Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, by David L. Allen (Editor), Steve W Lemke (Editor),
CHAPTER 6 by Ken Wilson — pages 230-237.
The Fatal Error of Calvinists
A Critique of Augustine’s Reversion to Pagan Concepts
When he redefined Christian terms and concepts, Augustine misrepresented earlier Christian authors. Lewis Ayres politely noted, “Augustine was an attentive reader of his forebears, but one whose interpretations of them were frequently very much his own.”44 As a result, Luther and Calvin mistakenly believed that Augustine was merely teaching what all of the earlier church fathers had taught.45 But in fact, Augustine himself admitted that he had tried but failed to continue in the Christian doctrine of free will of the first four centuries. He consistently utilized the same Christian terms but inserted new meanings into those terms.46 Roger Haight wrote, “Grace for Augustine was delight in the good, a new form of liberty that required an internal modification of the human will. No one [Christian] prior to Augustine had really asserted anything like this need for an inner working of God within human freedom.”47 Augustine redefined free will, utilizing Stoic concepts, deformed original sin with Manichaean dualism, and mutilated faith into a divine gift to match Gnostic and Manichaean unilateral election.48 Augustinian scholar Eugene TeSelle noted:
Augustine always reacted vigorously to the suggestion that he taught what amounted to a doctrine of fate. Now it is undeniable that he did hold to something like what is usually meant by fate. . . . To him fate meant something precise: the doctrine that external occurrences, bodily actions, even thoughts and decisions are determined by the position of the heavenly bodies [C. dua ep Pel., II,6,12] or more broadly, universal material determinism [C. dua ep Pel. II, 6,12; De Civ. Dei. IV.33, V.1,8].49
Augustine said if anyone “calls the will of God or the power of God itself by the name of fate, let him keep his opinion but correct his language” (C. dua ep. Pel.1.2.4). Over a thousand years later, Augustine’s novel and syncretistic reinterpretations of Christian Scripture (TULIP) would be faithfully replicated by Calvin and his followers.
Similarly, modern Calvinists (such as the contributing authors of Whomever He Wills) vehemently defend their theology using Scripture. But they refuse to admit their own interpretations are based on the pagan philosophies and Manichaean religion deeply imbedded into their current syncretistic scriptural interpretations by Augustine.50 God as micromanager of the universe (Stoic sovereignty) stands foremost and paramount: total depravity (Manichaean) follows logically from it (using the same pagan arguments).51 For Calvinists like Andrew Davis, “Romans 9:11–13 is the mortal wound for conditional election.”52 This replicates the “biblical” arguments by Gnostics and Manichaeans for unconditional election (determinism); but all pre-Augustinian Christian writings opposed this pagan doctrine. Thomas Schreiner claimed all Christians will inevitably persevere. This assumes the perfect divine gift of faith unilaterally infused by (the Gnostic/Manichaean) God cannot fail, because ultimate salvation requires perseverance—faith plus works (i.e., not our own but fruit God produces, per Augustine). This includes Schreiner’s appeal to Phil 1:6, repeating Augustine’s tortured interpretation.53 Bruce Ware’s chapter on the compatibility of determinism and freedom could have been argued by a Stoic or Manichaean who was familiar with Scripture. His argument for compatibility was unnecessary in pre-Augustinian Christian theology.54 Likewise, Stephen Wellum repeated Augustine’s appeal to “mystery” that was not required until his Stoic god unilaterally desired, predetermined, and ordained all things, including monstrous evils (such as genocide, rape, torture, and child sacrifice).55 Matthew Barrett’s “The Scriptural Affirmation of Monergism” would have shocked all pre-Augustinian Christians, while making the ancient monergistic Manichaeans proud.56
For Calvinists, the only reasonable theological choice must be Calvinism, since in Arminianism, “God is robbed of his glory at the expense of demanding libertarian freedom.”57 This false disjunction (limited to two poor choices of Calvinism and Arminianism) ignores the centuries of unanimous pre-Augustinian Christian theology on human free will and God’s general sovereignty. Calvinism’s God is puny. Calvinism limits God’s sovereignty.
Calvinists must either ignore these facts or attempt to marginalize them. The vast majority of Christianity—Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and other Christian groups—have been unsuccessful in using these facts to convince Calvinists of their errors. We cannot seem to break through the resilient barrier of indoctrinated self-deception to reach adherents of modern Calvinism. In Calvinism, tradition has triumphed over truth.
Conclusion
Augustine of Hippo subverted Christian theology in AD 412 by incorporating his prior Stoic view of meticulous providence and his prior Manichaean doctrine of Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies (DUPED). All prior Christians had fought against Stoic meticulous providence and Gnostic/Manichaean DUPED. They taught the Christian God is relational and exercises general (not specific) sovereignty for the purpose of allowing human freedom. The Christian God chooses persons for salvation based upon his foreknowledge of their free choices. Augustine reverted to his Manichaean deterministic interpretations of Scripture when attempting to explain infant baptism against the Pelagians. For twenty-five years he had refuted those interpretations as heresy.
After AD 411, Augustine’s final eighteen years of theology was DUPED as the Manicheans had claimed—monergistic, to the glory of Augustine’s new inscrutable sovereign God who creates then damns innocent babies to hell.58 He confessed, “I cannot find a satisfactory and worthy explanation— because I can’t find one, not because there isn’t one” (Serm.294.7). After 1,600 years, no philosopher or theologian has found a “satisfactory and worthy explanation” to salvage Augustine’s syncretism of pagan ideas into Christianity that damns innocent babies to hell. It will forever remain a “mystery.”
Cicero (ca. 50 BC), one of Augustine’s favorite authors, had argued for the in-compatibility between divine omniscience and human free will. Augustine’s final answer was to claim that divine foreknowledge of the future occurs only through God’s unilateral predetermination and ordaining of every event, both good and evil (Civ.5). By this move he departed from all prior Christian teaching and syncretized a concept common in Stoicism: “God foreordains human wills.”59 The Stoic scholar John Rist concluded that Augustine’s novel Christian determinism produced “a theology which fails to do justice to his own theory of God’s love.”60 In contrast, Jerome succeeded in refuting the Pelagians without adopting the extremes of Augustinianism (Against the Pelagians 3) and retained the traditional Christian beliefs in God’s general sovereignty, grace, and free will.61
Harry Wolfson, historian and philosopher at Harvard University’s Judaic Studies Center, concluded, “Augustine’s doctrine of grace is only a Christianization of the Stoic doctrine of fate.”62 Because of Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to pagan ideas, the exalted justice of the relational Christian God (used to combat pagan philosophies and heresies) was instantly transformed into inscrutable theology—deformed theology. Augustine overtly wrote of God’s predestination of the ones he purposefully created for damnation in eternal torment (“double predestination”; Nat. orig.1.14, Civ.14.26, 15.1; Serm.229S, Serm.260D.1; An.et or.4.16).63 Augustine borrowed his prior Neoplatonic inscrutable mystery as his defense for this horrendous divine injustice (Serm.D.29.10 and Serm.294.7). Neoplatonism (ca. AD 250) had invented this crucial theodicy by appealing to the inscrutable secret counsels of God, who is fair by definition, regardless of whatever apparent evils he desires and ordains. Prior Christians had never required this implausible and disingenuous attempt at a defense for their God.
Modern Calvinists teach Augustine’s theology. Calvinists appeal to the same deterministic interpretations of the same Scripture passages taught by Manichaeans. Calvinism’s historical foundation is dangerously unstable. Its foundation relies on the Manichaean interpretations of Scripture by a single man in the ancient church who rejected three hundred years of unanimous church teaching of free will, a teaching that had refuted Stoic and Gnostic/Manichaean determinism. This man was indoctrinated for decades in extremely deterministic pagan philosophies and heretical Manichaeism. Augustine admitted he changed his theology regarding free will: he abandoned the Christian rule of faith regarding free choice. “In the solution of this question I struggled in behalf of free choice of the will, but the grace of God won out” (Retr.2.1).
But the grace that “won out” was not Christian grace: it was Manichaean grace. According to Augustine (Conf.7.5), he only escaped the philosophical prison of Manichaean DUPED by accepting Christian free choice. This freed him from viewing God as punishing unjustly. But ironically, after finally escaping, Augustine’s later “inscrutable justice” of Christianized pagan DUPED reimprisoned both himself and his followers.
In contrast, the prior nearly unanimous Christian teaching (that God offers his grace to every human equally) persisted throughout the Patristic period into the eighth century with John of Damascus (d. ca. AD 760): “We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things. . . . So that predetermination is the work of the divine command based on foreknowledge” (Exp. fid.44). Eleonore Stump astutely concluded, “Unless Augustine is willing to accept that God’s giving of grace is responsive to something in human beings, even if that something is not good or worthy of merit, I don’t see how he can be saved from the imputation of theological determinism with all its infelicitous consequences.”64
A willingness to return to the universal Christian theology that God gives grace as a response to human choice would never come for Augustine. The famous rhetorician never looked back in his resolve to win his debate against the Pelagians at all costs. William Frend explained, “Augustine could not concede a single point to his adversaries and this was his undoing.”65 Augustine died eighteen years after reverting to his pagan monergistic determinism, still trusting in his self-crafted syncretistic theology.
As we observed in the introduction, Calvinists address the blatant absence of their theology in the pre-Augustinian centuries in one of two possible ways. The less scholarly Calvinists invent proto-Calvinists among early Christian authors. Scholarly Calvinists claim Augustine was the first theologian since the apostle Paul to interpret Scripture correctly. Benjamin Warfield opined Augustine’s “doctrine was not new” but was lost for four centuries between the time the apostle Paul wrote it and Augustine “ recovered” it for the church (the Calvinist Gap Theory).66 These scholars appear oblivious to the enormous chasm separating Paul from Augustine. This formidable chasm is Augustine’s Stoicism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism. It separates Paul from Augustine by hundreds of years and thousands of miles. Calvinists attempt to bridge this insurmountable gap by using the “hermeneutical” lens of Augustine’s Manichaeism to reinterpret Pauline (and other) Scriptures within their own paradigm.
Calvinism’s alleged “biblical foundation” rests on Augustine’s deterministic interpretations of Scripture from his decade of Gnostic/Manichaean training (John 6:44–66; 14:6; Rom 9–11; Eph 2:1–3, 8–9; Phil 2:13; etc.). Such a dangerous foundation requires a precarious “faith” in Augustine’s “Sovereign God,” caricatured through syncretism with Stoic and Neoplatonic philosophy and the heretical Manichaean religion.67 He baptized his prior pagan philosophies and religion into Christianity, resulting in an unrecognizable doctrinal conglomeration. Calvinism is Augustinianism. Augustinianism is Christian theology scrambled with Gnostic/Manichaean theology and Stoic/Neoplatonic philosophy. As John Rist concluded, Augustinianism is “Ancient [pagan] Thought Baptized.”68
Nevertheless, these serious syncretistic errors did not make Augustine a heretic or a non-Christian. Augustine still embraced the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Modern Calvinists also embrace the major tenets of Christianity regarding Jesus Christ as God in the flesh and Savior from sin. Despite their divergent views (sovereignty, total depravity/inability, and DUPED determinism) imported from Augustine’s paganism, Calvinists remain Christian brothers and sisters worthy of respect, love, and fellowship —contrary to the opinion of one extreme evangelical sect.69 In this anti-Christian period of history, Christians of all persuasions must be unified, despite our internal disagreements.
NOTES
44 Lewis Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 86.
45 See Martin Luther, “To George Spalatin—Wittenberg, October 19, 1516,” in Luther’s Works, 48:23 (see chap. 5, n. 13); Luther, “Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 25; Calvin, Institutes, trans. Battles, 1:158–59 (I.xiii.29) (see chap. 4, n. 85); Harry Wolfson, Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1961), 158– 76, in which he explained the centuries-old traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of free will (despite the sinful inclination) that persisted until the “later Augustine” introduced Stoic ideas into Judeo-Christian theology, and especially Augustine’s misunderstanding of concupiscentia in his Latin translation of Wisdom of Solomon 8:21.
46 This included the terms original sin, grace, predestination, free will, and so forth. “For example, in the early patristic writers we find references to the origin of sin, to a fall, and to the inheritance of sin, but what is meant is often different from the meaning given to those terms in the later classical tradition influenced by Augustine.” Tatha Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings (New York: Paulist Press, 2002), 53; italics in the original; Ralph Mathiesen, “For Specialists Only: The Reception of Augustine and His Teachings in the Fifth Century Gaul” in Collectanea Augustina: Presbyter Factus Sum, ed. Joseph Lienhard, Earl Muller, and Roland Teske (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 30–31; Rebecca Weaver, s.v. “Predestination,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., ed. Everett Ferguson (New York: Garland, 1998): “The now centuries-old characterization of the human being as capable of free choice and thus accountable at the last judgment had been retained, but the meaning of its elements had been considerably altered”; Peter J. Leithart, “Review of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent” by Elaine Pagels, Westminster Theological Seminary Journal 51, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 186. “Augustine’s concept of free will certainly differs from that of earlier theologians.”
47 Roger Haight, The Experience of Language of Grace (New York: Paulist, 1979), 36.
48 In Stoicism, fate controls every minute occurrence in the universe (Cicero, Div.1, 125–26), and although a person has no possibility of actuating an opportunity, “free will” remains solely by definition (Cicero, Fat.12–15). See Margaret Reesor, “Fate and Possibility in Early Stoic Philosophy,” Phoenix 19, no. 4 (1965): 285–97, esp. 201; Stoics, “took elaborate precautions to protect their system from rigid determinism.” Neoplatonists did the same.
49 TeSelle, Augustine the Theologian, 313; emphasis in the original.
50 Barrett and Nettles, Whomever He Wills (see intro., n. 22).
51 Steven Lawson, “Our Sovereign Savior,” 3–15; and Mark DeVine, “Total Depravity,” 16–36, in Whomever He Wills.
52 Andrew Davis, “Unconditional Election: A Biblical and God-Glorifying Doctrine,” in Whomever He Wills, 51.
53 Thomas Schreiner, “Promises of Preservation and Exhortations to Persevere,” in Whomever He Wills, 188–211, esp. 192. His “biblical” arguments all rest on those pagan assumptions inherited from Augustine. Distinguishing works as necessary fruit for final salvation but not the basis of it mimics Roman Catholicism’s theology. Calvinists merely replace (Faith + Works ➡ Salvation) with (Faith ➡ Works ➡ Salvation). Neither Roman Catholics nor Calvinists believe in faith alone for salvation—both require good works.
54 Bruce Ware, “The Compatibility of Determinism and Human Freedom,” in Whomever He Wills, 212–30. There was no Christian tension between general sovereignty and free will for centuries before Augustine; Fergusson, s.v. “Predestination,” Oxford Companion.
55 Stephen Wellum, “God’s Sovereignty over Evil,” in Barrett and Nettles, Whomever He Wills, 256.
56 Barrett, “Monergism,” 120–87 (see intro., n. 22).
57 Barrett and Nettles, introduction to Whomever He Wills, xxvi.
58 See Augustine, Serm.294.7: “Here too I like to exclaim with Paul, Oh the depths of the riches! (Rom 11:33). Unbaptized infants go to damnation; they are like the apostles’ words, after all: From one to condemnation (Rom 5:16). I cannot find a satisfactory and worthy explanation . . . [he cited all of Rom 11:33–36].” See The Works of Saint Augustine, III/8, 196n8, with Hill’s comments: “Babies who die unbaptized therefore go to hell. . . . It is precisely this assumption that renders his whole argument weak, and his conclusion highly questionable.”
59 Christopher Kirwan, Augustine, The Arguments of the Philosophers (New York: Routledge, 1989), 98–103.
60 John Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 307.
61 See Vít Hušek, “Human Freedom According to the Earliest Latin Commentaries on Paul’s Letters,” Studia Patristica 44 (2010): 385–90.
62 Harry Wolfson, Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1961), 176. See also Michael Frede and Halszka Osmolska, A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2011), especially 153–174, “Chapter Nine—Augustine: A Radically New Notion of a Free Will?”
63 Gerard O’Daly, “Predestination and Freedom in Augustine’s Ethics,” in The Philosophy in Christianity, ed. Godfrey Vesey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 90.
64 Eleonore Stump, “Augustine on Free Will,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 124–147 at 142.
65 William H. C. Frend, “Doctrine of Man in the Early Church: An Historical Approach,” Modern Churchman 45, no. 3 (1955): 227.
66 Warfield, Tertullian and Augustine, 129.
67 Wilson, Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism, 97–103. Translated into Spanish—Fundación del Calvinismo Agustiniano; into German—War Augustin der erste Calvinist?; and into Portuguese —Fundamento do Calvinismo-Agostiniano.
68 See note 60. Rist’s focus was pagan Stoicism.
69 Some Christian groups can press anti-Calvinism too far, so much that they themselves violate the limits of historical orthodoxy. See, e.g., Kenneth Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society: Become a Christian without Faith in Jesus as God and Savior (Montgomery, TX: Regula Fidei Press, 2020). Bob Wilkin and his Grace Evangelical Society teach “assurance is of the essence of saving faith.” Calvinists cannot have assurance of their own eternal security because Calvinists teach perseverance in faith and works until physical death is required for final salvation. Therefore, Calvinists are not Christians. This GES heresy requires absolute assurance in Jesus’s promise of personal eternal security to become a Christian, yet does not require faith in Jesus as God and Savior.
The long debate [which I won’t replicate here] from Soteriology 101 Discussion’s Facebook Page, is over — essentially — this portion of Leighton Flower’s’ book, “Drawn by Jesus.” BUT FIRST, what I will reproduce is the extent of the debate summed up in these two back-n-forths:
ROGER H. responds to Jason R.
[Jason R said] “This is a clear logical impasse you are confronted with…“
What is the logical impasse? A person is born with no ability to choose God. This requires that the person be regenerated. Once regenerated, a person can desire God and can choose God.
[Jason R said] “and there is no compatibilism that can harmonize this faulty logic.”
Once a person is regenerated, he has new desires. He can choose according to his greatest desire.
I don’t see a problem.
JASON R. responds to ROGER H.
it is fascinating to observe how you see no problem with the fact that God ultimately judges the majority of humanity for not receiving Christ when He determined that they never could do so in the first place. You seem content to accept that God can judge someone for their sin of non-repentance even though they have no way of repenting. This is blatantly unjust. You admit that God necessarily has to regenerate someone so that they can believe which equates to conceding that man cannot choose God unless God first chooses and changes them. Man is born into a hopeless state of inability and you cannot see a problem with God judging and condemning man for this inability when he has no way of escaping its pre-determined inevitabilities. I have never heard a sound defense against this Achilles heel of Calvinism… only concessions such as yours.
The entire discussion is enlightening, as it is a real working out of the issue. But this is the portion that Roger H. started out with, mistakenly saying it was from chapter 3:
Chapter 5
The Calvinistic Presupposition of Total Inability
A presupposition is “a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument.”23 We all have presuppositions. Some of them are right, but others are wrong. Wrong presuppositions brought to a passage can influence people to draw erroneous conclusions about the meaning of the text in question. This is why objectively evaluating our presuppositions is so important when any passage is in dispute between well-intending brethren.
Your theological opponents have every right to challenge your presuppositions. After all, wrong presuppositions lead to bad exegesis. And assuming your presuppositions are correct is just a fallacious game of question-begging. Unfortunately, this has been James White’s bread and butter. When non-Calvinists have challenged one of his presuppositions in the past, he accuses us of either “changing the topic,” “running off to other scriptures,” or “doing improper exegesis.” This is ironic, given that proper exegesis requires biblically correct presuppositions.
Calvinism’s underlying premise is that God decreed for all people since the Fall to be born morally unable to believe what He Himself teaches, so unless you were unconditionally chosen before you were born and irresistibly regenerated into a new creation by a supernatural intervening work of God, you will never be morally capable of believing in Him.24 Needless to say, that premise will greatly influence how you understand the Bible regardless of the hermeneutical methodologies, grammatical nuances, contextual considerations, or semantic word studies. A wrong premise skews everything and, therefore, must be evaluated objectively prior to getting into the other pertinent matters. So, let’s start by looking at these three major presuppositions White brings into John 6 based primarily upon his Calvinistic interpretation of Paul.25
Total Inability26
The entire sixth chapter in White’s book on the topic, titled “Human Inability,” sets out to establish this doctrine. Based on his interpretation of other scripture, White presupposes that God decreed for all people (since the Fall) to be born unable to believe His own teachings, but God still punishes all who do not believe. Therefore, when White reads John 6 through those presuppositional lenses, he understands the phrase “no one can come” to mean that the natural condition of everyone from birth is such that they cannot understand and believe what God teaches.27 For instance, White wrote,
In response to the crowd’s disbelief, Jesus also gives forth a clear explanation of their inability to understand and their inability to come to Him as the one and only source of spiritual life.
Notice that White assumes that the reason the crowds cannot come to Christ is due to a universal inherent condition in which they were born, something God Himself decreed and the individuals had absolutely no control over. In other words, in White’s view, the crowd remains in unbelief because they were born inherently blinded to divinely revealed truth, and God has not intervened to irresistibly change their inherent “default” condition. This is the root of what is known as theistic determinism, a primarily philosophical commitment to the idea that God unchangeably brings to pass (or determines) every meticulous detail, including all moral evil.28
NOTES
23 Oxford Languages Online Dictionary (Oxford University Press)
24 This represents the T,U and I of the Calvinistic TULIP, which will be explored further in the following pages.
25 White wrote, “When the doctrine of election is discussed, most people think immediately of the discussions provided by the Apostle Paul in such great passages as Romans 8-9 and Ephesians 1.” James R. White, The Sovereign Grace of God (New York: Great Christian Books, 2003), 68.
26 White wrote, “Some Reformed writers like others names for this doctrine. One of the best alternatives is `total inability.” Ibid., 48.
27 White wrote, “[Man] is utterly… incapable of coming to Christ, incapable of accepting and understanding spiritual things…” Ibid., 59. Given that White also affirms the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, we know that he affirms God’s universal exhaustive decree of whatsoever comes to pass, which must necessarily include mankind’s innate “default” inability to believe.
28White wrote, “God’s knowledge of the future is related to His role as Creator —He knows the future because He ordained the future! The course of the future is certain because God created it.” Ibid., 68. Vicens wrote, “We might, for instance, take Feinberg’s definition of an `unconditional’ decree as one `based on nothing outside of God that move[s] Him to choose one thing or another’ (2001, p. 527) and then characterize theological determinism as the view that God unconditionally decrees every event that occurs in the history of the world. Such a view would exclude the possibility that God merely permits some events which He foresees will happen in some circumstances but which He does not Himself determine.” Leigh Vicens, Theological Determinism (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource) accessed online on 12/19/2023. [RPT: 1/29/2026]
Leighton [Charles] Flowers, Drawn By Jesus (Trinity Academic Press, 2024), 47-49.
ROMANS 3:11
A common verse I hear from my fellow believers is “…there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.” – Romans 3:11
In an effort to demonstrate that all people have fallen short of the glory of God and broken His law, Paul quotes from Psalm 14:2-3, which says:
“The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
There are basically two theological approaches for interpreting this passage:
(1) Calvinistic Approach: Apart from a Divine irresistible work of regeneration (by which God changes a chosen individual’s nature and desires), mankind cannot willingly seek to know, understand, or follow God. (2) Non-Calvinistic (Traditionalist) Approach: Apart from God’s gracious initiative in bringing His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel appeal, no one can merit salvation or consistently seek to obey God in a way that will attain his own righteousness.
The contrast between these two perspectives can be illustrated by this simple question: Does proof that I am incapable of calling the president on the telephone also prove that I am incapable of answering the telephone if the president were to call me? Of course not, yet that is essentially the principle a Calvinist is assuming in their theological approach to this text.
Calvinists read this text to mean that our lack of initiative somehow proves our inability to respond positively to His initiative. They presume that God’s work in sending His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel, calling for all to be reconciled through faith in Christ, is insufficient to enable the lost to respond in faith. But the text simply never says this.
In Romans chapter 3:10-20 the apostle is seeking to prove that no one can attain righteousness by means of the law. But in verse 21 he shifts to reveal a righteousness that can be obtained by means of grace through faith in Christ.
Calvinists seem to think that because mankind is unable to attain righteousness by means of the law that they must equally be unable to obtain righteousness by means of grace through faith in Christ. This, however, is never established anywhere in the pages of Scripture.
Of course, we all can affirm that no one is righteous with regard to the demands of the law. But there have been many throughout the pages of Scripture who have been declared righteous by means of grace through faith.
Calvinists wrongly assume that because mankind is unable to fully keep the demands of the law that they are equally unable to admit their inability to keep those demands and trust in the One who has. Again, this is simply never established in the Bible. HERE>
THE “HERE>” EXCERPT
… If I told my son to clean up his room it would strongly imply that I believed it was within his abilities to do so, especially if I punished him for failure to do so. No decent parent would tell their two day old infant to clean up a mess and then punish them for not doing so. Such an action would expose the parent as insane or completely immoral.
This is basic common sense, but is it applicable to how God deals with humanity? Is the implication in scripture of “you should” mean that “you could?” I think we can all agree that “ought” strongly implies moral ability for all practical purposes, but is that a biblical reality? Sometimes the Bible defies our practical sensibilities and turns our reality up on its ear. Is that the case here? Do God’s expressions of what we SHOULD do imply that we actually COULD do it.[1]
Could the “Rich Young Ruler” have willingly given up his wealth to follow Christ as Zacchaeus does in the very next chapter? Or was Zacchaeus granted an ability that was withheld from the Rich Young Ruler? (Note: I’m speaking of man’s moral/spiritual abilities to repent in faith, not their physical ability or mental assent, so please don’t try to rebut this article with the all too often “catch all” phrase of, “He is able but not willing.”)
Calvinists would agree with the Traditionalists that both Zacchaeus and Rich Young Ruler SHOULD have given up everything to follow Christ, but only the Traditionalist maintains that both of them COULD have willingly done so.
Why do Calvinists insist that COULD doesn’t imply SHOULD when it comes to the Biblical revelation?
Dr. Wayne Grudem, a Calvinistic scholar, explains the issue in this manner:
“Advocates of the Arminian position draw attention to the frequency of the free offer of the gospel in the New Testament. They would say that these invitations to people to repent and come to Christ for salvation, if bona fide, must imply the ability to respond to them. Thus, all people without exception have the ability to respond, not just those who have been sovereignly given that ability by God in a special way.” [2]
Grudem, like John Hendryx of mongerism.com, rebuts this perspective by making arguments such as:
“What the Scriptures say we ‘ought’ to do does not necessarily imply what we ‘can’ do. The Ten Commandments, likewise, speak of what we ought to do but they do not imply that we have the moral ability to carry them out. The law of God was given so that we would be stripped of having any hope from ourselves. Even faith itself is a divine command that we cannot fulfill without the application of God’s regenerative grace by the Holy Spirit.”[3]
Are you following the Calvinistic argument? Here it is put very simply:
God tells man they SHOULD keep all the commandments.
Man CANNOT keep all the commandments.
God also tells man they SHOULD believe and repent for breaking commandments.
Therefore man also CANNOT believe and repent for breaking commandments.[4]
If the fallacy in this argument is not obvious to you, please allow me to explain in this way:
Back when my kids were younger we did a family activity that our church had suggested. I stood at the top of the stairs with my four children at the bottom.
I said to them, “Here are the rules. You must get from the bottom of the stairs to the top of the stairs without touching any of the railing, the wall or even the stairs. Ready, go!”
My kids looked at me and then each other and then back at their mother. With bewilderment in their eyes, they immediately began to whine and complain saying, “Dad, that is impossible!”
I told them to stop whining and figure it out.
The youngest stood at the bottom and started trying to jump, slamming himself into the steps over and over. The more creative one of the bunch began looking for tools to help build some kind of contraption. Another set down on the floor while loudly declaring, “This is just stupid, no one can do that!”
Finally, in exasperation one of the kids yelled out, “Dad, why don’t you just help us?” I raised my eyebrows as if to give them a clue that they may be on the right track. The eldest caught on quickly.
“Can you help us dad?” he shouted.
I replied quietly, “No one even asked me.”
“Can you carry us up the stairs?” he asked.
“I will if you ask me,” I said.
And one by one, I carried each child to the top after they simply asked.
Then, we sat down and talked about salvation. We talked about how it is impossible for us to get to heaven by our own efforts, but if we ask Christ for help then He will carry us. It was a great visual lesson of God’s grace in contrast with man’s works.
But suppose that my children’s inability to get to the top the stairs also meant they were incapable of asking me for help. Imagine how this story would’ve played out if it was impossible for my children not only to get to the top of the stairs but equally impossible for them to recognize that inability and request help when it was offered.
This illustrates the mistake of Calvinism. Let’s go back to their fallacy above as it relates to my story:
Dad tells his kids they SHOULD get to the top of stairs.
Kids CANNOT complete this task as requested.
Dad also tells the kids they SHOULD ask for help.
Therefore the kids CANNOT ask for help.
Do you see the problem now? The whole purpose of presenting my kids with that dilemma was to help them to discover their need for help. To suggest that they cannot realize their need and ask for help on the basis that they cannot get to the top of stairs completely undermines the very purpose of the giving them that dilemma. ….
George C. Scott Explains Calvinism
A scene from the 1979 movie Hardcore, in which an old Calvinist elder goes to find his runaway daughter in the porn underbelly of Los Angeles. This scene with George C. Scott inspired Richard Mouw’s book “Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport.” HEADS UP: there’s some saucy language. And the rest of the film is what you’d expect from a movie about the porn industry in the 70’s.
I affirm that the grace of God can be and is at times resisted, and this includes but is not limited to the genuine offer of salvation and resisting the Holy Spirit. The Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 that reprobates “perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” (italics added) Of course, I am rejecting the Calvinist and compatibilist answer that a person refuses because, as a sinner, that is all that he can do. It seems crystal clear in reading the passage without Calvinist spectacles on that the context and language clearly imply that they “should not have refused” and therefore could have believed which entails the idea of otherwise choice, exactly what Calvinism denies.
Further, I affirm that the ability of man to accept or to resist God’s genuine offer of salvation is a part of God’s plan and redounds to His glory; moreover, this genuine offer of the gospel is more than “a good faith offer” as taught by the Calvinist. It is an actual offer from God through His chosen medium, which can be accepted by faith or rejected unto damnation. Finally, this includes the reality that God has given the gift of repentance, and that the clear call of Scripture is for everyone everywhere (Acts 17:30) to repent and be saved, which implies that those called upon to repent can, by the grace of God, repent (Matthew 3:2, 4:17, 11:20; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32, 13:3, 13:5, 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 5:31, 11:18, 20:21, 26:20; Romans 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).
Jesus pronounced woe upon all the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida because they did not repent, obviously indicating He believed they had the capacity to repent (see Matthew 11:21). The book of Revelation leaves believers stunned that unregenerate people refuse to repent even when they are suffering from the wrath of God (see Revelation 9:20-21, 16:9, 11). Acts 17:30 reminds us that the call of God to repent is for everyone. Paul said, “and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). The implication obviously means that they could have received the love of the truth and been saved.
In like manner, Stephen preached, “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did”(Acts 7:51). The writer of Hebrews said of those who draw back unto destruction, “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace”? (Hebrews 10:29, italics added). In Noah’s day, God said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever” (Genesis 6:3), clearly implying that He was then. Also why did God bring judgment upon leaders and Jews so they could not hear and see and return if that in fact was their state already? (Isaiah 6:9-10 and Matthew 13:10-17).
Lastly, I affirm the biblical doctrines of grace. Calvinists refer to their beliefs as “The Doctrines of Grace,” which is fine, but it actually does not tell us much. That is to say, the doctrines of any Biblicist are all “doctrines of Grace.” There simply are no other kinds. It is similar to the Calvinist’s continual reference to the sovereignty of God. It tells us nothing since all believers with any biblical fidelity and understanding of God believe in His sovereignty. Further, disavowal of the Calvinist’s definition of the doctrines of grace and sovereignty is not a denial or undermining of the doctrines of grace or the sovereignty of God, but it is what it is, a denial of Calvinism’s definition.
I disaffirm that the Bible teaches that God carries out His salvation plan through selective “irresistible grace.” John Piper describes irresistible grace thusly, “When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of the resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God “irresistible grace.”63 Note that those who receive this act of grace against their will can only believe and those who don’t receive this cannot be saved; therefore, any talk from a Calvinist that God loves people, the lost, hurting, etc., is double-talk because He, according to Calvinism, actually only loves some lost and hurting people enough to offer help. This is a disquieting reality.
Piper says also, “The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills.”” I would note that the Calvinist, as well as Piper’s position, is actually stronger than this in that, not only does the doctrine of irresistible grace mean that God can overcome, but it actually means He will or must. Further, I disaffirm that all verses that say, teach, or imply that man can resist are merely reiterating the position of compatibilism—sure they resist salvation because that is all, according to their nature, that they can do. Moreover, I disaffirm that an offer of salvation through proclamation of the gospel by anyone who views salvation through the grid of Calvinism constitutes a real offer of salvation from God if it can be resisted; because according to Calvinism and compatibilism the real offer of salvation, in any meaningful sense to the person, cannot be resisted because the real offer of salvation from God always results in regeneration. This is a disquieting reality. An example of my point is, in what sense can a person be said to be offered a job if it is impossible for him to accept it, and not only is there no intent to actually give it to him, but in reality there was a predetermined unalterable decision by the CEO not to give it to him; this is in spite of the personnel manager’s sincerity in offering the job. The answer seems obvious, NONE!
Let me elucidate this further. Calvinists seek to emphasize the positive of irresistible grace, e.g., God saves some unworthy sinners who otherwise would perish in hell. But the dark side of irresistible grace is that although the “good faith offer” of a Calvinist seems to exonerate him from being guilty of making an artificial offer of salvation (as long as he is careful not to say specifically to someone things like “God loves you or God cares about you or God wants you to go to heaven”) to sinners who cannot, according to Calvinism, really repent, believe, and be saved, because the Calvinist can never be sure who God has selected to regenerate. However, even if the Calvinist is vindicated, it does not exonerate God from using language, commands, parables, etc., which clearly picture God as wanting all to be saved even though, according to Calvinism, He is the sole determiner and only reason they cannot be saved. Therefore, Calvinism’s irresistible grace makes God the sole determiner of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell because He could have saved everyone. This truth is dramatically contrary to the picture of God and His offer of salvation as drawn in Scripture, a disquieting reality.
We all seek to emphasize what we deem to be the positives of our message or position. However, it is morally incumbent upon every messenger to quest for full disclosure and to shun any appearance of obscuring the negative or harsher teachings of our position. The Calvinist emphasis that irresistible grace assures salvation for some, while minimizing the truth that irresistible grace just as assuredly and irrevocably destines some to eternal torment in hell, reminds me of the Darwinist obsession with the beauty of natural selection’s determination that the strong and healthy survive, while they seldom with the same clarity and enthusiasm speak of the dark side of natural selection that requires the brutal and merciless elimination of the weak.
Consequently, the insurmountable obstacle to irresistible grace determining who receives eternal salvation—besides the fact that it is not taught in Scripture—is that it puts God the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the position of appearing to offer deliverance from the wrath to come to all who cry for mercy while, actually, God has no intention of doing so. For, according to Calvinism, He predetermined, contrary to what the gospel and the Scriptures say, to offer salvation to only a few. In other words, it makes God the CEO who allows, yea commands, and says He wants all to be hired, but He has in reality predetermined long ago that they cannot ever be hired even though his personnel managers continue to offer jobs to them. This is a disquieting reality. In order to sustain the idea of irresistible grace, it appears that we must turn common language upon its head, take the obvious and simple meaning of language as seen in Scripture and used in everyday life, and subject it to biblically unnecessary restrictions and meanings, which is one of the pervasive problems in Calvinism. This is a disquieting reality.
For example, Christ felt love for the rich young ruler and out of that love told him how to receive salvation, but the young man refused; after which Jesus noted how difficult it was for a rich person to “enter the kingdom of heaven.” The passage clearly indicates that the young man could have been saved if he had chosen to follow Christ, and part of the reason that he chose not to follow Christ was that he was rich (Mark 10:21-23). From the standpoint of Calvinism, whether he was rich or poor had no bearing on whether he would come or not because the draw is irresistible. Christ’s encounter with this young man also demonstrates that Christ loves the lost and loves them enough to tell them how to have eternal life. By every normal meaning, those words meant he could have received salvation at that time had he chosen to believe. The idea of a “good faith offer” may relieve the human Calvinist of malicious deception, but it cannot be so of Jesus or the Trinity. The statement that “all things are possible with God” is exactly my point and in no way proves Calvinism true, but is actually contrary to their system. This is a disquieting reality. Therefore, I absolutely disaffirm that the Scripture teaches or logic demands that God’s sovereignty is undermined or minimized when He grants the opportunity to resist His genuine offer of salvation because He sovereignly chose to grant that choice.
Finally, I disaffirm that the doctrine of irresistible grace applied to some in salvation is what the Scriptures teach, or that it is consistent with what God reveals about Himself. The truth is that God revealed Himself in Scripture as actually loving the world—human race—so much that He sent His own Son to die for them (John 3:16), thereby providing for their salvation. And any human can receive this salvation if he will obey God’s command and repent and believe, which he can do by God’s grace. I do not believe that God offers what cannot be accepted or what He has no intention of providing. Nor do I believe that God condemns people for rejecting what He predetermined that they could not accept.
This [cartoons and commentary] is via NOT WILLING THAT ANY, an important aspect of the jaundiced view of salvation embedded into the warped view of the Reformation (click toons to enlarge):
Quick Take:
When you share the gospel, are you saying the same thing your theology actually believes?
This image shows a common tension in Calvinist evangelism. In public, the message sounds simple and open: believe in Jesus and you will be saved. But when the theology is explained, the unbeliever learns that they cannot believe, cannot want to believe, and cannot even seek God unless God first changes them. The invitation sounds real at first, but once the system is understood, it becomes hard to see how salvation is truly something the listener can respond to at all.
Is it an accurate picture of Calvinism?
To understand this image fairly, we have to describe Calvinism the way Calvinists themselves do. Calvinism teaches that all people are commanded to believe the gospel, but no one has the ability to do so unless God first gives them a new heart. People are responsible to believe, even though they are unable to believe on their own (John 6:44, Romans 8:7–8, Ephesians 2:1).
The Public Gospel Call
Panel 1 shows a Calvinist evangelist preaching the gospel the way most Calvinists do. The message, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved,” comes straight from Scripture (Acts 16:31). It is spoken to everyone and sounds like a real choice. This is accurate. Calvinists believe the gospel should be preached freely to all people, even though only some will be able to respond.
Human Inability to Believe
Panel 2 explains what Calvinism believes is happening underneath that message. According to Calvinism, a person cannot accept the gospel unless God first regenerates them (John 3:3, John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 2:14). The evangelist’s explanation is not exaggerated. It is a direct statement of Calvinist doctrine. The unbeliever’s confusion makes sense because the call sounded like something he could do, but the explanation says he cannot.
Inability to Seek God
Panel 3 simply follows the logic of Calvinism. If a person cannot believe or desire salvation, then they also cannot seek God or even pray rightly unless God acts first (Romans 3:10–11). The unbeliever is not arguing against Calvinism here. He is repeating it back in his own words. The image lets the theology speak for itself.
Returning to Evangelistic Language
In Panel 4, the evangelist turns back to the crowd and resumes preaching in general terms. He again speaks about believing and being saved, without mentioning inability or regeneration. This reflects how Calvinist evangelism often works in practice. Calvinists believe God uses the preached word to give faith to the elect (Romans 10:17), even though the hearer has no control over whether they will be given that ability.
Taken together, the image shows Calvinism accurately. The gospel is preached to everyone, but the ability to respond is given only to some (Romans 9:16–18). The tension the unbeliever feels is not because he misunderstands, but because he understands clearly.
And that leads to a simple question worth thinking about. If the gospel sounds like it is up to you until the theology is explained, and once explained it no longer is, what is the unbeliever really being asked to do? And is it possible that the picture in Panel 4, where God truly desires all to be saved and genuinely enables all to respond, better matches both the message of the gospel and the character of God?
Quick Take:
Why would a human being want everyone to be saved, while God does not?
That question drives the tension in this illustration. Within Calvinist theology, God’s saving love is not extended to all people in the same way. Because of that, broad statements about God loving and wanting to save everyone eventually need to be qualified. The preacher’s shift is not meant to deceive, but to stay consistent with doctrine. What feels uneasy is not a mistake, but watching theology reshape the message in real time.
Is it an accurate picture of Calvinism?
At its core, this illustration is trying to show Calvinism honestly, not mock it. The preacher is not confused or hypocritical. He is adjusting his words to line up with what Calvinism actually teaches about salvation. The tension in the image comes from doctrinal faithfulness, not emotional struggle. In that sense, the illustration reflects Calvinism accurately.
Salvation depends on God’s choice, not human desire (Unconditional Election)
In the illustration, the preacher admits that he would choose salvation for everyone if he could, but recognizes that God does not. This matches the Calvinist belief that God chooses who will be saved based on His will alone, not on human desire or response (Romans 9:11–13; Ephesians 1:4–5). The preacher’s internal correction reflects this belief. If salvation is based on God’s choice, then God does not intend to save all people.
God’s saving love is limited to the elect (Limited Atonement)
The preacher realizes that his original statement sounded like his own love rather than God’s. In Calvinism, God’s saving love is not universal. Christ’s death is understood to be effective only for those God has chosen (John 10:14–15; Matthew 1:21). Because of this, the preacher feels the need to clarify his message so it does not suggest that God’s saving love applies to everyone.
God saves those He chooses without fail (Irresistible Grace)
Calvinism teaches that when God chooses to save someone, His grace cannot be resisted and will always succeed (John 6:37, 44; Romans 8:30). This matters because if God can save anyone He wants and does not fail, then the fact that many remain unsaved means God does not intend to save all. This belief explains why the preacher narrows his message in the final panel.
This illustration does not claim Calvinists lack compassion or sincerity. It shows how Calvinist doctrine shapes the way salvation is talked about. If this is an accurate picture of Calvinism, the question for the reader is simple: are you comfortable with this picture of God’s saving love, and does it reflect what you believe Scripture teaches about God’s character?
Wanna see a visual of this?
Quick Take:
What does it say about God’s character if rescue is limited not by ability, but by choice?
This illustration presses the tension between a God who has abundant power to save and a framework in which that power is applied only to some, even while others remain in the same danger. Scripture consistently presents God as one who is able and willing to save, who does not delight in destruction but calls people to turn and live (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11). The gospel is proclaimed as good news for all, with Christ described as the Savior of the world and the atoning sacrifice not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world (John 3:16–17; 1 John 2:2). The image raises the question of whether it best reflects the biblical witness to see God’s selective rescue as rooted in an eternal decision that leaves others without remedy, or to understand judgment as the tragic result of rejecting a salvation God genuinely extends and desires all to receive (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:3–6).
Is it an accurate picture of Calvinism?
The aim of this illustration is accuracy, not mockery. It is intended to engage Calvinist theology on its own terms rather than caricature it. A meaningful critique must begin by representing Calvinism as its advocates themselves describe it, allowing the system to be evaluated based on its actual claims.
Total Inability: The prisoners are entirely unable to rescue themselves from the fire, reflecting the Calvinist teaching that fallen humanity is spiritually dead and incapable of coming to God apart from divine intervention (Ephesians 2:1–3; Romans 8:7–8).
Sovereign Election: The firefighter chooses whom to rescue based solely on his own decision rather than any quality, action, or response found in the prisoners. This mirrors unconditional election, where God’s saving choice rests in His sovereign will alone (Romans 9:15–16; Ephesians 1:4–5).
Effectual Grace: The rescue of the chosen prisoner is decisive and successful. Once the firefighter acts, the outcome is guaranteed, reflecting the Calvinist claim that God’s saving grace unfailingly accomplishes salvation for those He intends to save (John 6:37; John 6:44).
Particular Redemption: The firefighter’s efforts are directed toward one individual rather than all those in danger. This aligns with the doctrine of particular redemption, where Christ’s atoning work is understood to be designed to secure salvation for the elect in a definite and effective way (John 10:11, 15; Matthew 1:21).
God-Centered Glory: The rescued prisoner responds with gratitude that highlights the rescuer’s choice and action rather than questioning the scope of the rescue. This reflects the Calvinist emphasis that salvation ultimately exists to magnify God’s glory and initiative rather than human response or cooperation (Ephesians 1:5–6; Romans 11:36).
Taken together, these elements show that the illustration is engaging real Calvinist theology rather than a strawman. It portrays a system in which salvation is entirely God-driven, selective by divine purpose, and effectual for those chosen.
The question that remains is not whether the illustration is fair, but whether this portrayal of salvation is one you believe best reflects the character of God revealed in Scripture?
(Below Video Description) Dr. Leighton Flowers plays clips from Drs. James White, RC Sproul and John Piper on the question of the origin of moral evil so as to compare and contrast the various perspectives and the apparent inconsistencies of the Calvinistic worldview.
William Lane Craig discusses [below] being a “consistent Calvinist” vs. an “inconsistent Calvinism”
Is the Calvinist God the Author of Evil? w/ William Lane Craig Dr. William Lane Craig explains why he believes that Calvinism is forced to conclude that God is the author of evil.
Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatens us with the following dilemma.
On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.
On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity— when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing— may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.
The escape from this dilemma depends on observing what happens, in human relations, when the man of inferior moral standards enters the society of those who are better and wiser than he and gradually learns to accept their standards—a process which, as it happens, I can describe fairly accurately, since I have undergone it. When I came first to the University I was as nearly without a moral conscience as a boy could be. Some faint distaste for cruelty and for meanness about money was my utmost reach—of chastity, truthfulness, and self-sacrifice I thought as a baboon thinks of classical music. By the mercy of God I fell among a set of young men (none of them, by the way, Christians) who were sufficiently close to me in intellect and imagination to secure immediate intimacy, but who knew, and tried to obey, the moral law. Thus their judgement of good and evil was very different from mine. Now what happens in such a case is not in the least like being asked to treat as ‘white’ what was hitherto called black. The new moral judgements never enter the mind as mere reversals (though they do reverse them) of previous judgements but ‘as lords that are certainly expected’. You can have no doubt in which direction you are moving: they are more like good than the little shreds of good you already had, but are, in a sense, continuous with them. But the great test is that the recognition of the new standards is accompanied with the sense of shame and guilt: one is conscious of having blundered into society that one is unfit for. It is in the light of such experiences that we must consider the goodness of God. Beyond all doubt, His idea of ‘goodness’ differs from ours; but you need have no fear that, as you approach it, you will be asked simply to reverse your moral standards. When the relevant difference between the Divine ethics and your own appears to you, you will not, in fact, be in any doubt that the change demanded of you is in the direction you already call ‘better’. The Divine ‘goodness’ differs from ours, but it is not sheerly different: it differs from ours not as white from black but as a perfect circle from a child’s first attempt to draw a wheel. But when the child has learned to draw, it will know that the circle it then makes is what it was trying to make from the very beginning.
This doctrine is presupposed in Scripture. Christ calls men to repent—a call which would be meaningless if God’s standards were sheerly different from that which they already knew and failed to practise. He appeals to our existing moral judgement—‘Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?’ (Luke 12:57) God in the Old Testament expostulates with men on the basis of their own conceptions of gratitude, fidelity, and fair play: and puts Himself, as it were, at the bar before His own creatures—‘What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?’ (Jeremiah 2:5.) …
CS Lewis | The Problem of Pain (Chapter 3)
“Human Wickedness”
…A recovery of the old sense of sin is essential to Christianity. Christ takes it for granted that men are bad. Until we really feel this assumption of His to be true, though we are part of the world He came to save, we are not part of the audience to whom His words are addressed. We lack the first condition for understanding what He is talking about. And when men attempt to be Christians without this preliminary consciousness of sin, the result is almost bound to be a certain resentment against God as to one always inexplicably angry. Most of us have at times felt a secret sympathy with the dying farmer who replied to the Vicar’s dissertation on repentance by asking ‘What harm have I ever done Him?’ There is the real rub. The worst we have done to God is to leave Him alone—why can’t He return the compliment? Why not live and let live? What call has He, of all beings, to be ‘angry’? It’s easy for Him to be good!
Now at the moment when a man feels real guilt— moments too rare in our lives—all these blasphemies vanish away. Much, we may feel, can be excused to human infirmities: but not this—this incredibly mean and ugly action which none of our friends would have done, which even such a thorough-going little rotter as X would have been ashamed of, which we would not for the world allow to be published. At such a moment we really do know that our character, as revealed in this action, is, and ought to be, hateful to all good men, and, if there are powers above man, to them. A God who did not regard this with unappeasable distaste would not be a good being. We cannot even wish for such a God—it is like wishing that every nose in the universe were abolished, that smell of hay or roses or the sea should never again delight any creature, because our own breath happens to stink.
When we merely say that we are bad, the ‘wrath’ of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from God’s goodness. To keep ever before us the insight derived from such a moment as I have been describing, to learn to detect the same real inexcusable corruption under more and more of its complex disguises, is therefore indispensable to a real understanding of the Christian faith. This is not, of course, a new doctrine. I am attempting nothing very splendid in this chapter. I am merely trying to get my reader (and, still more, myself) over a pons asi-norum—to take the first step out of fools’ paradise and utter illusion. But the illusion has grown, in modern times, so strong, that I must add a few considerations tending to make the reality less incredible.
We are deceived by looking on the outside of things. We suppose ourselves to be roughly not much worse than Y, whom all acknowledge for a decent sort of person, and certainly (though we should not claim it out loud) better than the abominable X. Even on the superficial level we are probably deceived about this. Don’t be too sure that your friends think you as good as Y. The very fact that you selected him for the comparison is suspicious: he is probably head and shoulders above you and your circle. But let us suppose that Y and yourself both appear ‘not bad’. How far Y’s appearance is deceptive, is between Y and God. His may not be deceptive: you know that yours is.
Does this seem to you a mere trick, because I could say the same to Y and so to every man in turn? But that is just the point. Every man, not very holy or very arrogant, has to ‘live up to’ the outward appearance of other men: he knows there is that within him which falls far below even his most careless public behaviour, even his loosest talk. In an instant of time—while your friend hesitates for a word—what things pass through your mind? We have never told the whole truth. We may confess ugly facts— the meanest cowardice or the shabbiest and most prosaic impurity—but the tone is false. The very act of confess-ing—an infinitesimally hypocritical glance—a dash of humour—all this contrives to dissociate the facts from your very self. No one could guess how familiar and, in a sense, congenial to your soul these things were, how much of a piece with all the rest: down there, in the dreaming inner warmth, they struck no such discordant note, were not nearly so odd and detachable from the rest of you, as they seem when they are turned into words. We imply, and often believe, that habitual vices are exceptional single acts, and make the opposite mistake about our virtues—like the bad tennis player who calls his normal form his ‘bad days’ and mistakes his rare successes for his normal. I do not think it is our fault that we cannot tell the real truth about ourselves; the persistent, life-long, inner murmur of spite, jealousy, prurience, greed and self-complacence, simply will not go into words. But the important thing is that we should not mistake our inevitably limited utterances for a full account of the worst that is inside.
A reaction—in itself wholesome—is now going on against purely private or domestic conceptions of morality, a reawakening of the social We feel ourselves to be involved in an iniquitous social system and to share a corporate guilt. This is very true: but the enemy can exploit even truths to our deception. Beware lest you are making use of the idea of corporate guilt to distract your attention from those humdrum, old-fashioned guilts of your own which have nothing to do with ‘the system’ and which can be dealt with without waiting for the millennium. For corporate guilt perhaps cannot be, and certainly is not, felt with the same force as personal guilt. For most of us, as we now are, this conception is a mere excuse for evading the real issue. When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we can go on to think of the corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much. But we must learn to walk before we run.
We have a strange illusion that mere time cancels sin. I have heard others, and I have heard myself, recounting cruelties and falsehoods committed in boyhood as if they were no concern of the present speaker’s, and even with laughter. But mere time does nothing either to the fact or to the guilt of a sin. The guilt is washed out not by time but by repentance and the blood of Christ: if we have repented these early sins we should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble. As for the fact of a sin, is it probable that anything cancels it? All times are eternally present to God. Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His multi-dimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly, forever toadying, lying, and lusting as a schoolboy, forever in that moment of cowardice or insolence as a subaltern? It may be that salvation consists not in the cancelling of these eternal moments but in the perfected humanity that bears the shame forever, rejoicing in the occasion which it furnished to God’s compassion and glad that it should be common knowledge to the universe. Perhaps in that eternal moment St Peter—he will forgive me if I am wrong— forever denies his Master. If so, it would indeed be true that the joys of Heaven are for most of us, in our present condition, ‘an acquired taste’—and certain ways of life may render the taste impossible of acquisition. Perhaps the lost are those who dare not go to such a public Of course I do not know that this is true; but I think the possibility is worth keeping in mind.
We must guard against the feeling that there is ‘safety in numbers’. It is natural to feel that if all men are as bad as the Christians say, then badness must be very excusable. If all the boys plough in the examination, surely the papers must have been too hard? And so the masters at that school feel till they learn that there are other schools where ninety per cent of the boys passed on the same papers. Then they begin to suspect that the fault did not lie with the examiners. Again, many of us have had the experience of living in some local pocket of human soci-ety—some particular school, college, regiment or profession where the tone was bad. And inside that pocket certain actions were regarded as merely normal (‘Everyone does it’) and certain others as impracticably virtuous and Quixotic. But when we emerged from that bad society we made the horrible discovery that in the outer world our ‘normal’ was the kind of thing that no decent person ever dreamed of doing, and our ‘Quixotic’ was taken for granted as the minimum standard of decency. What had seemed to us morbid and fantastic scruples so long as we were in the ‘pocket’ now turned out to be the only moments of sanity we there enjoyed. It is wise to face the possibility that the whole human race (being a small thing in the universe) is, in fact, just such a local pocket of evil—an isolated bad school or regiment inside which minimum decency passes for heroic virtue and utter corruption for pardonable imperfection. But is there any evidence—except Christian doctrine itself—that this is so? I am afraid there is. In the first place, there are those odd people among us who do not accept the local standard, who demonstrate the alarming truth that a quite different behaviour is, in fact, possible. Worse still, there is the fact that these people, even when separated widely in space and time, have a suspicious knack of agreeing with one another in the main—almost as if they were in touch with some larger public opinion outside the pocket. What is common to Zarathustra, Jeremiah, Socrates, Gautama, Christ1 and Marcus Aurelius, is something pretty substantial. Thirdly, we find in ourselves even now a theoretical approval of this behaviour which no one practises. Even inside the pocket we do not say that justice, mercy, fortitude, and temperance are of no value, but only that the local custom is as just, brave, temperate and merciful as can reasonably be expected. It begins to look as if the neglected school rules even inside this bad school were connected with some larger world—and that when the term ends we might find ourselves facing the public opinion of that larger world. But the worst of all is this: we cannot help seeing that only the degree of virtue which we now regard as impracticable can possibly save our race from disaster even on this planet. The standard which seems to have come into the ‘pocket’ from outside, turns out to be terribly relevant to conditions inside the pocket—so relevant that a consistent practice of virtue by the human race even for ten years would fill the earth from pole to pole with peace, plenty, health, merriment, and heartsease, and that nothing else will. It may be the custom, down here, to treat the regimental rules as a dead letter or a counsel of perfection: but even now, everyone who stops to think can see that when we meet the enemy this neglect is going to cost every man of us his life. It is then that we shall envy the ‘morbid’ person, the ‘pedant’ or ‘enthusiast’ who really has taught his company to shoot and dig in and spare their water bottles.
[….]
This chapter will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve that doctrine, partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature. Nor am I recommending universal gloom. The emotion of shame has been valued not as an emotion but because of the insight to which it leads. I think that insight should be permanent in each man’s mind: but whether the painful emotions that attend it should also be encouraged, is a technical problem of spiritual direction on which, as a layman, I have little call to speak. My own idea, for what it is worth, is that all sadness which is not either arising from the repentance of a concrete sin and hastening towards concrete amendment or restitution, or else arising from pity and hastening to active assistance, is simply bad; and I think we all sin by needlessly disobeying the apostolic injunction to ‘rejoice’ as much as by anything else. Humility, after the first shock, is a cheerful virtue: it is the high-minded unbeliever, desperately trying in the teeth of repeated disillusions to retain his ‘faith in human nature’, who is really sad. I have been aiming at an intellectual, not an emotional, effect: I have been trying to make the reader believe that we actually are, at present, creatures whose character must be, in some respects, a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves. This I believe to be a fact: and I notice that the holier a man is, the more fully he is aware of that fact. Perhaps you have imagined that this humility in the saints is a pious illusion at which God smiles. That is a most dangerous error. It is theoretically dangerous, because it makes you identify a virtue (i.e., a perfection) with an illusion (i.e., an imperfection), which must be nonsense. It is practically dangerous because it encourages a man to mistake his first insights into his own corruption for the first beginnings of a halo round his own silly head. No, depend upon it; when the saints say that they—even they—are vile, they are recording truth with scientific accuracy.
As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die? (Ezek. 33:11, NLT)
In my small group conversation was just getting off the ground regarding this topic, of God’s love. I had, providentially, just listed to this video [below] and was going to adopt this tact into my response. As I was just gonna get going another brother in Christ came in and conversation changed. So I followed up with the ppl in the original short discussion:
Like Paul Harvey would say, “Here is the rest of the story.” Frank Turek notes the view that I said was jaundiced in group…. that the splitting of God’s will creates an “infinite application of God’s justice,” but a “finite application of His love.” It bifurcates God in a way the Bible does not. God is a Whole. (5 minutes):
If God Wants All Saved, Why Isn’t Everyone Saved?
(Above Video, description)Can anyone truly produce good works apart from Christ, or even choose to submit to God on their own? A Calvinist questions Frank on predestination, human freedom, and whether we are capable or incapable of choosing God. Join the conversation and share where you land in the comments!
Here is more to connect the idea above.
(Below Video description)Does God want to save all men? Yes He does! The Calvinists are wrong.
In the short conversation, Psalm 5:5 was mentioned, which reads:
The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. (NKJV)
Here, we have a picture, not of where man begins, but where sin’s grip will take him if he continues in rebellion against God. (As an aside, I like Bible Hub’s dealing with this sticky issue) I had a discussion of this verse on my Facebook, but cannot find it unfortunately. So I will respond to the ideas herein. The first few clips are showing how reading Scripture without the additional lenses of a 16th century philosophy can bring out the beauty, assurance in God, and the meaning to the audience David intended:
Prayer regarding enemies (5:4–12). The psalmist next complains to God about his enemies—especially their destructive speech which consists of lies and flattery. He urges God to indict them and let them experience the consequences of their destructive behavior. He also asks God to get them away from him. The psalmist turns from God’s enemies to those who seek God’s protection. For these, the psalmist asks protection, joy, a sense of great security.
The assurance of being heard is now won by the petitioner from the fact that the wicked are not allowed to appear before Yahweh, whereas he himself, the petitioner, has access to the sanctuary
Stanza 2 focuses on the accusers, but in the form of praise for God’s judgment of the wicked. The foes are described (vv. 4–6, 9–10) [Enemies]. With mouth and tongue they destroy. They are boastful and speak lies; they are bloodthirsty and deceitful (vv. 5–6). Such persons cannot stand in God’s sight; for God, such behavior must be abhorrent (v. 6). The implication is that the LORD will never permit the wicked access to the sanctuary, to which the psalmist now seeks entry.
James H. Waltner, Psalms, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA; Waterloo, ON: Herald Press, 2006), 50.
Verses 4–6: David distances himself from his enemies
Now he is sure that God is hearing him, David’s thoughts of his enemies are different from what they were in Psalm 3. Then he was thinking of the strength of their numbers (3:1), now he is thinking of the weakness of their position before God. God cannot dwell with them because they are wicked and God takes no pleasure in evil (v. 4) in fact he hates such (v. 5). Since God is not with them, they will not stand. When he appears among them it will not be to prosper but to destroy them.
For God is just, and their charges against David have no basis in fact but are lies (v. 6). Absalom and his party were acting against him out of sheer deceit and cruelty; they are bloodthirsty and deceitful men. This is the truth behind Absalom and his campaign. It is sufficient ground for David to believe they will not succeed and that he will return, as he goes on to say.
Eric Lane, Psalms 1-89: The Lord Saves, Focus on the Bible Commentary (Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2006), 42.
How do non-Calvinists deal with certain Bible verses which show that God hates certain people?
Psalm 5:5: “The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.”
Psalm 7:11: “God is a righteous judge, and a God who has indignation every day.”
Psalm 26:5: “I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked.”
Malachi 1:3: “But I have hated Esau [referencing Edom], and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.”
It is answered in two ways. In some instances, the word “hate” just reflects preference, such as Luke 14:26: “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” However, that may not be a suitable understanding for all occurrences, such as Malachi 1:3, in which God said that He is “indignant forever” with the Edomites, regarding their betrayal of Israel during the Babylonian captivity. So, how can a God who “is love” (1st John 4:8, 10) hate anyone? It’s not that He wants to, or that He needed to create people to hate. God’s wrath is conditional. Evil distorts God’s perfect ways, and for those who do commit evil, God would rather have it that they turn back to Him, so that He may show them mercy, than to have to exercise judgment upon them.
Micah 7:18: “Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love.”
So, although God may declare that He hates a particular sinner, that does not preclude His longing to see restoration through repentance. One example is that of wicked King Ahab, when God was delighted to see his repentance, and in turn, relented from His intentions of judging him: “‘Do you see how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days, but I will bring the evil upon his house in his son’s days.’” (1st Kings 21:29)
To further illustrate, I might say: “I hate people who tailgate on the highway and drive recklessly,” or I might say, “I hate people who don’t flush the toilet when they’re done.” This doesn’t mean that I have arbitrarily thrown names into a hat, and chosen to unconditionally hate them for no reason whatsoever. Rather, it means that my disapproval of them is based upon their free will choice to commit an act which I disapprove of. This is what God is expressing at verses like Psalm 5:5, Psalm 7:11, etc., as He is defining a certain class of people who have freely chosen to enter that class, by freely choosing to sin. It’s somewhat similar to when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. expressed a desire for his children to be judged, “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Make no mistake, God still does judge people. However, He judges them for the “content of their character,” so to speak, as displayed by the type of actions that they chose to engage in. (In other words, He doesn’t judge them on arbitrary things, such as skin color, or whether or not He unconditionally picked their name out of a hat from eternity, and arbitrarily decided to hate them for no other reason than that their name was selected.) God looks to the heart, and judges people accordingly: “‘I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds.’” (Jeremiah 17:10)
Of course Leighton Flowers deals with this. I will clip his longer video, but my clip is still long mind you. He is essentially reading from his own article: “Does God Love or Hate His Enemies?” Here is the “truncated” version:
The wages of sin is death, but it is not God’s pleasure to see the death of anyone. However, anyone who hates Him and refuses to return, will see death. In every man-made government the penalty for high treason is death; it is no different in the Kingdom of God.
The whole thread is worth a read — it includes many from varying theological assumptions. (This resource was mentioned, click to enlarge)
I wish to note as well, that Calvin’s Institutes is a work I do not like all that much. However, I hold his commentary on a higher level because he withholds much of the Augustinian influence at bay, so-to-speak. Here is his commentary on verses 4-6 of Psalm 5:
Verses 4-6
4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; evil shall not dwell Smith thee. 5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight; thou hatest all that commit iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak falsehood; Jehovah will abhor the blood-thirsty 9 and deceitful man.
Here David makes the malice and wickedness of his enemies an argument to enforce his prayer for the divine favor towards him. The language is indeed abrupt, as the saints in prayer will often stammer; but this stammering is more acceptable to God than all the figures of rhetoric, be they ever so fine and glittering. Besides, the great object which David has in view, is to show, that since the cruelty and treachery of his enemies had reached their utmost height, it was impossible but that God would soon arrest them in their course. His reasoning is grounded upon the nature of God. Since righteousness and upright dealing are pleasing to him, David, from this, concludes that he will take vengeance on all the unjust and wicked. And how is it possible for them to escape from his hand unpunished, seeing he is the judge of the world? The passage is worthy of our most special attention. For we know how greatly we are discouraged by the unbounded insolence of the wicked. If God does not immediately restrain it, we are either stupified and dismayed, or cast down into despair. But David, from this, rather finds matter of encouragement and confidence. The greater the lawlessness with which his enemies proceeded against him, the more earnestly did he supplicate preservation from God, whose office it is to destroy all the wicked, because he hates all wickedness. Let all the godly, therefore, learn, as often as they have to contend against violence, deceit, and injustice, to raise their thoughts to God in order to encourage themselves in the certain hope of deliverance, according as Paul also exhorts them in 2 Thessalonians 1:5, “Which is,” says he, “a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled, rest with us.” And assuredly he would not be the judge of the world if there were not laid up in store with him a recompense for all the ungodly. One use, then, which may be made of this doctrine is this, – when we see the wicked indulging themselves in their lusts, and when, in consequence, doubts steal into our minds as to whether God takes any care of us, we should learn to satisfy ourselves with the consideration that God, who hates and abhors all iniquity, will not permit them to pass unpunished, and although he bear with them for a time, he will at length ascend into the judgment-seat, and show himself an avenger, as he is the protector and defender of his people. 10 Again, we may infer from this passage the common doctrine, that God, although he works by Satan and by the ungodly, and makes use of their malice for executing his judgments, is not, on this account, the author of sin, nor is pleased with it because the end which he purposes is always righteous; and he justly condemns and punishes those who, by his mysterious providence, are driven whithersoever he pleases.
In the 4th verse some take ra, in the masculine gender, for a wicked man; but I understand it rather of wickedness itself David declares simply, that there is no agreement between God and unrighteousness. He immediately after proceeds to speak of the men themselves, saying, the foolish shall not stand in thy sight; and it is a very just inference from this, that iniquity its hateful to God, and that, therefore, he will execute just punishment upon all the wicked. He calls those fools, according to a frequent use of the term in Scripture, who, impelled by blind passion, rush headlong into sin. Nothing is more foolish, than for the ungodly to cast away the fear of God, and suffer the desire of doing mischief to be their ruling principle; yea, there is no madness worse than the contempt of God, under the influence of which men pervert all right. David sets this truth before himself for his own comfort; but we also may draw from it doctrine very useful in training us to the fear of God; for the Holy Spirit, by declaring God to be the avenger of wickedness, puts a bridle upon us, to restrain us from committing sin, in the vain hope of escaping with impunity.
Some INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY YouTube Shorts:
In the debate Dr. Turek mentions in the YouTube Short to the right, his memory was a bit off [graphic at the bottom with the corrected reference], however, he is still correct… as many 5-pointers mention God not allowing Adam and Eve to sin, but actually causing it. See my two posts:
In a dealing with Psalm 5:5-6, Dr. Eitan Bar (co-founder of one of my go-to Jewish ministries, ONE FOR ISRAEL — although he is no longer affiliated with them. Which I kind of agree with – he rejects an eternal punishment in hell as well as the penal substitutionary theory.)
But Doesn’t God Hate Sinners?
You hate all who do wrong. – Psalm 5:5
Marco from Reading, Pennsylvania, wrote to ask pastor John Piper: “Pastor John, what do you make of the saying, ‘God loves the sinner, but hates the sin?’” John Piper’s answer included a quotation of Psalm 5:5 as well as the following statement:
It is just not true to give the impression that God doesn’t hate sinners by saying, ‘he loves the sinner and hates the sin.’ He does hate sinners. – John Piper
Likewise, pastor Mark Driscoll preached to his congregation the same motif:
The Bible speaks of God not just hating sin but sinners… Psalm 5:5, “You,” speaking of God, “hate all evildoers.” God doesn’t just hate what you do. He hates who you are! – Mark Driscoll
In the same way, Reformed Baptist pastor David Platt wrote:
Does God hate sinners? Listen closely to Psalm 5:5-6: “The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; You hate all who do wrong.“ – David Platt
The ECT’s (Eternal Conscious Torment) logic in quoting Psalm 5:5-6 goes something like this:
Those who sin are sinners.
Everyone sins.
God hates sinners.
God must separate Himself from sinners.
Therefore, God hates everyone and must condemn all to hellfire.
Practically speaking, fundamentalist preachers believe that every cute newborn, every sweet toddler, and every child playing in your neighborhood’s park—are all sinners condemned to hellfire as God hates them.
Once we dismiss the pleasantries of Calvinism, the only reason some are in heaven and some are in hell is because it pleased God for them to be there. Notwithstanding the weak and misleading arguments to the contrary by many Calvinists, I maintain all consistent Calvinists inevitably believe in double predestination. They either believe God actively predestined some to hell, as Calvin does, or he did so by choosing not to offer what would have surely delivered them from hell to heaven, which is unconditional election and selective regeneration. Calvin refers to this cold, inescapable reality as the product of God’s wish, pleasure, and counsel.*
* John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), vol. 2, bk. 3, chap. 21, sec. 7, pg. 210.
On the surface, Psalm 5 seems to contradict verses like John 3:16, which states, “For God so loved the world.” In “World,” John speaks about the people in it, not the waters and soil. John essentially says, “For God so loved the sinners.”
So, is there a conflict between Psalm 5 and John 3:16?
Psalm 5:5
Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, so many Hebrew words carry a broad range of meanings, varying according to context. Moreover, the meanings of words often evolve over time.
To fully grasp the message of Psalm 5:5, it’s crucial first to understand its context. Hebraist scholar Mitchell Dahood interprets Psalm 5 as a “repudiation of false gods when one was accused of idolatry.” In a similar vein, VanGemeren, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, views Psalm 5 as God’s self-distinction from other deities, asserting that “whereas other religions brought together good and evil at the level of the gods, God had revealed that evil exists apart from him.”
Thus, with this context in mind, more accurate than ‘God hates everyone’ will be to conclude that God hates idol worshippers. Remember, the pagans around ancient Israel would not only steal office pens and lie about how lovely you looked in your new evening dress tonight; they would burn their babies in the fire as a sacrifice for their idols. The pagans were cruel and evil. So, it is they, in this context, that God hates.
But this isn’t even the main problem with how Psalm 5:5-6 is being misused.
The Biblical Meaning of “Hate”
Much like “love,” the English word “hate” has become heavily loaded with strong emotional connotations in contemporary language. “Hate,” often used to express extremely strong emotions, is usually associated with images of violence, wrath, death, and anger. In biblical Hebrew, however, “hate” means something else altogether.
Regrettably, preachers often misinterpret ancient Hebrew (and Greek) terms when reading a translation in their native languages, applying modern perspectives and interpretations. This misinterpretation can occur accidentally, but at times, it might also stem from a desire to support a pre-existing theological agenda.
SANE = To avoid, reject, and ignore
The Hebrew word translated to “hate” is SANE. The Hebrew Bible frequently uses SANE as a synonym for ‘reject,’ ‘avoid,’ ‘deny,’ or ‘ignore.’ If you don’t trust my Hebrew skills as a native Hebrew speaker, then allow me to point you over to the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, where ‘SANE ’ is explained as something one avoids:
The pictograph is a picture of a thorn, then is a picture of seed. Combined, these mean “thorn seed.” The thorn, (the seed of a plant with small sharp points) causes one to turn in directions to avoid them.
Hate as reject: In Romans 9:10-13, Paul clearly uses “hate” in a matter of election. God elected Jacob yet rejected (SANE/hated) Esau. “Esau I have hated” is not about God wishing for Esau a violent and painful death but about God rejecting Esau and electing Jacob instead.
Thus, biblically speaking, to hate someone is to reject or avoid them—to deny your attention, election, intimacy, or blessings from them. If a woman hates her husband, she turns indifferent, pushes him away, avoids him, and leaves him. On the other hand, if she still cares for him — loves him — she will get angry and fight loudly and emotionally. You go to battle over the things you cherish most but avoid associating with those you hate and are apathetic about.
Hate as ignore/avoid: Paul’s understanding of “hate” is also why Paul says, “No one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body.” (Ephesians 5:29). We all know people who emotionally hate their body or parts of it. I emotionally hated mine when I was a fat kid with zits on my face. But as we just established, biblical hate is not about emotions or feelings of detestation. Paul was saying that no one ignores their body. We indeed drink water when we are thirsty and don’t avoid going to the toilet when our body tells us to (even if emotionally we “hate” ourselves).
The understanding that to ‘hate’ means to reject, ignore, or avoid is the only way the words of Jesus would make any sense:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. – Luke 14:26
Love would not demand that you “hate” (in the modern emotional sense of the word) others or your family because that would contradict Jesus’ commandment to love even our enemies. So clearly, to “hate” your family must mean we have to choose him over them, not loathe and despise them.
As a Jew, I had to experience Luke 14:26 when my Jewish mother first found out I believed in Jesus. When she demanded I stop believing and reject Jesus, I had to reject her plea, choosing Christ instead.
In the same way, we should read Psalm 5:5-6. God rejects the evildoers—the idols and those who worship them. God’s rejection of idols stems from their influence in leading Israel to commit heinous acts, such as the burning of their children.
To conclude, from a biblical standpoint, when you reject, avoid, or ignore someone, you SANE (“hate”) them. Therefore, God may “hate” in the sense of withdrawing blessings and protection from people, rejecting their appeals, or avoiding them. However, God loves even the greatest of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).
Does God Desire the Salvation of Everyone?
WWUTT (When We Understand The Text) has recently released a video that denies God’s genuine desire for the salvation of all people based on some very erroneous logical fallacies and misapplications of scripture.
Originally posted April of 2013, UPDATED(1/15/2026) with Calvinist distortions. JUMP TO UPDATE
I am including this here because in my now closing in on a year of studies, I clearly saw this “faith distortion” a few months ago. So I am including this video with my Facebook description here:
This was awesome to hear — listened to today (1-14-2026). I made this point in my small group, which was: having been raised in the Word Faith/”name it and claim it” type Christianity, I noticed that Calvinist’s adopt a view of faith that is the same, when describing their opponents. That is, “Faith in your faith”, to wit:
Many of the WOFM’s doctrines are linked directly to the mistaken concept that faith is a literal substance, “a power force … a tangible force … a conductive force.”
— According to Kenneth E. Hagin, faith in one’s own faith is the secret to getting every desire of the heart.
This delapitated/false view of faith is what Calvinists think all non-Calvinists express. And that is a wrong supposition, or view of what faith is. It is a straw man. I was happy to hear that connection I thought of from Doc Flowers.
Originally posted April of 2013, UPDATED(2/8/2024) with the NET Bible and commentary at the end.
Here is a quick 101 on the history of the Word Faith via GOT QUESTIONS:
The Word of Faith movement grew out of the Pentecostal movement in the late 20th century. Its founder was E. W. Kenyon, who studied the metaphysical New Thought teachings of Phineas Quimby. Mind science (where “name it and claim it” originated) was combined with Pentecostalism, resulting in a peculiar mix of orthodox Christianity and mysticism. Kenneth Hagin, in turn, studied under E. W. Kenyon and made the Word of Faith movement what it is today. Although individual teachings range from completely heretical to completely ridiculous, what follows is the basic theology most Word of Faith teachers align themselves with.
At the heart of the Word of Faith movement is the belief in the “force of faith.” It is believed words can be used to manipulate the faith-force, and thus actually create what they believe Scripture promises (health and wealth). Laws supposedly governing the faith-force are said to operate independently of God’s sovereign will and that God Himself is subject to these laws. This is nothing short of idolatry, turning our faith—and by extension ourselves—into god.
From here, its theology just strays further and further from Scripture: it claims that God created human beings in His literal, physical image as little gods. Before the fall, humans had the potential to call things into existence by using the faith-force. After the fall, humans took on Satan’s nature and lost the ability to call things into existence. In order to correct this situation, Jesus Christ gave up His divinity and became a man, died spiritually, took Satan’s nature upon Himself, went to hell, was born again, and rose from the dead with God’s nature. After this, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to replicate the Incarnation in believers so they could become little gods as God had originally intended.
Following the natural progression of these teachings, as little gods we again have the ability to manipulate the faith-force and become prosperous in all areas of life. Illness, sin, and failure are the result of a lack of faith, and are remedied by confession—claiming God’s promises for oneself into existence. Simply put, the Word of Faith movement exalts man to god-status and reduces God to man-status. Needless to say, this is a false representation of what Christianity is all about. Obviously, Word of Faith teaching does not take into account what is found in Scripture. Personal revelation, not Scripture, is highly relied upon in order to come up with such absurd beliefs, which is just one more proof of its heretical nature.
[….]
The Word of Faith movement is deceiving countless people, causing them to grasp after a way of life and faith that is not biblical. At its core is the same lie Satan has been telling since the Garden: “You shall be as God” (Genesis 3:5). Sadly, those who buy into the Word of Faith movement are still listening to him. Our hope is in the Lord, not in our own words, not even in our own faith (Psalm 33:20-22). Our faith comes from God in the first place (Ephesians 2:8; Hebrews 12:2) and is not something we create for ourselves. So, be wary of the Word of Faith movement and any church that aligns itself with Word of Faith teachings.
Here is an example of one verse striped of context via the Word Faith movement:
Geisler & Rhodes opine:
JOSHUA 1:8—Is this verse a key to financial prosperity, as Word-Faith teachers suggest?
MISINTERPRETATION: Joshua 1:8 says, “This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success” (NASB). Word-Faith teachers say this verse is a key to financial prosperity.
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: Word-Faith teachers are reading a meaning into this verse that is not there. The context of this verse is military, not financial. In fact, finances are nowhere in sight in this entire chapter of Joshua.
In the conquest of the Promised Land, God promised Joshua that his military efforts would prosper if he maintained his commitment to meditate upon and obey God’s Word. The prospering also no doubt includes the full outworking of the land promises that were given unconditionally by God in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3). Later, just before his death, Joshua urged the people to continue living in submission to the Scriptures (Josh. 23:6).
What a healthy view of this Joshua verse is this:
… Sometimes we misunderstand what it means, ‘to succeed’ or ‘to prosper’ which has given rise to a prosperity teaching which places the emphasis on temporal, worldly prosperity rather than eternal spiritual wealth. God may choose to bestow worldly wealth on His children or He may permit the alternative, but the goods and chattel of this world are passing away, and like Paul we need to be content in all things.
What is important, is to know the Word of God, to trust the Word of God, and to apply the Word of God in every circumstance of life, knowing that to do so will lead to success in the Christian life; for all things work together for good to those that love the Lord and trust His Word.
We should read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the Word of the Lord. We should study God’s Book of instruction, particularly those passages that relate specifically to the Church, and we should continually feed on His Word in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
We should meditate on His Word, memorize His Word, trust His Word, and love His Word, and we should be sure to obey His Word and apply His Word in our daily lives, for in so doing we will certainly prosper and succeed in all we do, to His praise and glory….
1:8 This law scroll must not leave your lips! You must memorize it day and night so you can carefully obey all that is written in it. Then you will prosper and be successful.
1:9 I repeat, be strong and brave! Don’t be afraid and don’t panic, for I, the LORD your God, am with you in all you do.”
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Jos 1:7–9.
A decent extended commentary can be found here to help separate the wheat from the Chaff, as competing theologies fight over interpreting verses:
1:6–9. The second half of God’s speech also begins with two imperatives (“Be strong and courageous”), though these two are effectively synonyms. These imperatives follow logically from the promise of verse 5—if no one could resist Joshua, then there was no basis for fear. Instead, as leader he was to distribute the land that God had sworn to give to their ancestors (adapting phrasing found five times in Deuteronomy). The land is thus simultaneously God’s gift and something to be claimed and allotted. Verse 7 provides a more specific focus for Joshua: He was to be strong and very courageous in carefully observing all the instruction (תּוֹרָה) that God had given through Moses. This was not simply a set of facts to be known but rather a life that was to be lived—and living this life would take effort. Drawing on the common metaphor of life as a journey, the idea is that Joshua should stay on the path that this instruction provides rather than take alternative routes, for this is the means by which he would succeed. This success is related to the task that God had given Joshua, so walking faithfully in the Mosaic instruction was the means by which Joshua could lead the people into the land that God had promised.
Joshua was to meditate (הָגָה) on this instruction. The verb, with a similar promise of success, also occurs in Ps 1:2 and means something like “growl” or “mutter.” This verbal element is more apparent in Ps 2:1, where it is translated “plot.” It is difficult to match this word to a single English verb since “meditate” is often thought of as a silent activity. That the instruction was to be in Joshua’s “mouth” is an idiom that goes naturally with the verb. Thus, he would continue reflecting on its meaning, with such reflection being verbal. This relates to the fact that reading in the ancient world meant reading aloud. In the same way, reflection on it was verbal. But what matters in particular is that Joshua’s life was to be shaped by faithfulness to God’s instruction. At this stage in the book we might think of this as unproblematic, but as the ensuing chapters unfold it becomes clear that Joshua would need to wrestle with the intent of the instruction in order to determine how it was to be applied in a range of circumstances. This would require seeing the instruction as guidance for situations that would be faced rather than as a comprehensive set of rules that could simply be applied. Joshua would need a deep knowledge of God’s instruction, which meant both knowing its content and reflecting on how it could be applied. Therefore, it could not depart from his mouth, because only by continued recitation/meditation could he both know it and understand how to apply it. Psalm 1 then broadens out this possibility for all believers.
God’s speech then concludes with a reminder of the command to be strong and courageous so that Joshua would understand there is no place for fear because Yahweh would go with him. Joshua could succeed and lead his people to success when he understood that his role as a leader was to journey with God, know God’s instruction, and shape his life by it. Success here does not mean something financial but to receive the things that God is giving. We might perhaps think of “success” as flourishing in the life God has prepared—which is the way it is developed in Psalm 1. Here, that flourishing would be military, as Israel received the land God gave.
David G. Firth, JOSHUA, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 72–74.
This from CROSS WISE (2011) explaining a bit about the above:
In light of another Calvary Chapel pastor making an appearance on TBN’s Praise-the-Lord program, I thought it apropos to share a tape in my collection of how a Bible believer should behave when invited onto TBN or any of the other errant “Christian” networks. What sort of message is communicated when a solid Bible teacher shares the platform with heretics and does not bring reproof? Certainly it gives the impression that the guest endorses the teaching of the hosts and /or founder of the Christian network.
Some argue that if they can’t go on TBN due to its corruption, then they couldn’t show up on ABC, NBC or CBS either. They don’t understand the distinction between being salt and light to the unsaved world and practicing biblical separation from so-called Christians who are spreading false teaching against Jesus Christ. To the unsaved, we can use their media to spread the Gospel, but to the errant brother we are to bring correction and divide if they do not stop their false teaching. For a proof-text consider 1 Corinthians 5:11:
But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called a brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or ban idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. (NASB)
When Calvary Chapel Albuquerque’s pastor Skip Heitzig went on TBN last week acting like he and his host Phil Munsey were old friends, it was a shame to the spirit of that passage. Phil Munsey and his brother Steve Munsey are two of the most infamous extortioners in the field of Christian television. Munsey has used new age ideas of paradigm shifts and panentheism to spread his unbiblical dominionist views.
In contrast to the compromisers, the late Walter Martin tried to bring correction the last time he made an appearance on TBN. This video tape has never circulated and has not been available anywhere until now that I have posted it to YouTube.
Back in 1985 my younger sister was Martin’s secretary. She and my older sister and I all regularly attended his weekly Bible study. I used to share my research with him and also with my friend author Dave Hunt. Walter and Dave disagreed on many things regarding their styles of apologetics and discernment. Whenever there was a difference of opinion between the two of them, I usually agreed with Dave.
I had had some discussion with Dr. Martin over Dave’s book, The Seduction of Christianity. Walter had been critical about it on the radio having never read it but based his criticisms upon what his personal editor had told him.
One day my older sister was watching Praise-the-Lord when Hal Lindsey was a guest. He was her pastor at that time. Back then Hal used to challenge the teaching of other TBN regulars and Paul Crouch put up with it. However, that got old with the Crouches and when Hal wouldn’t stop criticizing the Kingdom Now doctrine, he was put on the shelf until he learned to kow-tow to them. When my sister heard Hal bring up Walter’s name in the show, Paul and Jan agreed that he was a brilliant man and Hal said you should have him on some time. They both responded – oh sure we will.
So she informed our little sister who told Walter and Walter told her to call TBN and arrange it which she did. However, the Crouches wouldn’t host him so they got prophecy teacher Doug Clark to do so. My younger sister called me on the day of the taping saying that Walter wanted me to go through Dave Hunt’s book, The Seduction of Christianity and highlight things he would be in agreement with. I was happy to do so for him. He used that information to challenge TBN’s blackballing of Dave Hunt and other whistle-blowers.
I stayed home to work the VCR I didn’t know how to program, while my two sisters attended, one in the green room and one in the audience we had stacked with many friends. Walter gave it to them with both barrels. Not only was the program not replayed at its regular slot, but the tapes were not available when people followed up to request one. Back in those days any Praise-the-Lord program could be bought on audio cassette for a small fee. And both Walter Martin and Doug Clark were never invited back. We had heard years later from Doug Clark that during the interview he kept receiving notes from the stage manager telling him to “shut that guy up” and other nasty notes….
Dr. Flowers welcomes Pastor Scott Mitchell, of Calvary Chapel in Boston, who has authored a new book titled, “Rediscovering Romans 9: How Calvinism Distorts the Nature & Character of God” (FULL VIDEO EMBEDDED BELOW)
Leighton read this section from Pastor Scott’s book:
Disrespect through misrepresentation is nothing new; it happens among people all the time. I cannot count the number of times I have had people misrepresent me, or put words in my mouth that I never said. I have had people tell me what I believe, when in fact I do not. Even when I attempt to correct their claim, many refuse to listen and continue to tell me what I believe. The point here is, if I am disrespected because someone misrepresents me, though frustrating, it is not necessarily going to affect me and I typically do not take it personally. What others claim I believe does not actually change me, it just makes me aware of their opinion. People are always going to have their opinions and I cannot correct everyone’s perspective of what they think I believe. I have taught enough Bible studies over the past 30 plus years so people can know what I believe and why I believe it. There will always be detractors; as they say, it goes with the territory.
Sometimes disrespectful statements can hurt those beyond the one targeted. If someone makes a disrespectful or inaccurate statement about me and it results in hurt to others, then you have my attention. Affecting others causes the stakes of the case to rise. Moreover, if the claim is against my character and it results in a damaged relationship with someone dear to me (including those God has placed under my care as a pastor) this requires my undivided attention. Not because of how I feel about the personal disrespect, but because of how it affects others who are innocent victims and vulnerable to unnecessary hurt. This issue corresponds to the intention of this book. I believe that Calvinism misrepresents God’s character. Though I do not believe Calvinists do this intentionally, the resulting effect is still the same.
When any Christian misrepresents God, it can result in hurt or confusion to believers and effect the presentation of the gospel to unbelievers. Calvinism has a particular problem in this area since their doctrines are notoriously controversial. When a neophyte Calvinist begins to realize the incongruity of the “doctrines of grace” with the clear teachings of Scripture, it can certainly result in confusion. The real problem in this case can be a distrust in the Bible instead of the Calvinistic teachings, since there may not be enough previous Bible education for a fair comparison to take place.
Calvinists typically reject any presentation of the gospel to large groups or crusades because they believe it is deceptive to offer the gospel to those in the crowd who are not the elect. Their actions in rejection of these events spans from refusing involvement to outright picketing as unbelievers enter these events. What does that say to unbelievers? Any concern Calvinists have with the gospel preached to the “non-elect” (in their minds) is a result of their own theological bias and is both unbiblical and illogical. First, in the Bible Jesus and the apostles preach the gospel to groups. We are told that some or many believed, implying naturally that not all believed, or that others rejected. Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is a classic example along with the multiple cities Paul visited on his missionary journeys. His efforts involved crowds of people he preached to, not to mention his visit to Jerusalem (Acts 22). Second, it is illogical to hold the gospel back from anyone through concern they are not one of the elect. Whether it is one or one hundred thousand to whom the gospel is shared, no one knows who will respond positively until after the presentation is made. Moreover, an initial positive response may not be genuine faith; this is only discoverable over time no matter whether it is one or more. There is never a biblical or logical reason to prevent sharing the gospel with anyone when the opportunity presents itself. No one knows or can assume a person will receive or reject the truth.
God has big shoulders and can certainly handle people who do not accurately understand Him because they do not know Him. But, when false or misleading statements made about Him are by those who know Him, this presents a different picture. This can affect the relationship between God and His people, and when this occurs, I think you will have His attention. There is a particular responsibility assigned to pastors, Bible teachers, and Christian leaders to represent Him reverently and biblically. All Christians have the responsibility to engage in “casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the [accurate} knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5), but those whom God has specifically tasked with overseeing and caring for His flock (1 Peter 5:2-3; Titus 1:9-11) must pay particular attention for the sake of His flock. “The flock of God” (1 Peter 5:2) are His blood-bought people!
False statements and claims about God can easily result in unbelievers rejecting Christ. This however is also a problem in the church among God’s people. If there is a place people should be able to go and get a clear understanding of God’s self-revelation through His word, it is the church, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). His word accurately represents His nature and character; thus, a poor exposition of His word can easily result in misrepresenting Him in the congregation. Paul was well-aware of this problem and spent much of the New Testament (NT) instructing about God and correcting misrepresentations or misunderstandings related to Him. Therefore, this issue requires our utmost attention. Misrepresenting God kept Moses from entering the Promised Land (Num. 20:7-13) after a life of faithful service (Heb. 3:5)—it is a serious matter with God for sure.
Pages 5-7 of Scott Mitchell’s book, Rediscovering Romans 9: How Calvinism Distorts The Nature And Character Of God
The green box that follows the original text is GROK modernizing it
The sight of your well known hand writing in your favour of 25. Feb. last, gave me great pleasure, as it proved your arm to be restored and your pen still manageable—may it continue till you shall become as perfect a calvinist as I am in one particular. Poor Calvins infirmities his rheumatism his gouts and sciatics made him frequently cry out Mon dieu Jusque au quand Lord how long! Prat once Chief Justice of new york always tormented with infirmities dreamt that he was situated on a single rock in the midst of the Atlantick ocean, He heard a voice. “Why mourns the bard Apollo bids thee2 rise, renounce the dust,3 and claim thy native skies.”—
Here’s a modern English update of the excerpt from John Adams’s letter to Thomas Jefferson (dated March 10, 1823), keeping the original meaning, tone, and humor intact while making the language clearer and more contemporary:
Seeing your familiar handwriting in your letter from February 25th gave me great pleasure. It showed that your arm has recovered and you can still write easily—may that continue until you become as much of a Calvinist as I am in one respect. Poor Calvin’s ailments—his rheumatism, gout, and sciatica—often made him cry out, “Mon Dieu, jusqu’à quand?” which means “Lord, how long!” Pratt, who was once Chief Justice of New York and always plagued by health problems, dreamed that he was stranded on a lone rock in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Then he heard a voice say:
“Why does the bard mourn? Apollo bids you rise, renounce the dust, and claim your native skies.”
(For context: Adams is playfully teasing Jefferson about enduring old-age infirmities with Calvinist patience, referencing John Calvin’s sufferings and a poetic anecdote about Benjamin Pratt, an 18th-century New York judge known for his poetry and health issues.)
The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of ‘mon Dieu! jusque à quand’! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. he was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Dæmonism. if ever man worshipped a false god, he did. the being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a dæmon of malignant spirit. it would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.
[….]
Of the nature of this being we know nothing. Jesus tells us that ‘God is a spirit.’ 4. John 24. but without defining what a spirit is. ‘πνευμα ὁ θεος.’ down to the 3d century we know that it was still deemed material; but of a lighter subtler matter than our gross bodies. so says Origen. ‘Deus igitur, cui anima similis est, juxta Originem, reapse4 corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum ratione corporum incorporeus.’ these are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says ‘appellatio ασωματον apud nostros scriptores est inusitata et incognita.’ so also Tertullian ‘quis autem negabit Deum esse corpus, etsi deus spiritus? spiritus etiam corporis sui generis, in suâ effigie.’ Tertullian. these two fathers were of the 3d century. Calvin’s character of this supreme being seems chiefly copied from that of the Jews. but the reformation of these blasphemous attributes, and substitution of those more worthy, pure and sublime, seems to have been the chief object of Jesus in his discources to the Jews: and his doctrine of the Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of the 1st chapter of John, in these words, ‘εν αρχη ην ὁ λογος, και ὁ λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ὁ λογος. οὑτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον. παντα δε αυτου εγενετο, και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε ἑν ὁ γεγονεν.’ which truly translated means ‘in the beginning God existed, and reason [or mind] was with God, and that mind was God. this was in the beginning with God. all things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made.’ yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word λογος. one of it’s legitimate meanings indeed is ‘a word.’ but, in that sense, it makes an unmeaning jargon: while the other meaning ‘reason,’ equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal preexistence of God, and his creation of the world. knowing how incomprehensible it was that ‘a word,’ the mere action or articulation of the voice and organs of speech could create a world, they undertake to make of this articulation a second preexisting being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe. the Atheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and the simpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe. the truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. and the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. but we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.
So much for your quotation of Calvin’s ‘mon dieu! jusqu’a quand’ in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. may we meet there again, in Congress, with our antient Colleagues, and recieve with them the seal of approbation ‘Well done, good and faithful servants.’
Here’s a modern English update of this excerpt from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Adams (dated April 11, 1823), preserving the original meaning, passion, and philosophical tone while making the language clearer and more accessible:
The wishes you expressed in your last letter—that I might live long and healthy until I become a Calvinist, at least in crying out “My God! How long?!”—would make me immortal if they came true. But I can never join Calvin in addressing his god that way. He was essentially an atheist (which I could never be), or rather, his religion was daemonism. If any man ever worshiped a false god, it was him. The being described in his five points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore—the Creator and benevolent governor of the world—but a daemon with a malignant spirit. It would be more forgivable to believe in no god at all than to blaspheme the true God by attributing such atrocious qualities to Him.
[….]
Of the true nature of this Being, we know nothing. Jesus tells us that “God is a spirit” (John 4:24), but without defining what a spirit is—”πνεῦμα ὁ θεός” (pneuma ho theos). Down to the 3rd century, it was still considered material, though of a lighter, subtler substance than our gross bodies. So says Origen: “Therefore God, to whom the soul is similar, according to Origen, is actually corporeal, but incorporeal only in comparison to heavier bodies.” These are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says that the term “incorporeal” (ἀσώματον) is unusual and unknown in our [Christian] writers. Tertullian says the same: “Who will deny that God is a body, even though God is a spirit? For spirit is a body of its own kind, in its own form.” Both of these Church Fathers were from the 3rd century.
Calvin’s portrayal of the Supreme Being seems mostly copied from the Jewish conception. But reforming those blasphemous attributes and replacing them with ones more worthy, pure, and sublime appears to have been Jesus’s main goal in his discourses with the Jews. His doctrine of the world’s creation is very clearly stated in the first three verses of the Gospel of John:”Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.”Which, truly translated, means: “In the beginning, God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it not one thing that was made came into being.” Yet this text—so plainly declaring Jesus’s doctrine that the world was created by the supreme intelligent Being—has been twisted by modern Christians to build up a second person in their tritheism through a mistranslation of the word λόγος (logos). One of its legitimate meanings is indeed “word,” but in that sense it produces meaningless nonsense. The other equally legitimate meaning—”reason”—explains rationally God’s eternal preexistence and His creation of the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that a mere “word”—the simple action of voice and speech organs—could create a world, they instead turn this “word” into a second pre-existing being and attribute the creation of the universe to him rather than to God. The atheist here boasts about the uselessness of such a God and prefers the simpler idea of a self-existent universe. The truth is that the greatest enemies of Jesus’s doctrines are those who call themselves their interpreters, who have perverted them to build a system of fantasy that is utterly incomprehensible and has no foundation in his actual words. And the day will come when the mystical story of Jesus being generated by the Supreme Being as His father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the myth of Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will sweep away all this artificial scaffolding and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. So much for your quotation of Calvin’s “Mon Dieu! jusqu’à quand!” When addressed to the God of Jesus—and our God—I join you in it wholeheartedly, and I await His time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet again there, in a heavenly Congress with our old colleagues, and receive with them the seal of approval: “Well done, good and faithful servants.”
And here GROK did a redo making it :”more concise”
Here’s a more concise modern English version of Jefferson’s response (April 11, 1823):
Your wish that I live long enough to become a Calvinist—at least in crying “My God! How long?”—would make me immortal. But I can never pray to Calvin’s god. He was essentially an atheist, or his religion was daemonism. If anyone worshiped a false god, it was him. The being in his five points is not the God we both acknowledge—the benevolent Creator and governor of the world—but a malignant daemon. It is more forgivable to believe in no god than to blaspheme the true one with Calvin’s atrocious attributes.
We know nothing of this Being’s nature. Jesus said “God is a spirit” (John 4:24), but did not define it. Until the 3rd century, Christians considered spirit material, though subtler than flesh—as Origen and Tertullian both affirmed.
Calvin’s image of God largely copies the harsh Jewish portrayal. Jesus’s main mission seems to have been correcting those blasphemous attributes and teaching purer, more sublime ones. His cosmology is clearly stated in John 1:1–3:“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God… All things were made through it.”
Properly translated, Logos means “reason” or “mind”: In the beginning God existed, reason was with God, and reason was God. All things were created by it. Modern Christians, however, mistranslate Logos as “word” to invent a second divine person and build their tritheism. This turns a rational account of creation into incomprehensible jargon—and gives atheists an easy target.
The worst enemies of Jesus’s teachings are the so-called experts who have twisted them into a fanciful, groundless system. One day, the virgin birth of Jesus will be ranked with Minerva springing from Jupiter’s head. But I hope the spread of reason and free thought in America will sweep away this artificial scaffolding and restore Jesus’s original, genuine doctrines—the work of the greatest reformer of human errors.
As for Calvin’s “My God! How long?”—when addressed to the God of Jesus, our God—I join you wholeheartedly. I await His will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet again in a heavenly Congress with our old colleagues and hear together: “Well done, good and faithful servants.”
GROK offered to explain Jefferson’s “5-Points Critique,” here that is:
Thomas Jefferson’s critique of Calvinism’s “five points” appears in his April 11, 1823, letter to John Adams. He did not break it down point-by-point but offered a sweeping condemnation, calling the God portrayed in these doctrines a “daemon of malignant spirit” rather than the benevolent Creator he and Adams revered. Jefferson viewed Calvin’s theology as blasphemous, arguing it would be better to believe in no God at all than to attribute such “atrocious” qualities to the divine. The Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP)These points, formalized after John Calvin’s death at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) in response to Arminianism, summarize key Reformed doctrines on salvation:
Total Depravity: Humanity is utterly corrupted by sin, incapable of choosing God or doing spiritual good without divine intervention.
Unconditional Election: God chooses (elects) certain individuals for salvation based solely on His will, not on any foreseen merit or faith.
Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption): Christ’s death effectively atones only for the sins of the elect, not for all humanity.
Irresistible Grace: God’s grace effectively calls the elect to faith; they cannot ultimately resist it.
Perseverance of the Saints: The elect will persevere in faith and cannot finally lose salvation.
Jefferson’s Core Objection
Jefferson, influenced by Enlightenment rationalism, Deism, and Unitarian leanings, emphasized a God of benevolence, reason, and moral governance. He saw Calvinism’s emphasis on God’s absolute sovereignty—especially in predestination (including “double predestination,” where God decrees both election to salvation and reprobation to damnation)—as portraying a tyrannical, arbitrary deity. This God predestines most of humanity to eternal punishment without regard to their actions, which Jefferson found cruel and incompatible with divine goodness. He contrasted this with Jesus’s teachings, which he believed focused on moral reform, free will, and a loving God. Jefferson also linked Calvinism to historical intolerance (e.g., Calvin’s role in the execution of Michael Servetus) and saw it as a perversion of true Christianity. In essence, Jefferson rejected the five points not for subtle theological nuances but because they collectively depicted a God he considered morally repugnant—a “malignant” being closer to a demon than the rational, kind Creator revealed (in his view) by nature and Jesus’s ethical teachings. This reflected his broader anti-Trinitarian, anti-orthodox stance, favoring a simplified, moralistic Christianity over doctrinal systems like Calvinism.
Keep in mind GROK is not a theologian. I asked GROK about John Adam’s views of Calvinism, this was the short answer:
John Adams, raised in a Puritan New England Congregationalist family with strong Calvinist roots, ultimately rejected core Calvinist doctrines and evolved into a Unitarian Christian.
Early Rejection of Calvinism
He rejected key Calvinist tenets early in life, including:
Predestination
Total depravity
Limited atonement
Eternal damnation for most
He called Calvinism “frigid,” irrational, and marked by a “domineering and persecuting spirit.” Influenced by liberal Congregationalist preachers and Enlightenment rationalism, Adams viewed strict Calvinism as incompatible with a benevolent God and human free will. He leaned toward Arminianism (emphasizing free choice in salvation) before fully embracing Unitarianism.
Self-Identification as Unitarian
In later years, Adams explicitly identified as a Unitarian, writing to his son John Quincy Adams in 1816: “We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than Sixty Years…” He rejected the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, original sin, and salvation by arbitrary grace alone, favoring a rational, moral Christianity focused on benevolence, good works, and the Sermon on the Mount.
Playful Teasing in Correspondence
In his famous 1823 correspondence with Thomas Jefferson (the letters you referenced earlier), Adams playfully teased Jefferson about old-age sufferings, joking that Jefferson might yet become “as perfect a Calvinist as I am in one particular”—referring only to enduring infirmities with stoic patience (echoing John Calvin’s own cries of “Mon Dieu! Jusqu’à quand?”). This was ironic humor, not an endorsement of Calvinism. Adams shared Jefferson’s disdain for Calvin’s “atrocious attributes” and predestinarian God, aligning with Jefferson’s view of a benevolent Creator.
Overall Religious Outlook
Adams remained deeply religious—a “church-going animal” who believed in divine providence, prayer, and morality’s role in society—but his faith was liberal, tolerant, and anti-dogmatic. He saw religion as essential for public virtue yet warned against ecclesiastical tyranny. Historians describe him as a blend of Puritan heritage and Enlightenment reason, ultimately a conservative Unitarian who retained belief in Jesus as a moral teacher (though not divine) and an active God.
In short, Adams was emphatically not a Calvinist; he detested its harsher doctrines and spent much of his life moving away from them toward Unitarian rationalism.
Mind you, I am not a Unitarian whatsoever, but needless to say not only would Calvin had burned Christ at the stake in Geneva, he would have done the same to the Founders of America!
BAPTIST MARTYRS
This Baptist History is brought to you by Steve Brady at Fairhaven Baptist Church in Chesterton, Indiana. (Full playlist of 50 Baptists You Should Know here)
Here is what was said in a post that included the above drawing via Facebook:
It has been decreed this day by the Council of the Two Hundred (of Zurich) that the leaders of the Catabaptists shall be cast into the Tower, in which they formerly lay, and allured by bread and water diet until either they give up the ghost or surrender. It is also added that he who after this is dipped shall be submerged permanently (qtti posthac tingatur, prossus mcrgatur); this is not published (Zwingli, Opera, vii. 477).
This is but one of numerous decrees by city councils in Calvinist principalities levied against “Catabaptists”. This word means someone who opposes baptism, but even in their usage of the term the Calvinists reveal themselves to be liars. The Baptists didn’t oppose baptism, they opposed infant baptism, which is nowhere evidenced in Scripture. The Calvinists knew Baptists baptized believing adults – that’s one of the reasons they murdered them – “submerged permanently,” as opposed to submerged briefly, in baptism.
Note that in his final comment, Zwingli writes that this is “not published”. He wanted the homicidal order to remain a secret. So he knew that what he was doing was immoral. He just didn’t want the general population to know about it.
Zwingli and the Calvinists were murderers. They knew they were murderers. They congratulated themselves on being murderers. And history has preserved the evidence of their murders.
I asked GROK to explain the above a little more and then GROK offered up info on Felix Manz
Key Historical Context
In 1525, a group of Zwingli’s former followers (including Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz) broke away because they believed Zwingli and the Zurich authorities were reforming the church too slowly and compromising with civil government. They rejected infant baptism (paedobaptism) as unscriptural, insisting baptism should be for believing adults only—who could consciously confess faith. On January 21, 1525, they performed the first adult baptisms in Zurich, marking the start of the Anabaptist movement (from Greek ana- meaning “again,” implying “re-baptizers” in the eyes of critics, since they viewed infant baptism as invalid).Zwingli strongly defended infant baptism (seeing it as the New Testament equivalent of Old Testament circumcision, a covenant sign for children of believers). After public debates in 1525 failed to resolve the issue, the Zurich Council sided with Zwingli and began cracking down on the Anabaptists, viewing their separatism, refusal of oaths/civic duties, and defiance of authority as threats to social and religious order.
The Decree and Quote Explained
The decree Zwingli describes had two parts:
Leaders of the Anabaptists (called “Catabaptists” here—see below) were to be imprisoned in the tower on bread-and-water rations until they recanted or died.
Anyone who continued to perform adult (“re-“)baptism would be executed by drowning (a grim, ironic punishment: “whoever dips shall be dipped/submerged permanently”).
This was an escalation from earlier penalties (fines, banishment). A similar but formalized mandate followed shortly after, and the first execution under it was Felix Manz, drowned in the Limmat River on January 5, 1527. Several others followed in Zurich before the movement was suppressed there.
Regarding your quote’s final line: “this is not published (Zwingli, Opera, vii. 477).” Most historical sources (including direct translations of the letter) actually read that the decision was published—or at least do not mention secrecy. It’s possible this is a transcription/translation variant in the specific edition you referenced, or a slight misremembering. Zwingli’s letter was private correspondence, not a public statement, and he expresses approval of the council’s action without hinting at shame or secrecy. The drowning penalty was openly enforced later, so it wasn’t kept hidden long-term.
On “Catabaptists”
This was a term Zwingli and some allies (like Oecolampadius) briefly used in Latin writings around 1525–1527 (e.g., in his 1527 book In Catabaptistarum Strophas Elenchus—”Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists”). From Greek kata- (down/against), it carried a double meaning:
“Against baptism” (implying they undermined true [infant] baptism).
Ironically, “down-dipper” or “one who submerges/drowns” (playing on immersion baptism and foreshadowing the drowning punishment).
It was a derogatory label, not what the group called themselves (they preferred “Brethren” or similar). The more common term “Anabaptist” stuck. You’re correct that they didn’t “oppose baptism” outright—they practiced believer’s baptism (often by immersion or pouring)—but critics framed it as rejecting the established sacrament.
Broader Perspective
The Anabaptists were seen as dangerous radicals in the 16th century (both by Catholics and magisterial Protestants like Zwingli/Calvin/Luther) because their ideas challenged the unity of church and state. Persecution was harsh and widespread: drowning in Protestant Zurich, burning/beheading elsewhere. Modern historians view this as a tragic episode where Reformation leaders, fearing anarchy, used state power to enforce orthodoxy—similar to how Catholics persecuted Protestants.
From a Baptist perspective (as your text seems to reflect), Anabaptists are often seen as forerunners of believer’s baptism and church-state separation. Zwingli and the Zurich Reformed tradition defended infant baptism and a closer church-government alliance.
This event highlights the deep divisions within the early Reformation—Zwingli started as a bold reformer against Catholic practices but ended up opposing those he saw as going “too far.”
[….]
Background on Felix Manz
Felix Manz (c. 1498–1527) was a Swiss Anabaptist leader and co-founder of the Swiss Brethren, the earliest Anabaptist congregation. Initially a follower and collaborator of Huldrych Zwingli (helping with Bible translation), Manz broke away over theological differences, particularly the rejection of infant baptism in favor of believer’s baptism (adult baptism upon confession of faith). He participated in the first adult baptisms on January 21, 1525, at his mother’s home in Zurich, marking the birth of the Anabaptist movement.Manz was arrested multiple times between 1525 and 1527 for preaching and performing adult baptisms, seen by Zurich authorities as seditious and threatening to social order.
The Decree Leading to Execution
On March 7, 1526, the Zurich City Council—aligned with Zwingli’s Reformed position—issued an edict making adult “re-baptism” punishable by drowning. This ironic penalty (“a third baptism”) was intended to mock Anabaptist views on immersion baptism.
Details of the Execution: January 5, 1527
Manz was rearrested in December 1526 while baptizing in the Grüningen region and imprisoned in Zurich’s Wellenberg Tower. He refused to recant during interrogation.On January 5, 1527, around 3 p.m., he was sentenced to death for persisting in Anabaptism, separatism, and defiance of authority. Led in procession from prison through the fish market to the Limmat River (flowing through central Zurich), Manz praised God and preached to onlookers.
Contemporary accounts (e.g., from Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor) describe:
His hands bound behind his knees with a pole inserted (a common binding for drowning executions).
Placed in a boat and rowed to mid-river (near a fishing hut/platform).
Pushed into the icy water to drown.
A Reformed preacher accompanied him, urging recantation, but Manz remained steadfast. Crowds lined both banks.
Family Presence and Last Words
Manz’s mother (Anna Manz) and brother were present on the shore, encouraging him to stay firm in his faith—her cries reportedly rang out across the water.
As he was thrown in, Manz sang loudly in Latin: “In manus tuas, Domine, commendo spiritum meum” (“Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit”—echoing Jesus’ words on the cross, Luke 23:46).His property was confiscated, and he was buried in a common grave.
Zwingli’s Role
Zwingli, once Manz’s mentor, debated against the Anabaptists publicly (e.g., 1525 disputations) and supported the council’s measures. While he did not personally order the execution, sources indicate he approved of the edict and viewed Anabaptism as heretical and anarchic. No record shows him opposing the drowning.
Legacy and Memorial
Manz became the first Anabaptist martyr executed by Protestants (predating radical events like the Münster Rebellion). His death inspired the movement rather than suppressing it.A memorial plaque on the Limmat River wall at Schipfe (opposite No. 43) commemorates Manz and other drowned Anabaptists (1527–1532):The plaque reads (in translation): “Here in the middle of the Limmat from a fishing platform were drowned Felix Manz and five other Anabaptists during the Reformation 1527 to 1532.”This event highlights the tragic intolerance within the early Reformation, where theological disputes led to state-enforced executions.
The Early Church Before Augustine on Free Will and Original Sin ~ Winkie Pratney ~
Let me just say, this was one of the best presentations I have seen. I will follow it with one I like but the early AI voice is tough.
Winkie Pratney lectures on Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and the Early Church regarding free will and original sin. What did early Christianity, or the early Christians, believe on these issues? Is Calvinism really historic Christianity as Calvinists claim?
Did Augustine Corrupt The Church With Gnostic Doctrine? Beyond Augustine Documentary ~ Jesse Morrell ~
Beyond Augustine is a church history and theological documentary that examines the free will debate in light of the Early Church and the Gnostics. Did Augustine corrupt the church with Manichean or Gnostic doctrine? Is Calvinism or Reformed Theology really orthodox and historic Christianity, as Calvinists claim? Or are the Calvinists and Augustinians the spiritual descendants of the Gnostics and Manicheans? Were the Pelagians really the heretics in their free will debate with Augustine? These are the type of controversial questions Jesse Morrell examines in this documentary.
(Jump to update if you wish) Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, gives a brief 10 minute overview of Ephesians 1 from a Traditional/Provisionist perspective as in contrast with the typical Calvinistic reading.
Pages 132-138 of pastor Ronnie W. Rogers’ book, Does God Love All or Some: Comparing Biblical Extensivism and Calvinism’s Exclusivism. This is chapter 20, titled:
A Better Gospel!
THE GOOD NEWS ACCORDING to Calvinism is to be proclaimed to everyone everywhere, but it is not good news for everyone who hears. I believe the gospel according to Jesus presents a better gospel.
To many, it appears Calvinists, Arminians, Molinists, and Traditionalists (the last three I refer to, broadly speaking, as Extensivists) all believe the same thing about the gospel while merely differing on tertiaries. Consequently, they quite understandably retort, “Why all of this divisive bickering; let us just preach the gospel.” I wholeheartedly agree that we can all communicate the gospel message so that anyone and everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Consequently, we should do so and applaud all endeavors at such. I also believe both Extensivists and Calvinists can be evangelistic.
However, I do think it is incumbent upon Christians to make clear that even though these things are true, the differences between Calvinists’ and Extensivists’ perspectives regarding salvation do in fact influence the evangelistic and missionary endeavor. This influence is even determinative of what one can and cannot say to a lost and hell-bound individual and world when we communicate the gospel. These differences are not tertiary as some claim, for they do in fact change the raison d’être (reason for being or existence) of the gospel, the purpose for sharing the gospel, the language used in communicating the gospel, and the nature of our passion derived from the gospel. These dissimilarities are substantial. So much so they actually and unavoidably define the missiology of the church; accordingly, they are not tertiary. Our differences even affect our understanding of arguably the most well-known, lucid, humbling, and awe-inspiring verse regarding the gospel and mission of evangelizing (John 3:16).
John Piper asked the question, “What message would missionaries rather take than the message: Be glad in God! Rejoice in God! Sing for joy in God! . . . God loves to exalt himself by showing mercy to sinners.”[1]My answer to this question is the truth that when someone hears this glorious message that same someone has a chance, by the grace and mercy of God, to receive the truth of the message by faith. Further, without opportunity for all sinners to accept, Piper’s message should be changed to say, “Some can be glad in God if he predestined you” or “God loves to exalt himself by showing mercy to some sinners.” This rephrasing of his statement is not a mischaracterization of Calvinism, but rather it is the actual message of Calvinism, and everyone who understands Calvinism knows it. Unfortunately, it is popularly and ubiquitously stated in the manner cited by Piper (or similarly opaque phrases) that shield most from yet another disquieting reality of Calvinism. I would greatly appreciate Calvinists’ due diligence to speak in such a way that all can be reminded of this reality (as some Calvinists are very careful to do). Any suggestion this distinction is tertiary is baffling indeed.
Some like John Owen postulate a covenant of redemption which limits the atonement to the elect. David Allen gives several problems with Owen’s belief in the Covenant of Redemption. For example, “no such covenant within the Godhead is revealed in Scripture. . . . This shifts the focus from God’s revealed will in Scripture to a focus on God’s secret will in eternity.”[2]
The two irreconcilable approaches to understanding the presentation of the gospel can be seen in these brief synopses. Extensivists affirm that salvation is entirely a work of God because he has provided everything necessary, even the gift of faith, by which every sinner can by faith receive the salvation of the Lord.[3] The offer of salvation is unconditional, whereas the experience of salvation by an individual is conditioned upon grace-enabled faith (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). Many verses attest to the accuracy of this understanding of salvation. Man’s part in salvation is seen repeatedly in the book of Acts, e.g., Acts 2:37–41; 3:19–26; 7:51; 8:6–14, 22–23, 36–37; 9:35, 42; 10:34–35, 43; 11:21; 13:8–13, 38–41, 46–47; 14:1; 15:19; 16:30–34; 17:2–4, 11–12, 17, 30–31; 18:4–8, 19, 27–28; 19:8–9, 18; 20:21; 22:18; 26:17–20; 28:23–24. The epistles teach the same (Rom 5:1; Gal 3:26; Eph 2:8–9; Heb 11:6). In addition, God gave repentance as a grace gift (Acts 5:31; 11:18).[4]
In contrast, Calvinism generally argues the new birth precedes faith.[5] Piper asserts, “The native hardness of our hearts makes us unwilling and unable to turn from sin and trust the Savior. Therefore, conversion involves a miracle of new birth. This new birth precedes and enables faith andrepentance. Nevertheless, faith and repentance are our acts. We are accountable to do them . . . God grants us the inclination we need.”[6] The Synod of Dort says, “Men are chosen to faith . . . therefore election is the fountain of every saving good; from which proceed faith.”[7] R.C. Sproul declares, “We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe.”[8]
Such explanation creates an abstractness in Calvinism’s understanding of the gospel, which results in a concomitant chilling unfriendliness of the good news when shared one-on-one. It is one thing to say God loves Africa and desires the gospel to go there, or that he desires for Africans to be saved. It is quite another for the missionary to look into the eyes of a lost and perishing African and say God loves you and desires you to receive the good news of the gospel, which is the friendliness of the gospel in Scripture. The former has an abstract quality about it that the latter does not have (like the difference between saying I love Africans and then really loving the one who moves in next door). A Calvinist can say, “Believe in Jesus for the remission of sins,” but there is a secret aloofness embedded in the invitation for the vast majority of individuals who hear the gospel; an aloofness the Calvinist is very aware of and staunchly committed to.
Further, this abstract quality of Calvinism is the provenance of the good faith offer, which is reflective of Calvinism’s different understanding of the gospel. I for one find neither this abstraction, with its secret indifference for the majority of individuals who hear the gospel, nor the suggestion of such a concept as a good faith offer in the scriptural presentations of the gospel. This abstract quality transforms the simple straightforward gospel as seen in Scripture from being exoteric (available to all) into an esoteric gospel (only available to some). The exoteric gospel of Scripture calls upon every individual with whom we share to receive the gospel and gives every indication that he should and can believe. It is authentically and dependably what it appears to be, the good news of God’s love and compassion offered to all who hear.
In contrast, the esoteric gospel according to Calvinism says everyone should come, but the secret is that while God has told Calvinists to tell all the lost to come, be forgiven, and flee the wrath to come, the inner circle— Calvinists—know it has pleased God to exclude a host of individuals with whom the Calvinist presents this message. This means if one is to be consistent with Calvinism, the gospel must be protectingly presented so that the hearer believes God loves him and truly desires for him to be delivered from the fiery cauldron of God’s eternal fury; something no Calvinist can say to any particular individual unless God inspires him to intuit that the lost man to whom he is witnessing is one of God’s elect. If God gives such enlightenment it behooves the Calvinist to share such glorious news with the individual, or so it would seem.
According to Calvinism, the gospel is good news for some, but inherent in their understanding of the gospel is that for most with whom they speak it is the ghastliest horror one could ever imagine (whether a sinner desires to believe or not does nothing to palliate this point). That being the case, one may rightly question the righteous legitimacy of indiscriminately declaring a gospel so construed that, in any way, intimates it is for all who hear because it is emphatically not; something every knowledgeable Calvinist knows. To wit, if a Calvinist shares the gospel in such a way so that all those who hear believe God loves them and desires for them to repent and be saved by faith in Jesus, the Calvinist has been true to Scripture but not to Calvinism. One must genuinely ask, is there not a point when a good faith offer is transmogrified into an ungodly deception? Calvinists can avoid this point by determinedly shunning any semblance of offering, via precisely chosen guarded language, what the Calvinist is convinced does not exist. Or is the concept of a good faith offer an unchallengeable and un-fillable reservoir for storing gospel secrets of Calvinism? I am simply asking Calvinists to be clear in presenting what they so resolutely believe to be the whole good news, and I do not think that is too much to ask.
David Allen, referring to 2 Corinthians 5:19–20, says, “Here we have God himself offering salvation to all. But how can he do this according to limited atonement since there is no provision for the salvation of the non-elect in the death of Christ? Furthermore, how can God make this offer with integrity? It seems difficult to suppose he can. Without belief in the universal saving will of God and a universal extent in Christ’s sin-bearing, there can be no well-meant offer of salvation from God to the non-elect who hear the gospel call.”[9]
Extensivists follow the scriptural pattern of presenting the good news as good news for everyone who hears because, by God’s loving grace, they should and can believe. If they choose to reject, which they do not have to do, they will forfeit being adopted as a child of God and succumb to a sinner’s just deserts. This is based upon a clear, simple, and straight-forward reading of the clearest presentations of the gospel and the declared nature of God. Calvinism’s understanding of the gospel disallows any meaningfully eternal difference in the gospel if they simply said, “God hates you and has a terrible plan for you because the elect will get saved and the non-elect will not.” For Calvinists to respond that they are sharing the gospel out of obedience is not a solution to the problem I pose but rather it is symptomatic of it. Further, for a Calvinist to rely upon such an idea as a good faith offer does nothing to absolve God from intentionally obscuring his real plan.
In contrast to Calvinism, Jesus clearly warned those to whom he spoke to repent, with every indication they should and could, which warning he issued repeatedly (Matt 4:17; 11:20–21; Luke 5:32; 15:7; 24:47). The same can be said for the Apostles (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). If Christ knew some of them could not repent because they were not the elect, his warning seems disingenuous and misleading. Some Calvinists will say Jesus was making a “good faith offer” (if there is such an idea) because as a man, he did not know who the elect were.
As an example of Jesus not knowing certain things, in his humanity, they reference Jesus saying “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt 24:36). Of course, we all recognize as a human, Christ did not know certain things. However, this explicit statement of not knowing does not seem to justify the good faith offer since he gives every indication of speaking as forthrightly in presenting the gospel as he did regarding his second coming, consistent with the way things really are. There is really something to believe, he really as a human did not know the hour, which it seems all could choose to believe. There is no pretense. When he said he did not know, he really did not know, and they could believe what he said. They need not be cryptographically savvy.
Further, Calvinists’ reliance upon this example assumes they are justified in presenting something so that those who hear believe they can act on it when Calvinists know they cannot. That seems to be an illegitimate deduction. Clarification of the way things really are would only take a moment when Calvinists present the gospel according to Calvinism. I do not accept leaving the listener believing he is receiving a good offer when he is really hearing only a good faith offer to be noble evangelism. Unless one is a Calvinist who needs to justify the extra-biblical concept of the good faith offer, I doubt one would be able to mine it from this passage on the second coming. There is a crucial difference between Jesus not knowing certain things due to his role as a servant and his speaking forthrightly things that are either misleading or not true—do not correspond fully to reality. Moreover, Jesus stated he did not know the hour of his coming, but he never says nor even hints that he does not know the gospel.
Additionally, there are problems with assuming Jesus’s words were in any way misleading or ill-informed. First, Jesus would have to have forgotten all about unconditional election and selective regeneration. This seems unlikely since, as part of the Trinity, he would have had to help devise the plan of unconditional election, which would at least make his “good faith offer” a little less good than such an offer from your everyday Calvinist. While he did not know the hour of the second coming, he did know there was a second coming; to wit as a servant, he lacked precise knowledge of the event’s time not of the event, which he detailed in Matt 24–25. Second, and more problematic for the Calvinist, is that Jesus said he always did the will of the Father (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 17:4) and spoke not of his own initiative but what the Father wanted him to speak (John 3:11, 34; 5:19; 7:16; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49–50; 14:10, 24, 31; 17:8). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit was upon Jesus filling him without measure (Isa 61:1; Matt 12:18; Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14; John 3:34; Acts 10:38).
Consequently, even if Jesus did not know, the Father and the Holy Spirit did know; therefore, the Calvinist doctrine of selective regeneration makes the Trinity complicitous in this misrepresentation. The obvious truth is that Jesus commanded them to repent because he was not willing that any would perish and desired that all would come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9); something God has grace-enabled everyone who hears the truth to do.
The gospel according to Calvinism is the gospel that is commanded to be preached to all, presented as available to all with an urgency that it be received by all, and yet cannot be received by all who hear the message; even though its universal availability is the obvious inference any listener would draw based upon most Calvinists’ carefully guarded presentation of the gospel (guarding the divulgence of the secret limitations of the gospel according to Calvinism). In reality, the doctrine of selective regeneration preceding faith dictates the gospel—good news— is really not good news at all because it cannot be received by anyone who just hears the good news, and this unavailability is just as true for the elect as the non-elect.
Reception of the Calvinistic gospel is divinely limited to the selectively regenerated; therefore, the primary good news of Calvinism is not the gospel, but rather that some to whom they speak are on the secret list of those who have been selected for regeneration, which results in receiving the good news — the gospel. That is to say, according to Calvinism, the gospel is not the good news to be received by all or any listener, but rather a description of the benefits that will be bestowed upon those on the secret list of the unconditionally elect. Simply put, the gospel according to Scripture is a better gospel than the gospel according to Calvinism.
NOTES
Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad, 33.
Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, 217.
Spiritual faith is the ability to trust what God has said and is a gift given by God in creation as are all the endowments of man. It is also a gift in the sense that God restores the ability to exercise spiritually restorative faith as a sinner through the provision of grace enablements (John 12:35–36). It is not a gift in the Calvinist sense of being resultant of God’s irresistible grace upon the unconditionally elect, understood to be so in part by a misreading of Eph 2:8.
Repentance and faith are inseparable. Repentance focuses upon turning from sin, whereas faith focuses upon turning in trust to the Savior. Repentance is neither a predetermined irresistible work of God upon the unconditionally elect only, nor is it merely a humanly derived act. Rather, the ability to repent is given to all by God through grace enablements and is required by God for salvation.
See my answer to Calvinists’ argument for only a logical relationship between faith and regeneration in Appendix 4.
Piper, Desiring God, 62.
Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, article 9.
Sproul, Chosen by God, 72–73.
Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, 786.
Dr. Leighton Flowers explains a Traditional Southern Baptist perspective of Eph. 2:8-9:
Yes, faith is a gift from God, but the point of contention between the Traditionalist and the Calvinist is whether it is a gift that is given irresistibly (or effectually).
Traditionalists affirm God enables (or grant) faith by means of His Word (the gospel), but we disagree that God effectually causes some people to believe the gospel while leaving others in a morally hopeless condition from birth.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (ESV)
What is “This”?
The main question is: What does this refer to? “This” is a demonstrative pronoun. Paul is demonstrating that something, this thing, is a gift. He’s pointing at something he just said in the previous phrase, “For by grace you have been saved through faith”, and he saying “this thing is a gift”. But what is Paul referring to as a gift? To help answer this question, let’s repeat this passage with the Greek word, gender, and number displayed:
For by grace [charis, feminine, singular] you have been saved [sesosmenoi, masculine, singular] through faith [pistis, feminine, singular]. And this [toutō, neuter, singular] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
There are six possible interpretations for the gift. Based on the grammatical structure of the verse (seen above), four interpretations will be ruled out. They will be ruled out because ancient Greek authors used the gender and number of pronouns to make it clear to their reader which noun the pronoun is referring to. Here are the six possibilities:
1: The gift is “by grace you have been saved through faith” 2: The gift is “by grace you have been saved” 3: The gift is “been saved through faith”
4: The gift is only grace
5: The gift is only salvation
6: The gift is only faith
You’ll notice that the pronoun “this” [toutō, neuter, singular] does not match a single one of the previous nouns in question; neither “grace”, nor “saved”, nor “faith”. If Paul wanted to say only one of those was the gift, then all he would have had to do was match the gender and number of “this” with that noun. But he chose to make it match none of them. So the gift can’t be only the grace, nor only the salvation, nor only the faith.
Even though it’s not possible, interpretation six, that only faith is the gift, is often argued because faith is the last thing referenced. Most who quote Ephesians 2:8-9 to claim that ‘faith is a gift’ are arguing from this position. This seems like a natural interpretation to English readers because…that’s how we would denote which noun to which the pronoun refers. The problem is: Paul didn’t write in English. Piper, as well as many other scholars, correctly understand that this interpretation is impossible due to the grammatical formatting of the Greek.
In Greek, pronouns must agree with their antecedent in gender and number. English somewhat 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 masculine, feminine, or neuter.
In the verse, “this” is neuter, meaning that it must connect two genders: Feminine, masculine, or neuter. Faith is a feminine word. The word “this” would need to be written as feminine for it to refer to faith. While interpretation 6 is quoted often, it can safely be ruled out. Interpretations 5 & 6 can be ruled out for the same mismatched gender problem. The remaining three interpretations are discussed by Piper and will be analyzed in the arguments below.
[….]
Why Didn’t Paul Just Say The Thing?
If Paul was concerned about anybody thinking that faith is something that you’re supposed to do, he would have simply written ‘faith is a gift’ somewhere in one of his many letters. Since Paul never wrote this, we cannot exegetically assume that this was his motivation. Paul could have said “these” to mean all three individually or he could have just added a sentence somewhere that clarified it. Claiming that this is what Paul was thinking or worried about is unsupported by any of his work.
Paul Wrote About Faith, Grace, Works, and Boasting Elsewhere
In order to make any claims about the motivations of Paul in regards to faith and boasting, we must take a close look at the other passages were Paul addresses these issues. As a matter of fact, several years before writing his letter to Ephesus, Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. In chapter 3 & 4, Paul goes into great detail about the relationship between salvation, grace, faith, works, and boasting. Since these chapters are much more explicit than Ephesians 2:8-9, we must incorporate them into our interpretation. Here are some snippets of his writings, but go read these chapters for yourselves and then read Ephesians 2:8-9.
“the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith . . . It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law“ (Romans 3:24-25 ESV)
“What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”
“For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”
“No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”” (Romans 4 ESV)
Paul makes it extremely clear that his concern for boasting lies in who is the justifier of our salvation, who powers it, who does the work. Paul spends all of this time communicating that promise must “rest on grace” and that this is accomplished only through faith as the means. If we are the justifier through works, then God is not glorified. Nowhere in the long exposition of Romans does Paul say that ‘faith is a gift’. Paul invalidates Piper’s argument by saying that our boasting from being justified by faith “is excluded.By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law”. Using Piper’s own reasoning, Paul could have easily said “Boasting is excluded because faith is a gift”. But instead he says “Boasting is excluded because of faith” . Faith is non-meritorious and is not worthy of boasting. No one can exegetically claim that faith is a work. If faith is not worthy of boasting because it is not a work, where is Paul’s concern that we ‘create faith’? Why does Paul say that “Abraham believed God”? This seems like the perfect place to drop this supposed additional information about faith being effectually given or that you are unable to put faith in God. Nowhere in the entire Bible does it say that man is unable to believe, repent, or put their faith in God unless effectually given faith. This concept has to be read into the text. If putting faith in God is boast worthy, why didn’t Paul address it as clearly as he addresses faith not being a work?
Does faith rob God of his glory? Romans 4 says no. Abraham “grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God”. The text doesn’t say God made Abraham grow strong in faith. Instead, the text gives Abraham credit for his faith. If this was a concern of Paul’s in the slightest, why would Paul write it this way? Paul clearly writes that salvation through faith gives God all of the glory. Where is Paul’s concern? Piper’s argument that faith somehow takes glory from God is an attempt to turn faith into a work. One can only boast if it is under the law of works. Assuming that Paul holds this concern is completely unfounded by his work.
Bibliotheca Sacra BSAC 122:487 (July 1965): 248–253. (PDF HERE)
Most Calvinistic commentators believe that the gift of Ephesians 2:8 is saving faith rather than salvation: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9). This interpretation leads some to a hyper-Calvinistic doctrine of faith, which in turn leads to an unscriptural plan of salvation.
For example, Shedd says: “The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration.”1This results in a strange plan of salvation. Because the sinner cannot believe, he is instructed to perform the following duties: 1. Read and hear the divine Word. 2. Give serious application of the mind to the truth. 3. Pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.2
Thus an unscriptural doctrine of total depravity leads to an unscriptural and inconsistent plan of salvation. Doubtless the sinner is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1b). If this means that regeneration must precede faith, then it must also mean that regeneration must precede all three of the pious duties Shedd outlines for the lost. 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 conviction and regeneration.” The extreme Calvinist deals with a rather lively spiritual corpse after all. If the corpse has enough vitality to read the Word, and heed the message, and pray for conviction, perhaps it can also believe. Incidentally, it would seem evident that the person who would pray earnestly for conviction must already be under a deep state of conviction.
Arthur W. Pink agrees with Shedd. He says the sinner is to “ask God … to bestow upon him the gifts of repentance and faith.”3
Berkhof’s position is similar: “This faith is not first of all an activity of man, but a potentiality wrought by God in the heart of the sinner. The seed of faith is implanted in man in regeneration.”4
The tragedy of this position is that it perverts the gospel. The good news becomes only a hopeful possibility. The sinner is wrongly instructed to beg for that which God is already beseeching him to receive (2 Cor. 5:20). He is given no assurance that his prayer will be answered. He is really being told that the condition of salvation is prayer instead of faith.
The one verse which seems to teach that saving faith is the gift of God is Ephesians 2:8. But a careful study of this verse and its context shows clearly that it is salvation which is the gift of God. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary gives this explanation: “The word that refers not to grace or to faith, but to the whole act of salvation.”5This is also the interpretation of Calvin, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Eadie, and others. The Greek text favors this meaning because the relative pronoun that (τοῦτο) is neuter while the word faith (πίστις) is feminine. In addition the whole context, especially verse 9, makes clear that the issue is salvation by grace opposed to the ever-present error of salvation by works. The same conclusion is reached by the grammarian J. Harold Greenlee.6
Sir Robert Anderson’s footnote on Ephesians 2:8 is well stated: “Eph. 2:8. ‘The gift of God’ here is salvation by grace through faith. Not the faith itself. ‘This is precluded,’ as Alford remarks, ‘by the manifestly parallel clauses “not of yourself,” and “not of works,” the latter of which would be irrelevant as asserted of faith.’ It is still more definitely precluded, he might have added, by the character of the passage. It is given to us to believe on Christ, just in the same sense in which it is given to some ‘also to suffer for His sake’ (Phil. 1:29). But the statement in Ephesians is doctrinal, and in that sense the assertion that faith is a gift, or indeed that it is a distinct entity at all, is sheer error. This matter is sometimes represented as though God gave faith to the sinner first, and then, on the sinner’s bringing Him the faith, went on and gave him salvation! Just as though a baker, refusing to supply empty-handed applicants, should first dispense to each the price of a loaf, and then, in return for the money from his own till, serve out the bread! To answer fully such a vagary as this would be to rewrite the foregoing chapter. Suffice it, therefore, to point out that to read the text as though faith were the gift, is to destroy not only the meaning of verse 9, but the force of the whole passage.”7
There are those who agree that Ephesians 2:8 does not prove that saving faith is the gift of God, but they believe the doctrine is taught by other passages, such as: Acts 5:31; 11:18; Phil. 1:29; 3:9; Romans 12:3; 2 Peter 1:1; 2 Timothy 2:25; and John 6:44–45. A careful look at these verses yields no proof that faith or repentance, as a synonym for faith, are special gifts of God.
“Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). If repentance in this verse refers to a special gift for salvation, then all Israel would be saved. It is evident that the reference is to God’s general offer of repentance, which most of the Jews rejected. The same explanation applies to Acts 11:18 where the Gentiles are in view.
“For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29). Sir Robert Anderson’s comment on this verse has been noted: “It is given to us to believe on Christ, just in the same sense in which it is given to some ‘also to suffer for his sake.’ ”8
“And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9). It would be a strange and strained interpretation of this verse to make “the faith of Christ” refer to a gift of faith from Christ, which Paul then exercised as his own in order to receive the righteousness of God. The ASV renders the phrase “through faith in Christ.” Even if the AV rendering is accepted, the expression clearly refers to the gospel as centered in Christ, and not to the manner in which Paul obtained his personal faith.
“For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3). The novice in Bible study would recognize that this section of Romans deals with the exercise of faith with the gifts for service (cf. Rom. 12:6) and has nothing to do with saving faith.
“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:1). Here Peter states that believers have “obtained” their faith, but he does not say how it was obtained. To use such a verse to prove that saving faith is a special gift of God is only to show how desperate the advocates of this theory are for Scriptural proof.
“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:25). The gift of repentance of this verse is clearly to recover members of the church out of the snare of Satan, and has nothing to do with saving faith. Even this gift is not an unqualified sovereign bestowal because it is dependent on the instruction of Timothy and the co-operation of the one ensnared, as the context (vs. 26) indicates.
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:44–45). It should be noted, first of all, that these verses do not say that saving faith is the gift of God. This is an assumption based on other assumptions. The method of obtaining faith is by hearing and learning of the Father. This is in harmony with Romans 10:17. Later the Lord explained his strong statement by the simple proposition that some could not come to him because of their unbelief (vss. 64–65), not because they did not receive a gift of faith. Some could not believe because they were interested in free bread and board, but not in the true bread from heaven. The sovereignty of God in salvation is a profound mystery that has its place in theology, but it need not be invoked to explain a problem which the Lord Himself explains in a far simpler way. The moral state of the enemies of Christ precluded their coming to the Father or Christ. The same situation is seen and clearly explained in John 5:44: “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”
In the Bible there is no clear and dogmatic statement that saving faith is a gift of God. On the other hand, the Bible clearly states the way in which faith is obtained: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). The Scriptures speak of saving faith as “thy faith” (Luke 7:50), “his faith” (Rom. 4:5), and “their faith” (Matt. 9:2); but never as the faith of God.”
It can be agreed that saving faith is the gift of God in the broad sense in which all things come from God (1 Cor. 4:7; Rom. 11:35, 36). However, this is entirely different from the position that an unsaved person cannot believe until he first receives a special gift of faith from God. Such a doctrine is opposed by the “whosover” passages of the Bible, and by passages which beseech the sinner to be saved (i.e., John 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:20).
But it is argued that if the sinner has sufficient ability to hear the Word of God and be saved, then salvation is by works, or partly by works. Not at all! “Faith is no more than an activity of reception contributing nothing to that which it receives.”9
Machen, himself a Calvinist, agrees emphatically that faith is not a kind of good work: “The faith of man, rightly conceived, can never stand in opposition to the completeness with which salvation depends upon God: it can never mean that man does part while God merely does the rest; for the simple reason that faith consists not in doing something but in receiving something.”10
A gift from a good man to a beggar does not cease to be a gift because the beggar stretches forth his hand to receive it.
On the other hand, it is the hyper-Calvinist who is open to the charge of teaching salvation by works. Prayer is doing something, and the man who prays hard and gets saved could justly believe that he had made his contribution to the plan of salvation. Those who deny the sinner the ability to believe end by imputing to him the impossible and unscriptural ability to find God through pious works.
Calvin did teach that faith is a gift of God, but his conclusion was not based on Ephesians 2:8. Contrary to popular opinion, Arminius also believed that justifying faith is the gift of God. He said: “Faith is the effect of God illuminating the mind and sealing the heart, and it is his mere gift.”11However, he believed that God bestows sufficient grace upon all men to believe if they will. Thus he held a position in harmony with a sincere proclamation of the gospel to all men. But did not both Calvin and Arminius go beyond the authority of the Bible in teaching that saving faith is a special gift of God?
Many passages, and whole books of the New Testament, are written to prove salvation is a gift of God and not the reward of good works. But where are the passages to prove saving faith is the gift of God? Is not this theory a deduction from the doctrine of election rather than an induction from the teaching of the Word?
NOTES
1 W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, p. 472.
* After soldiers returned from ‘the war to end all wars,’ prohibition brought turmoil, but the economy boomed. A seemingly indestructible country complacently stood at the threshold of the Great Depression. And it came about in those days that Dallas Theological Seminary—first known as the Evangelical Theological College—had its birth. And at the end of the first academic cycle, the first student to graduate—a young man named Roy L. Aldrich—crossed the stage to receive his degree. (More Here)
Dr. Leighton Flowers responds to a book recently published by Matthew Cserhati titled, “A Critique of Provisionism: A Response to Leighton Flowers’s ‘The Potter’s Promise.'” Join us LIVE as we demonstrate how Matthew’s arguments never get off the ground by surviving even the most basic level of unbiased scrutiny. To get your copy of Dr. Flowers book, Drawn By Jesus.
To assist in this video above, I will also excerpt a large portion of a must read book pictured below… it is a long read but well worth the time. Under that book quote I will put a very recent interview with Ken Wilson [Jump To] regarding Augustine… also worth your while IMHO.
Chapter IV titled: “Is God’s Grace Irresistible? A Critique of Irresistible Grace
[….]
The Bible and Irresistible Grace
What does the Bible say about irresistible grace? The easy answer is the Bible does not specifically address it. The phrase “irresistible grace” does not appear anywhere in Scripture. Neither can one find such important Calvinist words as “monergism,” “compatibilism,” or ordo salutis. This absence alone does not mean irresistible grace might not be a reality. Other doctrines such as the Trinity are described in Scripture but not with the theological name that we now give them. So let us examine Old Testament texts, New Testament texts, and the ministry and teachings of Jesus to see if they support irresistible grace. We will also see how the repeated all-inclusive invitations to salvation throughout Scripture and the descriptions of how to be saved argue against irresistible grace.
Key Texts Affirming Resistible Grace
Old Testament Texts—Some Scripture texts appear to deny irresistible grace and to affirm resistible grace explicitly. For example, in Proverbs 1, the wisdom of God personified speaks to those whom “I called” (Prov 1:24 NASB), to whom “I will pour out my spirit on you” (v. 23b), and to whom wisdom has made “my words known to you” (v. 23c). Nevertheless, no one regarded God’s truth, for the hearers refused God’s message and disdained wisdom’s counsel (vv. 22–26). Some might claim this message merely exemplifies the resistible outward call. The problem becomes complicated because these are God’s elect people, the Jews, with whom God had entered into covenant: “I called and you refused” (v. 24a). God makes them the offer: “I will pour out my spirit on you” (v. 23b), but they would not turn and instead refused to accept the message (v. 24). The grace that was so graciously offered was ungraciously refused. The proffered grace was conditional on their response. Acceptance of God’s Word would have brought blessing, but their rejection of it brought calamity upon themselves.
In the Prophets and the Psalms, God responds to the Israelites’ refusal to repent and their rejection of his Word:
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so they went from them; they sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them. He shall not return to the land of Egypt; but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to repent. And the sword shall slash in his cities, devour his districts, and consume them, because of their own counsels. My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the Most High, none at all exalt Him. How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred. I will not execute the fierceness of My anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim. For I am God, and not man, the Holy One in your midst; and I will not come with terror.” (Hos 11:1–9 NKJV)
They did not keep the covenant of God; they refused to walk in His law. (Ps 78:10 NKJV)
“But My people would not heed My voice, and Israel would have none of Me. So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart, to walk in their own counsels. Oh, that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways!” (Ps 81:11–13 NKJV)
They have turned their backs to Me and not their faces. Though I taught them time and time again, they do not listen and receive discipline. (Jer 32:33 HCSB)
New Testament Texts—One of the most direct references to the resistibility of grace in the New Testament is in Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7:2–53, just before his martyrdom in vv. 54–60. In confronting the Jews who had rejected Jesus as Messiah, Stephen said, “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did” (v. 51 NASB). The Remonstrants referenced this specific Scripture, as do most scholars who reject the notion of irresistible grace. Stephen is not speaking to believers but to Jews who have rejected Christ. He not only accuses them of “resisting the Holy Spirit” but observes that many of their Jewish ancestors resisted God as well. The word translated as “resist” (antipiptō) means not “to fall down and worship,” but to “oppose, ” “strive against,” or “resist.”21 Clearly this Scripture teaches that the influence of the Holy Spirit is resistible. A similar account in Luke describes the Pharisees’ response to the preaching of John the Baptist: “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him” (Luke 7:30 KJV).
Another example of resistance occurs in Paul’s salvation experience in Acts 26. As Saul was on the road to Damascus to persecute Christians, a blinding light hit him, and a voice out of heaven said, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14 HCSB). Saul had resisted the conviction of the Holy Spirit in events such as the stoning of Stephen, but after his dramatic experience with the risen Christ, Saul did believe. Even so, some time lapsed before Ananias arrived and Paul received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). However, in both the Old and New Testaments, other people saw miracles yet continued to resist God’s grace.22
What do Calvinists say about these texts? First, Calvinists do not deny that people can resist the Holy Spirit in some situations. Unbelievers can resist the “ outward call” of the gospel, but the elect cannot resist the “effectual call.” John Piper has said, “What is irresistible is when the Spirit is issuing the effectual call.”23 However, Calvinistic explanations do not appear to help in this instance. The Jews, after all, were God’s chosen people, and the entirety of the Jewish people were covered under the covenant, not just individual Jews. Calvinist covenantal theology sees the entire nation of Israel as being God’s chosen people. The elect, after all, are supposed to receive the effectual call. Calvinists often quote, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” (Rom 9:13 NKJV) as strong evidence for election.24 But these divinely elected people have not only rejected Jesus as Messiah but resisted the Holy Spirit through many generations in history. Therefore, it would seem God’s grace is resistible, even among the elect who are eligible to receive the effectual call.
Resistible Grace in the Ministry and Teachings of Jesus
Throughout his teaching ministry, Jesus taught and ministered in ways that seem to be inconsistent with the notion of irresistible grace. In each of these occasions, he appears to advocate the idea that God’s grace is resistible. For example, hear again Jesus’s lament over Jerusalem: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem! [The city] who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!” (Matt 23:37 HCSB, emphasis added; cf. Luke 13:34). What was Jesus lamenting? He was lamenting that despite God’s gracious love for “Jerusalem” (by metonymy including all Jews, not merely the leaders) and his desire to gather them to eternal security under his protection, and the many prophets and messengers he sent them with his message, they rejected the message that was sent them and “were not willing” to respond to God. In fact, the Greek sets the contrast off even more sharply than the English does because forms of the same Greek verb thelō (to will) are used twice in this verse: “I willed . . . but you were not willing.”25 Gottlob Schrenk described this statement as expressing “the frustration of His gracious purpose to save by the refusal of men.”26 Note also that his lament concerned the entire city of Jerusalem, not just a small number of the elect within Jerusalem. Indeed, Jesus’s “how often” signified even his preincarnate salvific concern about not only the persons living in Jerusalem at that time but for many previous generations of Jerusalemites.
Again, one might suggest that the prophets were merely the vehicles for proclaiming the general call, and thus these Jerusalemites never received the efficacious call. However, this argument will not do. First, the Jerusalemites were God’s chosen people. As the elect, they should have received the efficacious call, but in fact, they were still unwilling to respond. Some Calvinists might make this argument: the election of Israel included individuals within Israel, not all of Israel as a people. Only a remnant of physical Israel, not all of it, will be saved. But the proposal that God sent the efficacious call to just a portion of Israel nevertheless does not match up well with this text or numerous other texts.
Even so, the greater issue is that if Jesus believed in irresistible grace, with both the outward and inward calls, his apparent lament over Jerusalem would have been just a disingenuous act, a cynical show because he knew that God had not and would not give these lost persons the necessary conditions for their salvation. His lament would have been over God’s hardness of heart, but that is not what the Scripture says. Scripture attributes the people’s not coming to God to their own unwillingness, that is, the hardness of their own hearts.
What is generalized in Jesus’s lament over Jerusalem is personalized in the incident with the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18–23). The ruler asked, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (v. 18 HCSB). If Jesus were a Calvinist, one might have expected him to answer, “Nothing!” and admonish the young ruler for the impertinence of his question, particularly the idea that he could do anything to inherit eternal life, as if to steal glory from God’s monergistic salvation. Instead, Jesus told him what he could do: he could go and sell all his possessions and give them to the poor. This instruction was not just about the young ruler’s money; it was about his heart. He loved his money and the privileges it gave him, and he just could not live without it. In other words, Jesus would not grant him eternal life unless he was willing to make a total commitment of his life to God, but the young ruler was unwilling to do so. Jesus let him walk away and face the solemn consequences of his decision.
Noting the rich young ruler’s unwillingness, Jesus then commented about how hard it is for a rich person to enter heaven—indeed, as hard as a camel going through the eye of a needle (Luke 13:24–28). Of course, if Jesus were a Calvinist, he never would have suggested that it was harder for rich people to be saved by God’s irresistible grace than for poor people. Their wills would be changed immediately and invincibly upon hearing God’s effectual call. It would be no harder for a rich person to be saved by God’s monergistic and irresistible calling than it would be for any other sinner. But the real Jesus was suggesting that their salvation was tied in some measure to their response and commitment to his calling.
The same idea of resistible grace arises frequently in the parables of Jesus’s teaching ministry. In the parable of the two sons (Matt 21:28–32), Jesus described their differing responses. One son initially refused to do the work he was told to do, saying “I don’t want to!” but later “changed his mind” and did it (v. 29 HCSB). Meanwhile, the other son said he would do the work, but later he did not do the work. What was the main point of this parable? The point was that tax collectors and prostitutes were going to enter the kingdom of heaven before the chief priests and elders who resisted Jesus’s teaching (vv. 31–32). The distinction between the two was not that one was a son and one was not, for they both were sons from whom the father desired obedience. The distinction between them is the response of each son— resistance from one, repentance and obedience from the other. Evidently Jesus thought that a personal response to the Father’s will is important!
A similar teaching follows in the parable of the vineyard (Matt 21:33–44). Using the familiar Old Testament symbol of a vineyard to represent Israel, Jesus told of the owner of the vineyard going away and leaving it in the hands of the tenants. He sent back a series of messengers and finally sent his own son to instruct the tenants about running the vineyard, but they rejected each messenger and killed his son in the hope of seizing the vineyard for themselves. The owner then returned and exacted a solemn punishment on the rebellious tenants. Jesus then spoke of the cornerstone, the rock that was rejected by the builders but became the chief cornerstone, obviously speaking of himself (vv. 42–44). Jesus then told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and “given to a nation producing its fruit” (v. 43 HCSB). Again, the key differential was whether persons were willing to be responsive to the Word of God.
The parable of the sower (or of the soils) in Matt 13:1–23; Mark 4:1–20; and Luke 8:1–15 highlights the issue of personal responsiveness to the Word of God. The invariable element is the seed, which represents the Word. The variable factor is the receptiveness of the soil on which the sower sowed the seed. The seed on the path, on the rocky ground, and among the thorns never became rooted enough in the soil to flourish. The seed on the path was snatched away by the evil one. The rocky ground represents the person who “hears the word” and “receives it with joy” (Matt 13:20 HCSB) but does not flourish because “he has no root in himself” (v. 21). The seed that fell among thorns represents the person who also hears the Word of God, but the message becomes garbled by worldly interests. Only the seed that fell on good, receptive ground flourished. Again, the variable is not the proclamation of the Word but the response of the individual.
Resistible Grace in the All-Inclusive Invitations in Scripture
One of the most off-repeated themes throughout many genres of Scripture is the broad invitation of God to “all” people. This invitation parallels in many ways David L. Allen’s discussion on the issue of a limited atonement in this volume and in other works.27 However, the question relating to irresistible grace is why, when receiving irresistible grace is the only way persons can be saved, would God choose only a small number of people to be saved? In essence, Calvinists blame God for those who do not come. These lost souls cannot come because God did not give them irresistible grace, the only way they can be saved. Roger Olson compared the roles of Satan and God in Calvinism: “Satan wants all people damned to hell and God wants only a certain number damned to hell.”28 While Calvinists would insist that the sinners who reject the message of salvation merely receive their just deserts, there is really more to it than that. Calvinists affirm that God elected some for his own reasons from before the world began, and he gave them irresistible grace through his Spirit so they inevitably would be saved. Obviously, those whom he did not choose to give the irresistible effectual call but merely the resistible outer ineffectual call can never be saved. These are no more or less sinners than others, but God for no obvious reason does not love this group (Calvinists call this “preterition,” or intentionally overlooking some persons), while he loves the other group through election. God chose not to give them the means of salvation, and thus they have zero chance of being saved. The alternative perspective that I affirm is that God does extend the general call to all persons and unleashes the Holy Spirit to persuade and convict them of their need for repentance and faith. The Holy Spirit, however, does not impose his will irresistibly. At the end of the day, response to the grace of God determines whether the call is effectual.
The key issue, then, is whether salvation is genuinely open to all people or just to a few who receive irresistible grace. What does the Scripture say concerning this issue? First, Scripture clearly teaches that God desires the salvation of all people. The Bible teaches that:
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 HCSB)
“It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven for one of these little ones to perish.” (Matt 18:14 NASB)
“The Lord is . . . not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Pet 3:9 KJV)
“[God] wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:4 HCSB)
The Greek word pas (πᾶς) and its similar cognate synonym words (pantes, panta, and hos an), meaning “all” or “everyone,” such as in 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Pet 3:9, in all the standard Greek dictionaries means “all” without exception!29
Those who would like to translate the word pas as something other than a synonym for “all” should ponder the theological cost of such a move merely because it disagrees with their theological system. For example, Paul used the same term in 2 Tim 3:16, when he declared that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God”(2 Tim 3:16 KJV, emphasis added). He did not mean that God inspires merely some selected portions of Scripture but that God inspires all Scripture. Likewise, the Greek word pas (“all”), used in the prologue to John, makes the enormous claim about creation that “all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3 KJV, emphasis added). Jesus was not involved in merely creating a few trees and hills here and there, but all things were created by him. We see the word again in Ephesians when Paul looked toward the eschaton and claimed that in the fullness of time will be gathered “all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth” (Eph 1:10 KJV, emphasis added). Thus, an accurate doctrine of the creation of the world, the inspiration of Scripture, and the consummation of the world hinges on an accurate rendering of the Greek word pas as “all.” So does the doctrine of salvation—that God desires the salvation of all people and has made an atonement through Christ that is sufficient for all people.
This same all-inclusive Greek word pas (translated as “everyone,” “all,” or “whosoever”) is used repeatedly in the New Testament to offer an invitation to all people who will respond to God’s gracious initiative with faith and obedience (italics in the following Scripture passages are mine):
“Therefore whoever [pas hostis] hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock.” (Matt 7:24 NKJV; see Luke 6:47–48)
“Whosoever [pas hostis] therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever [hostis an] shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt 10:32–33 KJV; see Luke 12:8)
“Come to Me, all [pantes] who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt 11:28 NASB1995)
John the Baptist “came as a witness, / to testify about the light, / so that all [pantes] might believe through him.” (John 1:7 HCSB)
Jesus is “the true light, who gives light to everyone” [panta]. (John 1:9 HCSB)
Whoever [pas] believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever [pas] believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:15–16 NKJV)
“Everyone [pas] who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever [hos an] drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” (John 4:13–14 NASB1995)
“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone [pas] who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40 NASB1995)
“Everyone [pas] who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:26 NASB)
“I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone [pas] who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.” (John 12:46 NASB1995)
And it shall be that everyone [pas, hos an] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Acts 2:21 NASB)30
“Of Him [Jesus] all [pantes] the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone [panta] who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 10:43 NASB1995)
As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever [pas] believes on Him will not be put to shame.” (Rom 9:33 NKJV)
For the Scripture says, “Whoever [pas] believes in Him will not be disappointed.” (Rom 10:11 NASB1995)
Whoever [pas] denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:23 NASB)
Whoever [pas] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (1 John 5:1 NASB1995)
Many more of these broad invitations are found throughout Scripture than space permits to list here. In addition, the New Testament often uses a form of hostis, which when combined with an or ean is an indefinite relative pronoun best translated as “anyone,” “whosoever,” or “everyone” and refers to the group as a whole, with a focus on each individual member of the group.31
An All-Inclusive Invitation in the Prophets
In the famous prophecy of Joel, the prophet commented on whom God delivers:
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. (Joel 2:32 KJV)
Note that the “whosoever” (translated “everyone” in NASB and HCSB) refers to “the remnant whom the Lord shall call.” These are not two distinct groups but are one and the same.
All-Inclusive Invitations Offered by Jesus
Jesus offered an all-inclusive invitation in the Sermon on the Mount and throughout his teaching ministry. Note that Jesus did not say “whoso-elect” in these invitations; the invitation is always addressed to “whosoever.”32
“And blessed is he, whosoever [hos ean] shall not be offended in me.” (Matt 11:6 KJV; see Luke 7:23)
“For whosoever [hostis an] shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Matt 12:50 KJV; cf. Mark 3:35)
“If any man [tis] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever [hos an] will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matt 16:24– 25 KJV; cf. Mark 8:34–35; Luke 9:23–24)
“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone [ean tis] eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (John 6:51 NASB1995)
“If anyone [ean tis] is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” (John 7:17 NASB1995)
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone [ean tis] is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.” (John 7:37 NASB)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone [ean tis] keeps My word he will never see death.” (John 8:51 NASB1995)
All-Inclusive Invitations in the Proclamation and Epistles of the Early Church
“And it shall be that everyone [pas, hos an] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Acts 2:21 NASB)
“Of Him [Jesus] all [pantes] the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone [panta] who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 10:43 NASB1995)
For everyone [pas, hos an] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Rom 10:13 HCSB)
Whoever [hos an] confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. (1 John 4:15 NASB1995)
All-Inclusive Invitations in John’s Revelation
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone [ean tis] hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.” (Rev 3:20 NASB)
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev 22:17 KJV)
To be sure, Calvinists attribute all these verses to the “general call” or “universal call” that God gives to all people although he has no intention of actually saving many of them. But in so doing they impose their own theological beliefs on the text. These verses mention no difference between a “ general call” and “specific call,” or between “common grace” and “enabling irresistible grace.” Therefore, when we see the same all-inclusive invitation over and over again in the various genres of Scripture, the question must be asked if the Calvinist theological system is doing justice to the biblical text. Calvinists should take seriously Paul’s admonition in Rom 9:20 (NIV): “But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?” In Romans 9 Paul was addressing believers from a Jewish background who believed they were among the elect people, the “frozen chosen.” But much to their surprise, God in his sovereignty extended salvation to others—the Gentiles whom they hated. If God has chosen to save those who come to him by faith in Christ, as Romans 9–11 repeatedly assert, who are we to disagree with his sovereign choice? Just so, if God says he desires the salvation of all people, I believe he means it, not just in his revealed (for Calvinists, evidently deceptive) will, but also in his secret (real) will. The call is indeed universal or general for everyone to be saved. But the elect are not limited to a select group that God has chosen because he especially and savingly loves them and rejects by preterition all others, but are coterminous with those who have trusted Christ as Savior and Lord.
Resistible Grace in Descriptions of How to Be Saved
Another line of evidence in Scripture that supports the idea that grace is resistible is in biblical descriptions of how to be saved. Whenever anyone in the New Testament asks a direct question about how to be saved, the answer never refers to election. The answer always calls for an action on the part of the person to receive the salvation that God has provided and offers to each person. In Scripture, eternal life is proffered to all those who hear the gospel, not just to a few select persons who receive effectual grace irresistibly. What do the New Testament salvific formulas say is required to be saved?
The Teachings of Jesus
Jesus directly tied salvation to faith in him realized through human response to the proclamation of the gospel:
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:14–18 NKJV).
The Need for Persuasion
At the end of the sermon at Pentecost, some of the hearers “were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’” (Acts 2:37 NASB1995). Peter’s answer was not, “Are you elect or not?” His answer was, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). Even after this, “with many other words he [Peter] solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation!’” (v. 40, emphasis added). The word translated “exhorting” in the NASB1995 is variously translated in other Bible versions as “strongly urged” (HCSB), “entreated” (Weymouth), “pleaded” (NIV), or “begged” (NCV). The word that is translated “exhort” is parekalei, meaning to invite or summon someone to a decision, to beseech or implore someone, or to plead with or call someone to a decision.33 The same meaning applies to all six other usages of parekalei in the New Testament. Of course, had Peter known that grace was irresistible, he wouldn’t have wasted his time with such a solemn exhortation, knowing that God had already regenerated them by irresistible grace. What persuasion is necessary for one who is already convinced?
Likewise, Paul wrote that his preaching was an effort intended to “ persuade” people (2 Cor 5:11 NIV). The word Paul used here is peithō, meaning to persuade or convince someone, to try to win someone over to your point of view.34 Why would there be a need to persuade someone who had already been regenerated by irresistible enabling grace?
The Appeal to the Philippian Jailer.When the Philippian jailer saw the miraculous intervention of God in releasing Paul and Silas from his jail, he fell at their feet and asked the salvation question in the most direct way possible: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30 NASB). Peter did not respond by talking about election. Instead, he answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (v. 31; emphasis added). Being saved was conditional on his belief.
The Appeal to the Ethiopian Eunuch.After Philip had witnessed to the Ethiopian eunuch from the Old Testament prophecies, the eunuch exclaimed, “‘Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God’” (Acts 8:36–37 NASB1995). And so he was baptized. Note that his being baptized was conditional upon his trust in Christ.
The Teaching of Paul. “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation” (Rom 10:9–10 HCSB). Again, salvation is conditional on trusting in Christ.
To summarize, the Scriptures contain significant evidence against irresistible grace. The Bible specifically teaches that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. It repeatedly calls upon all people to respond to God’s gracious invitation. The descriptions of how to be saved focus on the requirement for a positive human response to God’s initiative. The texts do not seem to support irresistible grace, but they call upon persons to respond to the grace of God in specific ways. The plain reading of these texts tends to support the belief that God’s grace, by his own intent and design, is resistible, and choosing Christ is voluntary (guided by the conviction and convincing of the Holy Spirit).
Assessing Calvinist Arguments and Proof Texts for Irresistible Grace
In the previous version of this article in Whosoever Will, I explored seven theological concerns about irresistible grace.35 While I still affirm those concerns, in this article I have chosen to address some arguments and proof texts proffered by Calvinists to defend the notion of irresistible grace. Specifically, we will examine Calvinist proof texts in John 6 and 12; Rom 8:29–30; and Eph 2:1 in the light of the best hermeneutics.36 Then we will examine two theological arguments made by Calvinists—that irresistible grace is required for God to be sovereign, and it is necessary for God to receive glory.
Calvinist Argument #1: John 6:37–44, 65 and 12:32
Probably the Scripture most frequently cited by Calvinists regarding
irresistible grace is John 6:44, along with related verses in John 6 and 12:
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. . . . No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. ” . . . And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” (John 6:37–40, 44, 65 NASB1995)
“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:32 NASB1995).
John Frame,37 R. C. Sproul,38 Matthew Barrett,39 Loraine Boettner,40 William Hendrikson and Simon J. Kistemaker,41 and Robert Yarbrough42 (among others) list these verses as among the primary proof texts for irresistible grace. To make their case, several of them referred specifically to a citation in Kittel’s ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.43 As Sproul noted, one translation for the word “draws” (helkuō) is “to compel by irresistible superiority.”44 Barrett waxed eloquent to infer from that one definition that John 6:44 teaches God’s drawing is “indefectible, invincible, unconquerable, indomitable, insuperable, and unassailable summons,”45 words which appear neither in this text or any other biblical text regarding God’s grace, but appear only when Calvinistic presuppositions color the reading of Scripture. Calvinists like to appeal to other New Testament references in which the word “draw” is used literally, such as Acts 16:19 and Jas 2:6, in which prisoners are being physically dragged against their wills by authorities.
The Calvinist use of helkuō in Jas 2:6, Acts 16:19, and other places as justification for understanding helkuō in John 6:44 as meaning “to compel by irresistible superiority,” or a “forceful [irresistible] attraction,” commits a word-study fallacy known as “word loading” or “illegitimate totality transfer.”46 Word loading occurs when an interpreter takes a meaning of a word in one context (physical) and then seeks to apply that same meaning into a different context (spiritual). A simple example of this fallacy is to overlook the fact that the same word “spirit” (pneuma) that refers to the human spirit can also refer to the divine Holy Spirit. It is the same Greek word with two very different meanings, depending on the context. “The immediate context always determines the meaning for any word—no matter how many times a word carries such a meaning in another context.”47
Perhaps more embarrassingly for the Calvinists’ exegesis of John 6:44, the article on elkō in the abridged one-volume TDNT, which focuses more on biblical interpretation than general usage, was authored by the same Albrecht Oepke who authored the article in the ten-volume edition. Oepke noted that helkein in the Old Testament “denotes a powerful impulse . . . [that] expresses the force of love.” Oepke’s specific interpretation of John 6:44 deals a stunning blow to the Calvinist interpretation of that would-be proof text:
This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic.48
By no means is the abridged version of Kittel the only lexigraphical reference favoring a non-Calvinist reading of John 6:44. Note how the following well-respected lexicons address “draw” in John 6:44 to be interpreted metaphorically or figuratively rather than literally:
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., by Bauer and Danker: “to draw a pers. in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract, an extended fg. [figurative] mng. [meaning] . . . J[ohn] 6:44 . . . J[ohn] 12:32.”49
The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament by Mounce: “met. [metaphorically] to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32.”50
Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament by Hickie: “met., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. 12:32. Cf. Joh. 6:44.”51
Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Friberg, Friberg, and Miller: “figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44).”52
Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament by Robinson: “to draw, by a moral influence, John 6:44. 12:32.”53
The New Analytical Greek Lexicon by Perschbacher: “met. to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32.”54
Note that these respected lexicons all take “draw” in John 6:44 to be a figurative or metaphorical usage when applied to spiritual issues within persons. In short, these standard lexicons provide no support for the Calvinist reading of John 6:44.55
Other exegetical points can be raised to show the error of the Calvinist interpretation of John 6:44,56 but one more must be mentioned here. Who is it that the Father draws? Is it some arbitrary choice he makes in his “secret will”? Schreiner and Ware asserted that the “drawing” in John 6:44 is only for the elect:
Is [this an] unlimited or common grace, given to all? Or is it a particular grace, an efficacious grace given only to some? The second half of verse 44 answers our question, for there we find that . . . the one who is given grace (who is drawn by the Father) is actually saved (raised up). The drawing of the Father, then, is not general, but particular, for it accomplishes the final salvation of those who are drawn. God’s grace, without which no one can be saved, is therefore an efficacious [irresistible] grace, resulting in the sure salvation of those to whom it is given.57
Who are “all that” the Father will draw (John 6:37 NASB1995)? Woven throughout John 6 (and prior chapters) are repeated references to the necessity of believing in Jesus as Savior and Lord to receive eternal life (John 3:16, 18, 36; 6:27–29, 40, 54). Schreiner and Ware also acknowledged that those who are “coming” to Christ (John 6:35, 37, 44, 45) are essentially synonymous with those “believing” in Christ. John 6:39–40 are verses woven together with the preposition “for,” and these verses mirror the structure of each other in an ABCCBA pattern (“A” being the repeated phrase “raise them up,” for example).58 What this makes clear is that the identity of those whom the Father gives to Jesus are precisely identical with those who believe. Calvinist F. F. Bruce supported this reading of John 6:37–40: “In the first part of verse 37 the pronoun ‘all’ is neuter singular (Gk. pan), denoting the sum-total of believers. In the second part (‘the one who comes’) each individual of the sum-total is in view. This oscillation between the [believing] community and its individual members reappears in verses 39 and 40.”59
Likewise, Lenski noted that those who are given by the Father to the Son sum up “the whole mass of believers of all ages and speaks of them as a unit.”60 Vincent described it as “all believers regarded as one complete whole.”61 Jesus stated God’s will clearly and unequivocally: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40 NASB). To be sure, because of human depravity, it is essential that the Father must draw humans unto himself through the convicting and convincing of the Holy Spirit. God’s grace is a necessary condition of our salvation, but God’s saving grace does not become operational in our own lives until we place our faith in Jesus Christ.
Ben Witherington pointed out the necessity of both God’s grace and human response by faith in addressing this passage:
Both God’s sovereign grace and human response play a role in human salvation, but even one’s human response is enabled by God’s grace. God’s role in the relationship is incomparably greater than the human one, but the fact remains that God does not and will not save a person without the positive human response, called faith, to the divine leading and drawing.62
Richard Lenski affirmed that both God’s grace and human response are voiced in John 6:37 and 6:44:
But in these expressions, “all that the Father gives,” and, “all that he has given,” Jesus speaks of all believers of all ages as already being present to the eyes of God, he also thus is giving them to Jesus. . . . God’s grace is universal. He would give all men to Jesus. The only reason he does not do so is because so many men obdurately refuse to be part of that gift. . . . “Him that comes to me” makes the matter individual, personal, and a voluntary act. The Father’s drawing (v. 44) is one of grace alone, thus it is efficacious, wholly sufficient, able to change the unwilling into the willing, but not by coercion, not irresistibly. Man can obdurately refuse to come. . . .63
Here [in John 6:44] Jesus explains the Father’s “giving” mentioned in v. 37 and 39: he gives men to Jesus by drawing them to him. This drawing [helkuō] is accomplished by a specific power, one especially designed for the purpose, one that takes hold of the sinner’s soul and moves it away from darkness, sin, and death, to Jesus, light, and life. No man can possibly thus draw himself to Jesus. The Father, God himself, must come with his divine power and must do this drawing; else it will never be effected. . . . The drawing is here predicated of the Father; in 12:32 it is predicated of Jesus, “And I will draw all men unto myself.” . . . The power by which these Jews are at this very moment being drawn is the power of divine grace, operative in and through the Word these Jews now hear from the lips of Jesus. While it is power (Rom. 1:16), efficacious to save, it is never irresistible (Matt. 23:37, “and ye would not”). Nor is this power extended only to a select few, for in 12:32 Jesus says, “I will draw all men.” The power of the gospel is for the world, and no sinner has fallen so low but what this power is able to reach him effectually.64
Therefore, we need not speculate about what God’s “secret will” might be, because Jesus clearly revealed what his will actually is: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40 NASB; emphasis added). The Father draws those whom he has foreseen will believe in his Son as Savior and Lord! God’s grace is necessary for salvation, but God’s grace does not become operational in our own lives until we respond by placing our faith in Jesus Christ.
Calvinist Argument #2: Romans 8:29–30
Another proof text cited by many Calvinists is Rom 8:29–30, sometimes called the “Golden Chain of Redemption”:
For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; and those He called, He also justified; and those He justified, He also glorified. (Rom 8:29– 30 HCSB)
For example, Matthew Barrett argued that Rom 8:29–30 is an ideal example of the “effectual calling.”65 He cited Doug Moo in arguing that the links in the chain are all connected by the demonstrative pronoun “these” (toutous): “This leaves little room for the suggestion that the links in this chain are not firmly attached to one another, as if some who were ‘foreknown’ and ‘predestined’ would not be ‘called,’ ‘justified,’ and ‘glorified.’”66
The Priority of Divine Foreknowledge
I absolutely agree with Moo’s assertion. But it is ironic to me that Calvinists consider Rom 8:29–30 to favor their position. I cite it as a text favoring a non-Calvinist interpretation, so it obviously depends on the proper interpretation of the text. Note that the first link in that chain of redemption is not predestination, but foreknowledge. God does not first predestine the elect and then foreknow them. Rather, God’s foreknowledge of human responses comes first, with God’s election, calling, and justification flowing from his foreknowledge. The entire discussion of election in Romans 9–11 is framed by references to foreknowledge, both as a prologue to the discussion in Rom 8:29–30 and near its conclusion in Rom 11:1–2: “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew” (Rom 11:1–2 NASB1995; emphasis added).
Who are these people whom God foreknew? The apostle Paul made it very clear in Romans 9–11 that God will save whosoever will come to Him by faith:
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.” (Rom 9:30–33 NASB1995; emphasis added)
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Rom 10:8–13 NASB1995; emphasis added)
Exegetical Evidence
God’s foreknowledge is consistently affirmed in the Bible (Ps 139:1–10; Acts 2:23; Rom 8:29; 11:2; 16:27; 1 Pet 1:2). The Greek word translated “foreknew” is the verb proginoskō. In any standard lexicon, the root Greek word for “foreknew” (proginoskō) simply means knowing something before it happens.67 In his classic commentary on the letter to the Romans, Frederic Godet noted that “knowledge” is the “first and fundamental meaning” of prognosis.68 In his commentary on Romans, R. C. H. Lenski likewise affirmed that “both linguistically and doctrinally the knowing cannot be eliminated and an act of willing, a decree, be substituted. . . . ‘Foreknew’ ever remains eternal advance knowledge, a divine knowledge that includes all that God’s grace would succeed in working in us.”69 Ben Witherington also distinguished God’s foreknowledge from predestination:
Paul distinguishes between what God knows and what God wills or destines in advance. Knowing and willing are not one and the same. The proof of this is of course that God knows very well about human sin but does not will it or destine it to happen.70
The belief that divine election is based upon his foreknowledge of a believer’s faith is not a new idea. This understanding of Scripture goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. Lenski noted of the earlier church fathers, “The older dogmaticians interpreted: quos credituros praevidit, ‘whom he foresaw as believers.’”71 Gerald Bray and Ben Witherington also have documented that the belief in divine foreknowledge is seen in both Judaism and in the early church fathers, including Diodore of Tarsus, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ambrosiaster, Cyril of Alexandria, and John Chrysostom.72 Election based on divine foreknowledge is also affirmed by Molinism, in which God’s foreknowledge is described as “middle knowledge.”
The Requirements for Salvation
What requirements has God sovereignly established for salvation? The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God requires repentance and faith for salvation. As noted earlier, every formulaic statement of what is required for salvation makes the necessity of repentance and faith crystal clear (Matt 10:32–33; Mark 16:15–16; John 3:14–17; 6:40; 11:26; 12:46; Acts 2:21, 27–30; 10:43; 16:30–31; Rom 9:33; 10:9–11; 1 John 5:1). The question is not what God could or might have done, but what he has done. God does foreknow, elect, and predestine a particular type of person from before the foundation of the world—and that is believers! Based on his foreknowledge of those who will (under the conviction of the Holy Spirit) repent of their sins and trust Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, God elects, predestines, justifies, and glorifies (Rom 8:29–30).
Since the traditional interpretation of Rom 8:29–30 as God electing based on his foreknowledge of the future faith of believers does not square with Calvinist theology, they reinterpret Rom 8:29–30 in various ways. Calvinist scholars have raised at least three challenges to the traditional interpretation of Rom 8:29–30: that “foreknew” really means “foreloved,” that God’s foreknowledge is not chronologically and logically before God’s predestination, and that genuine human freedom would violate God’s foreknowledge and sovereignty. What is wrong with each of these alternative explanations?
Does foreknew mean foreloved? No. As noted earlier, standard lexicons make it clear that the primary meaning of “foreknew” is “foreknew,” not “foreloved.” Witherington pointed out that the next reference to foreknowledge in Romans, Rom 11:2, makes this distinction between God foreknowing believers and election even clearer:
Love for God can be commanded, but it cannot be coerced, compelled, or engineered in advance, or else it loses its character as love. The proof that this line of thinking, and not that of Augustine, Luther, or Calvin, is on the right track is seen clearly in 11:2, where Paul says plainly that God foreknew his Jewish people, and yet not all of them responded positively to his call. Indeed, only a minority have as he writes this letter. God’s foreknowledge, and even God’s plan of destiny for Israel, did not in the end predetermine which particular individual Israelite would respond positively to the gospel call and which would not. In 10:8–15 Paul will make clear that the basis of that response is faith and confession.73
Does God’s predestination precede his foreknowledge? Some Calvinists suggest that foreknowledge is an overarching summary, so that the first link in the “Golden Chain of Redemption” is really predestination. However, although this view squares with Calvinist theology, it does not square with Rom 8:29–30. As noted earlier, the “Golden Chain of Redemption” is intended as a series of events, one following after the other, linked in each case by the Greek word hous, translated, “whom.” God foreknowing believers is clearly the first link in that chain.74 Witherington commented, “Hous, ‘whom,’ at the beginning of v. 29 must refer back to ‘those who love God,’ that is, Christians, in v. 28. The discussion that follows is about the future of believers.”75 Witherington lamented that what some commentators “seem to have clearly missed is that we continue to have reference to the same hous: once in v. 29, and three times in v. 30. . . .” One implication of this series of connected statements is that
since vv. 29–30 must be linked to v. 28, the “those who” in question are those about whom Paul has already said that they “love God”—i.e., Paul makes perfectly clear that he is talking about Christians here. The statement about them loving God precedes and determines how we should read both hous in these verses and the chain of verbs. God knew something in advance about these persons, namely that they would respond to the call of God in love. For such people, God goes all out to make sure that in the end they are fully conformed to the image of Christ.76
Does human freedom obviate God’s sovereignty? Calvinists question how God could foreknow all things before the foundation of the world and yet allow us genuine libertarian free will. If he knows for sure what we are going to choose to do before we do it, do we really have a choice? How could God foreknow that we are going to change our minds? Once God knows what we are going to do, does it not become fixed and determined so that we have no real free choice—we can choose nothing else?
The fundamental problem with these objections is that they put nonlogical limitations on God’s omniscience and foreknowledge. Human choices reflect our God-given creaturely freedom, and God foreknows the future free choices of individuals. As an omniscient being, God timelessly knows all future human choices (not only the actual choices, but also the possible choices in any conceivable circumstance). To deny the complete foreknowledge of God is to deny the omniscience of God.
Second, from a logical perspective, the claim that God’s foreknowledge takes away any real human choices fundamentally confuses the difference between knowledge and causation. Two plus two is not four because I know it; it is true because it is true in reality. In fact, two plus two equals four whether or not I believe it. Knowing something does not cause it to happen, even for God. Knowledge, no matter who holds it, is causally indeterminative. Therefore, it is a misconception to think that God’s foreknowledge of future human choices causes a person’s acceptance or rejection of faith in Christ.
Third, the claim that God’s foreknowledge takes away any real human choices fundamentally confuses the important distinction between necessity (what must happen) and certainty (what will happen). Since God’s omniscient knowledge does not cause future events, his (fore)knowledge does not make these events necessary. God knows future events with certainty, but that does not mean that those events had to happen by logical necessity. Future events are contingent on the future decisions of his free creatures.77 As explained earlier, God simply knows before we make those choices what our choices are going to be.
Ponder this analogy, although human analogies about God are inherently limited because he is not bound to our limitations of time and imperfect knowledge. Jim and Rusty were fans of a basketball team playing a game that would determine the league championship, but their schedules did not permit them to watch the game. So they taped it to watch later. Jim got out of the meeting early and witnessed the team making a remarkable comeback to win in the last seconds of the game. When Rusty came in, he did not know the outcome of the game (or that Jim had seen it). As their team trailed the opponent for most of the game, Rusty kept lamenting that their team was going to lose, but Jim told Rusty that he is confident that they could come back and win. Jim encouraged Rusty to have faith in their team. Sure enough, as Jim foreknew, the team came back in the last seconds of the game and won a dramatic victory. Rusty was amazed that Jim seemed so sure that their team would rally and win the game. In truth, of course, Jim did not really have “faith”—he had knowledge of what would actually happen that was inaccessible to Rusty.
The point is this: Jim’s certain knowledge of what would happen at the end of the game had exactly nothing to do with his team winning the game. His knowledge did not predetermine the fouls, the plays, or the last-second shot that won the game. Jim knew the result with certainty, but not of logical necessity. He simply knew ahead of time what would actually happen without causing what happened. Likewise, God knows our future choices with certainty without making them logically necessary. So the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom is coherent, and more importantly, it aligns with the description of God’s foreknowledge of human choices in the pages of Scripture.
[….]
FOOTNOTES
21 William E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1966), 286; Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1977), 51; BDAG, 90.
22 John Chrysostom said in a sermon on 1 Cor 1:4–5, “But some man will say, ‘He ought to bring men in, even against their will.’ Away with this. He doth not use violence, nor compel; for who that bids to honours, and crowns, and banquets, and festivals, drags people unwilling and bound? No one. For this is the part of one inflicting an insult. Unto hell He sends men against their will, but unto the kingdom He calls willing minds.” John Chrysostom, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, homily 2, point 9 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1854), 17.
23 Piper and staff, “Five Points of Calvinism.”
24 Israel’s election to service as a chosen people and individual election to salvation for Christians are interwoven in Romans 9–11. Calvinists often do not give adequate attention to the former. See the article by William Klein in this volume.
25 Gottlob Schrenk, s.v. “theō, theleōma, theleōsis,” in TDNT, 3:48–49.
26 TDNT, 3:48–49.
27 Allen, The Atonement (see intro., n. 20); Allen, Extent of the Atonement (see intro., n. 10); David L. Allen, “Commentary on Article 3: The Atonement of Christ,” in Allen, Hankins, and Harwood, Anyone Can Be Saved, 55–64 (see intro., n. 20).
28 Roger Olson, Against Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 159.
29 Bo Reicke, s.v. “pas,” TDNT, 5:886–96; Thayer, “pas,” Greek-English Lexicon, 491–93; BDAG, 782–84. Danker noted that pas pertains “to totality” with a “focus on its individual components.” BDAG, 782. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida similarly observe that pas denotes “the totality of any object, mass, collective, or extension” (L&N 1:597).
30 Note the commentary on Acts 2:21 by John Calvin himself: “He [God] says, all things are in turmoil and possessed by the fear of death, only call upon Me and you shall be saved. So however much a man may be overwhelmed in the gulf of misery there is yet set before him a way of escape. We must also observe the universal word, ‘whosoever’. For God himself admits all men to Himself without exception and by this means invites them to salvation, even as Paul deduces in Rom. 10, and as the prophet had earlier recorded. ‘Thou Lord who hearest prayer, unto Thee shall all flesh come’ (Ps. 65.2). Therefore since no man is excluded from calling upon God the gate of salvation is set open to all. There is nothing else to hinder us from entering, but our own unbelief.” Calvin, “The Acts of the Apostles 1–13,” in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., trans. J. W. Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 6:61–62, emphasis added. Evidently Calvin does not always agree with Calvinists.
31 Thayer, “hostis,” Greek-English Lexicon, 33–34, 454–57; BDAG, “hostis,” 56–57, 725–27, 729–30. Danker noted that hostis means “whoever, everyone, who, in a generalizing sense,” and when combined with an “the indefiniteness of the expression is heightened.” BDAG, 729.
32 See also Mark 8:38/Luke 9:26; Mark 9:37/Luke 9:48; Mark 10:15; and Luke 14:27.
33 Otto Schmitz, s.v. “parakaleō,” TDNT, 5:773–79, 793–94.
34 Rudolf Bultmann, s.v. “peithō,” TDNT, 6:8–9.
35 Lemke, “Critique of Irresistible Grace,” in Whosoever Will, 109–62.
36 For more on sound hermeneutics, see Steve Lemke, Grant Lovejoy, and Bruce Corley, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2nd ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2002).
37 John Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R, 2006), 184.
38 Sproul, Chosen by God, 69; Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 153–54.
39 Barrett, “Monergism,” 141.
40 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Faith (Philadelphia: P&R, 1984), 11.
41 William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel according to John, 2 vols., New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 1:238.
42 Robert Yarbrough, “Divine Election in the Gospel of John,” in Still Sovereign: Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 50n10.
43 Albrecht Oepke, s.v. “Elkō,” TDNT, 2:503.
44 Sproul, Chosen by God, 69; Grace Unknown, 153.
45 Barrett, “Monergism,” 141.
46 See Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 53 (see chap. 3, n. 21); and Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 25–27.
47 Steve Witzki, “Free Grace or Forced Grace?” The Arminian 19, no.1 (Spring 2001): 2.
48 Albrecht Oepke, s.v. “elkō,” TDNTa, 227; emphasis added.
49 BDAG, 251.
50 William Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Zondervan Greek Reference Series (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1993), 180.
51 William J. Hickie, Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (New York: Cosimo, 2007), 13.
52 Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Bloomington, IN: Trafford, 2006), 144.
53 Edward Robinson, A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament (Charleston, SC: Bibliolife, 2009), 240.
54 Wesley J. Perchbacher, ed., The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 135.
55 Furthermore, if “draws” meant irresistible drawing, John 12:32 would affirm universal salvation.
57 Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware, introduction to Still Sovereign, 15. Schreiner and Ware thus interpret John 6:44 to mean, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise the one whom the Father draws up on the last day.” However, John 6:44 must be read in light of a preceding verse with a parallel construction, John 6:40: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (NASB). Therefore, the proper interpretation of John 6:44 should be, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise up on the last day the one who comes to me (through faith).” As noted above, the lexical definition of “draw” does not mean the irresistible drawing that Calvinists try to make it mean to suit their theology. This promise of the resurrection is given to believers who respond to the gracious invitation of God.
58 Witzki, “Calvinism and John 6, Part One,” 4–5.
59 F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 154.
60 Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 463.
61 Marvin Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1886), 2:150.
62 Ben Witherington III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 158, emphasis added.
63 Lenski, Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, 464–65; emphasis added.
64 Lenski, 475–76; emphasis added.
65 Barrett, “Monergism,” 128–30.
66 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 535; cited in Barrett, “Monergism,” 129.
67 Rudolf Bultmann, s.v. “proginoskō, prognosis,” TDNT, 1:715–16.
68 Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 325. Godet notes that “the act of knowing, exactly like that of seeing, supposes an object perceived by the person who knows or sees. It is not the act of seeing or knowing which produces this object; it is the object, on the contrary, which determines this act of knowing or seeing. And the same is the case with divine provision of foreknowledge; for in the case of God who lives above time, foreseeing is seeing; knowing what shall be is knowing what to Him already is. And therefore it is the believer’s faith which, as a future fact, but in His sight already existing, which determines His foreknowledge” (emphasis added).
69 Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936), 558–59.
70 Ben Witherington III, with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 230.
71 Lenski, Romans, 559.
72 Gerald Bray and Thomas Bray, eds., New Testament VI: Romans (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 233–44; Witherington, Romans, 227–28. Additional early church fathers who endorsed this perspective on human freedom and foreknowledge include Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Jerome.
73 Witherington, Romans, 229–30.
74 F. F. Bruce noted that these phrases are also connected in what is called a sorites construction, in which the predicate of one clause becomes the subject of the next clause. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Tyndale, 1963), 176.
75 Witherington, Romans, 227.
76 Witherington, 229, n. 28.
77 For more on the confusion of contingency and necessity, see Kenneth D. Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 8–9, 31–38; and Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will—Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House, 2002), 36–63.
Whether you are familiar with Augustine or not, chances are you have encountered Calvinism and its core doctrines—especially the idea of unconditional election. Perhaps you have Reformed friends who hold to the belief that God has sovereignly chosen some individuals for salvation and others for damnation, entirely apart from their free will. This deterministic view of salvation has become deeply embedded in much of Western Christianity. But what if we could trace this theological development to a specific moment in church history? What if we could say, with confidence, when and how this view was introduced—and argue that it was not part of the original Christian faith?
On today’s show, we take a critical look at one of the most influential figures in Christian history: Augustine of Hippo. We’re joined by Dr. Ken Wilson, Oxford-trained scholar and author of The Foundations of Augustinian Calvinism. In his historical research, Dr. Wilson demonstrates how Augustine’s later theology—particularly his embrace of determinism and unilateral grace—marked a significant departure from the teachings of earlier Church Fathers and laid the foundation for what would become Calvinistic theology.
The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism with Dr. Ken Wilson
