(One almost used Sliding Thumbnail that I rejected, but like. Here is the one I chose to use, just bigger than the slider one.)
A friend on the Effe Bee (Facebook) asked a good question about the premise the graphic you see directly to the right:
- There’s some truth to Sproul’s finished statement is there not?
(And for those not in the thick of the theological weeds, it may seem a somewhat tenable position.) So I wanted to share a longer response with him as well as discuss some other recent graphics I have made for the larger audience.
I actually agree with the first half of Sproul’s statement. Salvation is entirely dependent upon God’s grace from beginning to end. Where I disagree is with his definition of that grace.
Sproul says I must first be regenerated by an effectual act of the Spirit before I can believe.
Traditional Baptists and Provisionists say God graciously initiates salvation, provides Christ, gives the gospel, convicts and draws the sinner, and enables the response — but the sinner’s faith is genuinely a response that can be either accepted or resisted.
So the disagreement isn’t whether salvation is of the Lord. It’s whether God’s grace determines the response or graciously enables the response.
This is really dealing with the Calvinist’s twisting of Total Depravity into an ontological form of Total Inability. Dr. Leighton Flowers deals with this in this older video titled “The Biblical use of the term ‘DEAD'”
Which brings me to another graphic I made:
Again, this is ripping a 1st century idiom out of context. It is almost “Cultish” in how it is done. Here Micah Coate explains this idea a little:
Despite Calvinism’s highly acclaimed standard of quality exegesis, the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is often used as a textual illustration supporting Calvin’s doctrine of Total Depravity. This is a hermeneutical mistake. The student of the Bible should beware when any doctrine, let alone essential doctrine, is supported from a narrative story that lacks any instruction, especially when a particular belief is set against a number of other clear teachings. This reading of Scripture is comparable to the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who pull a number of erroneous doctrines from the poetic books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
This way of using Scripture is one of the characteristics of a cult. Josh McDowell writes that cults often claim that:
. . . the Scriptures are their final source of authority; [however,] we find they [cults] consistently misuse the Scriptures to establish their own peculiar beliefs. This is accomplished chiefly by quoting texts out of context while omitting other passages relevant to the subject.
Calvinist R. C. Sproul actually validates McDowell’s statement, in his book What Is Reformed Theology? In the chapter “Monergistic Regeneration,” Sproul fails to cite a single verse showing that the Bible supports this belief. Instead, Sproul gives the reader a class in Latin and Greek terminology with such words as monergism, synergism, operative grace, and cooperative grace. Instead of making a sound case for monergistic regeneration, all Sproul does is pull a heretical doctrine of salvation from the simple story of Lazarus, saying, “Perhaps a good illustration of Monergistic, life-giving power is the raising of Lazarus from the dead.” Sproul tries to provide a biblical foundation for his peculiar belief at the expense of “quoting texts out of context while omitting other passages relevant to the subject.” Because of this hermeneutical mistake, his example and thoughts on the monergistic resurrection are incorrect.
The usual argument given in defense of Total Depravity lies in a question: Because the Bible depicts man as being dead apart from God, how can he choose to have faith in the Gospel of Jesus on his own? Although many Calvinist authors pose this question as a foundation for their doctrine, it is not logically or biblically sound. By pulling doctrine from the Lazarus account, Calvinists have dug themselves into a mess of unanswerable theological questions.
The Lazarus Problem:
When a Narrative Becomes a Doctrine
One of the most familiar Calvinist illustrations of Total Depravity and regeneration is the raising of Lazarus in John 11. The argument is easy to understand: Lazarus was physically dead, therefore he could do nothing to contribute to his resurrection. Jesus alone called him from death to life. R.C. Sproul explicitly uses Lazarus in this way, explaining that regeneration is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit and comparing the effectual call to Jesus’ command, “Lazarus, come out.”
Sproul then gives the Reformed order of salvation as:
effectual calling → regeneration → faith → justification → sanctification → glorification
That is an important distinction because Sproul is not merely saying that Lazarus illustrates God’s power to give life. He is using the Lazarus narrative to illustrate a particular doctrine of the order of salvation. According to this system, the sinner is spiritually dead and therefore cannot believe until God first regenerates him. Regeneration produces the faith by which the person believes. Sproul himself contrasts this with the more common evangelical understanding that a person believes in Christ and is then born again, which I picture here:.
JOHN 11:1-40 (CSB)
LAZARUS DIES AT BETHANY
1 Now a man was sick—Lazarus from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair, and it was her brother Lazarus who was sick. 3 So the sisters sent a message to him: “Lord, the one you love is sick.”
4 When Jesus heard it, he said, “This sickness will not end in death but is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, her sister, and Lazarus. 6 So when he heard that he was sick, he stayed two more days in the place where he was. 7 Then after that, he said to the disciples, “Let’s go to Judea again.”
8 “Rabbi,” the disciples told him, “just now the Jews tried to stone you, and you’re going there again?”
9 “Aren’t there twelve hours in a day?” Jesus answered. “If anyone walks during the day, he doesn’t stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks during the night, he does stumble, because the light is not in him.”
11 He said this, and then he told them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I’m on my way to wake him up.”
12 Then the disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will get well.”
13 Jesus, however, was speaking about his death, but they thought he was speaking about natural sleep. 14 So Jesus then told them plainly, “Lazarus has died. 15 I’m glad for you that I wasn’t there so that you may believe. But let’s go to him.”
16 Then Thomas (called “Twin”) said to his fellow disciples, “Let’s go too so that we may die with him.”
THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE
17 When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Bethany was near Jerusalem (less than two miles away). 19 Many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them about their brother. 20 As soon as Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went to meet him, but Mary remained seated in the house.
21 Then Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother wouldn’t have died. 22 Yet even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.”
23 “Your brother will rise again,” Jesus told her.
24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me, even if he dies, will live. 26 Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
27 “Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who comes into the world.”
JESUS SHARES THE SORROW OF DEATH
28 Having said this, she went back and called her sister Mary, saying in private, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.”
29 As soon as Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. 30 Jesus had not yet come into the village but was still in the place where Martha had met him. 31 The Jews who were with her in the house consoling her saw that Mary got up quickly and went out. They followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to cry there.
32 As soon as Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and told him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother wouldn’t have died!”
33 When Jesus saw her crying, and the Jews who had come with her crying, he was deeply moved in his spirit and troubled. 34 “Where have you put him?” he asked.
“Lord,” they told him, “come and see.”
35 Jesus wept.
36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “Couldn’t he who opened the blind man’s eyes also have kept this man from dying?”
THE SEVENTH SIGN: RAISING LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD
38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39 “Remove the stone,” Jesus said.
Martha, the dead man’s sister, told him, “Lord, there is already a stench because he has been dead four days.”
40 Jesus said to her, “Didn’t I tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”
In other words, the stated emphasis surrounding the miracle is belief. The miracle is presented as a revelation of Christ’s identity and glory that calls people to faith. That is quite different from using the event as a technical illustration that regeneration must occur before anyone can believe. (SOTERIOLOGY 101)
The problem becomes even more apparent when we recognize that Scripture uses “dead” in several different metaphoric contexts. The material in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique identifies people as spiritually dead, sick, blind, lovers of darkness, and dead, but argues that Scripture does not require “dead” to mean an inability to repent and believe. It specifically points to Adam and Eve hearing and responding to God after their fall, the prodigal son being described as dead and lost while returning to his father, and Jesus’ statement in John 5:24 concerning the spiritually dead who hear and believe.
That brings us directly to the Prodigal Son. Jesus says of the son, “This son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.” Yet the “dead” son is not portrayed as a motionless corpse. He comes to his senses. He recognizes his condition. He changes his mind. He decides to return. He gets up and goes to his father. Then his father receives him and restores him. The point isn’t that the son saved himself—he didn’t. The father is the one who restores the relationship. But the story certainly doesn’t require us to understand “dead” as meaning incapable of responding.
If you right click with your mouse and “Open Link In New Tab”, that is an expandible graphic.
This is exactly the point made in the Soteriology 101 material. The argument isn’t that “dead doesn’t mean dead.” The argument is that dead is being used idiomatically, and therefore we need to determine what the biblical metaphor means rather than automatically equating spiritual death with a physical corpse. The Prodigal is called “dead/lost” and then “alive/found,” which is presented as an illustration of separation through rebellion rather than innate moral inability. The same article points to Revelation 3, James 1, Romans 7, Ephesians 2, and Colossians 2 as passages that complicate the assumption that “dead” means an inability to respond positively to God. (SOTERIOLOGY 101)
The Colossians passage is particularly interesting. Paul says that believers were “raised up with Him through faith.” The argument drawn from this is that being made alive and faith are not necessarily related in the Calvinist sequence of regeneration → faith. Likewise, the broader biblical material repeatedly commands people to repent and believe. Acts 17:30 says that God “commands all people everywhere to repent.” The critique argues that these commands make better sense as genuine calls to sinners who, through God’s gracious enablement, can respond, rather than as commands that only become possible after an irresistible regeneration that God grants to some and withholds from others.
And this is where the “dead men don’t grab” illustration becomes less decisive than it first appears. Of course a literal corpse cannot grab a life preserver. But nobody is claiming that spiritually dead people are physically dead. The question is what spiritual death means. If “dead” automatically means the total inability to respond to God, then that definition needs to be demonstrated from Scripture rather than simply assumed from the Lazarus story. Ronnie Rogers’ formulation is useful here: God’s sufficient call, together with His grace enablement, is sufficient for anyone to receive salvation. He identifies those enablements as including God’s love, the revelation of His power, Christ’s provision, the conviction of the Holy Spirit, God’s teaching, the gospel, and God’s drawing.
There is also a fascinating internal problem with using Lazarus as the complete picture of the unregenerate sinner. Lazarus did absolutely nothing to help Jesus raise him from the dead—but he also did absolutely nothing to resist Jesus. If Lazarus is the perfect picture of the spiritually dead sinner, then the analogy would seem to demonstrate an inability to do anything in response to God, whether positive or negative. Yet Calvinism simultaneously describes the unregenerate person as actively rebelling against God, loving darkness, following sinful desires, and committing acts that displease Him. The Lazarus analogy therefore cannot, by itself, establish all of the conclusions Calvinism wants to draw from it. The narrative demonstrates Christ’s sovereign power over death; it does not explain every aspect of the sinner’s moral response to God’s grace.
So the real issue isn’t whether God gives life. He does. It isn’t whether salvation is dependent upon God’s grace. It is. And it certainly isn’t whether anyone can save himself. Nobody can. The actual question is much narrower and much more important:
Does “dead in sin” mean that a sinner is incapable of responding to God’s gracious revelation until after regeneration, or does it describe the sinner’s lost, separated, rebellious condition while God’s grace enables him to respond?
That is where the two systems part company.
AGAIN:
The Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique material explicitly frames the distinction as Total Depravity understood as the inability to save oneself versus Total Depravity understood as the inability to repent and believe. To be clear, Calvinists appeal to the doctrine of total depravity to claim that sinners are unable to repent and trust Christ apart from the monergistic work of regeneration.
The distinction is not between believing that humanity is sinful and believing that humanity is not sinful. Both sides affirm the devastating effects of sin and humanity’s absolute dependence upon God’s grace. The real question is what “Total Depravity” means with respect to a person’s response to the gospel. As Adam Harwood explains, the Traditional Statement denies that Adam’s sin resulted in the “incapacitation” of anyone’s free will. It does not claim that sinners can save themselves; rather, it affirms that no sinner can achieve salvation through his own effort and that salvation is received through a response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the gospel.
That distinction is critical to the Lazarus argument. Calvinism takes spiritual death to mean that sinners cannot repent and believe until God first regenerates them. The Traditional Baptist position instead understands sinners as genuinely lost and unable to save themselves, while God’s grace calls and enables them to respond. Harwood notes the significance of the Bible’s repeated calls for people to repent and believe: if God calls all people to repent and gives open invitations to respond in faith, the Traditional Statement argues that people must actually be capable of responding. In other words, “dead in sin” does not have to mean “incapable of responding to God’s gracious invitation.” It can describe the sinner’s desperate, lost, and sinful condition while still leaving room for God’s grace to enable a genuine response.
And that is why I think the Lazarus argument deserves much more scrutiny than it usually receives.
Jesus certainly raised Lazarus from the dead.
But Lazarus was not raised to teach us the mechanics of regeneration.
He was raised as a sign revealing who Jesus is, and Jesus explicitly connected the event with belief.
Harwood’s chapter explicitly says the disagreement is not whether salvation is by grace. The Traditional Statement says no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort. The disagreement is whether God’s grace enables a response or must first regenerate the person so that the response becomes inevitable.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
When we take that narrative and make it the foundation for a doctrine that says regeneration must precede faith, we have moved from what the text says to what a theological system wants the text to illustrate. That is precisely the hermeneutical question raised by Micah Coate’s critique:
- Are we allowing Scripture to establish the doctrine, or are we taking a narrative and making it carry a doctrine that the narrative itself never teaches?
The issue, then, isn’t whether Lazarus was really dead.
He was.
The issue is whether every spiritually dead person is therefore a spiritual Lazarus—unable to hear, unable to respond, and unable to believe until God first regenerates him.
That conclusion has to come from Scripture. Lazarus doesn’t say it.
You want an example of how a healthy theology uses the Lazarus even? Remember Jesus said:
“This sickness will not end in death but is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”
“I’m glad for you that I wasn’t there so that you may believe.”
“I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me, even if he dies, will live. Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
“Didn’t I tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”
Here is how the story of Lazarus is used in Professor Harwood’s systematic work:
SIGNS AND MIRACLES
Another means of special revelation attested in Scripture is signs and miracles, which are sometimes called God’s mighty acts or signs and wonders. 18 Signs and miracles were acts of God that occurred outside God’s normative providential care and were meant to testify that God was at work. The Bible is filled with examples of signs and miracles. For example, God intervened to provide children to women such as Sarah, Hannah, and Mary, who otherwise would not have become pregnant. 19 God demonstrated signs through Moses so people would know God had appeared to Moses and was speaking through him (Exod 4:1–9). When Pharaoh refused to listen to Moses despite God’s many signs and wonders, Egypt experienced “mighty acts of judgment” (Exod 7:4).
Signs and wonders characterized the events surrounding Jesus’s conception and birth as well as his public ministry. Mark records an episode that demonstrates a reason for miracles during Jesus’s ministry. While Jesus was teaching in a home crowded with listeners, a paralytic man was lowered through the roof. Jesus declared the man’s sins were forgiven and explained the reason he healed the man was to demonstrate his authority to forgive sin —something only God can do (Mark 2:1–12). This episode of physical healing reveals how the miracle brought more than physical relief and a demonstration of God’s compassion for the individual; the miracle pointed people to a greater truth, that Jesus had the authority to forgive sin. John’s Gospel contains several miracles called “signs” (Grk. sēmeia ), which revealed Jesus’s glory (John 2:11), including turning water to wine (John 2:1–11), healing an official’s son (4:43–54), healing a man at Bethesda (5:1– 15), feeding five thousand (6:1–14), walking on water (6:16–21), restoring a man’s sight (9:1–12), and raising Lazarus (11:1–44). The greatest sign in John’s Gospel, as in the other Gospels, is the resurrection of Jesus from the grave.
[….]
The person and work of Christ can be seen in a variety of ways in John’s Gospel. Jesus is the preexistent and divine Word who became flesh, was rejected by his creation, in whom is life, and who reveals the Father (1:1–18). The Gospel presents eight witnesses to the divinity of Christ: John the Baptist (1:34), the works of Christ (5:36), the Father (v. 37), the Scriptures (v. 39), Christ himself (8:14), the Holy Spirit (15:26), believers (v. 27), and the author of the Gospel (19:35). 15 The seven miracles, also called signs, revealed God’s glory in Jesus and resulted in the disciples trusting him (2:11). The seven signs are changing water into wine (2:1–11), healing the official’s son (4:43–54), healing the man at Bethesda (5:1–15), feeding the five thousand (6:1–14), walking on water (vv. 16–21), healing the man born blind (9:1–12), and raising Lazarus (11:1–44). Jesus identified himself in seven “I am” statements with Yahweh, the covenant name of God: the bread of life (6:35); the light of the world (8:12); the door (10:7); the good shepherd (vv. 11–14); the resurrection and the life (11:25); the way, the truth, and the life (14:6); and the true vine (15:1).
Adam Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 88–89, 398.
Professor Harwood used the story as Jesus intended it; R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, James White, and others, did and do not..
More from Professor Flowers book, Drawn by Jesus:
Dead In Sin
Are we born dead like Lazarus, a corpse rotting in the tomb (a link scripture never draws), or are we dead like the Prodigal, a loved one separated due to his own rebellion? Scripture seems to support the latter, not the former (Luke 15:32).
The fact is that the scriptures metaphorically address our condition as a sickness far more than as deadness. (Jer 17:9, 23; Mk 2:17; Lk 5:31; Mt 9:12; Ps 38:3; Is 64:6; etc) And when speaking metaphorically of deadness, it is never described as a morally incapacitated condition from birth due to the Fall, but instead as a condition of being separated from God by our own rebellion.
For instance, the Prodigal was “dead” or “lost” then “alive” or “found,” demonstrating that the term “dead” is idiomatic for “separated by rebellion,” not “innate moral inability” (Luke 15:24). Just as our soul is separated from our body when we die so too sinful humanity is separated from God by his rebellion. Look what scripture teaches,
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. (James 1 :1 3-1 5)
Are we born “dead,” according to James? Or is death birthed in those who sin after it is “full grown?” What did Paul say?
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment, put me to death. (Romans 7:7-11)
Are we born “dead,” according to Paul? Or was it through the commandment, after “sin sprang to life,” that death came? In contrast, the metaphor of illness is quite prevalent throughout the scriptures:
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6)
The heart is more deceitful than all else. And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? (Jeremiah 1 7:9)
And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. (Mark 2:1 7)
There is no soundness in my flesh because of Your indignation; There is no health in my bones because of my sin. (Psalms 38:3)
For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64:6)
We are sick and in need of a Physician. We are cursed and in need of His cure. His life-giving truth is sufficient to accomplish the purpose for which He sent it, “…so that you may believe…and by believing may have life in His name” (John 20:31).
Is Not Able By His Own Strength
Given that we cannot draw our next breath if not by the gracious good pleasure of our Sovereign Lord, I’m not sure how this qualification helps clarify our point of contention. God gives us all we have, including our ability to make choices. In other words, we all affirm that God must enable choice. We do not all agree that such enabling will dictate which choice will be made. As A.W. Tozer so eloquently taught,
God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man, from the beginning, has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom, God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.
To Convert Himself
In response to a doctor’s diagnosis, is recognizing your need for a heart transplant and submitting to the doctor’s will to perform the surgery equal to performing the surgery yourself? Of course not. An Ethiopian cannot change his own skin, nor can a leopard change his own spots (Jeremiah 13:23), but that does not even imply that they cannot recognize and submit to this needed change when confronted by the only One who is able to bring about such change.
Or Prepare Himself Thereunto
Can the powerful, Spirit-wrought truth of God’s inspired Word prepare him thereunto? Does one’s ability to resist such preparation and enabling work somehow negate that the work is sufficient to accomplish its given purpose?
Here is a brief rebuttal of the most common proof texts used by Calvinists to support their teaching on “Total Inability.” Much more could be and has been written on each of these texts from the non-Calvinistic perspective, but for the sake of brevity, here is a summary of the rebuttals:
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)
Nothing at all is stated about man’s inability to respond to God’s own revelation. Please read all of Genesis chapter 6 and make a case as to how that supports the Calvinistic premise. Here is just a taste of the context:
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
As one Calvinist on a recent podcast inquired in response to this passage, “Why didn’t God just elect more people instead of becoming `deeply troubled?'” That is a good question that every Calvinist must deal with when confronted with a text like this. The natural reading simply does not align with deterministic philosophy.
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. (Romans 3:1O-11)
No one is righteous according to the works of the law. No one is able to attain righteousness by law through works. But how does that prove no one is able to obtain righteousness by grace through faith? In verse 21 of this same chapter, Paul introduces the means for man to obtain righteousness, which is separate from the law. Calvinists seem to think that proof of our inability to earn righteousness through our own works likewise proves our inability to trust in the imputed righteousness of Christ. Proving that the lost cannot seek God does not prove that they are unable to respond to a God who is actively seeking to save the lost.
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:7-9)
Mankind’s inability to submit to God’s law does not prove their inability to trust in Christ, who fulfilled the law for mankind. Mankind’s inability to please God while acting in the flesh does not prove mankind’s inability to respond to the spiritual appeal of God so as to receive His Spirit.
If I warn my rebellious son, saying, “You cannot please me by acting selfishly,” does that suggest the child is unable to heed my warning, humble himself, and repent of acting selfishly? Of course not. It only suggests that as long as my child continues to rebel and act according to his pride, he will not please me.
This verse says nothing of our innate inability to respond to God’s powerful truth and appeal to humble ourselves so as to be reconciled. Each individual has the choice to remain in their fleshly pride or respond to the Spirit’s call to humble themselves. If you choose the former, you cannot please God.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
So, the lost man needs someone to spiritually discern the “deep things of God” (vs. 10), right? What are the means God uses to help us discern spiritual truths? Is not the very epistle that Paul is writing to the carnal believers in Corinth a means for “spiritual discernment?” And since the “brethren” in the Corinthian church are “not able to receive” these same “deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 3:1-3), one would be hard-pressed to suggest that Paul intended to teach that no one is able to understand the simple “milk” of the gospel’s appeal for reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:20).
Again, this text never suggests that mankind is born unable to respond positively to God’s clearly revealed gospel appeal. It only affirms that the mystery of the gospel must be revealed to us in order for us to understand it, which it has been. As Paul states, “When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Ephesians 3:4).
Neither side of this soteriological debate suggests that lost men can understand the deep spiritual truths of God apart from the means God has chosen to reveal these mysteries. So, the question is whether God’s means of discernment through the apostle’s writings is a sufficient work of discernment that enables those who hear it to understand and respond.
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (John 6:44a)
We all agree with this statement. But what are the means that God draws men to Himself? Even White agrees that God draws them by teaching them. As mentioned earlier, in Romans 10:14-15 Paul asks:
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?
Follow the Order:
God Sends: Who does He send? His apostles, the remnant reserved from Israel to be His inspired messengers (Acts 10:40-41). The rest of the Israelites are being judicially hardened in their rebellion temporarily while Christ is on earth (Romans 11:7; 25). Jesus speaks to them in parables so that they cannot understand and repent (Mark 4:11-12). He does this to ensure the crucifixion that He has predetermined will come to pass (Acts 2:23). It is not until after Christ is lifted up that he sends out His Spirit-filled messengers to preach the gospel to all peoples (Acts 1:8) in order to draw all men to Himself (John 12:3 2).
Apostles Preach: What do they preach? The powerful gospel appeal (Romans 1:16; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 5:20), which is alive, active and able to cut through to the soul of man (Hebrews 4:12). Remember this is the powerful gospel that is being hidden in parables from most of Israel while Christ is on earth in order to prevent them from repenting before the right time (Matthew 13:11; 16:20). Proof that God used persuasive means to convince chosen messengers from Israel to go and proclaim His message is not proof that God uses inward irresistible means to convince preselected hearers to believe their message (John 20:30-31).
Hearers Hear: Who are the hearers? Anyone who is not being judicially hardened, like Israel was at that time. Only those who are being blinded from seeing the light are unable to see the light, and that blinding (judicially hardening) is not a condition from birth but a condition unique to Israel at that time as judgment for their rebellion.
Hearing is how they can believe: As Paul states in the following verses, “faith comes from hearing the message,” which parallels what John taught in John 20:31: “…these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and that by believing, you may have life in his name.” The only reason that a hearer would not be enabled to respond to the life-giving truth of God’s appeal is if they are being prevented from seeing, hearing, or understanding the message, a condition of someone being judicially hardened by God (“hidden from their eyes”).
Believing is how they can call: One who has heard the powerful gospel appeal calling us to repentance and faith is able to believe. The believer is able to call on Christ in repentance in order to find forgiveness and life. Mankind must repent in order to live! (Ezekiel 18:32)
The historical context of John 6 must be in view to understand the author’s intention. Jesus is purposefully blinding most Israelites, due to their self-righteous rebellion, from the truth of His identity to prevent their repentance for a time. All the while, He is drawing His preselected apostles and genuine believers from Israel to be the foundation for His church. In other words, in Christ’s audience, there are some who are being judicially hardened from Israel for a good reason (unbelief) and others who are being drawn from Israel for a good reason (belief) in order to ensure God’s purpose in electing Israel would be fulfilled.
Support Drawn from Other Passages In John’s Gospel
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself. (John 12:32)
The differentiation between the Father’s drawing in John 6 and the Son’s drawing in John 12, as expounded upon earlier, is a significant contextual point that must be considered in this discussion. The emphasis on the Father’s drawing in John 6 highlights the divine action of God inviting and enabling faithful God-fearing individuals to come to Jesus.
On the other hand, in John 12:32, Jesus emphasizes His own agency in drawing all people to Himself, but only after His resurrection. This distinction highlights the harmonious collaboration between the Father and the Son in their work of salvation, underscoring the unity and purpose within the Godhead given at the proper time. By emphasizing His role in drawing people to Himself, Jesus reinforces His divinity and authority as the central figure in the redemptive plan of God, offering all people the means to be reconciled with God through His sacrificial death and resurrection.
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:25-30)
If we understand “My sheep” to refer to “those I have unconditionally elected for effectual salvation before the foundation of the world,” then this passage might appear to support the Calvinistic doctrine. However, there is nothing in this context to indicate that is what Jesus is referring to by using the analogy of being His “sheep.” The intended audience of Jesus’ words in John 10:26 are Israelites who have become hardened and indifferent to the voice of God. It is because of their refusal to listen and respond to the Father’s voice that they are now unable to recognize and accept the voice of Jesus, who speaks the same truth (John 6:45).
This is not due to an inherent condition from birth that predisposes them to hate and reject God’s appeals for reconciliation, nor is it because God is withholding the necessary grace for them to believe. On the contrary, the Jews had become calloused through persistent unbelief; otherwise, they could have seen, heard, understood, and turned to God for healing (as demonstrated in John 12:39-40 and Acts 28:23-28). Jesus describes their spiritual condition in this context as follows:
You pore over the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, and yet they testify about me. But you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life (John 5:39-40).
It is important to observe the sequence of events here: the Jews chose to reject the Scriptures, resulting in their denial of the opportunity for life. Jesus did not imply, “I have refused to make you alive so that you would be compelled to come to me.” He put the blame solely upon them for their unwillingness to come when they were presented with that opportunity.
During that time, the Jewish people had become stubborn and entrenched in their rebellion, which explains why they were unable to perceive, hear, and respond to their own Messiah. However, those who had not succumbed to this hardening of heart, and instead listened to and learned from the Father (like Cornelius in Acts 10) would believe in the Son and follow Him – recognizing His voice, much like a sheep responds to its shepherd (see also John 6:45).
Prior to Christ’s coming, if someone believed the Father, they would also believe His Son, for the Father and Son are One. Conversely, if one refused to listen to the Father before the incarnation, they would likewise be unresponsive to the teachings of the Son. The followers of the Father (often referred to as “sheep” during that era) also became followers of the Son. Those who rejected the guidance of the Father were not considered among His sheep, and that is why they refused to follow the Son. This clarifies Jesus’ statement to them, “But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep” (John 10:26).
In essence, Jesus is conveying this message: “Because you have chosen not to follow the Father, you will not follow me, His Son, either.” When Jesus says, “You are not my sheep,” He is essentially saying, “You do not align yourself with God, nor have you listened and learned from Him (as referenced in John 6:45). Hence, you will not heed my calling as the Shepherd sent by Him, who represents the very same truth.” This is reflected in the following statement by Jesus:
If God were your Father, you would love Me, because I came from God and I am here. For I didn’t come on my own, but He sent me (John 8:42).
Jesus is not implying, as the Calvinistic doctrine would suggest, that their unbelief stems from both Him and the Father rejecting them and withholding the necessary grace to believe since before the world was established. This notion contradicts Luke 19:41-42, where
Jesus weeps over Israel because they are now unable to see the truth of His identity as their Messiah.
Why would God need to conceal the truth of Christ from those who were born unable to believe? Additionally, why would Jesus urge those who were not His followers to ponder the implications of His miracles if they were utterly incapable of accepting the truth?
If I am not doing my Father’s works, don’t believe me. But if I am doing them and you don’t believe me, believe the works. This way, you will know and understand that the Father is in me and I in the Father (John 10:37-38, emphasis added).
God was not withholding some special grace necessary for them to believe. This notion gives them too much credit and portrays them as victims rather than morally accountable rebellious sinners. They reject a loving God who declares, “all day long I have held out my hands” (Romans 10:21) and “wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings” (Matthew 23:37; Isaiah 30:15).
I came across this first graphic, and this is the “Calvinist ‘front’ story”… I explain the rest of the story behind the scenes with the second one that follows:
