-2760 See ***Lopez, 275

also automatically and sovereignly would make sure that they are sanctified in holiness and obe-dience. And in fact, this is what Calvinists teach in their doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. But as we will see in the discussion of this point, such a belief cannot be defended from Scrip-ture, reason, or experience.

If faith is a gift, then many commands in Scripture that exhort, command, prompt, and warn believers to live obediently become superfluous because the ultimate end of infused faith guarantees the sancti-fication of believers without their involvement.0

So for biblical, theological, and practical reasons, we conclude that faith is not automatic, nor is faith the gift of God. Faith comes through hearing the Word of God, through the convicting and drawing work of the Holy Spirit, and through responding to the revelation that one has al-ready received from God.

Regeneration Follows FaithThe final theological ramification of Total Depravity is the idea that regeneration precedes faith. As stated in various ways earlier in this chapter, this idea is the necessary result of the logic of Total Depravity. If people are totally depraved, dead in sin, and have no free will to believe in Jesus for eternal life, then God must give them the faith so that they can believe. But this gift of faith could not be received by someone unless they were first regenerated by God. So the Calvin-ist argues that regeneration precedes faith.

And while we cannot disagree that this is the logical result of consistent Calvinism, it is ex-actly this logical result which shows one and for all that Total Depravity is not taught in Scrip-ture. Total Depravity leads to the belief that people are regenerated by God before they believe in Jesus; but the Bible repeatedly says that faith results in regeneration (John 1:11-13; 20:31; Gal 3:26; 1 Pet 1:23-25). When forced to choose between the logical result of a theological position or the clear teaching of Scripture, we must choose Scripture every time. And of course, if faith precedes regeneration, as Scripture states, then this also calls into question the theological premises which led up to this idea, namely, that people are unable to believe and so God must give them the gift of faith. The Bible teaches that people are able to believe. Faith therefore, is not a work, is not a gift, and results in regeneration, just as Scripture says.

At least 150 times faith is made the single condition of salvation, thus stressing the fact that all the benefits of Calvary’s completed work are withheld until men believe. … Scripture does not teach that faith follows regeneration as some Calvinists would have it. Always in the Bible men are exhorted to believe in order that they might receive eternal life.0

One caveat, of course, is that although regeneration follows faith, faith is preceded by revela-tion. Without revelation, there would be no faith. Faith is a response to the multi-faceted revela-tion of God. While revelation precedes faith; regeneration follows. This was discussed above, and so nothing more needs to be said here.

Some point to Acts 16:14 as evidence that God regenerates people before they can believe. In this text, Paul and Silas met a woman named Lydia on the banks of a river outside of town, and as they explain the gospel message to her, the text says that “the Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.” We will talk about this text more in the chapter on Irresistible Grace, but for now, it is enough to note that the phrase “opened her heart” is an idiomatic way of saying

0 ***Lopez, 2750 ***Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died, 48, 52.

“helped her understand.” Acts 16:14 is not talking about God regenerating an unbeliever so that she can believe, nor is there any mention anywhere about God giving her the gift of faith. In-stead, Acts 16:14 is a verse which shows the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of other people.

John 3 is one of the many texts which clearly reveals that regeneration follows faith. In speak-ing to Nicodemus, Jesus talks about being born again, and being born of water and spirit (John 3:3, 5). When Nicodemus asks how he can enter again into his mother’s womb to be born a sec-ond time (John 3:4, 9), Jesus states that anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life (John 3:15-16). According to Jesus, believing in Him has the result of receiving regeneration unto eternal life.

You Can Believe!One of the main reasons Calvinists object to the idea that people can believe in Jesus for eternal life is that if we make faith a human responsibility, then this seems to make eternal life some-what dependent upon a human effort. But as we have seen over and over in this chapter, faith is not a work. So when God calls us to believe in Jesus for eternal life, this is something that every-one and anyone can do. Besides, if faith is not something we can do, then eternal life is no longer by grace alone through faith alone, but is simply and only be grace alone. While it is appealing to say that eternal life is by grace alone and nothing else, the cry of the Reformation and the center of the Gospel message in the Bible is that eternal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Je-sus Christ alone.

So yes, you can believe! You should believe. God wants you to believe. God calls you to be-lieve. This is just as true for you as it for anyone else on earth.

And by asking people to believe in Jesus, God is not asking people to regenerate themselves, save themselves, or contribute to their own eternal life. No, God has done everything that needs doing when it comes to the free offer of eternal life. He paid the full price so that it might be a free gift to us. When we freely proclaim the gospel as Jesus offered it to His hearers, the com-pelling nature of the free gift of God to all who simply and only believe in Jesus for it is recog-nizable to all as something that no religion on earth has offered, and hence, is no religion at all but is a message that can have its origin only in God. Internationally recognized author and evan-gelist Ravi Zacharias put it this way:

I have found that if you build a proper foundation for what the Christian faith is all about, as you lead up to the cross, the listeners sit in stunned silence. They immediately recognize that Christianity stands in stark contrast to everything that other worldviews affirm and assert. They know that true power is being expressed in the cross …0

As Jesus went about preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and inviting people to believe in Him, thousands responded. In Acts, we read about Cornelius, a God-fearing Gentile, who heard the message of eternal life and believed in Jesus for it (Acts 10:22, 44-48). After Paul and Silas saved the Philippian jailor from committing suicide, they told him and his family about God’s free offer of eternal life, and they all believed (Acts 16:25-34). These sorts of examples are found all over the place in the Bible, and the consistent message and expectation of biblical authors is that anyone and everyone can hear and understand the Gospel, and having heard, believe in Jesus for eternal life. While sin is a universal problem, people are not so depraved that they cannot re-spond to the call of the Gospel and believe in Jesus for eternal life.

0 Ravi Zacharias, “A Conversation with Ravi Zacharias,” in Just Thinking (Spring/Summer 2002), 2.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION IN LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE

(Vance: Other Side of Calvinism, ).(Boettner, Predestination, ). (Seaton, Calvinism, ). (Palmer, Five Points of Calvinism, ). (Sproul, Grace Unknown, ).(Steele & Thomas, Five Points of Calvinism, ).(Hanko, et. al, The Five Points of Calvinism, ).(Piper, 5 Points, ).(Beck, The Five Points of Calvinism, ).(Storms, Chosen for Life, ).(Canons of Dort, I:7).(Calvin, Institutes, ).(Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism, ).(Manton, Commentary on Jude, ).(Westminster Confession of Faith, ).(Berkhof, Systematic Theology, ).(Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, ).(Klein, The New Chosen People, ).(Shedd, Man in Community, ).(Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History, ).(Shank, Elect in the Son, ).

Calvinism, TULIP, Unconditional Election, election, predestination, foreordination,

The Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election is sometimes said to be the heart of Reformed theology.0 It follows logically from the doctrine of Total Depravity.0 Lorraine Boettner links the two doctrines with this explanation:

If the doctrine of Total Inability or Original Sin be admitted, the doctrine of Unconditional Election follows by the most inescapable logic. If, as the Scriptures and experience tell us, all men are by na-

0 {Boettner, 1932 #1103@96}0 {Seaton, 1970 #1104@11}

ture in a state of guilt and depravity from which they are wholly unable to deliver themselves and have no claim whatever on God for deliverance, it follows that if any are saved God must choose out those who shall be the objects of His grace.0

Edwin Palmer concurs:

If men are totally depraved and if some are still saved, then it is obvious that the reason some are saved and some are lost rests entirely with God. All of mankind would remain lost if left to itself and not chosen by God to be saved. … Therefore, if total depravity is Biblically true, then faith and con-sequent salvation come only when the Holy Spirit goes to work through regeneration. And the deci-sion as to which persons He will work in must rest entirely, one hundred percent, with God, since man, being spiritually dead, cannot ask for help.0

So if people are totally depraved so that they cannot even believe in Jesus for eternal life or re-spond positively to God in any way, then God must unilaterally give eternal life to certain peo-ple. Who receives such a blessing? According to Calvinism, God gives eternal life to those whom He chooses to give it. This is the doctrine of election.

The following chapter will provide numerous quotes from Calvinists on how they understand and explain Unconditional Election. After this, we will look carefully at numerous texts from Scripture which are often used by Calvinists to defend the doctrine of Unconditional Election, and will suggest alternative explanations for these texts which fit better with their grammatical, cultural, theological, and historical contexts. Finally, this chapter will close with an explanation of what I believe the Bible teaches about election and predestination.

IN THEIR WORDS

Like Total Depravity, there are several underlying ideas behind the Calvinistic understanding of Unconditional Election. While Total Depravity contains not just the idea of the universal sinful-ness of mankind, but also the concepts of total ability, dead in sin, faith as a work, faith as the gift of God, and regeneration preceding faith, Unconditional Election contains several corollary concepts as well, such as the eternal decree of God, foreknowledge, foreordination, predestina-tion, election, and reprobation. However, since these terms are closely related, separate sections on each word will not be needed in this discussion of election. Instead, a brief explanation of each will be given, which is followed by various quotes from Calvinists.

The basic explanation of Unconditional Election is that God, in eternity past, had an eternal decree by which He predetermined all things that would happen. This decree is related to His foreknowledge, which does not mean that God looked forward in time to see what would happen and then decreed that it would be so, but rather, that God, being omniscient, knew what would happen because He had decided and decreed that it would be so. To clarify what Calvinists mean, they often use the words “foreordination” or “predetermination” instead of foreknowl-edge, as these words better describes the view that God did not just know what was going to hap-pen before it happened, but actually ordained, decided, or determined what would happen.

Part of this foreknowledge or foreordination is predestination. While foreknowledge refers to God’s knowledge and determination of everything that happens, predestination refers specifi-cally to the destiny of human beings. In eternity past, as part of God’s divine decree, He deter-

0 {Boettner, 1932 #1103@95}0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@27}

mined or decided the eternal destiny of every individual person, whether they will spend eternity in heaven or in hell. As such, this predestination is composed of two parts: election and reproba-tion. Election refers to God’s choice of whom He will redeem, regenerate, and grant eternal life, while reprobation refers to God’s choice of whom He will leave to remain in sin, condemnation, and everlasting destruction.

Often the term election is used as a synonym for predestination. Technically this is incorrect. The term election refers specifically to one aspect of divine predestination: God’s choosing of certain indi-viduals to be saved. The term election has a positive connotation, referring to a benevolent predesti-nation that results in the salvation of those who are elect. Election also has a negative side, called “reprobation,” which involves the predestination of those who are not elect.0

Just as with every other system of theology, not every Calvinist would agree completely with the way the terms have been described above. So let us turn to various Calvinistic authors and teachers to allow them to define Unconditional Election and its related terms in their own words.

Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe. Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen. … Predestination is part of foreordination. While foreordi-nation refers to God’s plan for everything that ever happens, predestination is that part of foreordina-tion that refers to man’s eternal destiny: heaven or hell. Predestination is composed of two parts: elec-tion and reprobation. Election concerns those who go to heaven, and reprobation concerns those who go to hell. … Divine election means that God chooses some to go to heaven. Others are passed by and they will go to hell.0

The doctrine of election declares that God, before the foundation of the world, chose certain individu-als from among the fallen members of Adam’s race to be the objects of His undeserved favor. These, and these only, He purposed to save. God could have chosen to save all men (for He had the power and authority to do so) or He could have chosen to save none (for He was under no obligation to show mercy to any)—but He did neither. Instead, He chose to save some and to exclude others. His eternal choice of particular sinners for salvation was not based upon any forseen act or response on the part of those selected, but was based solely on His own good pleasure and sovereign will. Thus, election was not determined by, or conditioned upon, anything that men would do, but resulted entirely from God’s self-determined purpose.0

Election is, therefore, that decree of God which He eternally makes, by which, with sovereign free-dom, He chooses to Himself a people, upon whom He determines to set His love, whom He rescues from sin and death through Jesus Christ, unto Himself in everlasting glory.0

Election refers to God’s choosing whom to save. It is unconditional in that there is no condition man must meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins. So there is no condi-tion he can meet before God chooses to save him from his deadness.0

0 {Sproul, 1997 #674@141}0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@24-25}0 {Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@27}0 ***Herman Hanko, Homer C. Hoeksema, Gise J. Van Baren, The Five Points of Calvinism, Grand Rapids: Re-

formed Free, 1976, 330 ***Piper, 5 Points, 53

We mean, therefore, by this doctrine, that God, in eternity, chose or picked out of mankind whom He would save (by means of Christ’s death and the work of the Holy Spirit), for no other reason than His own wise, just, and gracious purpose.0

Divine election may be defined as that loving and merciful decision by God the Father to bestow eter-nal life upon some, but not all, hell-deserving sinners. This decision was made before the foundation of the world and was based not upon any act of will or works of men and women, but solely upon God’s sovereign good pleasure. One does not enter the ranks of the elect by meeting a condition, be it faith or repentance. One enters the ranks of the elect by virtue of God’s free and altogether gracious choice, as a result of which he enables us to repent and believe. Thus, election is both sovereign and unconditional.0

Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, he hath out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault, from their primitive state of rectitude, into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom he from eternity ap-pointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of Salvation.0

As we saw in the chapter on Total Depravity, many Calvinists believe that regeneration pre-cedes faith. One of the reasons they believe this is because of election. They believe that election also precedes faith.

But faith is not a condition for election. Just the reverse. Election is a condition for faith. It is because God chose us before the foundation of the world that he purchases our redemption at the cross, and then gives us spiritual life through irresistible grace, and brings us to faith.0

God’s choice was not based upon foreseen faith. Faith is the result and therefore the evidence of God’s election, not the cause or ground of His choice.0

Furthermore, there is wide disagreement among Calvinists about reprobation, which is some-times referred to as double predestination. Some Calvinists (though not all) hold to reprobation—which is the belief that God not only decided whom He would choose for eternal life, but also chose whom He would send to eternal damnation—while others flatly deny it. Though Calvinists admit that this doctrine is “unpleasant” and “harsh,” they teach it because they believe a balanced view of predestination requires it.0 Below are a few quotes from Calvinists who believe and teach the doctrine of reprobation, beginning with John Calvin himself:

Whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? … The decree is dreadful, I con-fess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree.0

0 ***Frank B. Beck, The Five Points of Calvinism, Ashland, Calvary, nd., 120 ***Sam Storms, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election, Wheaton, Crossway, 2007, 450 ***Canons of Dort, I:70 {Piper, 2014 #1107@53}0 {Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@33}0 {Boettner, 1932 #1103@104-105, 108, 112}0 ***John Calvin, Institutes, III.xxiii.7

[Reprobation is] God’s eternal decree that the destiny of certain men shall be everlasting death, whether one views it as God’s passing those men by with the grace of election or as the determination to damn.0

From all eternity some were decreed by their sins to come into judgment or condemnation.0

We believe that from all eternity God has intended to leave some of Adam’s posterity in their sins, and that the decisive factor in the life of each is to be found only in God’s will.0

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His own glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.0

Predestination includes two parts, namely, election and reprobation, the predetermination of both the good and the wicked to their final end, and to certain proximate ends, which are instrumental in the realization of their final destiny.0

The Reformed view makes a crucial distinction between God’s positive and negative decrees. God positively decrees the election of some, and he negatively decrees the reprobation of others.0

Predestination is, by Calvinist theologians, regarded as a generic decree including under it Election and Reprobation as specific decrees: the former predestinating some human beings, without regard to their merit, to salvation, in order to the glorification of God’s sovereign grace; the later foreordaining some human beings, for their sin, to destruction, in order to the glorification of God’s retributive jus-tice.0

Most Calvinists reject double predestination or reprobation, and instead say that God did not actively choose who to send to heaven and who to send to hell, but simply chose out of everyone who was already headed to hell to save a few for heaven. In this way, He does not actively choose who will go to hell, but simply “passes over” them in His choice of who will spend eter-nity with Him.

From all eternity God decided to save some members of the human race and to let the rest of the hu-man race perish. God made a choice—he chose some individuals to be saved unto everlasting blessedness in heaven, and he chose others to pass over, allowing them to suffer the consequences of their sins, eternal punishment in hell.0

Though many Calvinists argue that double predestination is the only logical conclusion to the Calvinist position on God’s election of some (but not all) to receive eternal life, I am not going to belabor the point or try to refute such a dreadful idea since most Calvinists claim that they do not teach or believe it.0 Instead, the next section of this chapter will focus on the primary texts that

0 ***David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, Grand Rapids: Reformed Free, 1980, 440 ***Thomas Manton, A Commentary on Jude, Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust, 1958, 1280 {Boettner, 1932 #1103@104}0 ***Westminster Confession of Faith, III:30 ***Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1941, 1130 {Sproul, 1997 #674@158}0 ***John Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, Harrisburg, Sprinkle, 1984, 9-10.0 {Sproul, 1997 #674@141}0 For example, Lorain Boettner says that any Calvinist which affirms election but denies reprobation “makes the

decree of predestination an illogical and lop-sided decree.” See {Boettner, 1932 #1103@105} If you would like to read more on the history of reprobation and double predestination, and where Calvinists stand on this doctrine, I

Calvinists use to defend their understanding of election and predestination, and in so doing, will see that while election is a truth of Scripture, the Calvinists have simply misunderstood what the Bible teaches about this beautiful truth.

IN THE WORD

A wide variety of keywords in the Bible are used to defend the Calvinistic understanding of Un-conditional Election. Among these words are given, chosen, ordained, foreordained, elected, and predestined. Regarding these words, I cannot agree more with R. C. Sproul than when he wrote, “The question then is not, Does the Bible teach predestination? The question is, What exactly does the biblical concept of predestination mean?”0 This is exactly right, which is why the fol-lowing section will closely examine several of the key texts in the Bible which speak to the topic of election and predestination.

But first, let me tip my hand a bit. So that you know where I am coming from on these texts, I want to provide a very brief explanation of what I believe the Bible teaches about election and predestination. I believe that while the Bible does often speak of God choosing people, and of God’s election and predestination, none of these terms anywhere refer to election or predestina-tion unto eternal life. While people and nations are chosen or elected by God, the Bible never says that they are chosen to receive eternal life. Instead, God choosing and election are always to fulfill a purpose or role in God’s divine plan.

With this in mind, let us turn to several of the key texts from Scripture which speak of God’s sovereign choice and election. We will begin by looking at a collection of texts which speak of Israel as the election nation of God.

Israel as the Elect NationCalvinistic author Loraine Boettner was absolutely correct when he wrote that “Throughout the Old Testament it is repeatedly stated that the Jews were a chosen people.”0 Repeatedly through-out Scripture, Israel is referred to as God’s elect nation, His chosen people (cf. Deut 7:6-8; 10:14-15; Ps 33:12; 65:4; 106:5; Hag 2:23; Acts 13:17; Rom 9:11; 11:28). Furthermore, as God plainly states in several of these texts, this sovereign choice of God had nothing whatever to do with Israel being a better nation than any other on earth, or that they were more wise, holy, or rich than any other nation. God’s choice of Israel was according to His own divine purposes.

There are some who note the prominent theme in Scripture of God’s election of the nation of Israel, and as a result, argue that there is no such thing as individual election, but that election is always corporate. That is, according to this view, God doesn’t elect individual people, but elects groups of people instead.0 R. P. Shedd defended corporate election this way:

Election does not have individual emphasis in Paul, any more than it did for Israel in the Old Testa-ment or the Early Jewish period. Rather, it implies a covenant-relationship through which God chooses for Himself a whole people. This collectivism is of supreme importance for the understand-ing of “election in Christ.”0

highly recommend {Vance, 1999 #642@250-333}0 {Sproul, 1997 #674@140}0 {Boettner, 1932 #1103@88}0 ***Klein, Corporate Election0 ***Russell Philip Shedd, Man in Community, London, Epworth, 1958, 133

In his comprehensive book on the subject of corporate election, William Klein summarized his position on what the New Testament teaches about election with these words:

The New Testament does know of the election of individuals to tasks or ministries. But when the is-sue concerns God’s choice for salvation, he has chosen a community—the body of Christ, the church. … The New Testament writers simply do not entertain the issue of whether God has selected specific individuals to becomes members of that body. The body is chosen; one enters that body through faith in Christ. … Election is not God’s choice of a restricted number of individuals whom he wills to save, but the description of that corporate body which, in Christ, he is saving.0

There is undoubtedly a corporate aspect to election, but we cannot say that election is only corporate. There are two main problems with the view that election is only corporate election. Both are mentioned by R. C. Sproul:

Some have argued that Paul [in Romans 9] is referring instead to nations or groups and that election does not apply to individuals. Apart from the fact that nations are made up of individuals, the salient point is that Paul explains election by citing as examples of God’s sovereign election two distinct, historic individuals.0

I agree with Sproul’s overall argument, but disagree with his use of it in connection to Romans 9. We will consider Romans 9 later, but it is enough to note for now that even Paul does refer to “two distinct, historic individuals,” namely, Jacob and Esau, Paul does so in connection with them being heads or progenitors of two people groups: the Israelites and the Edomites. Neverthe-less, Sproul’s overall point is valid: God does not only elect nations; He also elects individuals.

Of course, the true salient point is not whether or not God elects nations (He does), but rather, what He elects them for. Since many Calvinists equate divine election with God’s sovereign choice of whom He will regenerate, it is sometimes thought that everyone whom God “chooses” will also be sovereignly regenerated by God. But a moment’s reflection reveals the sheer folly of this idea. Israel, as God’s elect nation, was not ever composed entirely of regenerate people. Is-raelites do not get to go to heaven simply because they are members of God’s chosen people. Though God selected Israel as His chosen people, not all end up as regenerate people who will spend eternity with God.

The fact that all Israel can be elect but not all Israel will receive eternal life clues us in right from the start that there is something else going on with election than what the Calvinist claims. For if, as Calvinists teach, God, in eternity past, chose some people to be the beneficiaries of His grace so that they, out of all the people of the world, might alone receive eternal life from Him, then Israel, as God’s elect people, should all unconditionally receive eternal life from God. But this did not happen, and never will. Quite to the contrary, Israel, as God’s elect nation, has al-ways been composed of both regenerate and unregenerate people. So almost from the very be-ginning of Scripture, we have the curious situation of having people who are elect but unregener-ate.

To get around this, Calvinists have two basic approaches. First, some argue that when the Bible speaks of Israel as being “elect,” it is only referring to the regenerate people within Israel; not to all Israel as a whole. In defense of this idea, they point to Paul’s statements in Romans 9:6-13 that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” and Romans 11:1-4 about the remnant of Is-

0 ***William W. Klein, The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election, Eugene, OR, Wipf & Stock, 2001, 264, 266

0 {Boice, 2002 #676@148}

rael which God has always reserved for Himself through “the election of grace” (Rom 11:5). We will look at Romans 9–11 later to see what Paul is talking about in these famous chapters. For now, it is enough to note that in the attempt to get around the problem of having unregenerate elect people, some Calvinists must artificially limit the nation of Israel as God’s elect to only in-clude the regenerate people within Israel. Yet this sort of limitation has no basis anywhere in Scripture. In the Bible, Israel is God’s chosen nation on earth—not some of Israel, but all Israel.

Most people recognize this, and so fall back on the second way to explain the existence of un-regenerate elect Israelites. They do this by falling back on the idea of “corporate election” sum-marized above. Those who do this say that God’s election of Israel, though still a sovereign act of His grace, was not an election unto eternal life, but was an election of a group of people unto a specific task or purpose. By choosing Israel as His people, God elected the nation, not to eternal life, but to be the vehicle through which the prophets would record God’s Word and Jesus would arrive as the promised Messiah. This sort of view of election allows God to elect Israel as His chosen people, but does not require that every single individual person within Israel receive eter-nal life from God.

The debate over election would be over if those who adopt this “election to service” approach regarding Israel and certain individuals in the Old Testament would apply the exact same ap-proach to election throughout the rest of Scripture. Just as Israel, as God’s elect nation, was elected to serve God in a specific task, but this does not mean that every individual Israelite was regenerate, so also, election elsewhere in Scripture has nothing to do with whether or not some-one has eternal life, but has everything to do with what role God wants them to serve in His plans and purposes for the world. As we will see throughout the rest of this chapter, election is never to eternal life. Instead, election is to service and purpose in this life.

To summarize then, God election of people or nations is not to receive eternal life, but rather, to play a role or fulfill a purpose in His divine plan. This understanding of election allows God to elect entire nations, not because He plans to get them all into heaven, but because He plans to call that nation to some purpose within world history. God chose Israel, not because He decided to redeem every Israelite, but because He decided to use Israel to play an important role in bring-ing about redemption for the entire world.0 This is the view we are going to see throughout the pages of Scripture. Election is not to eternal life, but to service in God’s plan for human history. Often this election involves regenerate people, but not always, as in the case of Israel.

Another example of a person who was elected by God yet who was unregenerate is Jesus.

Jesus as the Elect MessiahDid it ever occur to you that Jesus was unregenerate? He never had to be regenerated by God be-cause He never lacked eternal life. He always had eternal life. In fact, Jesus is eternal life (John 1:4-5; 14:6; 1 John 5:11-12). Yet even though Jesus is eternal life, Jesus Himself was elected by God. Jesus was chosen. “A wide range of texts throughout the New Testament identifies Jesus as God’s Chosen or Appointed One.”0 Robert Shank overstates the case when he writes that “out-side of Christ this is no election of any man.”0 Nevertheless, it is safe to say that Jesus is the pre-mier Elect One (Isa 42:1). Even when He hung dying on the cross, He was recognized by His en-emies as being the chosen one of God (Luke 23:35).

Again, does this mean that Jesus was chosen by God to sovereignly receive the free gift of eternal life from God? Of course not! Yet Jesus was elected by God from all eternity. What for?

0 Cf. a similar point by ***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 1390 ***Klein, 2690 ***Shank, 27

As we saw in the case of Israel, God chose Jesus, not to be the recipient of regeneration, but to serve a purpose and fulfill a role in God’s plan of redemption. Just as God’s election of Israel was an election to service, purpose, and vocation, so also, God’s election of Jesus was to service, purpose, and vocation. Jesus was to be Israel’s righteous remnant, a light to the Gentiles, and God’s Suffering Servant (Isa 49:6-7; cf. Matt 12:18). “The Messiah, like the nation [of Israel], was chosen to do a task.”0

What task did Jesus accomplish? According to Jesus Himself, He came to fulfill the law and prophets (Matt 5:17), to reveal the Father (Matt 11:27), to serve as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28), to preach (Mark 1:38), to call sinners to repentance (Mark 2:17), to proclaim freedom for captives, give sight to the blind, and proclaim the year of God’s favor (Luke 4:18-19), to preach the good news of the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43), to save the world (John 3:17; Luke 19:10), to give life (John 10:10, 28), to do the will of the Father (John 6:38), to bring judgment (John 9:39), to share the words of the Father (John 17:8), and to testify to the truth (John 18:37). Various New Testament authors confirm all of these, and additionally say that Jesus came to destroy Satan’s power and works (Heb 2:14; 1 John 3:8), to take away sin (1 John 3:5), to taste death for every-one (Heb 2:9), and to become a high priest (Heb 2:17). This is a significant list, and they reveal that the election of Jesus as God’s Messiah was not an election to eternal life, but an election to service.

This fits which what we have already seen about God’s election of Israel. Just as it is best to understand the election of Israel as election to service, so also, the election of Jesus most natu-rally is understood as an election to service.

The first step in moving away from a rationalistic concept of predestination is taken when we begin to interpret this doctrine in terms of the election of Christ. No longer will predestination be … the arbi-trary decision of an absolute sovereign power. The election of which we speak is that which has been revealed in Jesus Christ. The God who has chosen us we know and love as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, his Chosen One.0

This understanding of Jesus as God’s elect Messiah is critically important when we turn to look at Ephesians 1:4-5 later in this chapter. But for now, let us turn to look at one more set of texts which speak of an elect group of people.

The Church as God’s Elect People The church also is a group of God’s elect (cf. Rom 8:33; Eph 1:4; Col 3:12; 1 Thess 1:4; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1-2; 2:8-9; 5:13; Rev 17:14). The real difference, however, between Is-rael as God’s elect and the church as God’s elect, is that while not all Israelites were regenerate, every member of the church is. Of course, this is only true of the invisible, universal church of God; not the visible and physical “church” down on the street corner or identified by some de-nomination. All people who are spiritual members of God’s church are elect.

In looking at the election of the church, it is important to recognize the similarities between God’s election of Israel and God’s election of the church. First, it is popular in some circles to say that since Israel failed in her God-ordained mission to the world, the church has replaced Is-rael as God’s chosen people. Though Paul seems to hint at this sort of idea in Romans 9–11, I be-lieve that this is not what Paul is teaching there, and that Israel was not set aside, nor did Israel fail in her mission.

0 ***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 1470 ***Robert J. Hillman, “Scriptural Election: The Third Way,” Present Truth Magazine (Vol. 45), 17.

Let me present the problem differently. If Israel has been “successful,” how would the out-come have been any different? Would we not have the Bible? Would Jesus not have come? Would Jesus not have died? Would the church not have been born? The answer to all such ques-tions is clearly “No.” The only “failure” on the part of Israel was to recognize the Messiah when He came. But this was not exactly a failure in regards to her role as God’s chosen nation, but was a failure she shares with all people on earth who do not believe in Jesus for eternal life. Just as God desires for all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), God desires all Israel to be saved as well (cf. Paul’s sentiment in Rom 9:1-5). No, the only “failure” of God’s chosen people Israel was that they failed to enter into God’s elect church when it was formed. For vast numbers of Israelites, this “failure” continues to this very day, as it does for the majority of people on earth.

So Israel did not fail in her God-given vocation. She succeeded. Through her came the Law and the Prophets, the promised Messiah, and the birth of the church, all of which are blessings to the entire world, which was Gods’ ultimate goal and purpose for Israel. Therefore, we must never say that the church has replaced Israel or that because Israel failed, God has selected a “new chosen people.” Never! God’s election of the church is not due to His setting aside of Is-rael, but rather due to the fulfilment of His plan and purposes for Israel. The church is an out-come of the fruit of Israel’s success; not her failure.

God never desired that all people on earth would become Israel. Israel is a nation with her own people, customs, culture, and laws. God did not choose them because their customs and cul-ture was better than everybody else’s. No, He chose one group of people as a way to call all peo-ple to Himself. God never wanted all people to become Israelites; He wanted all people to main-tain their culture and customs, just as Israel had, but do so in connection with Him. This new communion of people who live in connection with God is what we now think of as church. The church is God’s assembly of all people from every tongue, tribe, and nation who live within their own customs and culture as members of His family. Why did God choose Israel? Not to make the whole world Israel, but to make the whole world His.

This helps us understand God’s election of the church. If we understand why God chose Is-rael, then we can also understand why God chose the church. If Israel’s task was to call all peo-ple to become God’s people, then this is the church’s task as well. Just as Israel was called to provide a witness and a testimony to the surrounding people about the goodness and gracious-ness of God, to be God’s voice, hands, and feet on earth, and to call all people to turn from their destructive ways and follow God’s righteous ways instead, so also, this is the task of the church (cf. Col 3:12; 1 Pet 1:1-2; 2:8-9). Israel was chosen to be a blessing to the world, and when the church lives up to its calling, it too will be a blessing to the world. To be a blessing is the pur-pose for which God has chosen the church.

Furthermore, if we understand how a person became a member of Israel as God’s chosen peo-ple, then we can also understand how people become members of the church as God’s chosen people. How did a person become an Israelite? For the most part, they were born into it. So also with the church. We become members of the church by birth—not by physical birth, as was the case with the Israelites, but by spiritual birth; by being “born again” (John 3:1-8). And if one en-ters the church through the new birth, then this also means that one enters God’s elect people through the new birth. People sometimes think that Christians are members of the church be-cause we are elect, when in reality, it is the other way around: we are elect because we are mem-bers of the church. By joining with Christ, the Elect One, through faith, we automatically be-

come members of His Body, the church, and thus become numbered among the elect.0 We are elect only because we are in Him (Eph 1:4).

This truth further leads to the proper conclusion about the relationship between election and redemption. Just as election does not lead to our membership within the church, but is rather a result of being incorporated into Christ’s Body, so also, election is not what leads to our redemp-tion, but is rather the result of redemption. We are thinking of election backwards if we think that we are only in Christ because God first forgave and redeemed us. The truth of redemption and election is that we are redeemed because we are in Christ, and as a result of being in Him, we are elect.

Christ is belittled if we think that God first forgave and redeemed us and then put us in Christ; we should rather believe that it is only in Christ that we have received redemption and forgiveness. Christ is also belittled if we think that God first chose us and then put is in Christ; it is rather that those in Christ share in his election, and so are chosen in him. … When people enter into Christ then not only does his death become theirs, but his election becomes their election.0

The election of the church, then, follows the same patterns we have seen previously with the election of Israel and the election of Jesus. Election is not to eternal life, but to service. In eter-nity past, God did not choose who He would unconditionally and irresistibly bring into His church, but rather, decided that all those who believed in Jesus and in so doing became members of His church, to them He would give the task of being a blessing to the world by sharing serving one another, declaring God’s grace, and loving others just as He has loved us.

The truth that election is to service is seen in multiple texts throughout Scripture. As we go through several of these texts, we will look at how Calvinists understand and teach these texts, and then follow this with an explanation of how these texts support the idea that election is not to eternal life, but to service in this life. Let us begin with one of the first instances of election in the Bible: the calling of Abraham by God.

Genesis 12:1-3

Do I need to quote the text here?

Though Genesis 12:1-3 does not contain the words “elect” or “chosen,” this passage is often cited by Calvinists as a defense of God’s Unconditional Election of some individuals. They point out that Terah, Abram’s father, was an idol-worshipper (Josh 24:2), and that if God had not un-conditionally intervened in Abrams’ life, Abram would have been an idol-worshipper as well. In fact, maybe he was an idol-worshipper when God called him.

Any Calvinistic Quotes here?

At least two things can be said about the Calvinistic interpretation of this text. First, there is no reference to calling or election in these texts. Such theological concepts must be read into the text. Some Calvinists point to Genesis 18:17-19 as proof that Abraham was divinely chosen by God.

0 Cf. {Vance, 1999 #642@379}0 ***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 151, 154

***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 230

Nevertheless, despite the fact that Abram is not specifically said to be “elect” or “chosen,” the overall trajectory of the biblical account is clear: God did specifically call out Abram. Of coruse, notice carefully what Abram was called by God for. Nowhere does the Bible ever say that Abram was called by God to receive eternal life. Quite to the contrary, the text explicitly says that Abram was called by God to be a blessing to the world. So this is the second argument against the Calvinistic interpretation of Genesis 12:1-3. God did not “elect” Abram to give him eternal life; God elected Abram so he could serve God’s purpose of being a blessing to the world.

Of particular interest on this is that it appears that Abram did not actually receive eternal life from God until many years after He was called by God to be a blessing. In the case of Abraham, his regeneration followed his election by several decades. Cf. Gen 12 with Gen 15, with Rom 4-5.

Finally, some Calvinists argue that if God had not specially intervened in the life of Abram, Abram would have ended up as an idol worshipper, just like His father. But this is far from obvi-ous in the text. In fact, it is just as likely that God’s call of Abram was a response to Abram’s re-sponse to what he learned about God through general revelation. As we saw in the previous chapter about Total Depravity, the Bible teaches that God has revealed Himself to all people in numerous ways, such as through conscience and creation. Furthermore, we saw that when people respond to this general revelation of God, God obligates Himself to provide them with further revelation. Maybe God’s special revelation of Himself to Abram is one such example in Scrip-ture. This is speculation, of course, but so also is the Calvinist assertion that Abram knew noth-ing about God prior to God’s calling of Him in Genesis 12.

The point: God did call Abram. But it was not necessarily unconditional, nor did it have to do with Abram’s eternal life. The calling of Abram was to service. God selected Abram to be a blessing to the world.

Exodus 33:19

Jeremiah 1:5-6 ***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy,232

Matthew 11:27

Klein, 81

Matthew 20:16; 22:14

Vance 348

Matthew 24:22, 24, 31

Klein, 66-69

John 6:37, 39, 44, 65, 70Jesus is not talking about eternal life here, but about the disciples who follow Him. There is a

theme in John that some people, who love and worship God, come to follow Jesus, while others, who also love and worship God, do not. Why is this? Jesus explains that this is because God has given some of His worshippers to Jesus.

Vance 91, 341-344Klein, 129, 135-148

Spencer does not mince words regarding his belief about what Jesus is saying:

It is tantamount to blasphemy for anyone to argue that man is capable, of his own free will, to make a decision for Christ, when the Son of God says in words that cannot be misunderstood, “No man can come to me, except the Father … draw him.”0

It is clearly seen that those who will be raised up at the last day—all true believers—are given to Christ by the Father. And only those whom the Father gives to Christ can come to Him. Salvation lies entirely in the hands of the Father. He it is who gives them to Jesus to be saved. … This is nothing else than unconditional election.0

Interestingly, immediately after Jesus emphasizes that He chose all twelve of them, He imme-diately goes on to say that one of them is the devil (John 6:70). If election is to eternal life, then we have the strange teaching in this text that Jesus elected Judas to eternal life, knowing that Ju-das was (or will be) controlled by the devil. Very few Calvinists would like to admit that Judas was elect, yet here we have Jesus saying that He chose all twelve, including Judas (cf. Luke 6:13). It makes much more sense to realize that election is not to eternal life, but to purpose and to service. Only in this way can we allow for Judas to be chosen, or “elected” by Jesus, for Judas did in fact serve a very special role and purpose within the ministry and mission of Jesus. All the apostles were chosen for a vocation—including Judas. “Unquestionably Judas shared the election of the other eleven (Luke 6:13; John 6:70).”0

Jesus does not say, “I have chosen eleven of you but the other is a devil.” The election of Judas was no different from that of the others. … Election was not about whether a person went to heaven or to hell; it was the bestowal of an office and a task.0

John 10:14-16, 26

Vance 338

0 {Spencer, 1979 #1101@42}0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@27}0 ***Klein, 2700 ***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 138

Klein, 127

We believe because we are God’s chosen sheep, not vice versa.0

John 15:16Vance 349fKlein, 131

On this text, Spencer writes:

The bluntest affirmation that man does not do the choosing of God, since his depraved nature is capa-ble of being “positive” only toward Satan, is that of Jesus…0

Christ’s negative remark is just a forceful way of saying that although a Christian may think that he is the decisive factor in choosing Christ, the truth is that ultimately it is Christ who chose the believer. And then, after that, the believer chose Christ.0

1. Some Calvinists (and Augustine) have argued that this a proof text for unconditional election, emphasizing the irrelevance of human choice.

2. Arminians point out that the statement is made to the disciples with reference to their apostleship, not to their salvation. This interpretation accords well with the next phrase "that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain." See also Jn. 6:70 referring to the same choice. Judas was chosen but not saved.

Acts 13:48Vance 345-348Klein, 108, 1121Shank, 184-188http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y2004/04C1.html

Many have argued that this word “appointed” might be better translated “disposed.”0 Not only does the Greek allow for such a translation, but other uses of the same term in Acts support this translation as well. Aside from Acts 13:48, the word is also used in Acts 15:2, 22:10, and 28:23. In Acts 15:2 and 28:23, the word is clearly referring to the actions, attitudes, and decisions of people, rather than to some divinely-ordained predisposition to the Gospel which was uncondi-tionally granted by God.

0 ***Piper, 5 Points, 540 {Spencer, 1979 #1101@41}0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@28}0 ***Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell) II:153; ***Robert Shank, Elect in the

Son, 87

Outside of Acts, Luke (who also wrote acts) uses the word in Luke 7:8 to refer to human au-thority and control, while in 1 Corinthians 16:15, Paul uses it to is connection to Christians who have devoted themselves to a particular ministry.

Fisk, Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom, 109-112

“Acts 13 is a study in contrasts in how different people prepare themselves to hear the gospel.”0 In the beginning of the chapter, the contrast is between Bar-Jesus and Sergius Paulus. One man was open to the truth while the other was full of deceit (cf. Acts 13:7, 10). Later in Acts 13, on group in Pisidian Antioch was opposed to the things Paul spoke (Acts 13:45), while a sec-ond group begged to hear more (Acts 13:42). Interestingly, it was the Gentiles who wanted to hear more while the Jews opposed Paul. And why was there a difference between the two groups? The author of Acts says that it was because they were “appointed to eternal life” (Acts 13:48). If we allow the meaning which is used in the other uses of this word in Acts, then this text means that much like the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11, these Gentiles in Antioch were better prepared to receive the Gospel because they were seeking the truth.

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

1. The Calvinists argue that this verse teaches unconditional election, because it would have been easy to say "as many as believed were appointed eternal life" but the reverse is stated.

2. The Arminians point out that the participle translated "were appointed to" (tetagmenoi) is in the middle-passive voice. This means that the same form is used in Greek to desig-nate both the middle voice and the passive voice. The NASB has translated it in the pas-sive voice. However, if it is translated in the middle voice, the passage would read ". . .as many as set themselves to eternal life believed" (cf I Cor. 16:15 where the same partici-ple is translated in the middle voice).

Romans 8:28-30

Piper, Five Points, p. 58f http://cdn.desiringgod.org/website_uploads/documents/e-books/pdfs/five-points-1388566999.pdf

***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy,240-247

Vance, 384-397Olson chapter 7Klein,163. 176, 185, 201fShank,205--215

0 ***Shawn Lazar article, 6

Many Calvinists believe that God’s election is not based on His foreknowledge, but that God only foreknows things because He has foreordained them. That is, according to Calvinism, fore-ordination logically precedes foreknowledge. Yet when they come to Romans 8:29-30, they have difficulty explaining why Paul puts the word “foreknowledge” before the word “foreordination.” In an attempt to explain this, Edwin Palmer argues that:

The word translated by the older versions as “foreknew” is a Hebrew and Greek idiom meaning “love beforehand.” … Paul is using the Biblical idiom of “know” for “love,” and he means “whom God loved beforehand, he foreordained.”0

R. C. Sproul also notes this difficulty in Romans 8:29-30, and tries to explain it away by stating this:

We notice in this text that God’s foreknowledge precedes his predestination. Those who advocate the prescient view assume that, since foreknowledge precedes predestination, foreknowledge must be the basis of predestination. Paul does not say this. He simply says that God predestined those whom he foreknew. Who else could he possibly predestine? Before God can choose anyone for anything, he must have them in mind as objects of his choice. … [So] in actuality Romans 8:29-30 militates against the prescient view of election.0

I am not sure if “militates” is the right word, as Sproul’s argument is much weaker than he ad-mits. Nevertheless, I actually agree with Calvinists on this point that God’s foreordination cannot be based upon His foreknowledge. Calvinists criticize Arminians for saying that God looks down through the halls of time to see who will believe in Him for eternal life, and then He elects, chooses, or predestines those people to be the objects of His grace and love. Calvinists say that this makes God subject to the will of human beings, and in fact, puts the whole plan of salvation at risk. I agree.

After all, what if God, in looking down through the halls of time to see who would choose Him, discovered that, much to His dismay, nobody had chosen Him? God would have been bound by this foreknowledge to do what He foresaw; otherwise His foreknowledge would have been in error. If God only looks forward in time to see what it is that He should be doing in re-gard to human salvation, then God is bound by what He foresees to carry it out, even if He de-feats Him and His purpose.

***Greg Boyd quote on this somewhere***

What Paul is saying in Romans 8 is that there is a golden chain of salvation that begins with the eter-nal, electing love of God and goes on in unbreakable links through foreordination, effectual calling, justification, to final glorification in heaven.0

0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@31-32} Cf. also {Boettner, 1932 #1103@100}0 {Sproul, 1997 #674@143} He later goes on to argue for the same meaning of “foreknew” as “fore loved” as

Palmer uses above (p. 145).0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@32}

Romans 9:10-24When it comes to the discussion of divine election, almost all Calvinists always refer to Romans 9. It is the premier election passage, bar none. Edwin Palmer says that Romans 9 contains the “finest statement of all” about election.0 James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken call it “the most important passage.”0

Vance, 319-333See Piper, 5 points, 54-56Boice and Ryken, 92-98AW Pink, Sovereignty of God (old book) 85-98***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 260fKlein,166f, 173f, 185, 197, 202Shank, 113-145

This chapter is about corporate election to service, not individual election to eternal life.0

Yes, God chose Jacob over Esau, and thus, Israel over Edom. But this does not mean that Edom is outside of God’s favor, beyond the reaches of God’s grace, or that all Edomites are des-tined for eternal damnation. Quite to the contrary, any Edomite has just as much opportunity to believe and receive eternal life from God as anyone within Israel. God chose Israel so that they might be a blessing to the surrounding nations—including Edom! Just as the heavens declare the glory of God, so also, God’s chosen people are to declare the glory of God and call all people to respond to Him in faith. The prophet Amos understood this, which is why he specifically men-tions Edom as being within God’s saving purposes (Amos 9:11-12).

The point of Romans 9–11 is not about some strange act of God whereby He chooses some to receive eternal life while others get damned to hell by God’s sovereign eternal decree. No, the point of Romans 9–11 is that God sought to bless the entire world by raising up Israel to be a light and a blessing to others, but Israel failed in this task. Israel’s failure, however, did not mean the failure of God’s plan. God, in His wisdom and resourcefulness, was able to bring Gentiles to Himself even through Israel’s failure.

When the elect nation stumbles and falls, God puts aside the elect and then does the unthinkable. He elects the non-elect, that is, the Gentiles.0

Why does God do this? According to Paul, so that the Gentiles may now be a blessing to the Jews! This is Paul’s point in Romans 11:13-24. Israel, the elect nation, became non-elect through her disobedience, and in so doing, the non-elect Gentiles became elect. But just as Israel was set aside, so also, the Gentiles must be careful less they too are set aside. Note that none of this has anything whatsoever to do with people’s eternal destinies. Paul is not talking about whether or not people can lose their eternal life. He is talking about positions of service in God’s plan for

0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@32}0 {Boice, 2002 #676@92}0 ***Shawn Lazar, 70 ***Brinsmead, 12

the world. God wants to bless the world, and while He chose Israel for this purpose, He now seeks to do it through the Gentiles, until ultimately all will be blessed by God (Rev 21:23-26; 22:2).

The basic argument: The Jews believed election was according to the flesh. But election is not according to the flesh, but according to the promise (v. 8)Both Isaac and Ishmael were both children of the flesh, but only Isaac received the promise (v

9). Again, both Jacob and Esau were children of the flesh, but the promise came through Jacob (v

11)These choices are not about eternal life, but about God’s plan to bless the world (vv 12-13; cf.

Gen 25:23; Mal 1:2-3)We cannot object to God. He will bless whom He will bless. And who does He seek to bless? Jews say, “Us!” No, God seeks to bless all, both Jews and Gentiles (vs 24-26)And how are all blessed? By becoming children of the promise through faith (vv 30-34)

Election is generally corporate, but carried out by individuals who are part of the corporate whole. Of course, this means that some individuals within the corporate identity do not fulfill their corporate election, that is, they do not contribute to the purpose for which they were elected.

When this happens on a large scale, God’s purposes are not thwarted. He simply finds another way. In the case of Israel not fulfilling her corporate calling, God pursued multiple options.

First, many within Israel are still fulfilling their elected purpose. The prophets (vv 2-4) and Paul are examples (v 5). Such Jewish believers are “elect” within the “elect.”0 They are the elect according to grace (Rom 11:5-7; cf. 4:14-16) who are also part of the elect according to the flesh. It is important to note as well, as Robert Shank does in his book Elect in the Son, that while Ro-mans 11:5 certainly teaches that election is not of works, this does not prove that election is un-conditional. All it establishes is that election is by grace, and not by works.0

V 28 sums up from v 13f.

What was the nature and purpose of this divine election of Israel? I answer that Paul conceives of it as a historic action of God in setting apart the Jewish nation to a special mission or function in the world as the bearer of his revelation to all mankind. … These chapters (Romans 9–11 treat of election to a historic function or mission, not of election to eternal destiny. … Theology has often applied these ideas to the subject of man’s final destiny. Whatever may be the logic of such an application, it is ex-egetically unjustifiable.0

0 ***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 1420 ***Robert Shank, Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election, Minneapolis, Bethany, 1989, 1250 ***George B. Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament, 380-386

1. The Calvinist position is that Romans 9 teaches unconditional election and double pre-destination. This is because:

o Vs. 16

"it [God's choice] does not depend on the man who wills"

o Vs. 18

refers to double predestination.

o Vs. 22, 23

refer to "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and "vessels of mercy pre-pared beforehand for glory."

o The election involved is not a national election, because vs. 24

states that the vessels of mercy are "us, whom He called not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles,"" (i.e. believing Christians).

2. Arminians argue that the first part of Romans 9 deals with God's choice of nations and their roles in his plans.

o Vs. 1-5

make clear that the context is that of national choice. This is confirmed in verses 6,7 because all Israelites were not saved and all Ishmaelites were not damned. Also, in vs. 13 Malachi 3:2 is cited to demonstrate that God had favored the na-tion of Israel over the nation of Edom.

o Vs. 16

refers to God's choice of how to lead the nation of Israel through the wilderness, which was independent of Moses's opinion. Personal salvation is not in view in the original passage (Ex. 33:19).

o Vs. 18

is in the context of vs. 16 see above, and vs. 17 which refers to God's temporal de-struction of the Egyptians when they wanted to destroy Israel. The verse teaches therefore, that God caused his choice of Israel to stand regardless of Moses' at-tempts to help or Pharoah's attempts to hinder. Neither Moses' nor Pharoah's personal salvation was in view in these passages.

o Vs. 22,23

refers to nations which have either glorious or a judgmental role in history. God allows evil nations to exist, and often uses them to bless the chosen nation, Israel. Today, believers are able to participate in the covenant blessings of Israel, be-cause they have been "grafted in to the rich root" of God's purpose in history.

Another explanation is that the "lump" of clay in vs. 21 refers to national Israel. God has the right to divide Israel into two vessels: unbelieving Israel, which has now become a vessel of wrath (for "prepared", read fit or suited to destruction), and believing Israel, which, along with believing Gentiles has become a vessel of mercy.

3. Any interpretation of Rom. 9 must account for the transition that Paul makes from na-tional choice in vss. 1-5ff. and individual salvation in vss. 24-33. Therefore, neither view can claim that the other is completely out of context. The question becomes one of which transition is more believable, and makes the most sense of the Old Testament quotations.

Piper, Five Points, p. 54f http://cdn.desiringgod.org/website_uploads/documents/e-books/pdfs/five-points-1388566999.pdf

1 Corinthians 1:27-29

Klein,177, 204

Galatians 1:15-16 Vance 352Klein, New Chosen People, 194, 271

1. Calvinists interpret this passage to mean that God irresistibly called Paul because he was elected to salvation. They further argue that Paul's salvation is typical of all Chris-tians in this regard.

2. Arminians would point out Paul's election and calling were based on God's foreknowl-edge of Paul's decision to believe. Some Arminians acknowledge that Paul may have been unconditionally elected and irresistibly called by God, but point out that this does not prove that God deals with all people in this way. There is no reason to think that God cannot deal differently with some people than others. Arminians would argue that the burden is on the Calvinist to demonstrate not just that God elected someone uncondition-ally, but that he elects all in this way.

Ephesians 1:4-5

Vance 357, 383Cf. also http://www.tillhecomes.org/Text%20Sermons/Ephesians/Eph%201%203-4.htm See Piper, 5 Points, 56-57Klein, 1658-169, 179, 186

Notice how strongly Paul speaks of election. He says that God “chose us,” not that we chose God. Then he adds that God “foreordained us.” Moreover, the sovereign choice is emphasized by the state-ment that God chose us “in Christ”; that is, He chose us not because of ourselves but because of Jesus Christ.0

Paul is speaking to believers, … the election itself is not to eternal life but to “holy and blameless” lives (v. 4), to sonship (v. 5), and to living “for the praise of his glory” (v. 12). … Election here looks at the benefits of the salvation act, not at the act itself.0

The text does not say that we were chosen “to be” in Christ, but rather that we were chosen “in Christ.” This means that believers are chosen, or elect, because of our connection with Christ. We are among the elect because we are in Christ, and He is elect. And just as the election of Je-sus is to a specific task and purpose, so also, all those who are elect “in Christ” share the same task and purpose as Jesus. Jesus came to be a blessing, to serve others, to reconcile the world to God, and to reveal God to the world. This is what we do, as the elect in Christ and as we follow Jesus Christ. There is a danger to the evangelical proclamation that “Jesus has done it all.” He has done it all in regards to what is necessary for making eternal life available to all humanity, but He has not done it all in regarding to God’s plan and purpose for this world. All that Jesus still intends to do, He does through His elect followers, the church. Through us, He does greater things than He did during His ministry (VERSE: You will do greater things).

This is a large part of Paul’s point in Ephesians 1. These opening paragraphs of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians contain a long tally of all the blessings we have as believers in Christ. Yet this impressive list of spiritual riches is not so that we can gloat over others who have less than we, but rather so that we can use our riches and blessings to serve and bless others in this world. While Ephesians 1–3 recounts all the riches and rewards that God has given to all believers, Eph-esians 4–6 informs believers about our responsibilities as recipients of these riches.

***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 151

"...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will"

0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@30}0 ***Grant Osborne, Grace Unlimited, 180

1. Calvinists cite this passage as teaching unconditional election. God "chose us. . .before the foundation of the world." He "has predestined us to adoption as sons. . .according to the kind intention of His will." These phrases are taken to mean that God has sovereignly decided in advance who will be saved, completely irrespective of human choice.

2. Arminians agree that vs. 4 is teaching God's election of the believer to salvation. How-ever, they call attention to the significance of the phrase "in Him." This phrase, it is ar-gued, means that Christ was the chosen one (Is. 42:1), and that believers participate in his chosenness because they are baptized into him when they believe (Eph. 1:13). Armini-ans also insist that God's election and predestination are based on his foreknowledge of our choice to believe in Christ (I Pet. 1:1,2; Rom. 8:29).

With regard to vs. 5 Arminians hold that this passage is referring not to God's choice of who will be saved, but of God's choice that those who believe will be ultimately glorified. "Adoption as sons" is seen as references to the glorification of believers (cf. Rom. 8:23 for Paul's use of "adoption" in this way).

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14Vance 354***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy,158Klein,182, 208

The term “loved by” is never used of the unbeliever, the world, in any passage of the Bible. God never calls Judas or the rejecting world the “ones loved by the Lord.”0

One big problem with the Calvinistic understanding of this text is that the word “chosen” is not from any forms of the word that are normally used to talk about election. This word is so rare, it is not used elsewhere in the rest of the New Testament. BAGD says it means “prefer.” But regardless…. The point is not about the word chosen or election, but about “salvation.”

The Thessalonians feared that they had missed the return of Jesus. Paul is writing to them to alleviate their concerns and tell them that many of the things which would herald the second coming of Christ had not yet occurred. He then goes on to remind them that they were “chosen for salvation.” Many look at this text as clear evidence that people are elected to eternal life. But notice that eternal life is not mentioned; salvation is. This is one of those numerous instances in the Bible that can cause confusion if we do not carefully define the word “saved” or “salvation” in its context. In the context here, the term “salvation” refers to deliverance from the events Paul has just described in the preceding verses (2 Thess 2:1-12). Paul’s point is that the choice of God regarding His people is that they will not face these terrible events, but will be delivered from them.

[But how is this election to service?]

0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@29}

We will discuss this idea that God does not love the whole world in the chapter about limited atonement, but note that Edwin Palmer states his belief that God never says He loves the world or someone like Judas. And yet, Palmer seems to have forgotten clear statements like John 3:16 which says that God does love the world, and John 13:1 which says that Jesus sought to love His disciples to the every end, and Judas is specifically mentioned in the context as being a recipient of this love (13:2).

"But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth."

1. Calvinists interpret this passage to refer to unconditional election. 2. Arminians refer the term salvation to either glorification (see vs. 14) or maturity (I Thess.

5:23). Otherwise, why would it be "through sanctification"?

1 Timothy 5:21Vance 366Klein,184

1 Peter 1:1-2

Vance, 375-379Klein, 236f

If you have etgernal life by faith, you are elect.

1 Peter 2:8-9

Vance, 311, 352Klein, 231, 241fShank,188-190

"...for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

1. Some Calvinists find support for double-predestination in this passage. God appointed certain people to "doom" and therefore they rejected Christ.

2. Arminians point out that the specific cause for their stumbling is not God, but that "they are disobedient to the word." Since the noun "doom" is not found in the Greek text, it would be better to see stumbling as the antecedent. It is clear that they were appointed to stumble because they were disobedient in the same way as those who were hard of heart in the time of Isaiah (Is. 6:9,10). God veils his truth to those who stubbornly disobey his word (Mt. 13:12; Amos 8:11,12).

Jude 4

Vance 314Klein, 254Shank,190-191

"For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

1. Calvinists hold that this passage teaches double-predestination. The false teachers were "long ago marked out [by God] for... condemnation."

2. Arminians point out that the participle "previously marked out" (progegrammenoi) can also be translated "previously written about." Since Jude goes on to cite several recorded examples of the destruction of ungodly persons (vss. 5-18), this translation is seen as preferable.

Revelation 13:8; 17:8, 14

Vance, 336-337Klein,152

THE LAST WORD

Summarizing what we have seen from the texts above.

The Terms (C. Gordon Olson does a great job on this)

Foreknowledge Does not mean to “fore-choose.” Never means that. ***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 224-227, 241

The New Testament writers speak of God’s specific foreknowledge of only one individual—Jesus Christ.0

Other than Jesus, God’s foreknowledge is general, or “corporate.” God foreknowledge of Is-rael was God’s plan for what He would accomplish in the world through the people Israel. It is similar with the church. God did not decided beforehand what exactly to do with each individual

0 ***Klein, 277

person, but He did decide beforehand what to do with the church. And thus, everyone who enters the church by faith in Jesus automatically becomes part of God’s plan for the church in the world.

Foreordination and Predetermination

Predestination

Predestination is about God’s goals for His people; “not the selection of who will become His people.”0 Predestination is about the benefits, privileges, and blessings that God determines to give to all those who become His children by faith in Jesus Christ. Some of these blessings in-clude adoption into God’s family (Eph 1:5), future glory (1 Thess 5:9, Rom 8:29-30; 9:33; 1 Cor 2:7), and the opportunity to do good (Eph 2:10).

Calling***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 162-165

Election

Neither chosenness nor predestination concern how we came to be Christians. Chosenness concerns our present position and task in Christ. Predestination concerns our future task and inheritance with and through him.0

Texts to consider:

Ezekiel 33:111 Timothy 2:4 – see Shank, 92-952 Peter 3:9 – See Shank, 95-96

The Bible talks a lot about election, just as it talks a lot about salvation, eternal life, and the Kingdom of God. But nowhere does the Bible talk about election unto eternal life. Though Lo-raine Boettner states that “many … passages teach exclusively and only an election of individu-als to eternal life,”0 he fails to give any single passage that specifically says what he claims. No passage in Scripture states that God elects certain people to receive eternal life. Many Calvinists read this idea into various texts, but the texts themselves say no such thing.

This is not a denial of the truth of election and predestination. Far from it! The doctrine of election and predestination is certainly a biblical truth. But election and predestination unto eter-nal life is not biblical. Election concerns something entirely different than the issue of whether or not one will spend eternity with God. God may guide human history, and may direct the hearts of

0 ***Kleien, 2790 ***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 1520 {Boettner, 1932 #1103@91}

kings toward His intended purpose. He may order the winds and waves to obey His command, and bring forth light from darkness. He may whither a plant or cause fish to swim into waiting nets or keep the rain from falling for three years. God may send people to preach the gospel to those who have never heard it, and He may direct human events so that the thoughts and desires of a person’s heart are hardened in their rebellion. All of these sorts of actions are within God’s power, plan, and purpose, and all of these sorts of actions can be found within the pages of Scrip-ture, but one searches in vain for a passage which states that God decided in eternity past who will receive eternal life and who will not. Though they appear in various contexts, the various forms “of the word elect all have one thing in common: they are never connected with any de-cree of God—sovereign, eternal, or otherwise.”0 Election is to service; not salvation. God chooses believers for sanctification; not unbelievers for justification. God chooses people for special tasks, responsibilities, or vocations.0

Election in the [Bible] is to the service of God in this world and has nothing at all to do with salvation in the world to come. … A proper understanding of the … doctrine of election in Christ will dispel the somber and frightening mists of post-Reformation theories about predestination, double predesti-nation, reprobation and the rest of the lingering errors of medievalism, from which the rise of biblical science has happily set us free. … Election refers to God’s purpose in this world. … In the NT, as in the OT, election is a matter of service.0

The church was called to a distinct and inclusive missionary vocation. … Election does not mean that some are determined for eternal life and some for damnation, for such a purpose would destroy the cosmic aspect of the cross and make of it a particularism which is contrary to the great truth “that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). An invitation to “who-ever believes” would hardly be honest if some were unable to be among the “whoever.”0

Election is mentioned in the Scriptures, but these references do not form the basis for a doctrine of salvation which assures us that a select number are chosen for eternal life by divine foreordination. The assurance of being chosen in the Bible is accompanied by the promise of new vision and power with which to carry on some definite type of service. When election is referred to in the New Testa-ment it is a call to service, not as an assurance of salvation; but it means membership in the company of those who follow God in this life, rather than citizenship in the new Jerusalem of the life to come.0

Election is God choosing out a people through whom He is going to manifest Himself to the rest of the world. … It is not an election to salvation, but an election to service; that these people elected are elected to serve.0

Election is the sovereign act of God whereby certain persons are chosen for distinctive services for Him. It primarily involves service, not salvation.0

0 {Vance, 1999 #642@373, cf. 382}0 Cf. *** Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 134, 1390 ***Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, 272, 274, 2750 ***Ralph Knudsen, Theology of the New Testament, 2770 ***H. D. Gray, The Christian Doctrine of Grace, 790 ***Len Broughton, Salvation and the Old Theology, 1520 ***Theodore Epp, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 217

In his excellent book on Election, H. H. Rowley makes the point over and over that election is to service; not salvation.0

Vance, 401-404Guts of Grace, Hawley, 283f

Can there be unsaved elect people? Charles Ryrie thinks so:

There are unsaved people alive today, who, though elect, are now lost and will not be saved until they believe.”0

If a person believed that God has chosen only a limited number of people to be saved out of the larger race, he would have to conclude either that the universal texts [of Scripture] to not mean what they appear to say, or that God has two wills in the matter, one which is well disposed toward all sinners, and another secret will which purposes only to be gracious to a few.0

There is no predestination to salvation or damnation in the Bible. There is only a predestination of those who are already children of God with respect to certain privileges out ahead of them.0

Election is always a call to obedience, thanksgiving, and brotherly love.0

The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism over the issue of election suffers from the fact that both sides of the debate assume that biblical election is about God’s choice of who gets to go to heaven. Calvinists say that God made this choice in eternity past without any outside in-fluence whatsoever except His own sovereignty. Arminians, on the other hand, argue that in eter-nity past, God looked down through corridors of time to see who would choose Him from their own free will, and then these are the ones God elected.0 If these were the only two options, I would side with the Calvinist, as it has far fewer logical and theological problems than the Arminian position.

Thankfully, these two positions are not the only two possibilities. Both sides of the debate are wrong because they have begun from a faulty premise, namely, that election is unto eternal life. Instead, as we have seen in the discussion of various texts, election is not to eternal life, but to service. It is as Shawn Lazar points out:

0 ***H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election.0 ***Charles Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, Chicago, Moody, 1972, 1180 ***Clark Pinnock, ed., Grace Unlimited, Minneapolis, Bethany, 1975, 130 ***Pinnock, Grace Unlimited, 180 ***Pierre Maury, Predestination and Other Papers (Richmond: John Knox, 1960), 68.0 ***For an excellent defense of the Arminian position, see ***Robert Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will (Nash-

ville: Randall , 2002).

To “elect” something, simply means to choose it, and there isn’t a single verse in the Bible that says God elects individuals for eternal life or eternal death. When you look up the passages dealing with God’s elections or choices, you find they are to service and privilege, not to eternal life. In sum, Bib-lical election is vocational: God chooses people, places, and things to serve Him in a task or mission.0

Predestination is not God’s choice from eternity past about who will receive eternal life. In-stead, predestination is God’s decision in eternity past that whosoever believes in Him will be given special privileges and purposes in their temporal and eternal life.

Jesus chided His Jewish brethren for thinking that they were God’s elect simply because of their lineage. (Do not say to me, “We have Abraham as our Father.”) In other words, “Do not say to me, ‘We are God’s elect.’ I tell you the truth, God can raise up servants from these rocks.”

The Jews erred because they misunderstood the purpose of election. They interpreted election self-ishly as if it were their privilege to sit down in isolation and contemplate their good fortune. They thought that God’s choice of them mean His rejection of all others. And they compounded their error by assuming that their election was unconditional.0

The purpose of election is not for some to be chosen out of the mass of humanity to enter heaven and spend eternity with God. No, the purpose of election is for God to raise up people who can be a blessing to the rest of the world so that they also might come to God and receive His grace. Israel was chosen, not only to glorify and serve God, but to do so by blessing and serving the world (Isa 43:10, 21; 45:20-22; 60:1-3; 66:19; Zech 8:23).

Israel failed in her task, which is one reason God sent His Son. Where Israel failed as the elect nation, Jesus succeeded as the elect person. Just as God raised up Israel so that they might be a blessing to the nations, so also, God raised up Jesus so that He might be a blessing to the nations and call the nations to enter into God’s family by faith. Those who become part of God’s family in this way also become elect, and as such, are called to the same goal and purpose which was given to Israel and to Jesus: to be a blessing to the nations and to call them also to live as mem-bers of God’s family under His rule and reign. God wants His name and His deeds to be pro-claimed in all the earth, and one means by which He seeks to accomplish this is through His elect people.

I’ll be as blunt and straightforward as I know how: I do not believe that God predestines some people to go to heaven.

I definitely do not believe in double predestination, where God predestines some people to go to heaven and predestines others to go to hell. I used to believe this (that’s part of the “hyper” in hyper Calvinism), but no longer.

0 Shawn Lazar, “Election for Baptists,” Grace in Focus Newsletter (September/October 2014), 5.0 Robert D. Brinsmead, “Election in the Light of the Old Testament Background,” Present Truth Magazine (Vol

45), 9.

While a complete study on the topic of predestination would also require a study of God’s sovereignty, human free will, sin, and all the passages on election in the Bible, this is a blog post, and I cannot get into all that now (though a book is in the works!) In this short post, I just want to briefly present my views on predestination itself.

I believe that predestination does not refer to God’s choice of which people get to go to heaven, but refers instead to God’s determination to bring into glory all those who receive eternal life by faith in Jesus. In other words, predestination teaches us about who gets glorified, not who gets justified.

God’s predetermined (this is a synonym for predestination) plan was that He would bring into glory everyone who believed in Jesus for eternal life, that is, for justification. All who are justi-fied will be glorified. As such, there is absolutely nothing in predestination about God’s choice of which people will get justified and which people will not. Predestination has nothing to do with that, and it is a categorical mistake to think it does.

To put it another way, predestination is about the destiny of believers (all will be glorified), not about the destiny of unbelievers (some will get justified and some will get damned).

Or to put it another way again, discussion about God’s predestination should not fall under the category of justification, but under the categories of sanctification and glorification. Predestina-tion is a discipleship issue; not an evangelism issue.

Passages about Predestination

Two of the key passages about predestination are Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:4-11. In both cases, Paul is pretty clear that predestination is about God bringing people to be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29), and that election and predestination are most properly understood in connection with being made holy and blameless before God (Ephesians 1:4-5).

God does not choose some to be in Christ while passing over the rest. No, God chooses, elects, predestines, predetermines, decides, foreordains, commits Himself to make sure that every person who believes in Jesus for eternal life, will finally and ultimately be glorified into the im-age and likeness of Jesus Christ.

Predestination of the saints is about God’s commitment to the preservation of the saints.

This is why no one can snatch us out of the Father’s hand (John 10:29), why nothing can sep-arate us from the love of God (Romans 8:38-39), and why God has given us the Holy Spirit as a promise and guarantee of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Predestination is a controversial topic, but it need not be. The Bible teaches that predestina-tion is about our glorification and sanctification; not about justification. Therefore, if we fight about predestination, we are not living according to what we were predestined for, namely, to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.

There is corporate election just as there is individual election. It is not an either or.

And the ultimate elect one is Jesus Christ. The fact that Jesus is elect should tell us that elec-tion is not unto “salvation.” That is, election is not the act of God choose whom He will give eternal life, for although Jesus is elect, God did not choose to give eternal life to Jesus, for Jesus is eternal life. Instead, the fact that Jesus is elect tells us that the basic definition of election has nothing whatsoever to do with being chosen by God to receive the gift of eternal life. Instead, election has everything to do with being chosen by God for a specific role, purpose, or function in God’s unfolding plan.

Vance, 365

But today I read a great quote over at Mark Woodward’s blog, EveryTongue. The quote is by Christopher J. H. Wright, from his book, The Mission of God’s People (p. 72):

Election [i.e., the choosing] of one is not rejection of the rest, but ultimately for their benefit. It is as if a group of trapped cave explorers choose one of their number to squeeze through a narrow flooded passage to get out to the surface and call for help. The point of the choice is not so that she alone gets saved, but that she is able to bring help and equipment to ensure the rest get rescued. “Election” in such a case is an instrumental choice of one for the sake of many.

In the same way, God’s election of Israel is instrumental in God’s mission for all nations. Election needs to be seen as a doctrine of mission, not a calculus for the arithmetic of salvation. If we are to speak of being chosen, of being among God’s elect, it is to say that, like Abraham, we are chosen for the sake of God’s plan that the nations of the world come to enjoy the blessing of Abraham (which is exactly how Paul describes the effect of God’s redemption of Israel through Christ in Galatians 3:14).

A while back, I read a similar quote from David Bosch, in his groundbreaking book, Trans-forming Mission (if you haven’t read this book, you must). Here is what he wrote (p. 18):

The purpose of election is service, and when this is withheld, election loses its meaning. Primarily Is-rael is to serve the marginal in its midst: the orphan, the widow, the poor, and the stranger.

Election, I believe, is not God choosing some to go to heaven, while everyone else goes to hell. Election is God choosing some to accomplish His mission and purpose in the world, for the benefit of all. Sometimes, God chooses unregenerate people (such as Pharaoh, Cyrus, and Judas)

to accomplish His purposes. But every single person who believes in Jesus is chosen as well. We are the hands, feet, and voice of Jesus to the world.

Cyrus, Vance, 262-263

Olson chapter 7

http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y2002/02F1.html

The main mistake in the theology of election is a category mistake. It is usually discussed un-der the topic of justification when it should be discussed under sanctification, or maybe even un-der ecclesiology.

Anyone may believe in Jesus for eternal life. Election has nothing to do with it (cf. John 7:37; Acts 10:43; Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6; 1 John 5:1; Rev 22:17). Of course, as we learned from Eph-esians 1 and other texts, all who believe in Jesus become elect in Jesus, and so if someone wants to know whether or not they are part of God’s elect, all they need to do is ask if they have be-lieved in Jesus for eternal life. If they have, then they are elect. If they have not, then once they believe in Him, they will become elect. Before the foundation of the world, God chose that any-one and everyone who believed in Jesus would be given special significance and purpose for all eternity—to carry out God’s rule and reign, both now and forevermore.

Eph 2:10John 15:16

“You will note that there is no reference in these four verses to either Heaven or Hell, but to Christ-likeness eventually. Nowhere are we told in Scripture that God predestinated one man to be saved and another to be lost…Predestination means that some day all the redeemed shall become just like the Lord Jesus…God has predestined you to be fully conformed to the image of His Son. (Dr. H. A. Iron-side: Full Assurance, pp. 93-94.)

“We are chosen in Christ to share His glory for eternity, but predestination is always to some special place of blessing. Predestinated to what? Predestinated "to be conformed to the image of His Son.” (H. A. Ironside: In The Heavenlies, Expository address on Ephesians, pp. 34-35.)

Predestination is the exercise of divine sovereignty in the accomplishment of God's ultimate pur-pose…What must be borne in mind is the fact that predestination is not God's predetermining from past ages who should and who should not be saved. Scripture does not teach this view. What it does teach is that this doctrine of predestination concerns the future of believers.” (Dr. Herbert Lockyer: All the Doctrines of the Bible, p. 153.)

God by His foreknowledge has predestined all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ ‘to be conformed to the image of His Son.’ Predestination is never to Heaven, nor yet to Hell; but always to special

privilege in and with Christ…The gospel preacher can declare…the blessed fact that whosoever will, may take the water of life freely (Rev. 22:17). This is not at all a question of being allowed to take Christ as Savior. It is an earnest entreaty to do so.” (H. A. Ironside: What's The Answer?, pp. 43-44.)

The doctrine of election, then, is not an invitation to sit back and hope that you are one of the elect by God’s sovereign decree. Instead, the doctrine of election is an invitation to fulfill our God-given purpose and mission to go and love our neighbors, serve others, and be a blessing to the world.

LIMITED ATONEMENT IN LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE

Unlimited atonement Sunday school

Guts of Grace, Hawley, 160Fisk, Calvinistic Paths, 217Shank, Elect in the Son, Chapter 3, p. 59f

Two options: limited or unlimited explain. TELL WHERE WE ARE HEADEDThere are two theological camps regarding issue. One camp argues that Jesus’ death was

intended to secure salvation for a limited number of people. This view is typically called “limited atonement” because God is said to have limited the effect of Christ’s death to a specific number of elect persons. This view is also called “particular redemption” because advocates of this view believe redemption was provided only for a particular group of people (i.e., the elect). The sec-ond camp (my view) holds to what is called “unlimited atonement” or “general redemption.” This camp argues that God did not limit Christ’s redemptive death to the elect, but allowed it to be for humankind in general. In this view, Christ’s death made the provision of salvation for all humanity, but salvation becomes effective only for those who exercise faith in Christ. Salvation becomes effective only for God’s elect.

Why important?For evangelism: Can you go up to an unbeliever and tell him or her that God loves them

or are you lying to them when you tell them this? What you believe in answer to the question "For whom did Christ die?" will determine how you share the Gospel with others. I had a con-versation with a person in Denver…

"I used to be careless…telling people that God loves them and has a wonderful plan…now I have matured and am more careful…do not want to cast pearls before swine…I need to see some evidence of the Holy Spirit's conviction before I will begin to share the Gospel with them…"

The issue is: Does God love all men or not? Pink….has said: "The fact is that the love of God is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs."

So it is vitally important to know who Christ died for so that we can speak the truth when we share the Gospel.

What are the arguments?Limited Atonement

Rom 9:13; 9:22; 1 Peter 2:7-8Verses where God is said to hate sinnersCould Christ's blood or work be wasted or ineffective?Going from a above, and logical statements like Owens, they have developed their

belief of limited atonement. However, as most of you know, the Bible as a whole seems to teach differently, and so they must explain these verses in such a way so that they fit their system. They do this in a variety of ways…

Redefine "World"John 1:29; 2 cor. 5:19; 1 jn. 4:14

Limit "Whosoever"Acts 2:21; 10:43; rom. 10:13

John 3:16–18 – if you redefine all the terms, it makes no sense:"For God so loved the elect, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever among the

elect believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.For God did not send the Son unto the elect to judge the elect, but that the elect should be

saved through Him.18 Any elect who believes in Him is not judged; any elect who does not believe has been

judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 17 (cannot be consistent with world)

Chafer: Whosoever is in the NT 110 times and ALWAYS is unrestricted.

Limit "all" and "us"1 tim 2:6; titus 2:11; heb 2:9;

Gibberish:1 john 2:2 luke 19:10 rom 5:6

Unlimited AtonementAdvocates of this view seek to take Scripture at his clear meaning, and then de-

velop their theology around it, rather than bend Scripture to fit their theology.

So basically, every Scripture mentioned above is proof for Unlimited ___ when understood as it sounds. Here are some of the strongest arguments in support of UA.

The gibberish above if carried out consistently.

No one would ever be saved: If God loves only the saints, and does not offer salvation to those who are not elect, then a person must be a saint before God will love them, which will never happen, because God will not love unbelievers. The only way to break out of this is for God to love all people.

KEY: The command to preach the Gospel is "by far the most important and plausible of the scriptural arguments in support of UA" IF Christ died only for the elect, then why take that message to the nonelect? Why does God tell us to invite all men if Christ did not provide for all? It makes God a trickster and a liar to offer something that he will not provide. He is provoking and taunting the non-elect if he waves salvation before their faces and then withholds it from them. No maxim appears more certain than that a salvation offered implies a salvation provided. God will not tantalize his creators by tendering them with that which is not in his hand to be-stow. It is available to all and he offers it to all.

The resurrection of the wicked dead. Resurrection of all the dead (both elect and non-elect) is based solely upon Christ's resurrection. The wicked dead are just as much a part of the resurrection program as are the righteous dead. And both will be raised by the power of Christ's resurrection. This being true, it must be admitted that even the nonelect were included in the Savior's death since it is on the basis of His death that they shall one day be resurrected to live a conscious existence forever.

Verses:1 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 2:1; john 13:1-2

Response to OwenThe error in his logic is in his premise, which is unstated. What is the premise that he

builds on? Christ's death saves. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Christ's death saves anyone. Rather it is faith in

Christ's death on our behalf that saves us. Faith alone in Christ alone that saves us. Therefore with this in mind, let us look again to Owen's argument and reverse his argument onto himself:

"If Christ's death apart from any other consideration included the sin of unbelief, why does God ask men to believe since they would not be lost for not believing?"

Did you get that? Owen agrees, as we all should, that unbelief is a sin. Owen's argument is that Christ died for all the sins of the elect, but notice, THESE SINS MUST INCLUDE THE SIN OF UNBELIEF, WHICH THEN MAKES FAITH UNNECESSARY FOR THE ELECT. If Christ's death alone is what saves, and Christ died for all the sins of only the elect, then he died for their sin of unbelief as well, which means they are forgiven if they do not believe.

So the refutation of his argument is that the only possibility is that Christ died for all the sins of all men, and that the Death of Christ is not what saves. Christ died for all men. His sacrifice is available to all. However, it is only effective on those who act in faith to receive it.

If a dad buys his three kids tickets to a circus, they are bought and paid for. However if the kids never take the tickets when offered to them, they will never see the circus.

So, Christ died for all, paid for the sins of all, and forgiveness is made available to all, but it is only effective on those who are distinguished by taking the free gift by faith.

Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement

Why does it matter?

What are the arguments?

How can we respond to the logic of John Owen?

IN THEIR WORDS

First

The atonement not only made salvation possible for the sinner, but actually secured it...the Calvinist teaches that the atonement meritoriously secured the application of the work of re-demption to those for whom it was intended and this rendered their complete salvation certain."15 – Berkhof, Sys Theo, 1949, 393

God makes His sun to shine on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the un-just. Many temporal blessings are thus secured for all men, although these fall short of being suf-ficient to insure salvation."16 – Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 160

But counselors, as Christians, are obligated to present the claims of Christ. They must present the good news that Christ Jesus died on the cross in the place of His own, that He bore the guilt and suffered the penalty for their sins. He died that all whom the Father had given to Him might come unto Him and have life everlasting. As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that coun-selors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, FOR THEY CANNOT SAY THAT. No man knows except Christ Himself who are His elect for whom He died [emphasis mine]. [Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, p. 70.}

IN THE WORD

First

Matthew 1:21

John 10:11-18

John 17:20, 24-26

Acts 20:28

Romans 5:10

Romans 8:32-34

Piper, Five Points, 50 http://cdn.desiringgod.org/website_uploads/documents/e-books/pdfs/five-points-1388566999.pdf

2 Corinthians 5:21

Galatians 1:3-4

Ephesians 5:25-27

Hebrews 9:15, 28

THE LAST WORD

My view – Olson, chapter 6

John 3:16Romans 5:12-21 Shank 99-105

He died for all (1 Tim 2:6; Isa 53:6), for every man (Heb 2:9), for the world (John 3:16), for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), for the ungodly (Rom 5:6), for false teachers (2 Pet 2:1-2),

for many (Matt 20:28), for Israel (John 11:50-51), for the church (Eph 5:25), for “me” (Gal 2:2).

But the Scriptures do mention certain people who are in danger of perishing, even though Christ died for them. Peter wrote of false teachers who were "even denying that sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves" (2 Pet. 2:1,2). Here were men "bought" who, nevertheless, had made shipwreck of their faith.

Paul urges the Romans, "Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died" (Rom. 14:15). This does not seem to fit the Calvinist view of redemption, which makes destruc-tion impossible for all objects of Christ's cross-work.

Still, the main point of contention for many is the scope of Calvary, the individuals for whom it was intended. Calvinists say Jesus made a vicarious atonement for the elect and the elect only. Arminians claim that Christ died to make full atonement for every human being on the earth. The debate over universal and limited atonement has been hot for centuries.

In the debate over the extent of the atonement, Calvinists will point to Scriptures connecting Christ's death to a specific people: his sheep (John 10:11); his friends (John 15:13); "many" (Heb. 9:28). Arminians will produce passages indicating that Jesus died for the "whole world" (1 John 2:2); "all" (2 Cor. 5:15); "every man" (Heb. 2:9).

These texts can be harmonized when we consider that the redemptive benefits of Christ's death are both specific and universal. God has placed the life-giving fountain of Christ's blood in His Church. Our Lord "loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25). The Church was "bought with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). That makes the atonement of Christ specific; it was for His Church.

But the atonement is universal in the sense that the Church's gates are wide open to "everyone who calls" (Rom. 10:13), to "him who is thirsty" (Rev. 21:6), to "all you who are weary and bur-dened" (Matt. 11:28). The invitation to believe, be baptized and enter the Church extends to "ev-ery tribe and language and people and nation" (Rev. 5:9). In that sense, the atonement is univer-sal and available to all.

Or, looking at in another way, Christ's blood is "the blood of the covenant" (Matt. 26:28). Jesus died for those in the covenant of grace, not for those outside of it. Is that fatalism? Not at all. Anyone may enter that covenant by becoming a Christian. It is open-ended. The atonement, therefore, is both limited and universal. It is both specific and general.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE IN LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE

Fisk, Calvinistic Paths retraced, 50-54

IN THEIR WORDS

The doctrine of “irresistible grace” does not mean “divine coercion,” as if God bullies you into submission to do his will. Rather, it is compelling persuasion. … Further, if grace were re-sistible, this would mean that the person who can resist God’s will is a strong and powerful indi-vidual and those who can’t (and thus those who get saved) are weaklings.0

"All those whom God has predestined unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His ap-pointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spir-itually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most freely, be-ing made willing by His grace" Westminster Confession (Chapter X, Section 1,2).

Boettner believes the "inner call" is so swift that the sinner is not even aware of this miracu-lous change.

"It is an instantaneous change from spiritual death to spiritual life. It is not even a thing of which we are conscious at the moment it occurs, but rather something which lies lower than con-sciousness."17 – Boettner, Reformed Doctrine… 165

The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can conquer all resistance when he wills. … More specifically, irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. If the doctrine of total depravity, as we have unfolded it in the previous chapter, is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, and unable to submit

0 Daniel B. Wallace, “My Understanding of the Biblical Doctrine of Election.” Bible.org article. http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/election.htm Last accessed September 22, 2003.

to God because of our rebellious nature, then we will never believe in Christ unless God over-comes our rebellion.0

IN THE WORD

First

John 1:12-13 See Piper, Five Points, 35f http://cdn.desiringgod.org/website_uploads/docu-ments/e-books/pdfs/five-points-1388566999.pdf

Why were the people in verse 11 not given the right to be adopted? Was it because they had not been regenerated? No, it was because they did not receive Christ. In verse 12 John gives God's condition for adoption: receiving Christ and believing in His name. The obvious flow of the passage is (1) Receiving Christ and believing in His name. (2) God's granting the right to be-come His children and being born of God. Faith, then regeneration and adoption.

John 3:3-8

John 5:21

John 6:37

1. Calvinists argue that this passages teaches irresistible grace. The individual cannot refuse God's choice, therefore all those given to Christ will respond.

2. Arminians reply that "those given to me" in 37 are the same as those who "believe in him" in vs. 40. In other words, when God foresees that some will believe, he gives them to Christ. See that in vs. 45, those who "have heard and learned from the father" are the ones who "come to me."

See Olson, How Does God save, under “God’s calling to salvation is efficacious but not irre-sistible” – more in Olson, chapter 9?

Acts 5:31; 11:18

Acts 13:48

http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y2004/04C1.html

Acts 16:14 See Piper, Five Points, 34f http://cdn.desiringgod.org/website_uploads/documents/e-books/pdfs/five-points-1388566999.pdf

0 {Piper, 2014 #1107@26-27}

See Lopez article on is faith a gift? 264

Romans 8:30

Romans 9:16

1 Corinthians 3:6-7; 4:7

Ephesians 2:1, 5, 8-9

Philippians 1:29; 2:12-13

Colossians 2:13

Titus 3:5

THE LAST WORD

My view – Olson, chapter 8, 9

If God’s grace is truly intended for all sinners, and if all sinners are not in the end saved, it must be (there is no other possibility) that the grace of God … is resistible.0

No, of course not!

“There is no such thing as a irresistible gift.” Vance, 516-17?

The doctrine of the irresistibility of grace is a theological fiction.0

Acts 7:51See Shank, 131-133

0 ***Pinnock, ed., Grace Unlimited, 160 ***Shank, 133

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS IN LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE

Differentiate between preservation of the Saints and perseverance. I can agree with Preserva-tion. I believe that eternal life cannot be lost.

Guts of Grace, Hawley, 161Boyd and Eddy, Across the Spectrum, 145f, 183f

perseverance is not an issue of human good works, but divine good works, sovereignly per-formed in the true believer. This is why good works prove who believers are. Not because true believers persevere, but b/c God sovereignly reveals who his children are by causing them to per-form good works. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE.

5 views on sanctification, 224

Numerous supporting texts: John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 10:27-30; Rom 5:8-10; 8:29-30; 35-39; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Col 3:3-4;

IN THEIR WORDS

First

See quotes from my article: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003ii/myers.pdf

Given the fact that S. Lewis Johnson calls the Westminster Confessionthe “standard of reference that evangelicals as a whole will accept inthe main,”9 this document is a good place to start.Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainlydeceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions:9 S. Lewis Johnson, “How Faith Works,” Christianity Today (September1989): 21.The Gospel Under Siege 45of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; whichhope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the

Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk inall good conscience before him, may in this life be certainlyassured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in thehope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make themashamed.10

Thus, the Confession states that only those who truly believe, love Godin sincerity, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him,may be assured that they will make it to heaven.James Montgomery Boice concurs:…this is not only a matter of our demonstrating a genuinelychanged behavior and thus doing good works if we are justified.It must also be that our good works exceed the goodworks of others…When Jesus said, “Unless your righteousnesssurpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of thelaw…,” he meant, “Unless you who call yourselves Christians,who profess to be justified by faith alone and therefore confessthat you have nothing whatever to contribute to your own justification—unless you nevertheless conduct yourselves in away which is utterly superior to the conduct of the very bestpeople who are hoping to save themselves by their own goodworks, you will not enter God’s kingdom because you are nota Christian in the first place.11

R.C. Sproul sums this view up by stating, “In the Reformed viewworks are a necessary fruit of justification.”12

Charles Hodge, the famous Reformed theologian writes:False security of salvation commonly rests on the ground ofour belonging to a privileged body, the church, or to a privilegedclass, the elect. Both are equally fallacious. Neither themembers of the church nor the elect can be saved unless theypersevere in holiness. And they cannot persevere in holinesswithout continual watchfulness and effort.13

10 See www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_ faith.html.11 J. Montgomery Boice, Amazing Grace (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1993), 73-74.12 R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 156.13 Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians (Edinburgh: Bannerof Truth Trust, 1974), 181, emphasis added.46 Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society Autumn 2003In a small booklet by John Piper, in which he discusses Perseveranceof the Saints, he writes, “Election is unconditional, but glorification isnot. There are many warnings in Scripture that those who do not holdfast to Christ can be lost in the end.”14

Arthur W. Pink makes the following “line in the sand” statement:“Readers, if there is a reserve in your obedience, you are on your way tohell.”15 He elaborates elsewhere by saying:There is a deadly and damnable heresy being widely propagatedtoday to the effect that, if a sinner truly accepts Christ ashis personal Savior, no matter how he lives afterwards, hecannot perish. That is a satanic lie, for it is at direct variancewith the teaching of the Word of truth. Something more thanbelieving in Christ is necessary to ensure the soul’s reachingheaven.16

Again, Pink writes:…all faith does not save; yea, all faith in Christ does not save.Multitudes are deceived upon this vital matter. Thousands of

those who sincerely believe that they have received Christ astheir personal Savior and are resting on His finished work, arebuilding upon a foundation of sand.17

From the essential truth that no sinner in himself can merit salvation, the antinomian draws the erroneous conclusion that good works need not accompany faith in the saint. The question is not whether good works are necessary to salvation, but in what way they are necessary. As the inevitable outworking of saving faith, they are necessary for salvation. … Thus good works may be said to be a condition for obtaining salvation in that they inevitably accompany genuine faith. John Gerstner, Wrongly Divine the Word of Truth, 210

We mean that the saints will and must persevere in faith and the obedience which comes from faith. Election is unconditional, but glorification is not. There are many warnings in Scripture that those who do not hold fast to Christ can be lost in the end.0

“Paul foresees the possibility that some professing believers—in the judgment of charity he calls them brothers, may go to hell… Your works confirm that you are saved.” John Piper or Bethlehem Baptist Church. “We Will All Stand Before the Judgment of God (Romans 14:10-13)”; October 30, 2005.

“Getting to heaven in the New Testament involves the use of means… Your perseverance in faith is a means of attaining heaven; it is necessary… Mutual exhortation is a means by which we preserve each other, strengthen each other, sustain each other, help each other persevere to heaven. It is not automatic… Prove that Christ died for your brother by extending the means that Christ bought to get him to heaven. Prove that… If you go the other direction you may show that not only is his soul in peril… but your lovelessness may be testifying you’ve never tasted of grace either, and you are not in Christ, and His blood has not covered you effectually…” John Piper “Do Not Destroy the Work of God (Romans 14:14-23); November 6, 2005.

IN THE WORD

First

Matthew 5:17

Romans 7:15-20 – see section on Romans in Total Depravity…

Rom 8:28-30

0 {Piper, 2014 #1107@63}

One reason Calvinists hold to Perseverance of the Saints is because they hold to Uncondi-tional Election and Irresistible Grace. If God unilaterally elects people to heaven and irresistibly confers grace upon them without their consent or choice, then it make sense for God to also uni-laterally and irresistibly override the free decisions of Christians to disobey God and rebel against His will. Making this connection, Daniel Wallace writes that “election is not just to sal-vation, but to sanctification and glorification. Cf. Eph. 1:4-5; Rom 8:28-30”0 If God irresistibly and unconditionally elects, then it only makes sense for God to irresistibly and unconditionally sanctify the believer. But note that neither text which Wallace cites says what he claims. In fact, in the “golden chain of redemption” of Romans 8:29-30, sanctification is noticeably absent. Paul mentions both justification and glorification, but not sanctification.

Ephesians 2:10

Philippians 2:12-13

1 Thessalonians 5:23-25

James 2:14-26

2 Peter 1:5-11

1 John 2:19, 25

1 John 3:4-15

The NIV mistranslates meno (remain/abide) as "live" and then adds the words "keeps on" and "continues" to the verse. In essence, the NIV translation of this verse is saying that if you con-tinue to sin, you do not have life in Him. This is a favorite proof text for the P in TULIP: Perse-verance of the Saints.

But if we translate it literally, 1 John 3:6 is saying that when we are "abiding" in Him we do not sin. That is, sin does not come from a state of abiding in Christ.

An almost identical problem is in 1 John 3:9.

Then in 1 John 3:10, the NIV says that anyone who does not do what is right “is not a child of God.” But the words “a child” are not in the Greek. The text should say that anyone who does not do what is right “is not of God.” This doesn’t mean that if you sin, it proves you were never born again, but rather, that when you sin, you are not acting of God.

Then there is 1 John 3:12. As an explanation for why Cain murdered Abel, the NIV says that Cain "belonged to" the evil one. But really, the Greek only says that Cain "was of" the evil one,

0 Daniel B. Wallace, “My Understanding of the Biblical Doctrine of Election.” Bible.org article. http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/election.htm Last accessed September 22, 2003.

which leaves open the question as to why Cain acted as he did. For example, another option could simple be that Can "was acting according to" the evil one.

Again, this verse is sometimes used to defend the idea that anyone who commits murder proves that he/she does not have eternal life, but "belongs to" the evil one.

This same idea is carried on into 1 John 3:15. Here, the NIV completely omits the word "abid-ing." The NIV says "...you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." Instead, it should say, "...you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Again, the two are very different.

Having eternal life and abiding in eternal life are not the same. The first implies that anyone who murders proves that they do not have eternal life. This supports Perseverance of the Saints again. Including the word "abiding" however, says that someone who has eternal life might actu-ally murder someone, but if they do, it is not because they have (or don't have) eternal life, but simply because they are not acting according to the eternal life that they have from God.

I could go on and one. These are just a few examples out of chapter 3.

1 John 5:4, 11-13, 20

Hebrews 6

Hebrews 10

Jude 24-25

THE LAST WORD

My view- Olson, chapter 12, 13, 14

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE

Sovereignty discussion Vance, 250-302

Does faith on the part of man limit God's sovereignty? no

Free will discussion… Vance, 201-219

Boyd and Eddy, Across the Spectrum, 35, 56

Boettner, 30

Fisk Calvinistic paths 31-47Fisk, divine sovereignty and human freedomMarston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 109-132

Sovereignty is not his primary attribute (if he even has one)

If he has one, it is holiness. Sovereignty is limited by holiness

Bible says that he is holy – thrice holy. But never thrice sovereign.

He cannot lie, because he is holy.He cannot allow sin into his presence because he is holy.

Dave Hunt- what a sovereign God cannot do.

The whole plan of salvation – not brought about because he simply wanted it, but because he is holy. If he was supremely sovereign, he could have simply saved us, but he did not – because this would violate his holiness.

Actually he first asked me.... What does sovereignty mean?

My answer.... That God is in control of everything.That was the correct definition. So Joash then went on to ask me the above question.

His point was that sovereignty is NOT part of God's character. God is LOVE... (His character) God is merciful... God is kind... God is good... God is just... God is patient... God is compassionate... etc., etc!These are character issues.

Joash's point.....God's sovereignty is taking man's choices (foolish or otherwise) and bringing glory and honor

to Himself anyway. God is in control of everything. It does not diminish God's character for us to be given choices in salvation or any other area of life. Human responsibility in salvation is not shrinking God. It does not "downsize" His character, nor does it change the fact that God is in complete control of everything. -(A pastor friend believes that GES has downsized God because of this issue)- BECAUSE He is in control, He has chosen to give us free will. It's His choice to make it that way. He is sovereign! He is in control of everything. He wants our love and devotion because we want Him.... not because He "programmed" us that way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald Barnhouse -(whom I like..... even though I recognize his Presbyterian roots and dis-agree with on this issue)- says in his commentary on Romans......

I must, forevermore, interpret such passages as John 5:24 to mean, "He that hears my word and believes on him that sent me [does so because he] has everlasting life." I can no longer ac-cept the idea which I accepted in my early Christian life that it means "He that believes my word and believes on him that sent me has [as a result] eternal life." If ten thousand soldiers were lying in a field, some of them dead and some alive (but, for the sake of my illustration none merely wounded), and if the all clear were sounded, we would say, "Those who get up and walk have life," I can never join with those who think that they get life by getting up and walking, but I must believe the common sense meaning that they have life, and with that life they get up and walk. I know in my own case that I was given life, eternal life, by God through Christ. I used that eternal life to hear His Word and to believe on the Father who sent the Son.

I don't believe that statement at all~!!! Yet I like Donald Barnhouse in some of the things he writes.

Hope you'll forgive me for bothering you so much.

IN THEIR WORDS

This is the one point of Calvinism: Steele, 14, see quotes in last part of section on election

Palmer, chap 6

God wills all things which come to pass. It is in his power to stop whatever might come to pass. It is within his omniscience to imagine every possible turn of events and choose that chain of events which most pleases him. … [Therefore] we can know that whatever comes to pass must be what God most wished to come to pass. … God determines or ordains not only what will happen but also how it will happen. 0

The five points, though separate stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all … For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners … the force of this confession may not be weak-ened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedalling the sinner’s in-ability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the “five points” are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners to not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present, future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever; amen.0

There has been a wonderful alteration in my mind, in respectto the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, from that day to this. ...God’s absolute sovereignty ... is what my mind seems to restassured of, as much as of any thing that I see with my eyes.... The doctrine has very often appeared exceeding pleasant,bright, and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love toascribe to God ... God’s sovereignty has ever appeared tome, a great part of his glory. It has often been my delight toapproach God, and adore him as a sovereign God.2 “Personal Narrative,” quoted inJonathan Edwards, Selections[New York: Hill &Wang, 1935], p. 59

There are normally two Calvinistic responses to this sort of thinking. The first is to simply ad-mit that God does in fact foreordain sin and evil. Edwin Palmer is not alone in this sort of think-ing, but he proves one of the clearer statements of this Calvinistic belief:

God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen. He is not sit-ting on the sidelines wondering and perhaps fearing what is going to happen next. No, He has foreor-

0 ***R. C. Sproul, Jr, 53-540 J. I. Packer, quoted in {Steele, 1963`, 2004 #675@14f}

dained everything “after the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11): the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist—even sin.0

Other quotes about God ordaining sin:Vance 253-254,

In a recent sermon on the sovereignty of God over all things, pastor and author John Piper said this:

But when a person settles it biblically, intellectually, and emotionally, that God has ultimate control of all things, including evil, and that this is gracious and precious beyond words, then a marvelous stability and depth come into that person’s life and they develop a “God-entranced world view.”

… My aim in this second message is to commend to you this absolute sovereign control of God over all things, including evil, because it is Biblical, and because it will help you become stable and deep and God-entranced and God-glorifying in all you think and feel and do.0

R. C. Sproul, Jr., (not to be confused with his father, R. C. Sproul, Sr.), wrote the following shocking statements in his book Almighty Over All:

The argument that [God] must be the one who introduced evil into his world, does not rest merely on the process of elimination. … Every Bible-believing Christian must conclude at least that God in some sense desired that man would fall into sin. … Isn’t it impossible for God to do evil? Of course it’s impossible for God to do evil. He can’t sin. … [Yet] I am not accusing God of sinning; I am sug-gesting that he created sin. … God could have, and might have, summoned his servant Satan. … But even if God works through secondary causes—hires someone to do his work for him—he cannot cease to be the primary cause. … God might not have operated on Eve personally [when she sinned]. … He must, however, have been the ultimate cause. … As the sole creator and controller of [all things], the trail ultimately leads back to God. …The devil, then, is not mightier than God. He is un-der God’s constant, absolute control. 0

Such bold statements from Calvinists are shocking to some. Not only does R. C. Sproul say that God created sin, he goes on to argue that everything that the devil does is done at the com-mand of God, for the devil is always under God’s absolute control.

Thankfully, relatively few Calvinists teach that God created and causes sin. In fact, many Calvinists strongly condemn the teachings of Calvinists who argue that God ordains or created sin. Strangely, R. C. Sproul, Sr., in direct contrast to what his son wrote (quoted above), said this:

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between elec-tion and reprobation. God works in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is

0 {Palmer, 1980 #665@25}0 John Piper, “Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be?” http://www.desiringgod.org/confer-

ence-messages/is-god-less-glorious-because-he-ordained-that-evil-be Last Accessed October 25, 2014.0 ***Sproul, Almighty Over all, 51, 53-54, 57

the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine.0

The more common approach is to fall back on the traditional understanding of Total Deprav-ity, and say that while human beings do have “free will” it is only a will to do evil.

Even Adam’s sin: The first man fell because the Lrod deemed it meet that he should. Calvin, Instittues,

III:xxiii,8

Calvinism is a belief in meticulious divine determinism over every thought, choice and event throughout human history–including your personal sins. Just think about the insidious implica-tions of such a view. If a rapist or pedophile were to declare in a courtroom, “God caused me to do it!” we would denouce him as a liar or a lunatic. However when a Calvinist declares more a less the same thing behind their pulpit (substituting “caused” for “decreed” or “determined”), he is extolled as being biblical!

I cannot tell you how often I hear people retort, “That’s not what Calvinists believe! I’m a Calvinist and I don’t believe God predetermined all my sin!” My typical response is, “Well then welcome to Arminianism because you certainly can’t be a Calvinist.” Usually this is not received very well because they have already been indoctrinated and propagandized into believing that Arminianism is a man-centered, man-glorifying, anti-grace heresy. More often than not the peo-ple I speak of are novice Calvinists who have been hoodwinked into a high-Calvinist, Reformed theology by a Piper sermon that conveniently left out all the ugly, sinister implications and ab-surdities that accompany swallowing Calvinism in toto.

If you are a recent devotee of Calvinism I can only imagine that I have only precious seconds to prove the indisputable assertion that Calvinism-Reformed theology is founded on the tenet that God sovereignly predetermines (whether through hard determinism or compatibilism) every decision and choice humans make–including sin and evil.

0 ***Sproul, “Double Prestination” http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/

Here are a list of quotes from leading, mainstream Calvinists over the years that speak of this inescapable fact (I offer follow-up comments to help clarify the remarks and to the best of my knowledge have taken no one out of context):

John Calvin:

Hence we maintain that, by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.[1]

[The question must be asked—how are men held responsible for sinful choices that flow out of wills that are “governed as to move exactly in the course which God has destined?”]

Men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direc-tion.[2]

[In Calvinism God is the logical origin and thus author of every sinful thought or choice men make. How else to explain Calvinism’s teaching that all our decreed decisions and deliberations are initiated by the “secret instigation of God” that he infallibly “brings to pass by his secret di-rection?”]

The hand of God rules the interior affections no less than it superintends external actions; nor would God have effected by the hand of man what he decreed, unless he worked in their hearts to make them will before they acted.[3]

[Calvinists are well-known for redefining free-will as being “free to act in accordance with our strongest desires.” However what they leave out is the pivotal point that God has also causally predetermined which desires act upon our wills. Here Calvin admits that for God to achieve a predestined, external action in a person, he must effectively “work in their hearts to make them will before they act.”]

The will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things.[4]

[There is no getting around the logical implications of this. Whether a modern-day Calvinist admits it or not his theology is logically and necessarily undergirded by the premise that God’s will is the ultimate causal force behind every sinful choice and act of rebellion throughout hu-man history.]

If God controls the purposes of men, and turns their thoughts and exertions to whatever pur-pose he pleases, men do not therefore cease to form plans and to engage in this or the other un-dertaking. We must not suppose that there is a violent compulsion, as if God dragged them against their will; but in a wonderful and inconceivable manner he regulates all the movements of men, so that they still have the exercise of their will.[5]

[On the one hand Calvin wants to say that God’s will of decree regulates, turns and infallibly controls the thoughts and actions of every person. But on the other hand Calvin wants to pre-

serve human accountability in making choices, so he asserts that God does not force his will of decree on anyone. How does God accomplish this? Calvin never tells us. Instead he appeals to unexplainable mystery seen in his cloaked phrase “wonderful and inconceivable manner he reg-ulates all the movements of men…” This is theological gobbledegook in its highest form.]

The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not… Man therefore falls, divine providence so ordaining but he falls by his own fault.[6]

[As is obvious Calvin believed God did not just foresee the fall of man, he unconditionally de-creed that man would fall. Again Calvin seeks to cover his theological rear from getting blind-sided by appealing to an incomprehensible mystery (“we know not”) and then adding in the qualifier “but he falls by his own fault.” Herein lies Calvinism’s greatest conundrum concerning a compatibilist account of freedom. Compatibilist Calvinists say our choices are wholly deter-mined and caused by our desires. Yet Adam and Eve did not have any sinful nature and thus no inherent desire to sin or rebel. So how and why did they choose to sin and rebel? Arminians do have an answer because we understand self-determination to be the ultimate and final explana-tion for choice and behavior—rather than compatibilist “free-will” which maintains that all “free” choices have their origin in God’s prior decree.]

How it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to con-fess ignorance…. I daily so meditate on these mysteries of his judgments that curiosity to know anything more does not attract me.[7]

[Here again Calvin wants to insist that God is the causal determiner of every sinful transgres-sion and yet absolve God of all responsibility and culpability in foreordaining those sins. How does God do this? Calvin has no idea and again appeals to inscrutable mystery. The obvious problem is Calvinism creates mysteries where none should exist. There is no mystery as to how we can be held responsible for all the sins God causally determines—because God has not causally determined all our sins. There is no mystery as to how God can be the willing deter-miner of all your sins and not be the author of them—because God has not determined your sins. Calvinism makes God out to be a moral monster equal to the devil himself and appeals to mys-tery in order to extricate God from looking like the devil! The mysteries of Calvinism are just that—mysteries that solely exist in their own theological construct and are alien to biblical truth.]

I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, accord-ing to these objectors [non-Calvinists] happen only by his inactive permission… No, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility…”[8]

[In defending his view of sovereignty against his objectors John Calvin concedes that logi-cally it must mean God is the ultimate author of everything he ordains. Moreover he argues that simply saying that God gives “permission” is not sufficient. He later attempts to say that our

minds are too finite and stupid (“imbecile”) to comprehend the mystery as to why God would or-dain the very sins he forbids us to do.]

What we must prove is that single events are ordered by God and that every event comes from his intended will. Nothing happens by chance.”[9]

[For Calvin and Calvinism in general “chance” is understood as being any choice of self-de-termination that lies outside what God has already unilaterally pre-chosen should occur. In other words God has chosen what each choice shall be and chance is defined as any event or choice that is free of God’s causal determinism of all choices before the world began. Whether it be the roll of the dice in monopoly, your decision on a menu, or whether or not to cheat on a test— in Calvinism the only thing God is “allowing” is his own choice to become realized.]

But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.[10]

[Here Calvin states that God inspires everything men do. Thus God inspires every child mo-lestation, every lie, every act of adultery and every suicide. Accordingly God does not simply al-low men to abuse their freedom to do evil—he in fact inspires the very evil men do.]

James White:

Calvinist theologian James White, in a debate with Hank Hannegraaf and George Bryson, was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” To which Mr. White replied… “Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created it without a purpose… and God is responsible for the creation of despair… If He didn‟t [decree child rape] then that rape is an element of meaning-less evil that has no purpose.”[11]

[For a thorough refutation of White's reasoning, click here.]

Scripture…teaches God’s sovereignty (providence, decree, etc.) and man’s responsibility. We usually call this “biblical compatibilism,” which we might summarize by saying that human be-ings freely chose what God foreordains.”[12]

[Secondary causation, otherwise known as compatibilism, still results in causal determinism that precludes human responsibility in White’s theology. For in Calvinistic compatibilism God doesn’t just passively allow us to pick which bondage of sins our fallen desires “freely” pull us towards—he determines which desires we will have and which specific sins we will choose! In the end Calvinism can make no sense as to why God still treats people as moral agents who are responsible for the very same evil actions he causally determined and inwardly initiated for them to do.]

Vincent Cheung:

“God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that hap-pens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power. Since we have shown that no creature can make completely independent decisions, evil could never have started without God’s active decree, and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will. God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory, although it is not necessary to know or to state this reason to defend Christianity from the problem evil.”[13]

“Those who see that it is impossible to altogether disassociate God from the origination and continuation of evil nevertheless try to distance God from evil by saying that God merely “per-mits” evil, and that he does not cause any of it. However, since Scripture itself states that God actively decrees everything, and that nothing can happen apart from his will and power, it makes no sense to say that he merely permits something – nothing happens by God’s mere permis-sion.”[14]

[In declaring that every thought of man, even man’s sinful thoughts, are actively decreed by God, and that nothing happens unless God actively determines it (and not just permits it), Vin-cent Cheung leaves no stone unturned as to the extent of God’s divine determination over all things. Moreover, like John Piper, Cheung holds to the absurd and despicable Calvinist idea that God has divinely determined all evil—for his own holy glory.]

John Piper:

“So when I say that everything that exists — including evil — is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly, I mean that, one way or the other, God sees to it that all things serve to glorify his Son.”[15]

[Piper is coming under increasing pressure to detract his view that God ordained every sinful choice humans make for the sake of achieving greater radiance of glory. The view suffers in that it implies that God was not fully glorified before sin and now needs sin to make his glory “shine more brightly.” Even other Calvinists have been uneasy with Piper’s theology on this issue be-cause it presents a God who has a need—sin—to achieve something righteous—glory. Notice also that Piper attempts to do damage control by shrouding his true beliefs behind the innocuous phrase “God sees to it that all things serve to glorify his Son.” What Piper really means is “God causally determines every evil for the good purpose of glorifying his Son.” We are left wonder-ing if perhaps Piper does not want to be this blunt and honest with his readers because he is afraid many will not have the “stomach” to handle such brutal truths. In fact Piper has come un-der increasing criticism for not being theologically honest and forthcoming in his popular ser-mons—especially with young people who are considering Calvinism. He will often borrow an Arminian framework of God not “preventing” evil and “permitting sin” to explain how God foreordains every event of evil without being the author of such evils.[16] In saying this Piper is being wholly inconsistent with his own theology and is therefore being theologically inconsistent and dishonest (not morally!) with his laymen listeners and readers.]

“God is able without blameworthy ‘tempting’ to see to it that a person does what God ordains for him to do even if it involves evil.”[17]

[Piper has yet to be able to articulate a philosophically sound and coherent account of how our Holy God decrees the desires, motives and intentions of every man’s evil choices; renders it certain that they carry out those specifically decreed evils—yet all the while escapes the charge that he “tempts men” to do evil. Piper’s position is essentially that God does not actually tempt men to sin because that would make him morally culpable for sin. Instead Piper theorizes God only decrees all of our sin; sovereignly inclines all of our wills to commit that decreed sin—yet somehow remains morally un-culpable because he doesn’t tempt us to sin. What? This position would almost be worthy of humor given its irrationality if it wasn’t so tragic that Piper has man-aged to convince multitudes of others to think the same absurdity.]

J.I. Packer:

God… orders and controls all things, human actions among them…He [also] holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues… Man is a re-sponsible moral agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled, though he is also a responsible moral agent. To our finite minds, of course, the thing is inexplicable.[18]

[Notice again how Calvinists are quick to find refuge in “unexplainable mystery” whenever they are pressed on explaining the logic of their convictions. If one drops the premise that all hu-man desire and choice is rooted in God’s irresistible eternal decree then the mystery of how hu-mans can be responsible for their actions disappears.]

R.C. Sproul Jr.

God wills all things that come to pass…God desired for man to fall into sin. I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that God created sin.”[19]

[This Calvinist theologian unashamedly takes Calvinism to its logical conclusion. That other Calvinists hold to the same view but don’t speak so openly and plainly to their masses is a cause for concern.]

Edwin Palmer:

Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe. Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in back of everything. He de-cides and causes all things to happen that do happen. He is not sitting on the sidelines wonder-ing and perhaps fearing what is going to happen next. No, He has foreordained everything ‘after the counsel of his will’ (Eph. 1:11): the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist – even sin…Although sin and unbelief are contrary to what God commands…God has included them in his sovereign decree (ordained them, caused them to cer-tainly come to pass).[20]

[That so many intelligent and sincere followers of God believe that God “decides and causes…even [their] sin” is worrisome in that the view offers no sound reason as to why God’s grace is not a license to sin in the end. One can only speculate as to how many lives have been shipwrecked on the rocks of this extreme view of God’s sovereignty that provides every person a

valid reason to absolve themselves of all guilt—for who can resist an irresistible decree of God to sin?]

W.G.T. Shedd:

“Sin is one of the ‘whatsoevers’ that have ‘come to pass’, all of which are ‘ordained’…Noth-ing comes to pass contrary to His decree. Nothing happens by chance. Even moral evil, which He abhors and forbids, occurs by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God… man’s inability to explain how God can make things certain, but not compulsory… is no reason to deny that [God] can do it or that he has done it.”[21]

[Here we are told that God foreordains the very evils he hates and abhors. Again the theology of Calvinism makes God indistinguishable from the activity of the devil! In fact Calvinism must logically affirm that every demon is meticulously controlled by God insofar as he has decreed every one of their acts of temptation and evil.]

God by his providence permitted some of the angels willfully and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation…ordering that, and all their sins, to his glory.[22]

[Notice how Shedd, like Piper and Edwards, adopts a philosophy of absurd incoherence in at-tempting to use the language of “permission” to explain the fall and activity of demons, while si-multaneously asserting a reality of divine determinism to explain the fall and activity of demons. If a teacher arranges an exam whereby she renders certain that all her students fail, it is mean-ingless to then assert she “permitted” them to fail. And again we find another Calvinist telling us that God determines all sin “to his glory.” Webb should have said “to his shame.” Only a Calvinist possesses the strange ingenuity to attribute sin to God’s glory and in so doing divest glory of all that qualifies it as such.

Gordan H. Clark:

I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it…” He goes on to assert, “Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. There is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is om-nipotent. He alone is sovereign.[23] Some people who do not wish to extend God’s power over evil things, and particularly over moral evils…The Bible therefore explicitly teaches that God creates sin.[24]

[Unlike many of his Calvinist brethren who opted to shield themselves behind “mystery” as to how God can be the pre-determiner of sin without being the ultimate cause or author of sin, Clark was not ashamed or too timid to admit the logical conclusion of Calvinist dogma—that be-ing that God is the determinative cause of sin. He makes no attempt to lessen or soften Calvin-ism’s extreme view of God's sovereignty to make it more palatable or agreeable but readily ad-mits that God’s sovereignty, as logically seen through the lens of Calvinism, results in a God who determines, orders and causes the evil acts of all people. Why? Because “He alone is sover-eign.” It is Calvinism egregious view of God’s sovereignty that is its foremost error and gives us little reason not to toss it in the rubbish heap of theology gone to seed.]

A.W. Pink:

“Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have en-tered, for nothing happens except what God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a simple permission, for God only permits things that fulfill his purpose.”[25]

[Here Pink, the well-known Calvinist theologian, insists that sin entered this world as a result of what “God has eternally decreed” and that permitting is more or less a formality of means to bring into reality what he purposed unconditionally. When a Calvinists says, “God permitted the sin of X to occur” he is really saying, “God fulfilled the decree of X to occur.”]

John Frame:

“The Reformed [Calvinists] agree that God knows what would happen under all conditions, but they reject the notion that this knowledge is ever ultimately based on man’s autonomous de-cisions. Human decisions, they argue, are themselves the effects of God’s eternal decrees.”[26]

[Here Frame admits that God’s knowledge of every human decision (i.e. sin) is ultimately not a result of knowing what humans autonomously choose. In Calvinism there is no “autonomy” of the will. We are more like the glove that fits on a hand. The glove moves but ultimately only in response to the movement of the hand. Our wills are thus God’s instruments to affect his decrees. In this sense Frame would have us understand that God knows all human decisions because he has decreed each decision. Our illusion of free will is merely a trick of the mind because we are constrained to time. The fact is, according to Frame, every choice we make is merely the effects in time of what God eternally decreed.]

Calvinism makes much of the will of man being in bondage to sin, but it turns out this is only a formality in man’s experience–it is ultimately irrelevant. In Calvinism, man’s will is in bondage to God’s decretive will. Moreover this bondage is throughout one’s life! A Calvinist would be mistaken to think regenerated, saved persons somehow escape the “bondage of the will” they formerly incurred while in sin. That would be a conclusion that does not give Calvin-ism its full due. In order for a Calvinist to extoll God as sovereign it must be conceded that every sin, even sins made by Christians who are in Christ, is a sin that God decreed for them to make. Becoming saved changes this not one bit. There is ultimately no true freedom of the will to be gained in being a new creature in Christ—your sins are still determined just like they were be-fore!

The result of such an extreme view of sovereignty is quite frightfully appalling. God tells us to put to death the deeds of our flesh and to walk in holiness, yet every time we give in to the flesh God’s meticulous predeterminism ultimately lies behind it all—such that we could not have cho-sen against God’s decree. Far from being removed from sin, Calvinism results in God being the author and agent of sin!

At its core historical, scholarly Arminianism has principally been motivated by an unceasing passion to protect and defend the holy and righteous character of God from the horrific implica-tions of Calvinist theology.

[1] Calvin, John. Inst. I.xvi.8. 1539 edition. Quoted in A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[2] Calvin, John. Inst. I.xviii.l. 1559 edition. See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[3] Calvin, John. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (tr. J. K. S. Reid) (London, 1961)175f. (OC 8.358) See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[4] Calvin, John. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God 177 (OC 8.360) (‘summam et praecipuam rerum omnium causam’). Cf. Inst. I.xviii.2 (1559). See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Be-lieve in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[5] Calvin, John. Commentary on Is. 10:15. See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[6] Calvin, John. Inst. III.xxiii.8. See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[7] Calvin, John. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 124 (OC 8.316). See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73)

[8] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008), 1.18.1 and 3:136, 138-39

[9] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Ch. 16, Sect. 4[10]Calvin, John. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.171-172[11] White, James. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-it-is-important-to-go-back-

to.html[12] White, James. www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4324[13] Cheung, Vincent. “Problem of Evil,” http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/

onsite/ProblemEvil.htm (March, 2013)[14] Cheung, Vincent. “Problem of Evil,” http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/

onsite/ProblemEvil.htm (March, 2013)[15] Piper, John. Spectacular Sins: And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ

(Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 44[16] See John Piper’s sermon “Is God less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be?”

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/is-god-less-glorious-because-he-ordained-that-evil-be (June, 2012). In that sermon Piper quotes Jonathan Edward’s answer to the question as to how God can be the ultimate cause and determiner of sin and yet not be its author. Notice how Edwards relies on the Arminian language of “permission” to extricate him-self from the dilemma:

“If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing… It would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.” But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his “positive agency.”

Piper than goes on to quote Edwards further saying, “God is, Edwards says, the “permitter… of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the states of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted… will most certainly and infal-libly follow.” As is obvious Piper is being wholly inconsistent with the logic of his own position. In Calvinism all men sin necessarily in virtue of God irrevocably decreeing that they sin irre-sistibly. For in Calvinism it is impossible for men to choose against God’s decree. It is pointless to say God permits what he necessitates through an irresistible decree. Piper is intentionally ob-

scuring the true horror of Calvinism by softening his language and borrowing Arminian terms to escape the logical implications of his own theology. As one writer insightfully points out, “Such a view of permission as Edwards and Piper describe would be like saying that someone who con-trolled the mind and actions of another to sin in such a way that the person being controlled had no power to avoid sinning ‘permitted the sin’ because he ‘allowed’ the person to think and act just as he was irresistibly controlling the person to think and act.” Obviously this is hardly how anyone would understand ‘permission’ yet this fact does not give Calvinists like Piper pause. He intentionally obscures meaning. To say that God “permits” sin to come about through his infalli-ble, determinative decree is to simply say God established a world whereby sin happens of ne-cessity–via eternal decrees. In the Edwards/Piper/Calvinist scheme, man is powerless to control his nature. Man is powerless to choose or act contrary to “strongest motive force.” Man, like-wise, has no control over which motive will indeed be the “strongest” and so irresistibly move his will in a certain direction. All these things are necessitated by the eternal all-encompassing decree of God. Adam’s sin, mankind’s consequent fallen nature, and every subsequent thought, motive, desire, and act are necessitated by eternal divine decree. A person can no more resist or act contrary to the eternal divine decree than he or she could create a universe. How then can we speak of God merely “permitting” these “necessitated” sinful acts?” See Ben Henshaw’s devastating critique of Piper’s sermon and reliance on Edwards ill-conceived theology at: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/ (June, 2012).

[17] Piper, John. Spectacular Sins: And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 24

[18] Packer. J.I, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1961), 19-23.

[19] Sproul, R.C. Jr. Almighty Over All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), 54[20] Palmer, Edwin. H. The Five Points of Calvinism, 24-25[21] Shedd, W.G.T. Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, 32-33, 38-39 http://www.archive.org/

stream/calvinismpuremix00shed#page/32/mode/2up[22] Shedd, W.G.T. Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, 32-33 http://www.archive.org/stream/calvin-

ismpuremix00shed#page/34/mode/2up[23] Clark, Gordan. Religion, Reason, and Revelation, (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian &

Reformed), 1961, 221[24] Clark, Gordan. Predestination. (The Trinity Foundation), 1987. 18[25] Pink, A.W. The Sovereignty of God, 2009, 162[26] Frame, John. “Scientia Media,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter

A. Elwell. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 1075.

IN THE WORD

First

1 Chronicles 29:10-12

Job 42:1-2

Psalm 115:3; 135:6

Isaiah 14:24, 27

God ordaining evil - Isaiah 45:5-7, Lamentations 3:38, Amos 3:6, prov 16:4 – R. C. Sproul Jr., 146Vance, 269f, 309

Isaiah 46:9-11

Daniel 4:35

Matthew 19:26

THE LAST WORD

My view

Cf. ***Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 289f

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES

The Other Side of Calvinism – Laurence VanceWhat Love is This? – Neither Calvinism nor ArminianismThe Dark Side of Calvinism – Calvinistic Paths Retraced