(A video that Warren McGrew made was mentioned in this video, I will embed that as well.)
Why did John Piper become a Calvinist? Dr. Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101
Dr. Leighton Flowers welcomes back Warren McGrew, the Idol Killer, to discuss a presentation by John Piper who is recounting his conversion into Calvinism
Responding to Calvinists on Total Depravity
A few months back, @chrisharris9710 took to his YouTube channel to refute the claims Idol Killer made in our series refuting Original Sin and Total Depravity – specifically episode 2 & the Undercutting Defeater. In the process, Pastor Harris bravely took on the leading voices in Reformed Theology today and heroically swept aside the historical Reformed articulations of Total Depravity across various Confessions. Though, one has to wonder what his fellow Calvinists will think of his claims that entail John MacArthur of @gracetoyou Steven Lawson of @ligonier and others don’t rightly understand Calvinism.
The 2nd video is Idol Killer’s original, the first is my reimagining it:
Praying Like A Consistent Calvinist | Adapted from Idol Killer >>> I rejiggered it into a better order [IMHO], added some graphics/quotes, and uploaded it a second time finding an edit error on my part.
Not for the faint of heart!
Somewhere outside the city of Geneva, on Earth 1689, it happened that a Calvinist Theologian was praying, and when he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Pastor, teach us to pray, just as John also taught his disciples.” and he said to them:
“Oh Sovereign God, whom from all eternity, freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass, I thank you… I know you bring about all things in accordance with your will,… I know the evils of this world have NOT arisen by your mere permission, (or as a result of your patient call to repentance), but that YOU yourself bring about all evils for your glory and good pleasure,…
I thank you for bringing evil into the world. I thank you for the brutality at Birkenau and at Auschwitz.
I thank you for the terrible killings of Dennis Rader.
I thank you for the brutality of war, and the countless widows and orphans it creates. I thank you for the perverse abuse of young children. I know these evil men were perfectly obeying your Sovereign will.
I thank you. I see your gracious hand in the hurts others do to me, (like the Ford Focus that cut me off at the light this afternoon).
I thank you. I thank you for my wife, and the abuse she inflicts upon our children while I’m away from the home. I know you did this to build mine and my children’s character. I thank you that its only been bruises and bloody noses. I know you saw fit to have my boss fire me from my job, during the holiday season, just as I know it was your Sovereign will that he hire Stephanie this past Spring and that we have an affair.
I thank you for giving me an irresistible desire for red heads. Above all, I know it was your Sovereign hand keeping my wife ignorant of our illicit love making, (during our lunch break at the motel six).
I thank you. I know that it was your perfect will that my neighbor got drunk and took his own life this morning, just as it was your perfect will that I was distracted on my cell phone and backed the car over his son last week.
I thank you. I know you’ve regenerated me and elected me unto salvation, and while I’m unsure about my wife and children’s eternal destiny, I thank you. Please bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies and bless the hands that prepared it, or don’t. Whatever your Sovereign will is. Thank you, and amen!”
(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.
The audio at the start from Jeff Durbin is bad… so one has to put up with it a little when the initial audio is played. But the same arguments against atheistic determinism can be used against Augustinian/Calvinistic [theistic] determinism:
Dr. Braxton Hunter, President of Trinity Seminary and host of Trinity Radio, joins Dr. Flowers to talk about how the main arguments against naturalistic determinism can apply against theistic determinism, as held by Compatibilistic Calvinists. They demonstrate this by engaging a clip from Apologia Studios with Jeff Durbin which references a quote from Calvinistic apologist, Greg Bahnsen.
Justin Brierley drives this point home in his article:
…Atheist Determinism
Calvinistic Christians have more in common with many atheists than they may realize. Determinism has also become a very popular philosophy among their godless counterparts. For some time, prominent voices in atheist circles have also been announcing that the notion of free will is past its sellby date.
Popular atheist author Sam Harris wrote a book titled Free will (Free Press) which, drawing on research in neuroscience, argued that our innate sense of freedom is merely an illusion foisted on us by nature. None of us is actually in control of what we do. So far so Calvinist. But rather than believing God has predestined us, atheists like Harris say the universe is responsible.
Atheist determinism springs from a ‘materialist’ worldview. All that exists is the ‘material’ stuff of the universe. Everything about us and the world we live in can ultimately be explained by the physics of atoms, electrons, quarks and neutrons, interacting according to the predictable regularity of natural laws.
Think of it like this: the skill of the snooker player is in predicting as accurately as possible how the balls will ricochet off each other in order to find the pockets on the table. But, theoretically, if a snooker player lined up their very first shot with perfect precision and perfect force, they could clear the table in one shot. The universe is like that, but on a much bigger scale.
Every single physical event, from the movements of electrons to the orbits of the planets, follows predictable laws of cause and effect. Therefore, the way the universe is now is a direct result of the way it was when it first began. If you rewound the clock by 13 billion years to the exact same physical state of affairs, things would roll out in exactly the same way they already have.
But, in such a universe, the idea that we have any measure of free will evaporates. Every aspect of our existence was predestined by a cosmos blindly following the laws of cause and effect. …
You cannot have LOVE with people made into dolls with a pull string that say, “I love you.” This is evidence that Calvinists/”Reformed” make Calvary useless.
Here is a favored adapted combination of mine:
One of the most intriguing aspects mentioned by Ravi Zacharias of a lecture he attended entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate,” given by Stephen Hawking, who is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, Isaac Newton’s chair, was this admission by Dr. Hawking’s, was Hawking’s admission that if “we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free.”[1] In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms? Michael Polyni mentions that this “reduction of the world to its atomic elements acting blindly in terms of equilibrations of forces,” a belief that has prevailed “since the birth of modern science, has made any sort of teleological view of the cosmos seem unscientific…. [to] the contemporary mind.”[2]
[1] Ravi Zacharias, The Real Face of Atheism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 118, 119.
[2] Michael Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning (Chicago, IL: Chicago university Press, 1977), 162.
This is one of the biggest reasons I [about half-a-year-ago] have rejected the 5-Points of Calvinism. Which is, determinism. I have written, posted, and debated this with atheists for years on the WWW., and when I saw that people like Al Mohler refute the atheist versions of this but does not apply the same thinking to his position — my apologetic bug was brought alive. Here is the video that started this rabbit trail:
The subversion of moral responsibility is one of the most significant developments of recent decades. Though this subversion was originally philosophical, more recent efforts have been based in biology and psychology. Various theorists have argued that our decisions and actions are determined by genetics, environmental factors, or other forces. Now, Scientific American is out with a report on a study linking determinism and moral responsibility.
The diverse theories of determinism propose that our choices and decisions are not an exercise of the will, but simply the inevitable outcome of factors outside our control. As Scientific American explains, determinists argue that “everything that happens is determined by what happened before — our actions are inevitable consequences of the events leading up to the action.”
In other words, free will doesn’t exist. Used in this sense, free will means the exercise of authentic moral choice and agency. We choose to take one action rather than the other, and must then take responsibility for that choice.
This link between moral choice and moral responsibility is virtually instinctive to humans. As a matter of fact, it is basic to our understanding of what it means to be human. We hold each other responsible for actions and choices. But if all of our choices are illusory — and everything is merely the “inevitable consequence” of something beyond our control, moral responsibility is an exercise in delusion.
Scientific American reports on a study performed by psychologists Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler. The psychologists found that individuals who were told that their moral choices were determined, rather than free, were also more likely to cheat on an experimental examination.
As Shaun Nichols reports:
The Western conception idea of free will seems bound up with our sense of moral responsibility, guilt for misdeads and pride in accomplishment. We hold ourselves responsible precisely when we think that our actions come from free will. In this light, it’s not surprising that people behave less morally as they become skeptical of free will. Further, the Vohs and Schooler result fits with the idea that people will behave less responsibly if they regard their actions as beyond their control. If I think that there’s no point in trying to be good, then I’m less likely to try.
Even if giving up on free will does have these deleterious effects, one might wonder how far they go. One question is whether the effects extend across the moral domain. Cheating in a psychology experiment doesn’t seem too terrible. Presumably the experiment didn’t also lead to a rash of criminal activity among those who read the anti-free will passage. Our moral revulsion at killing and hurting others is likely too strong to be dismantled by reflections about determinism. It might well turn out that other kinds of immoral behavior, like cheating in school, would be affected by the rejection of free will, however.
There are limitations to this kind of research, of course, but the report is both revealing and unsurprising. If we are not responsible for our actions, they why would people do the right thing? The most immediate result of such thinking is the subversion of moral accountability.
Of course, this pattern of thought also renders human existence irrational. How can we understand ourselves, our children, our spouses, our friends, or our neighbors if moral responsibility is undermined by determinism. Our legal system would completely collapse, as would the entire experience of relating to other human beings.
Shaun Nichols explains that “the Western conception of free will seems bound up with our sense of moral responsibility.” That “Western conception” is a product of the Christian inheritance and the biblical worldview. The Bible clearly presents human beings as morally responsible. Christians of virtually all theological traditions — including Reformed theology, Arminianism, and Catholicism — affirm moral and spiritual responsibility and the authenticity of the experience of choice.
As a matter of fact, this capacity and accountability is rooted in the biblical concept of the imago Dei — the image of God. Our Creator made us as moral creatures and planted within us the capacity of conscience. All this refutes the concept of moral determinism.
In its most modern forms, determinism is a product of naturalism — the belief that everything must be explained in purely natural terms. Naturalism explains the human mind (including the experience of moral choice) as a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, and nothing more.
Determinism is implied by naturalism and relieves human beings of moral responsibility. There is no moral revolt against the Creator, no Fall, and no need for the Gospel. This subversion of moral responsibility is both a delusion and a trap. And, as the Scientific American report indicates, even those who say they believe in moral determinism are unable to live consistently with this assumption. We know we are responsible.
SOME QUOTES CONNECTING THIS IDEA MORE
ATHEISTS:
THEISTS:
If Mohler applies that to his own theological determinism, he would have to reject it.
THERE IS NO GOSPEL IN TULIP
In other words, a person accepts Christ’s death and Resurrection as secondary to being ELECTED.
Here is more on this via this excerpt of an article and short video:
Calvinist:“That is why Christ said that you must be born again in order to even see the kingdom of God. The new nature must come before faith. God making us willing is not mind control in the sense that you describe it but giving us a new nature and a new mind. Of course the analogy isn’t perfect but it does illustrate the fact that we can be made to love without it being against our will.”
Me: “No it doesn’t. If we were God haters that wanted nothing to do with Christ prior to His irresistible act of “giving us a new heart” that “makes us willing”, then it was certainly “against our will” because our will was to hate and reject God prior to His irresistible working in us. It would be like a man meeting a girl at a bar and the girl doesn’t like him and wants nothing to do with him. In fact, she finds him repulsive. So the man slips a pill in her drink that removes her inhibitions and causes her to begin to find him attractive, even to the point of “making her willing” to sleep with him. Now if this incident was brought before the court, would the court say that the man is not liable for violating the woman against her will, since the pill he put in her drink “made her willing”? Of course not. Nobody would say that she freely chose to be with the man under such circumstances, and no one would say that her will was not violated.”
“As distasteful as this illustration might be, it illustrates the exact same principle behind your claims that while God “makes us willing” this making us willing by “giving us a new heart” is not a violation of the person’s will. Instead of dropping a pill into our drink, God drops a “new heart” into our God hating chest. The only difference would be that in your view of how God works, the “effects” of the “drug” would never wear off. But that doesn’t change the fact that a person’s will has been obviously violated in the process.”
“It really is pretty simple. If God’s working faith into us is not resistible, but irresistible, then it certainly violates freedom and the will. That is so obvious, it shouldn’t even need to be pointed out. If you want to say that God irresistibly brings sinners to faith and love and devotion to Him (by irresistibly removing their “hate God heart” and putting in a “love God heart”) because you think the Bible teaches that, then fine. But trying to then claim that God does this in such a way that we freely come to him in such a way that our wills are not violated is clearly incoherent. You can’t have it both ways. Sorry.”
Dr. Leighton Flowers talk about martyrs who stood against the Calvinists of their day and what happened to them.
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
Before going on with “another” post on Calvinism, a reader on my site’s Facebook (FB) was asking why all the hub-bub regarding the topic of Calvinism as of late… although worded differently:
QUESTION:
RANDALL L. ASKED ME ON MY FB PAGE:
…so what happens to a soul when you are so tired of hearing all the arguments instead of just hearing the Gospel?….there are many who believe that the Calvinists are heretics…there are many who believe that the Arminians are heretics…there are many who believe that the Charismatics/Non-Charismatics are heretics…what if John 3:36 is actually true?…He who believes on the Son has eternal life…
I RESPOND:
I am posting a lot on the topic because it is “new” to me. I say “new” [in quotes] because I live in the Santa Clarita Valley. Which is under the shadow of MacArthur. And the churches I have enjoyed in our valley are more reformed Baptist. And a Bible study I was in for 10-years was led by a part time Masters College professor. He was [and is] a discipling mentor to me and many men.
When pressed on the issues – for instance, we studied through the 1689 Baptist Confession for a long study – I would always joke that when I read James White, I was a 4-point-5 [4.5] Calvinist, and when I read Norman Geisler, I was a 3-point-Calvinist [3.0]. But the truth is being an Apologetic animal and getting a master’s in theology from a Lutheran seminary, I never accepted the idea of theistic determinism. As I had read CS Lewis and Norman Geisler’s many works in the 90s. I was inoculated against it, so-to-speak.
Some events happened about 6-months ago that when I told my running joke, it was stale in my mouth. Left a bad taste. So, I said to myself, “you know, I have said that for decades. No more. I need to really know-know the entirety of why I reject the 5-points.” And so, I have a two year+ reading plan and am gobbling up tons of videos and series.
And so, just 6-months into the new passion, I can confidently say that if the 5-points [or even 4 points] are true, then there is no rebellion by man against God. Calvary and the Gospel are secondary to election, etc.
But I have a lot more reading ta do.
Thank you for the question/statement – and I understand the frustration. My website has posts galore on the topic as well.
I may add that I love the Christian faith and all it’s history and theological turns. Of which I am still coming to grips with, as it is a large subject. Speaking of LOVE, here is Pastor Rogers chapter on love — well worth your time:
And this happens to be my current pinned post on my sites FB as well as my personal page. I wrote it when I saw this question on Dr. Flowers live stream:
FB PINNED POST
Most church goers do not realize what Calvinism teaches. A pastor might say we have free will, but that is from the pulpit. Get them in an honest conversation, they revert right back to TULIP, which negates free will. Then another pastor may note we do not have free will, and then define it in a fuzzy way, and then two sentences later say we are elected to salvation. THIS MEANS that we cannot make a choice to positively affirm [respond to] the Word of God – at all… but to reject it.
So, TULIP says that if you have three choices:
reject the Gospel message.
be ambivalent to the message of God’s Word.
see the truth in the grace enabled message of God’s Word.
TULIP only – only – allows for A. and B. The Holy Spirit inspired Word of God, sharper than any two-edged sword [cutting between soul and body], the facts of God’s work at Calvary, the preaching of God’s message via pastor’s or the broader body of Christ… NONE OF THAT IS EFFECTIVE.
Piper, MacArthur, many pastors I know, in the end say that one has to be unconditionally chosen before the time-space-continuum and drawn irresistibly to salvation – because they would never be able to even see the truth in the Gospel and have faith by what they see.
Which means those who are not drawn with the “U” and the “I” of TULIP, and chosen likewise to go to hell and be tormented eternally not because they rejected God’s message. But because our nature was designed this way through first and secondary causes, not by a “mother nature,” but by God’s decree.
The “T” ensures no one can respond to God’s many grace enablements.
They must be chosen by nothing in themselves. No ability to respond at all to the Holy Spirit drenched Word of God.
This makes Calvary and the Gospel secondary [ineffective] according to Baptist Reformed thinkers [Calvinists].
It is, really, for lack of a better idea: an anti-Christ theology.
Not only that, but, what is there for God to harden, provoke, or restrain if not the autonomous will of creatures?
If God knows the future because He planned the future [Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, etc.], when God hardens, provokes, or restrains…. is He working against Himself? Since He decreed it all to happen?
If the “T” of TULIP [total depravity] is a reality, wouldn’t hardening, provoking, or restraining someone be the same thing as digging up bodies in a cemetery and putting blindfold on the rotting cadaver?
In other words, does He plan the abuse of a child just to redeem that act in some way to bring glory to Himself? Is Satan superfluous?
Are all the prescriptions in the Bible making God out to be duplicitous – since he has planned our actions thru determinative means?
Or…
Is it more like Tozer notes — which lowers man’s position by making him/her responsible to God’s law; and keeps God’s holiness and glory intact as He truly redeems or judges such actions (is He judging Himself in Calvinism?)
God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.
Here I wanted to share a large clip from a slightly longer post… and may I set it up with a Piper endorsed book that [I think still] Desiring God [Piper’s site] still has it up on their website:
Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ
“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).
John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.
This is probably the most employed logical fallacy of the Calvinistic believer when engaging in a debate over the claims of their TULIP systematic. Here is how the conversation typically goes:
Calvin: God brings about every meticulous detail for His own glory, including man’s sinful inclinations and choices.[1]
Hobbs: That claim undermines the character, holiness and goodness of God who abhors moral evil (Prov. 6:16-19; Jer. 7:31), is holy or separate from all evil (Is. 6:3; Ex. 15:11) and who does not even tempt men to sin (Jm. 1:13). He is the redeemer of sinful choices, not the one who brings them about!
Calvin: YOU TOO have the same problem because you believe God knows every evil thing that is going to happen but did not prevent it.
Notice that the Traditionalist (Hobbs) is critiquing an ACTUAL CLAIM of the Calvinistic systematic. The Calvinist does not answer that critique, but instead they commit the “you too” fallacy by appealing NOT to an ACTUAL CLAIM of the Traditionalistic scholars, but to their own philosophical conclusion about the infinite attribute of divine omniscience – a philosophical conclusion that Traditionalists deny.
So, the Traditionalist is critiquing an actual claim of Calvinism while the Calvinist is appealing to something all Traditionalists deny (i.e. if God knows something and does not prevent it then it is the same as Him determining it).
Let’s take a look at this same fallacy in a “real world” discussion and see how it plays itself out:
Calvin: I hired a mean kid at my son’s school to bully him so as to toughen him up so he can represent my name in a strong powerful way.
Hobbs: You did what?!? How can a good and loving father do that to his own child?! If your son finds out what you did he will never trust you again.
Calvin: YOU TOO did the same thing last year when your son told you about that bully and you sent him to school anyway. You didn’t have to send your son to school knowing there was a bully there. You could have prevented him from being bullied, but you didn’t, so YOU TOO are as bad as I am!
Hobbs: WHAT!? I did not hire some mean kid to mercilessly torture my son. I hated that he went through that. I wept with him. I worked with him every night on what to say and do in order to confront his bully. I helped redeem that horrible situation to make him stronger. I did not cause it, or bring it about, or make it happen for my own namesake. If someone went to my house and convinced my son that I had actually hired that bully last year then he would never trust me again. It would undermine my character and trustworthiness and completely ruin our relationship. I am the helper and redeemer of my son’s bad situation, not the cause of it! How dare you even compare what I did to what you did!
The idea that God’s choice to permit free creatures to make free choices and suffer the full weight and consequences of those choices is somehow equal to the divine meticulous determinism being promoted by pastors like John Piper is blantantly absurd. ……
The Below is an excerpt from Chapter 5 (“A Biblical and Theological Critique of Irresistible Grace”) of Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism (out of print). Chapter by Steve W. Lemke.
Full PDF of the chapter with as many updated links as I could find, is HERE.
… The Synod of Dort, however, strenuously objected to the Remonstrants’ denial of irresistible grace:
Who teach that the grace by which we are converted to God is nothing but a gentle persuasion, or (as others explain it) that the way of God’s acting in man’s conversion that is most noble and suited to human nature is that which happens by persuasion, and that nothing prevents this grace of moral suasion even by itself from making natural men spiritual; indeed, that God does not produce the assent of the will except in this manner of moral suasion, and that the effectiveness of God’s work by which it surpasses the work of Satan consists in the fact that God promises eternal benefits while Satan promises temporal ones.
[….]
Who teach that God in regenerating man does not bring to bear that power of his omnipotence whereby he may powerfully and unfailingly bend man’s will to faith and conversion, but that even when God has accomplished all the works of grace which he uses for man’s conversion, man nevertheless can, and in actual fact often does, so resist God and the Spirit in their intent and will to regenerate him, that man completely thwarts his own rebirth; and, indeed, that it remains in his own power whether or not to be reborn.4
The Problem of Defining Irresistible Grace
The term “irresistible grace,” then, came initially as a view denied by the Remonstrants and defended by the Dortian Calvinists. The Synod of Dort rejected the notion that God’s grace was limited to His exerting strong moral persuasion on sinners by the Holy Spirit to lead them to salvation. They also rejected the notion that a person can “resist God and the Spirit in their intent and will to regenerate him.”5 Instead, the Dort statement asserted that God brings to bear the “power of his omnipotence whereby he may powerfully and unfailingly bend man’s will to faith and conversion.”6
In order to understand how Calvinists say that God effects irresistible grace, one must understand the important distinction they draw between what is variously known as the “general” or “outward” call from the “special,” “inward,” “effectual,” or “serious” call. Steele, Thomas, and Quinn virtually equate the “efficacious call” with irresistible grace, based on this distinction between these proposed two different callings from God:
The gospel invitation extends a call to salvation to every one who hears its message. . . . But this outward general call, extended to the elect and the non-elect alike, will not bring sinners to Christ. . . . Therefore, the Holy Spirit, in order to bring God’s elect to salvation, extends to them a special inward call in addition to the outward call contained in the gospel message. Through this special call the Holy Spirit performs a work of grace within the sinner which inevitably brings him to faith in Christ. . . .
Although the general outward call of the gospel can be, and often is, rejected, the special inward call of the Spirit never fails to result in the conversion of those to whom it is made. This special call is not made to all sinners but is issued to the elect only! The Spirit is in no way dependent upon their help or cooperation for success in His work of bringing them to Christ. It is for this reason that Calvinists speak of the Spirit’s call and of God’s grace in saving sinners as being “efficacious,” “invincible,” or “irresistible.” For the grace which the Holy Spirit extends to the elect cannot be thwarted or refused, it never fails to bring them to true faith in Christ!7
As this statement indicates, some contemporary Calvinists seem to be a little embarrassed by the term “irresistible grace” and have sought to soften it or to replace it with a term like “effectual calling.” They also object when others criticize that “irresistible grace” suggests that God forces persons to do things against their wills. Instead, they insist, God merely woos and persuades. Calvinists thus sometimes sound disingenuous in affirming a strong view of irresistible grace while simultaneously softening the language about it to make it more palatable. For example, John Piper and the Bethlehem Baptist Church staff affirm that irresistible grace “means the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible. . . . The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills.”8Yet, just a few paragraphs later, they affirm that “irresistible grace never implies that God forces us to believe against our will. . . . On the contrary, irresistible grace is compatible with preaching and witnessing that tries to persuade people to do what is reasonable and what will accord with their own best interests.”9 No attempt is made in the article to reconcile these apparently contradictory assertions.
Likewise, R. C. Sproul argues at great length that John 6:44 (“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” HCSB) does not refer merely to the necessity that God “woo or entice men to Christ,” and humans can “resist this wooing” and “refuse the enticement.”10 In philosophical language, Sproul says, this wooing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation “because the wooing does not, in fact, guarantee that we will come to Christ.”11 Sproul states that such an interpretation is “incorrect” and “does violence to the text of Scripture.”12 Instead, Sproul insists, the term “draw” is “a much more forceful concept than to woo,” and means “to compel by irresistible superiority.”13
However, in discussing irresistible grace, Sproul tells of a student who, hearing a lecture on predestination by John Gerstner, rejected it. When Gerstner asked the student how he defined Calvinism, the student described it as the perspective that “God forces some people to choose Christ and prevents other people from choosing Christ.” Gerstner then said, “If that is what a Calvinist is, then you can be sure that I am not a Calvinist either.”14 Sproul likewise chastised a Presbyterian seminary president for rejecting the Calvinist doctrine that “God brings some people, kicking and screaming against their wills, into the kingdom.” Sproul describes this Presbyterian theologian’s view as “a gross misconception of his own church’s theology,” as a “caricature,” and “as far away from Calvinism as one could possibly get.”15 So which way is it? If God compels persons with “irresistible superiority,” in what way is it inaccurate to say that God is forcing people to choose Christ?
The Synod of Dort insisted that such attempts at moral persuasion of unsaved persons was wasted time. That God’s grace was resistible and not merely the use of strong moral persuasion was precisely what the Synod of Dort rejected and the Remonstrants affirmed. The Remonstrants insisted that the compelling grace of God persuaded the lost to receive Christ as Lord and Savior. The Synod of Dort insisted that this was not going far enough. Note their explicit denial that a person can “resist” God. Note the use in the Synod of Dort language of divine omnipotence, which can “powerfully and unfailingly bend man’s will to faith and conversion.”16 Bending the will of a fallible being by an omnipotent Being powerfully and unfailingly is not merely sweet persuasion. It is forcing one to change one’s mind against one’s will.
Calvinists often describe their position as monergism as opposed to synergism. In monergism, God works entirely alone, apart from any human role. In synergism, on the other hand, humans cooperate with God in some way in actualizing their own conversion. None of us non-Pelagians would affirm for a minute that we can achieve salvation apart from God. The question is whether humans have any role at all in accepting or receiving their own salvation. On the one hand, the Calvinists say, “No! Your salvation is monergistic, provided only by the grace of God.” When a critic says this response means that God imposes irresistible grace against a person’s will or that humans do not have a choice in the matter, the Calvinists protest that they are being misunderstood and caricatured.
When challenged that irresistible grace goes against someone’s will, most Calvinists reply that it is not against a person’s will at all. God changes their will through regeneration invincibly, such that the person is irresistibly drawn to Christ. Calvinists call this willing, which is externally driven, compatibilist volition, as opposed to the more common view, libertarian freedom. In libertarian freedom a person does not have absolute freedom (a frequent Calvinist stereotype), but the person chooses between at least two alternatives. In every case a person could have, at least hypothetically, chosen something else. But in compatibilism, people always choose their greatest desire. They have no alternative choice but to will to do what they want to do. So when God changes their will through irresistible grace or enabling grace, they really have no choice. They will what God has programmed them to will. So the Calvinist system advocates both monergism (God is the only actor) and compatibilism (they go along with what God wants them to do after He changes their will through preconversion regeneration).
The problem is that Calvinists cannot have their cake and eat it, too. They cannot insist that an omnipotent God overwhelms and bends human will powerfully and unfailingly, and then transform this doctrine into something other than it is by softening it with more palatable language such as “effectual calling” and “compatibilism.” The effectual calling means precisely the same thing as irresistible grace. Effectual calling just sounds nicer. At the end of the day, people have no choice but to do what God has programmed them to do. Nonetheless, Calvinists often attempt to sidestep criticism by asserting that the doctrine has been misunderstood, even when non-Calvinists have quoted or paraphrased what Calvinists themselves have said in describing their own doctrine.
For example, at the “Building Bridges” conference, Nathan Finn chastised Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor Roy Fish for the following description of irresistible grace, which Finn described as a “stereotype” and a “misunderstanding” of the doctrine:
The “I” in the TULIP is what is called irresistible grace. That means that people who are going to be saved have no other option. They really don’t have a choice. The grace of God cannot be resisted. They cannot resist this special saving grace.17
A line-by-line study of Fish’s description reveals that Calvinists define irresistible grace in virtually the same words:
Roy Fish: (Irresistible grace) “means that people who are going to be saved have no other option. They really don’t have a choice.”
The Synod of Dort: “And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help. But this certainly does not happen only by outward teaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a way of working that, after God has done his work, it remains in man’s power whether or not to be reborn or converted. Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work. . . . As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. . . .”18
James White: “The doctrine of ‘irresistible grace’ . . . is simply the belief that when God chooses to move in the lives of His elect and bring them from spiritual death to spiritual life, no power in heaven or on earth can stop Him from so doing. . . . It is simply the confession that when God chooses to raise His people to spiritual life, He does so without the fulfillment of any conditions on the part of the sinner. Just as Christ had the power and authority to raise Lazarus to life without obtaining his ‘permission’ to do so, He is able to raise His elect to spiritual life with just as certain a result.”19
David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn: “The Holy Spirit extends a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. . . . [T]he internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected. It always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. . . . God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.”20
Roy Fish: “The grace of God cannot be resisted. They cannot resist this special saving grace.”
The Synod of Dort: The Synod rejects that . . . “God in regenerating man does not bring to bear that power of his omnipotence whereby he may powerfully and unfailingly bend man’s will to faith and conversion. . . .” (The Synod rejects that someone) “can, and in actual fact often does, so resist God and the Spirit in their intent and will to regenerate him.”21
John Piper: Irresistible grace “means the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible. . . . The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance he wills. . . . When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him. . . . 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 resistance. . . . 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.’ ”22
Was Fish reflecting the statements of some Calvinists in his definition? Distinguishing Fish’s from Finn’s is so difficult that one must ask, What exactly is it in Fish’s description that Finn objects to so strenuously? Fish has echoed Calvinist descriptions of irresistible grace, and yet Finn takes him to task for doing so. No matter how modern-day Calvinists may attempt to gloss over the hardness of irresistible grace and project it in a softer, gentler light, the doctrine remains what it is. When pressed by their own words, Calvinists sometimes seem to play word games or equivocate their words in order to make their beliefs more palatable. However, this study will examine irresistible grace as it is described and defined in standard Calvinist doctrinal teachings.
NOTES
“The Canons of the Synod of Dort,” Heads III and IV, Rejection of Errors, Articles VII and VIII, in Schaff, 3:570 (in Latin). For an English translation, see L. M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (rev. ed.; Pensacola: Vance, 1999), Appendix 4, 621–22, which is also available online at RELIGIO-POLITICAL TALK; added and accessed October 3, 2025.
Ibid.
Ibid.
D. N. Steele, C. C. Thomas, and S. L. Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (expanded ed.; Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004), 52–54.
R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1994), 69–70.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., 122.
Ibid.
“The Canons of the Synod of Dort,” Heads III and IV, Rejection of Errors, Articles VII and VIII, in Schaff, 3:570 (in Latin). For an English translation, see L. M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, Appendix 4, 621–22, which is also available online at Historic Faith accessed November 1, 2008.
Nathan Finn, “Southern Baptist Calvinism: Setting the Record Straight,” in Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue (ed. E. R. Clendenen and B. J. Waggoner; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008), 171–92, esp. 184; citing “The C-Word,” a sermon preached at Cottage Hill Baptist Church in Mobile, AL, on August 11, 1997, posted online at (reproduced at Religio-Political Talk, download the PDF here)
“The Canons of the Synod of Dort,” Heads III and IV, Articles 10 and 12, in Schaff, 3:589–90.
J. White, “Irresistible Grace: God Saves Without Fail,” in Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views, by Dave Hunt and James White (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), 197 (italics mine).
Steele, Thomas, and Quinn, Five Points of Calvinism, 7 (italics mine).
“The Canons of the Synod of Dort,” Heads III and IV, Rejection of Errors, Articles VII and VIII, in Schaff, 3:570 (in Latin); for an English translation, see Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, Appendix 4, 621–22 (italics mine).
Piper and the Bethlehem Baptist Church staff, “What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism,” 10, 12 (italics mine).
One of the many issues I saw in a study on sovereignty at church was this side-by-side statement in our handout:
God chooses some people for salvation, this is one of His decrees
Man is responsible for rejecting God
This is the furthest thing from the truth if one understands the “T” in TULIP. We will also visit the “U” and the “I.” Let us start in order of the acronym however.
Calvinists believe that a totally depraved person is spiritually dead. By ‘spiritual death’ they mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God, not just a separation from God. Further, the effects of sin are intensive (destroying the ability to receive salvation) ~ Geisler, Chosen but Free (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1999), 56.
Pastor Rogers helps us define it as well:
Total Depravity: The whole of man’s being is corrupted by sin and he is, therefore, incapable of doing any eternal spiritual good.
Calvinism’s understanding of total depravity includes a compatibilist view of human nature, unconditional election, and limited and selective regeneration. This means the only interpretive option Calvinism permits for God to be able to redeem such a compatibly defined totally depraved person is that God must give him a new nature (variously called quickening, regeneration, or restoration), which he is pleased to do only for the limited unconditionally elect; thereby, guarantying their subsequent free exercise of faith.
Viewing man from a compatibilist perspective means that while fallen man freely chooses to sin, he cannot freely choose to believe in the gospel unless God gives him a new nature and past that assures he will freely choose to exercise faith in Christ; however, in either state, man cannot choose to do other than he did choose because while freely choosing, he has no salvific choice.
Although it seems most Calvinists in the SBC do believe in regeneration prior to faith, it is true not all Calvinists depend upon regeneration preceding faith. Nevertheless, they all do depend upon on a preceding determinative work of God that changes the elect’s past. This work of God changes their nature from what it was before to something different after the work. This is due to their commitment to compatibilism. Technically, compatibilism requires that given the same past, man cannot choose, in the moral moment of decision, other than he did in fact choose.
Consequently, while some may seek to avoid reliance upon a new nature preceding faith, if they are going to be consistent compatibilists, they must believe God works determinatively in the unconditionally elect so as to change man’s past in order that he can transition from only being able to reject Christ to only being able to accept Christ. Therefore, regardless of what term they choose to employ, it never changes the deterministic nature of salvation nor its limited accessibility. This pre-faith work necessary to exercising faith is intentionally withheld by God from the non-elect.
Ronnie W. Rogers, Does God Love All or Some? Comparing Biblical Extensivism and Calvinism’s Exclusivism (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2019), 30-31.
Calvinistic Election says to the unregenerate elect, “Don’t Worry, your Depravity is no obstacle to salvation,” and to the unelect, “Too bad, you have not been predestined for salvation but damnation” (George L Bryson, The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting). Here is a definition of Total Depravity’s “inability” (more… longer PDF):
… The doctrine of total depravity is explained as total inability in the writings of some theologians. James Boice and Philip Ryken explained, “In this sad and pervasively sinful state we have no inclination to seek God, and therefore cannot seek him or even respond to the gospel when it is presented to us. In our unregenerate state, we do not have free will so far as ‘believing on’ or ‘receiving’ Jesus Christ as Savior is concerned.”130 They clarified that unbelievers “cannot” respond to the gospel by repenting and believing in Jesus when it is presented. Consistent with article 3 in the Canons of Dort, they taught that a person believes in Jesus after they are born again. Mark DeVine wrote, “Humanity’s fall into sin results in a condition that must be described in terms of spiritual blindness and deadness and in which the will is enslaved, not free.” DeVine continued, “We need to ask whether the Arminian insistence that the work of the Holy Spirit frees the will to either repent and believe or refuse to do so does not evidence a deeper misunderstanding of the nature of depravity itself.”131 John Piper wrote, “Faith is the evidence of new birth, not the cause of it.”132 “Regeneration precedes faith,” R. C. Sproul explained. He added, “We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe.”133 R. Albert Mohler Jr. also affirmed that regeneration precedes faith:
In the mystery of the sovereign purposes of God and by his sheer grace and mercy alone, the Word was brought near to us. As a result, we were called, made alive, and regenerated. We then believed what we otherwise would never have been able to believe, and we grasped hold of it, knowing that it is the sole provision of our need. We came to know of our need and of God’s response and provision for us in Christ, and then we came to know of our necessary response of faith, repentance, confession, and belief.134
According to these views of total depravity, spiritual blindness and deadness results in the enslavement of the human will so that people do not have the ability to repent and believe the message of the gospel unless they are first regenerated, or born again.
[130] James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 30; italics in the original.
[131] Mark DeVine, “Total Depravity,” in Barrett and Nettles, Whomever He Wills, 35 (see intro., n. 22).
[132] John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1986), 50.
[133] Robert C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1986), 72.
[134] R. Albert Mohler Jr., “The Power of the Articulated Gospel,” in The Underestimated Gospel, ed. Jonathan Leeman (Nashville: B&H, 2014), 19.
Now, any discussion of the doctrine of predestination or the doctrine of divine sovereign election, or, if you will, sovereign salvation as a work of God is based on another doctrine, on another doctrine. God must save us. He must choose us, call us, regenerate us, justify us by his divine power, because we are neither willing nor able to do it for ourselves. And this takes us to what I’m going to call the “doctrine of absolute inability.”
[….]
Especially would I never say to a dead man, “Bill, come forth.” I mean, you wouldn’t waste words. You’d look foolish. Dead men can’t hear. Dead men can’t think. Dead men can’t respond cause they’re dead and dead means the absolute inability to do anything in response to any stimulus. There’s no will. There’s no power to think or act.
[….]
Those who deny the doctrine of divine election, those who deny the doctrine of divine salvation as an act of God have to believe that there’s something in man left to himself that enables him to become willing and to come to life. Is that what the Bible teaches? The Bible doesn’t describe our condition as a disability. It describes it as death. And everybody knows that death means an inability to respond.
[….]
That is not what is meant when theologians refer to total depravity because not everybody is as bad as they could be, and not everybody is as bad as everybody else. What we’re talking about here is what I’ve chosen to call “absolute inability.” What is true of everybody is we have no ability to respond to the gospel. We are completely unable to raise ourselves out of a state of death. We are completely unable to give our blind hearts sight. We are completely unable to free ourselves from slavery to sin. We are completely unable to turn from ignorance to truth. We are completely unable to stop rebelling against God, stop being hostile to His Word.
So far the point about “Man is responsible for rejecting God” is not in the cards. Romans 1:19-20:
since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made.al As a result, people are without excuse. (CSB).
God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain. Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! (GNB)
because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (NASB95)
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse. (ISV)
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (NIV)
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (ESV)
Romans continues to say (CSB): “For though they knew God, …. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” So, they knew God, and had the truth, but with the hardening of their hearts and chasing after worldly pleasure and letting their emotions trample on the Imago Dei, they handed over that plain truth to lies and sensuality.
MacArthur and the others contradict the plain reading of Scripture, and they have to throw in Lazarus to try and prove their point by Eisogesis rather that exegesis. Because Christ Himself told us what that story meant.
Jesus, however, was speaking about his death, but they thought he was speaking about natural sleep. So Jesus then told them plainly, “Lazarus has died. I’m glad for you that I wasn’t there so that you may believe…” (John 11:13-15, CSB)
Notice what Jesus didn’t say, via the HCBV (Honest Calvinist Bible Version):
Jesus, however, was speaking about his death, but they thought he was speaking about natural sleep. So Jesus then told them “plainly,”
Lazarus serves as an example that everyone on earth is born spiritually dead. Not everybody is as bad as they could be with their hands, but spiritually they are bad as they could be. Completely blind, unable to respond to any grace enablements, so the words I speak and the truth I present are 100% impossible to be responded to, the 115 passages which condition salvation on believing alone, and about 35 simply on faith… all that is poppycock I tell you, truly!
There is a narrow way in which I effectually call you from before time was created, and nothing you have or will do made God choose you. You were arbitrarily and unconditionally chosen, and the vast majority of people made in my image I [God] chose for perdition, hell. They cannot respond because they are totally unable, not effectually called and drawn irresistibly to truth.
So my death to come soon on Calvary is secondary to that unconditional, arbitrary choice. Sorry, many here I have chosen, irresistibly, to end up in eternal torment — not based on them rejecting anything; because, if you are unconditionally chosen, likewise, you are unconditionally ‘unchosen.’ Too bad, soo ‘sad’ that you have not been predestined for salvation but damnation.
Truly, truly I tell you, that when you’re in heaven, the very few listening to my words I have chosen since before time will be so sanctified that you will be able to see your own mother, brother, sister, best friend standing next to you now — in hell — and rejoice in that, knowing that God’s perfect justice is being carried out. Again I tell you, You will be so sanctified in heaven that you can look into the pit of hell, see your mother there, and be glad.
Remember when I said to Matthew:
Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
Or what Peter clearly heard, that
the Lord is not slow about his promise, as some people understand slowness, but is being patient with you. He does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to come to repentance.
Those are merely my public statements. Secretly I care for birds more than you and wish most to be damned. I will only allow a very select few to understand this gnosis [secret] of the material flesh being bad and the ‘secret will of my counsel,’ so that much the Gnostics got right — So toughen up buttercup, eternal torture is in store for most hearing and reading my words… not because of anything you didn’t do, but because of what I didn’t do.
I wish to be clear, I realize I told an audience in front of my beloved disciple, John,
You study the Scriptures, because you think that in them you will find eternal life. And these very Scriptures speak about me! Yet you are not willing to come to me in order to have life.
What I was REALLY SAYING was this:
You pore over the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, but there is no salvation in the book called the Bible unless I irresistible and effectually called you to believe… the Gospel is powerless to effectually save you, and yet they testify about me. But I have not elected you for effectual salvation before the foundation of the world so that you can not irresistibly come to me so that you may have life.
So that you may believe. HOW?
By God forcing you to believe — against your will.
If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question [of free will] …but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed them, they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience. … If this frigid fiction [of free will] is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which everything depends, he rules over all? (Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 6–7.)
VERSUS TOZER:
Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, What doest thou? Mans will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.
Tozer is saying that the Calvinist God is too small. Can I return quickly to Johnny Mac?
He said this of the Lazarus story:
Especially would I never say to a dead man, “Bill, come forth.” I mean, you wouldn’t waste words. You’d look foolish. Dead men can’t hear. Dead men can’t think. Dead men can’t respond cause they’re dead and dead means the absolute inability to do anything in response to any stimulus. There’s no will. There’s no power to think or act.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good indeed. (Genesis 1:31, CSB)
I just added the below quote from Calvin to Genesis 1:31 in my Bible…. if Calvinism is correct, and the theistic determinism that is its baggage, then God called “good” His creation [man] by nature destined by decree to sin.
“God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at His own pleasure arranged it … Though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves … Man therefore falls, divine providence so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.23.7; 3.23.8)
Gordon H. Clark: “I wish very Frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so …In Ephesians 1:11, Paul tells us that God works all things, not some things only, after the counsel of his own will.”
They have built high places to Baal on which to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, something I have never commanded or mentioned; I never entertained the thought (Jeremiah 19:5, CSB)
James 1 says every good gift that we get is from God. He doesn’t cause our sin thru 1st or secondary causes.
No one undergoing a trial should say, “I am being tempted by God,” since God is not tempted by evil, and he himself doesn’t tempt anyone. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desire. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death. Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. (James 1:13-17, CSB)
Otherwise, He would be redeeming His own decree, a dualistic God of Eastern metaphysics. Even our prayers are rendered useless, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” ~ His will is being done, to the “T”. Which is why when challenged in a lecture about prayer and Reformed ideas, Wayne Grudem said our prayers were even decreed [scripted] before the creation of the time-space-continuum.
To be clear, I do not worship a God restricted by a Calvinistic theological systematic.
“…how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission…It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them…Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits. ” — John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11)
“Hence we maintain that, by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” — John Calvin, Inst. I.xvi.8. 1539 edition. Quoted in A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73
“Men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction.” — John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God 177 (OC 8.360) (‘summam et praecipuam rerum omnium causam’). Cf. Inst. I.xviii.2 (1559). See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73
“Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens except what God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a simple permission, for God only permits things that fulfill his purpose.” — A.W Pink, The Sovereignty of God, 2009, 162.
(Eph 1:11) “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒ø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually 𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV). — John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.
This is unbiblical. And as C.S. Lewis cogently noted:
“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.”
God has never desired sin, nor will He ever. God always desires holiness.
TO SUMMARIZE:
If the “T” is correct, there is no rebellion against God’s will. Add the “U” and the “I,” the Gospel is rendered meaningless. It is sad, but it is a logical outgrowth of those. The Word of God, the Gospel message sent to a dying and sick world is secondary, Calvary becomes moot. Your hope can only be in if you won the cosmic lottery.
So when the unbeliever stands before God and Romans 1:19-20 is in the thought of our Holy God, when the words come out of said unbelievers mouth,
“I could not believe in your salvific offer because of my nature which you ensured. I suspect you won’t torture a cow [cows are biologically designed to eat grass] for eternity because your command was to eat meat, but ensured their nature was vegetarian.
In my [I guess now, 4-month study of the Augustinian influenced [Gnostic] Calvinism, I kept coming back to the connections with Islam’s “god” as a close comparison to Calvin’s “god”.
So I have found a couple videos I liked on the matter that expanded this connection that came to my mind. Enjoy
(Video Description) Is God the author and the cause of sin? Does God ordain and decree evil and wickedness? Is infant damnation real? We will look at several of these claims from Calvinists and show their similarities to statements made from Mohammed and Islam. John Edwards, Augustus Toplady, James White, John Piper, Justin Peters, RC Sproul, Theodore Zachariades, Gordon Clark, Edwin Palmer, G3, Scott Aniol, Ephesians 1:11, Proverbs 16:4, God’s sovereignty, Satan’s influence, biblical responsibility, Westminster confessions, Council of Dort.
There are other videos out there as well, many make some good points — but I wouldn’t recommend them as a whole. Consistent Calvinist has a decent video however. But I liked this video as it sent me searching for PDFs and text type sources… which will follow. (BTW, I assume the voices in this video are A.I. voices):
(Video Description) John Calvin’s theology exhibits a significant alignment with Islamic doctrine. The analysis focuses on shared tenets such as the denial of free will, the doctrine of double predestination, and the assertion that God ordains sin. By comparing Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion with the Quran and the writings of Islamic scholars, both theological systems emphasise God’s absolute sovereignty to the extent that it overrides human agency and traditional notions of divine justice. This Islamic basis undermines core biblical teachings regarding God’s nature and human responsibility.
The sovereignty of Allah in Islam and God in Calvinism is absolutely deterministic. They are the author of every action, word, and thought, including sin and evil. Moreover, they predetermined before time everything that shall occur in time including who will be given the gift of faith and eternal life, and who will not and be condemned to eternal death.
Calvinist church historian Phillip Schaff writes:
Calvinism…starts with a double decree of predestination, which antedates and is the divine program of human history. This program includes the successive stages of the creation of man, a universal fall and condemnation of the human race, a partial redemption and salvation: all for the glory of God and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice. History is only the execution of the original design… (History of the Christian Church 8.4.114).
Note that Schaff does not shy away from affirming that God Himself decreed the fall of man, and is therefore the author of sin!
The same view was affirmed by Calvin:
By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death (Institutes, 3.21.5).
Islam teaches the same doctrine as Calvinism. According to Islam, Allah is absolutely deterministic. As Caner and Caner write:
One of the foundational doctrines of Islam is the absolute sovereignty, to the point of determinism, of Allah. Allah knows everything, determines everything, decrees everything, and orders everything. Allah is even the cause of evil (Unveiling Islam, p. 109).
It follows that Allah predestines all who will be saved and all who will be eternally damned. Of those who cannot be saved, Surah 2:6-7 states:
It is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing. And on their eyes is a veil; Great is the chastisement they [incur].
Fatalism
It follows that Calvinism and Islam are both inherently fatalistic. In Calvinism, the sovereign God elects those who will be saved and rejects all others, as seen repeatedly in Calvin’s writings:
…some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death (Institutes, 3.21.5).
[God] arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death…(Institutes, 3.23.6).
In the same way, Allah leads astray whom he wills, and saves whom he wills (Surah 14:4):
Allah is exalted and pleased as he sends people to hell: this is the fatalistic claim of Islam. Fatalism is a belief that events are fixed in advance for all time in such a manner that human beings are powerless to change them. In this case, Allah will send to heaven whomever he pleases, and send to hell whomever he pleases (Unveiling Islam, pp. 31-32).
An old joke tells of a Calvinist who fell down the stairs, got up, and said, “Thank God that’s over!” Interestingly, Caner and Caner recount from their Islamic childhood:
Our father used to say, “If you fall and break your leg, say, ‘Allah wills it,’ because he caused it to happen” (Unveiling Islam, p. 109).
The Love of God
Perhaps the most fundamental of all aspects of God’s character is love. “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 John 4:8). “For God so loved the world…” (John 3:16) “God demonstrates His own love toward us…” (Rom 5:8). These are just a few of the numerous Biblical texts which affirm the universal, sacrificial, eternal, personal, and unconditional love of God for all mankind. No character of God is more central to the message of the gospel. The incarnation and substitutionary atonement shout it. Everything in God’s saving action toward mankind declares it. But what do we see in Islam and Calvinism?
Love De-Emphasized
In Islam, Allah is virtually devoid of love. Caner and Caner list 99 names of Allah, and only one includes a reference to love (and this only to those who are “his own”). They write:
When Allah is discussed within the Islamic community, the absence of intimacy, atonement, and omnibenevolence becomes apparent. In all the terms and titles of Allah, one does not encounter terms of intimacy. . . Even the most faithful and devout Muslim refers to Allah only as servant to master; Allah is a distant sovereign (Unveiling Islam, p. 117).
But what do we find in Calvinism? God’s sovereignty—His power and holiness—are emphasized at the expense of His love. Dave Hunt observes:
But where is God’s love? Not once in the nearly thirteen hundred pages of his Institutes does Calvin extol God’s love for mankind. This one-sided emphasis reveals Calvinism’s primary defect: the unbiblical limitations it places upon God’s most glorious attribute. . . Something is radically amiss at the very foundation of this unbiblical doctrine (Debating Calvinism, p. 47).
Limited Love
As we look closer, we find reasons for this muting of God’s love in Islam and Calvinism. For example, Calvin’s God and Islam’s Allah are both bereft of unconditional love for everyone.
Allah’s heart is set against the infidel (kafir). He has no love for the unbeliever, nor is it the task of the Muslim to “evangelize” the unbelieving world (Unveiling Islam, p. 118).
Caner and Caner note, “This is why so many Muslims quickly disown children who have converted to another religion, especially Christianity. Why love them when almighty Allah will never love them?” (Unveiling Islam, p. 33).
But is this any different than Calvinism? Dave Hunt puts it bluntly:
Never forget that the ultimate aim of Calvinism…is to prove that God does not love everyone, is not merciful to all, and is pleased to damn billions. If that is the God of the Bible, Calvinism is true. If that is not the God of the Bible, who “is love” (1 John 4:8), Calvinism is false. The central issue is God’s love and character in relation to mankind, as presented in Scripture (Debating Calvinism, p. 21).
Conditional Love
While Calvinists (but not Muslims) would object to the idea their God has a conditional love, that is the effect of their doctrine.
This doctrine is openly announced in Islam: “Allah loves not transgressors” (Qur’an 2:190). “For [Allah] loves not any ungrateful sinner” (Qur’an 2:276). “For Allah loves not those who do wrong” (Qur’an 3:57). “For Allah loves not the arrogant, the vainglorious” (Qur’an 4:36).
Within Calvinism, God’s love is declared to be unconditional because He has given it “unconditionally”—i.e., not in response to anything we do. But whether or not one is actually loved in this “salvific” way is ultimately determined by what we do. This fact is enshrined by the last of the Five Points of Calvinism, i.e., the Perseverance of the Saints. Since all who are saved will inevitably persevere in living a faithful life, God’s saving love, in the end, is determined by our works.
Notably, as is always the result with synergism (i.e., salvation by faith and works), no amount of good works can give you assurance of salvation.
Insecure Love
It is impossible in Calvinism and Islam to know that you are loved by God. While Calvinists proclaim their belief in eternal security, what they mean is if you are really saved (which you cannot know with absolute certainty until you die), then you will never lose your salvation. But how can you know that? Based on your works. However, the threat of falling into some sin, and thus finding out that you were never really saved in the first place, is a possibility hanging over the head of every Calvinist.
Similarly, and blatantly, Islam teaches this same doctrine:
The Qur’an hints that the believer in Allah can be confident of his or her eternal destiny, but there is no guarantee, even for the most righteous. . . In Islam, the answer to the question, “What must I do to go to heaven?” is “mysterious and complex. . . Islamic tradition argues that the guarantee ofheaven is as impossible to find as a chaste virgin and pure speech. Consequently, the devoutMuslim makes every effort to please Allah and thereby obtain heaven. But fate (kismet) in the hands of the all-powerful Allah will decide the outcome (Unveiling Islam, p. 144).
Clearly, the love of God is at best compromised in both Islam and Calvinism.
This next piece is a clip from a Facebook Post… Here is the title of this post
“Calvinism Is Just Islam Repackaged”
Comparing the Calvinist God and the God of Islam
At first glance, Calvinism and Islam may seem vastly different due to their theological and cultural contexts. However, when examining the portrayal of God in Calvinist theology and Islamic theology, striking similarities emerge. Both traditions emphasize God’s absolute sovereignty, but in ways that challenge concepts of divine love, justice, and human freedom as revealed in the Bible. Here is a comparison of the Calvinist God and the God of Islam:
Absolute Sovereignty and Determinism
Calvinist God:
Calvinism teaches that God’s sovereignty means He unconditionally decrees all events, including human actions, sin, and salvation. This leads to the doctrine of double predestination, where some are chosen for salvation and others are predestined for damnation, entirely apart from human free will.
Islamic God (Allah):
In Islam, Allah’s sovereignty is also absolute and deterministic. The Quran states that Allah guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills (Surah 14:4, Surah 16:93). Human actions, both good and evil, are believed to occur because Allah has willed them.
Comparison:
Both the Calvinist God and Allah are depicted as sovereign in ways that minimize or negate genuine human free will. This deterministic framework portrays God as the ultimate cause of sin and unbelief, raising serious questions about divine justice and human accountability.
Justice and Predestination
Calvinist God:
According to Calvinism, God’s justice allows Him to predestine some to eternal damnation without any consideration of their actions or choices. This is often defended as a “mystery” of God’s will, though it conflicts with the notion of a just and impartial God.
Islamic God (Allah):
In Islam, Allah is described as just but is not bound by human notions of justice. Allah may forgive or punish as He pleases, and there is no guarantee of salvation even for the most devout believer. Salvation depends entirely on Allah’s arbitrary will.
Comparison:
In both systems, God’s justice is portrayed as inscrutable or arbitrary, leading to a sense of fear and uncertainty. The Calvinist doctrine of reprobation and the Islamic belief in Allah’s arbitrary judgment both suggest a God whose actions are beyond moral comprehension.
Love and Mercy
Calvinist God:
Calvinism teaches that God’s love is limited to the elect. Christ’s atonement is “limited” and applies only to those predestined for salvation. The reprobate, by contrast, are excluded from God’s saving love and are created solely to demonstrate His wrath.
Islamic God (Allah):
In Islam, Allah is described as merciful (Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim), but His mercy is conditional. Allah does not love sinners or unbelievers (Surah 3:31-32). His mercy is reserved for those who obey Him and follow His commands.
Comparison:
Both the Calvinist God and Allah show love and mercy only to a select group—either the elect in Calvinism or the obedient in Islam. This stands in stark contrast to the biblical God, who loves all people and desires the salvation of everyone (1 Timothy 2:4, John 3:16).
Human Freedom and Responsibility
Calvinist God:
Human free will is effectively denied in Calvinism. People are bound by their sinful nature and cannot choose God unless they are regenerated first. Even their “choices” are ultimately determined by God’s eternal decree.
Islamic God (Allah):
In Islam, humans have limited free will, but their actions are ultimately determined by Allah’s will. The Quran repeatedly emphasizes that Allah guides or leads astray whomever He wills (Surah 6:125).
Comparison:
In both systems, human freedom is subordinated to divine sovereignty, resulting in a deterministic worldview. This undermines the biblical teaching that humans are created in the image of God with the capacity to freely love and respond to Him (Genesis 1:27, Deuteronomy 30:19).
[….]
Conclusion: The Biblical God Is Distinct
While the Calvinist God and the God of Islam share similarities in their emphasis on sovereignty and determinism, they both fall short of the biblical portrayal of God. The God of the Bible is sovereign, but His sovereignty is expressed through love, justice, and respect for human freedom. He desires the salvation of all, offers grace universally, and seeks a personal relationship with every human being.
The biblical God is not arbitrary or partial but perfectly just, merciful, and relational. His love is unconditional, and His gospel is genuinely good news for all people. This is the God revealed in Jesus Christ, who came to save the world, not just a select few (John 3:17).
Just an additional thought on Calvinism by this wonderful sermon that includes an excellent analogous story showing how absurd Calvinistic Reformed thinking is.
The Absurdity of Reformed Theology
Nov. 6, 2022, Adult Sunday School at Truth Baptist Church. 2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
If determinism is true then either God is evil and the author of evil or all talk of good and evil, of praise and blame, of moral responsibility, and of justice is meaningless and incomprehensible with reference to God. That is, if God can cause or determine evil and yet remain good, and if God can punish those who do exactly and only what He has meticulously caused and determined them to do and yet remain just, then we have no idea who God is or what He might or might not do or what Scripture could possibly mean when it calls Him “good” and “just.” (Günther H. Juncker, “The Dilemma of Theistic Determinism”)
So, on my Facebook, I posted the following statement:
This actually garnered some attention, some of which I will note below, as, it led to me unfriending someone [PETER DH] because he refused to engage in conversation. Part of the reason he refused was surely a pride issue. Showing that there was no self reflection on his own narcissistic tendencies. [I am using specific language here that will become apparent as you read along.]
However, first I feel I must explain the above. Here is an adapted response to a friend, TODD, whom I would wish to emulate in conversation, unlike PETER.
I do not think people understand, or should I say, follow TULIP to it’s logical end. Calvin did, and Piper and many others have. While they use [warp] language to try and skirt the issue, they would rather bring God’s nature low and introduce not mysteries into theology, but philosophical contradictions. So, God ends up being the author of evil and man has no accountability. He can do no other. Why… not because of mother nature – that would be GAIA paganism. Our nature is because of God [in Calvinism/TULIP]. Romans says we have no excuse… this seems like the perfect one to me.
Again, I honestly do not think ppl understand TULIP. Nor do I think they understand my quoting of Calvin and others. They all think salvation [and damnation] are 100% God’s choice, and 0% mans [as in humankind]. Calvin even taught that Adam and Eve did not have free will. So, Piper, White, Calvin, etc., etc. say that. Not me. I am merely passing on how founders and theologians define it. Again, Wayne Grudem doesn’t even think we pray real – free – prayers.
💥Total Depravity: Sin controls every part of man. He is spiritually dead and blind, and unable to obey, believe, or repent. He continually sins, for his nature is completely evil. We do not believe in mother nature. [adapted from MacArthur] This condition of man is by God’s design. 💥Unconditional Election: God chose the elect solely on the basis of his free grace, not anything in them. He has a special love for the elect. God left the rest to be damned for their sins. [ALSO TRUE: Unconditional Reprobation – which is counter to God’s holiness.] 💥Irresistible Grace: Saving grace is irresistible, for the Holy Spirit is invincible and intervenes in man’s heart. He sovereignly gives the new birth, faith, and repentance to the elect. PPL have to be ontologically changed [given a new heart] first in order to say, “I had a bad heart” [They cannot -on Calvinism’s account- ask for one.]
This is why Calvinism has created second category of many ideas that muddy the water of the simple Gospel: Calvinism requires..
2 types of love expressed by God
2 types of grace via God
2 callings from God
2 wills of God
ETC
“Not one drop of rain falls without God’s sure command.” (Calvin)
“God by his secret bridle so holds and governs (persons) that they cannot move even one of their fingers without it accomplishing the work of God much more than their own.” (Calvin)
In order to understand this better, theologians have come up with the term “compatibilism” to describe the concurrence of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. — John Hendryx
John Hendryx is the creator and editor of Monergism . com). This quote from an article at Hendryx’s site was sent from Phil Johnson to Leighton Flowers during a back n forth on Twitter.
Viewing man from a compatibilist perspective means that while fallen man freely chooses to sin, he cannot freely choose to believe in the Gospel unless God gives him a new nature and past that assures he will “freely choose” to exercise faith in Christ; however, in either state, man cannot choose to do other than he did choose because while freely choosing, he has no salvific choice.
It is God’s choice, call, and changing a person to say yes, irresistibly. So, there is no “offer,” there is only force – for the believer and for the damned.
Now, the person I responded to regarding this, someone different that PETER DH, is someone who can feel obliged to disagree, respond, challenge, and the like. Knowing we are still both lovers of Christ — we just disagree with each others theology [and philosophy] of soteriology…. and the working out of God’s character via TULIP.
I myself believe like article three of the Baptist Faith and Message creed says (pic to the right).
Unlike PETER DH, who came in accusing me of anti-Christian, Marxist, Narcissism and the persecution of the saints… Todd is much better at exchanges, and honestly, I wish to be more like him in such conversations. Todd is gracious and honest, and I am proud to know him — even if only what I term as a “cyber friend” — and battle crazy Leftists with him.
As an example of the crazy shit PETER DH said:
Stop persecuting Christians for faith in Jesus Christ alone. And be honest about yourself; you are no Christian but a narcissist who believes himself superior to everyone else.
And to some extent, the Bible calls everyone, especially those born again, to battle one’s pride. So he is partially right about that. But as you will see, PETER’s broad claims show how many in the “Reformed” tradition think they are elect-elect. Saying they are “humbled by the Doctrines of Grace, but are in fact scared to death [not all] to look down the “corridors of time” and bring statements to their logical conclusions.
Because, if theistic determinism is true, then thought and choice are mere illusions. Al Mohler speaks to this a bit in this article that I excerpt:
The diverse theories of determinism propose that our choices and decisions are not an exercise of the will, but simply the inevitable outcome of factors outside our control. As Scientific American explains, determinists argue that “everything that happens is determined by what happened before — our actions are inevitable consequences of the events leading up to the action.”
In other words, free will doesn’t exist. Used in this sense, free will means the exercise of authentic moral choice and agency. We choose to take one action rather than the other, and must then take responsibility for that choice.
This link between moral choice and moral responsibility is virtually instinctive to humans. As a matter of fact, it is basic to our understanding of what it means to be human. We hold each other responsible for actions and choices. But if all of our choices are illusory — and everything is merely the “inevitable consequence” of something beyond our control, moral responsibility is an exercise in delusion.
This is why books like “Anyone Can Be Saved” are written, to protect the Gospel message of Good News! I agree with the back cover description that says: “that any person who hears the gospel can be saved” – Amen and Amen! [a scan of my copy is to the right]:
Anyone Can Be Saved articulates a biblical-theological explanation of the doctrine of salvation in light of the rise of Calvinistic theology among Southern Baptist churches in the United States. Ten scholars, pastors, and leaders advocate for the ten articles of the Traditional Statement by appealing to Scripture, the Baptist Faith and Message, and a variety of biblical, theological, and philosophical writings. Although many books address the doctrine of salvation, these authors consciously set aside the Calvinist-Arminian presuppositions that have framed this discussion in western theology for centuries. The contributors are unified in their conviction that any person who hears the gospel can be saved, a view that was found among earlier Baptists as well as other Christian groups today.This book is not meant to be the final word on Southern Baptist soteriology, but is offered as a peaceable contribution to the wider conversation on the doctrine of salvation.
Here are some quotes that apply as well to Calvinism and “Reformed” thinking as well as the atheist, all of these are challenges “godly determined outcomes” in Calvinism:
Atheism—pure, unadulterated atheism…. The universe was matter only, and eternal Spirit was a word without a meaning. Liberty was a word without a meaning. There was no liberty in the universe; liberty was a word void of sense. Every thought, word, passion, sentiment, feeling, all motion and action was necessary [determinism]. All beings and attributes were of eternal necessity; conscience, morality, were all nothing but fate. This was their creed, and this was to perfect human nature, and convert the earth into a paradise of pleasure… Why, then, should we abhor the word “God,” and fall in love with the word “fate”? We know there exists energy and intellect enough to produce such a world as this, which is a sublime and beautiful one, and a very benevolent one, notwithstanding all our snarling; and a happy one, if it is not made otherwise by our own fault.
If what he says is true, he says it merely as the result of his heredity and environment, and nothing else. He does not hold his determinist views because they are true, but because he has such-and-such stimuli; that is, not because the structure of the structure of the universe is such-and-such but only because the configuration of only part of the universe, together with the structure of the determinist’s brain, is such as to produce that result…. They [determinists – I would posit any philosophical naturalist] want to be considered as rational agents arguing with other rational agents; they want their beliefs to be construed as beliefs, and subjected to rational assessment; and they want to secure the rational assent of those they argue with, not a brainwashed repetition of acquiescent pattern. Consistent determinists should regard it as all one whether they induce conformity to their doctrines by auditory stimuli or a suitable injection of hallucinogens: but in practice they show a welcome reluctance to get out their syringes, which does equal credit to their humanity and discredit to their views. Determinism, therefore, cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinists’ arguments as being really arguments, but as being only conditioned reflexes. Their statements should not be regarded as really claiming to be true, but only as seeking to cause us to respond in some way desired by them.
J. R. Lucas, The Freedom of the Will (New York: NY: Oxford University Press, 1970), 114, 115.
One of the most intriguing aspects mentioned by Ravi Zacharias of a lecture he attended entitled Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate, given by Stephen Hawking, who is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, Isaac Newton’s chair, was this admission by Dr. Hawking’s, was Hawking’s admission that if “we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free.”[1]In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms?[2] Michael Polyni mentions that this “reduction of the world to its atomic elements acting blindly in terms of equilibrations of forces,” a belief that has prevailed “since the birth of modern science, has made any sort of teleological view of the cosmos seem unscientific…. [to] the contemporary mind.”[3]
[1] Ravi Zacharias, The Real Face of Atheism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 118, 119. [2] My own summation. [3] Michael Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning (Chicago, IL: Chicago university Press, 1977), 162.
What merit would attach to moral virtue if the acts that form such habitual tendencies and dispositions were not acts of free choice on the part of the individual who was in the process of acquiring moral virtue? Persons of vicious moral character would have their characters formed in a manner no different from the way in which the character of a morally virtuous person was formed—by acts entirely determined, and that could not have been otherwise by freedom of choice.
Mortimer J. Adler, Ten Philosophical Mistakes (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1985), 154.
If we were free persons, with faculties which we might carelessly use or willfully misuse, the fact might be explained; but the pre-established harmony excludes this supposition. And since our faculties lead us into error, when shall we trust them? Which of the many opinions they have produced is really true? By hypothesis, they all ought to be true, but, as they contradict one another, all cannot be true. How, then, distinguish between the true and the false? By taking a vote? That cannot be, for, as determined, we have not the power to take a vote. Shall we reach the truth by reasoning? This we might do, if reasoning were a self-poised, self verifying process; but this it cannot be in a deterministic system. Reasoning implies the power to control one’s thoughts, to resist the processes of association, to suspend judgment until the transparent order of reason has been readied. It implies freedom, therefore. In a mind which is controlled by its states, instead of controlling them, there is no reasoning, but only a succession of one state upon another. There is no deduction from grounds, but only production by causes. No belief has any logical advantage over any other, for logic is no longer possible.
Borden P Bowne, Metaphysics: A Study In First Principles (originally published in 1882; London: Sampson Low, Searle & Rivington, 2005), 105.
How do leaders like Piper see God’s determining power that controls mankind? Here is a snippet from a book he was co-editor on:
Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ
“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).
John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.
Reflection on the subject has led me to agree with Ward. The compatibilist view seems (to quote Kant) a “wretched subterfuge”. Our free will is not truly free if determinism is still the bottom line.
There are major problems created by both Christian and atheist determinism. Firstly, there are two major casualties when we dispense with free will in the Calvinist framework. Love and justice.
Love is only truly love when freely given and freely received.
We are familiar with the fairy tale of the enchantress who puts the prince under a spell to make him ‘love’ her. But we know it’s not really love – it’s a delusion. Being manipulated in such a way is the opposite of love. By the same token, if God has pre-contrived our every desire so that we had no other option but to love our wife, love our children and to love him, then we are acting as little more than robots.
Likewise, any meaningful sense of justice is also lost under the deterministic view of God.
Can the person who commits a heinous offence be judged guilty of a crime if they were bound to act in such a way by the divine decree of God? Indeed, it could be argued that God himself is more culpable than they are. Equally, how can those God has predestined to hell be considered guilty of rejecting him, if they had no option to choose him?
Atheist determinists must face exactly the same problems and questions as their Calvinist counterparts. The truth is, it’s difficult to ground love, justice or any of the values that make life meaningful in a purely material universe. As Bertrand Russell, one of the 20th Century’s most renowned atheists, wrote: “Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving…his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms.”
Cheery stuff. But the problem is even worse for atheist determinists than they realise. For, in such an accidental universe, how can they even trust in their own choice to be an atheist?
Losing reason
Most atheists I know pride themselves on the use of reason and evidence in their arguments against God. But, in a purely naturalistic worldview, all that’s really happening at a fundamental level is a variety of atoms bumping into other atoms, triggering electrochemical responses in the brain. What’s more, because the universe runs on the deterministic principle of cause and effect, all of those collisions were predetermined in the distant past. You and your beliefs are the product of a long chain of inevitable physical events.
So when you come to the conclusion that there is no God, that’s just the way your brain happens to end up fizzing. And when I claim that there is a God, that’s just the way my brain fizzes. But the atoms aren’t doing any reasoning. It’s all just a series of physical events – snooker balls bouncing off each other. They aren’t the least bit interested in the truth or falsity of the thoughts they are producing.
As CS Lewis wrote: “If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”
I have more in another post, but this excerpt of CS LEWIS is needed here, and it deals with the opening quote at the “tippy-top” of the post from Günther H. Juncker:
“Divine Goodness”
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)
What a horrible view of God if Calvinism is true. And it is this “if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good”, and this is the bottom line. It is not an antinomy to be accepted and inserted into Biblical truth. It is a lie from the pit of hell. AGAIN!
“If determinism is true then either God is evil and the author of evil or all talk of good and evil, of praise and blame, of moral responsibility, and of justice is meaningless and incomprehensible with reference to God. That is, if God can cause or determine evil and yet remain good, and if God can punish those who do exactly and only what He has meticulously caused and determined them to do and yet remain just, then we have no idea who God is or what He might or might not do or what Scripture could possibly mean when it calls Him “good” and “just.” (Günther H. Juncker, “The Dilemma of Theistic Determinism”)
Okay, back to this:
Here is how the conversation started with a friend (click to enlarge), I removed last names for privacy:
Now let’s shift gears to PETER and his train wreck of a response[s]. I am going to be lazy and just have picture of the discussion:
In the matter of a few minutes, PETER managed to post many comments on on other parts of my Facebook wall. This one almost every Christian could say “amen” to, but PETER has the rose colored glasses of Augustinian semi-Gnosticism in view here, so it is tainted to say the least:
However, I wanted to start with the comment I have the red arrow pointing to, because this was a test [in my mind] to see what kind of man I was dealing with. Someone who was honest and humble enough to admit when he was wrong – and so someone worth engaging with? Or was he like the prideful, not willing to admit when in error and correct it. I found out:
At this point PETER [I can only assume] saw the date of the publication of the above and the below source I quoted from. Why? because this was the next “timeline” out of his keyboard — at the bottom of this run:
This is when I knew I was dealing with someone note willing to pause and reassess his plain statement of the origin of the word. So I pressed a bit more…
So I made the point stronger, called out PETER to once again retract his statement, whether he was ignorant of the facts, or so blinded by his worldview (semi-Gnosticism) that his pride was narcissistically holding his tongue hostage. right after the above I posted this as well as part of the above:
He never showed any form of humility and acquiesced to the evidence. His election via Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace seemingly didn’t move the pendulum on the “T” in TULIP… at all. So I opted to unfriend him rather than he continuing to lie on my FB wall. What was/is the final outcome of the whole “debacle”? I will let PETER DH take us out:
Sean, You are not a Christian. Quit bothering people with anti-social behavior. This is bizarre.
There you have it, the elect-of-the-elect — able to sit in for God and read the heart of man.
APPENDIX
Todd (BTW, a rejection of TULIP is not a rejection of the 5-SOLAS. Just to be clear… it is in fact freeing faith [by faith alone] from deterministic principles. Piper says he literally cried for three days after realizing the implication of this idea. Sproul says it is a dreadful doctrine and was brough kicking into its paradigm. Calvin himself says “The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess.” – as a reminder, the GOSPEL is Good News)
This is a better explanation. God created us to respond to His calling – through nature [natural revelation], and special revelation [the Gospel call from Scripture, preachers, reading it, hearing it, etc.].
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14)
The story [not mine] of a person climbing an infinite rope to salvation, after tiring and saying “I cannot go on any longer” he is told to “let go and trust Jesus.” In reformed and Calvinistic presuppositions, even letting go is a work towards salvation. It is as if a guy in shark infested waters, almost drowning with said sharks nipping at his heels is thrown a life preserver that happens to catch him perfectly and he is drug to a boat. That person would never say “look how I saved myself.”
So salvation is 100% a work of God, but we are created to respond. TULIP says we cannot even do that. That makes God’s freedom/sovereignty a slave to gnosis as introduced [church history] by Augustine, a 10-year treasurer and member of Manny’s branch of Gnosticism. The Manichaeans represent the Persian branch of Gnosticism, and they taught both determinism and total depravity. However, their determinism was based upon dualistic mythology. (Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion [Beacon Press, 1958], 227.)
✂️ John Calvin admits that his theology was first clearly seen in Augustine. How did Augustine arrive at his views on election and predestination, which were not consistent with the churches teaching for the first 300 years? It should be noted that Augustine was himself a Gnostic Manichaean for nearly a decade before converting to Catholicism. Calvin wrote, “Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.” John Calvin, “A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God.”
✂️ Loraine Boettner, writes: “It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the Gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God’s absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect.”
I [as do all non-Calvinist Christians] believe in predestination, but not unto salvation. Once saved by the living message of the word that can cut between soul and body, we look forward to the predestined/fulfilled promise of our Savior: “Not only that, but we ourselves who have the Spirit [born again already] as the firstfruits—we also groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” (Romans 8 ) “In him you also were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed. The Holy Spirit is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of the possession, to the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:13). Think of all the analogies of Paul and a race:
1 Corinthians 9:24-27:
The Apostle Paul uses the metaphor of a race to emphasize the need for self-discipline and purpose in the Christian life. He writes, “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way as to take the prize. Everyone who competes in the games trains with strict discipline. They do it for a crown that is perishable, but we do it for a crown that is imperishable. Therefore, I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight like I am beating the air. No, I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.”
Hebrews 12:1-2:
The author of Hebrews encourages believers to persevere in their spiritual race by looking to Jesus as the ultimate example. “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off every encumbrance and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with endurance the race set out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Philippians 3:12-14:
Paul expresses his personal commitment to pressing on toward the goal of knowing Christ fully. “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been perfected, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize of God’s heavenly calling in Christ Jesus.”
All races have a finish line, an end goal. That is what is predestined. Believers “wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23). The full revelation of the believer’s adoption is freedom from the corruption present in the world. Being a member of God’s family includes the ultimate privilege of being like him (1 John 3:2) and being conformed to the glorious body of Christ (Philippians 3:21). This is part of the promised inheritance for all God’s children (Romans 8:16-17; Ephesians 1:13).
I sent a friend the video of Dr. Theodore Zachariades stating that God wills [causes, not just permits] a man to be unfaithful to his wife.
God works all things after the Council of His will. Even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so! And when He wants to, he orders those to commit adultery when he wants to! (Video)
My friend dismissed this person as a hyper-Calvinist. But as the video below notes, using his definition of a “hyper Calvinist,” A.W. Pink, John Piper, Jeff Durbin, James White, and many-many more, would thus be considered the same. Because of the age restriction, the video must be watch on YouTube, link in pic.
When I asked him: “Question RW, is Piper, Calvin, White and Durbin hyper-Calvinists?” He simply replied “Fishing Bait.” But this is an interesting phenomena… and after decades of encountering Mormons and J-Dubs, the disconnect is the same. I get links and not actualizing on statements made when challenged. When shown a person who follows to the end the logical conclusion of theistic determinism found in Calvinism, the person who is the Calvinist is dismissed as a “hyper-Calvinist” by their fellow Calvinist’s if they are challenged. When that label is then applied rightly to others for the same reason — meaning, using RW’s definition of what a hyper-Calvinist is — then all these others have said worse; and would be by definition, hyper-Calvinists.
Two quick examples. 1st John Calvin, then, John Piper:
John CALVIN:
… how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission. . . . It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them. . . . Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.
John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11
John Piper:
Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ
“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).
John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42. (FULLER QUOTE VIA THIS PDF)
Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation. In his book The Bondage of the Will, written in response to Erasmus’ essay On Free Will, Luther said:
[The] omnipotence and foreknowledge of God, I repeat, utterly destroy the doctrine of “free-will”… Doubtless it gives the greatest possible offence to common sense or natural reason, that God, Who is proclaimed as being full of mercy and goodness, and so on, should of His own mere will abandon, harden and damn men, as though He delighted in the sins and great eternal torments of such poor wretches. It seems an iniquitous, cruel, intolerable thought to think of God; and it is this that has been such a stumbling block to so many great men down through the ages. And who would not stumble at it? I have stumbled at it myself more than once, down to the deepest pit of despair, so that I wished I had never been made a man. (That was before I knew how health-giving that despair was, and how close to grace.)
In this passage Luther seems to be aware that there is a deep moral problem with aspects of his view… [RPT:before redefining “grace” that is – almost like what is, is.]
In a reference in that above book is this paper: “I Believe In Divine Sovereignty,” by Thomas H. McCall in Trinity Journal (TRINJ 29:2 [Fall 2008]), 209-210. Of which I excerpt:
… He [John Piper] works long and hard to illustrate this [theistic determinism] from Rom 9:1-23, which he concludes is about the purposes of God being preserved “by means of the predestination of individuals to their respective eternal destines.”11 And we are not to think that God is righteous in spite of such action—instead we are to see that God is righteous because of this action, for the “heart of Paul’s defense” is this: “in choosing unconditionally those on whom he will have mercy and those whom he will harden God is not unrighteous, for in this ‘electing purpose’ he is acting out of a full allegiance to his name and esteem of his glory.”12
This all-determining action of God notably includes predestination and election, but it extends far beyond—it extends to everything. God determines all events that occur in the universe, including all demonic and satanic action.13 As Mark R. Talbot puts it, God creates, sends, instigates, and moves others to do evil, because “nothing that exists or occurs falls outside God’s ordaining will.”14 Talbot makes the point with relentless and unmistakable clarity:
Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed. God’s foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events.15
Make no mistake: “when even the worst of evils befall us, they do not ultimately come from anywhere other than God’s hand.”16 …
NOTES:
11.John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 218, cf. 56-73.
12. Ibid., 219.
13.On this see John Piper, “Suffering and the Sovereignty of God: Ten Aspects of God’s Sovereignty Over Satan and Satan’s Hand in It,” in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, 19-30. Piper here uses the rather confusing (given his determinism) language of “permission.” By my lights, what he means when he says that God “permits” something is this (a) God determines it to occur and then (b) does not act so as to override his previous ordination. Regarding talk of “permission,” I think that John Calvin’s approach is more consistent, [….] see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion I.xviii.1, and John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 696.
14. Mark R. Talbot, “‘All the Good That Is Ours in Christ: Seeing God’s Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do to Us,” in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, 43 (41-43), emphasis original.
15.Ibid., 43-44.
16. lbid., 47.
Dave Hunt is right to say that Calvin uses unbiblical positions in dealing with this Augustinian determinism:
There is yet another question that troubles many: If man is free to choose between options, would that not in itself deny both God’s sovereigntyand His foreknowledge? Luther claimed that this question was the very heart of the Reformation and of the gospel itself. In fact, Luther dogmatically insisted that it was impossible for God to foreknow the future and for man at the same time to be a free agent to act as he wills.
Believing firmly in God’s foreknowledge, Luther wrote an entire book titled The Bondage of the Will, to prove that the very idea of man’s free will is a fallacy and an illusion. Several reasons have already been given as to why Luther was wrong on this point, and that issue will be dealt with further in the next chapter.
Though Calvin took so much from Augustine, like Luther he also rejected the Augustinian belief that God could foreknow the future, while at the same time man could have a free will. According to Calvin, foreknowledge leaves no room whatsoever for free will, because foreknowledge is the same as predestination:
If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question [of free will] … but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed them, they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience. …
If this frigid fiction [of free will] is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which everything depends, he rules over all? (Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 6–7.)
Calvin repeatedly uses such unbiblical and utterly fallacious reasoning.
The Calvinist assumes a contradiction between sovereignty and free will that doesn’t exist. The fact that God is able to allow man freedom of choice, while still effecting His purposes unhindered, is all the more glorifying to His sovereign wisdom, power, and foreknowledge.
In order to understand this better theologians have come up with the term “compatibilism” to describe the concurrence of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. — John Hendryx (John Hendryx is the creator and editor of Monergism.com | SEE: “We are not Determinists!” for more)
Here is A.W. Tozer’s take of the above:
Here is my view: God sovereignlydecreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, What doest thou? Mans will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.
Tozer is saying that the Calvinist God is too small. Something I run through with Mormon Elders if they decide to come into my home to discuss further their “mission.” In a similar vein, philosophical determinism (atheism/evolutionary paradigms). In what follows — quote’wise — if this is true fore secular forms of determinism, then so to it applies to THEISTIC DETERMINISM:
Atheists reject evidence as illusory…
Why?
Because they “have to.”
Donald C. Abel in his book, Fifty Readings in Philosophy, asks us to imagine for a moment that you walking along and come to a fork in the road. One street is called Divinity Avenue, the other Oxford Street. Assuming you have to walk down one of them, there is a confrontation of choice. Continuing he says,
Now, I ask you seriously to suppose that this ambiguity of my choice is real; and then to make the impossible hypothesis that the choice is made twice over, and each time falls on a different street. In other words, imagine that I first walk through Divinity Avenue, and then imagine that the powers governing the universe annihilate ten minutes of time with all that it contained, and set me back at the door of this hall just as I was before the choice was made. Imagine then that, everything else being the same, I now make a different choice and traverse Oxford Street. You, as passive spectators, look on and see the two alternative universes; one of them with me walking through Divinity Avenue in it, the other with the same me walking through Oxford Street. Now, if you are determinists, you believe one of these universes eternally impossible, because of the intrinsic irrationality or accidentality somewhere involved in it. However, looking outwardly at these universes, can you say which is the impossible and accidental one, and which the rational and necessary one?
Donald C. Abel, Fifty Readings in Philosophy (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 296.
“He thus acknowledged the need for any theory to allow that humans have genuine freedom to recognize the truth. He (again, correctly) saw that if all thought, belief, feeling, and choice are determined (i.e., forced on humans by outside conditions) then so is the determinists’ acceptance of the theory of determinism forced on them by those same conditions. In that case they could never claim to know their theory is true since the theory making that claim would be self-referentially incoherent. In other words, the theory requires that no belief is ever a free judgment made on the basis of experience or reason, but is always a compulsion over which the believer has no control.”
Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2005), 174.
The implications of strict naturalism are grim or even counterintuitive. For example, Bertrand Russell affirmed that any philosophy hoping to stand must ultimately take for granted the (naturalistic) picture of unguided causes and accidental collocations of atoms and must be built on the “firm foundation of unyielding despair.” When it comes to naturalism’s implications for morality, naturalist Kai Nielsen contends that reason can’t bring us to morality; this picture ”is not a pleasant one,” and that reflecting on it ”depresses me.” When it comes to consciousness, naturalist Daniel Dennett considers it an illusion- -something fellow-atheist Thomas Nagel finds utterly confused:
You may well ask how consciousness can be an illusion, since every illusion is itself a conscious experience …. So it cannot appear to me that I am conscious though I am not … the reality of my own consciousness is the one thing I cannot be deluded about …. The view [of Dennett] is so unnatural that it is hard to convey …. Dennett asks us to turn our backs on what is glaringly obvious. … And he asks us to do this because the reality of such phenomena is incompatible with the scientific materialism that in his view sets the outer bounds of reality. He is, in Aristotle’s words, ”maintaining a thesis at all costs.”
Jaegwon Kim acknowledges the stark picture painted by the naturalistic brush. Naturalism is ”imperialistic; it demands ‘full coverage’ … and exacts a terribly high ontological price.”
Paul Copan and Charles Taliaferro (editors), The Naturalness of Belief: New Essays on Theism’s Rationality (New York, NY: Lexington Books, 2019), viii
I could go on, but you get the point. To fashion the issue for you to see, Jaegwon Kim could have said:
Theistic determinism is ”imperialistic; it demands ‘full coverage’ … and exacts a terribly high ontological price.” (added for emphasis)
What is this price? Here is just one example… God vs. God:
Here is a Facebook post I recently posted:
“What is there for God to harden, provoke, or restrain if not the autonomous will of creatures?”
If God knows the future because He planned the future [Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, etc.], when God hardens, provokes, or restraines…. is He working against Himself?
If the “T” of TULIP [total depravity] is a reality, wouldn’t hardening, provoking, or restraining someone be the same thing as digging up bodies in a cemetery and putting blindfolds on the rotting cadavers?
In other words, does He plan the abuse of a child just to redeem that act in some way to bring glory to Himself? Is Satan superfluous?
Are all the prescriptions in the Bible making God out to be duplicitous – since he has planned our actions thru determinitive means?
You could not argue that “evil” is really “evil.” Eastern philosophies run into the same problems as the atheist’s/evolutionist’s I just noted above. The Calvinist runs into the same issue. And it is a distortion of Christianity (T.U.L.I.P.):
(Eph 1:11) “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒ø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually 𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).
John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.
Or…
Is it more like Tozer notes — which lowers man’s position by making him/her responsible to God’s law; and keeps God’s holiness and glory intact as He truly redeems or judges such actions (is He judging Himself in Calvinism? Working against His own will? Secretly?)
TOZER:
God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.
There is an analogy of two chess players. As you walk up on one professional chess player, he is sitting on one side of the bench, and at the end of his move he gets up walks to the other side, sits down, thinks a moment and makes his move. This process is repeated until the game is over and the chess player wins.
Guaranteed.
When you ask him why he is playing chess alone, he says to ensure his victory. Or as Piper notes in his book astonished by God: “…the reason God knows the future is because he plans the future and accomplishes it.”
You wouldn’t think too highly of his skills, would you? As you walk down the road a bit further, you come across another chess master. This time however, there is a line of players, world famous chess players, lined up as far as the eye could see. As you watched, the one chess player was handily beating every player that sat before him. Player after player.
With whom would you be more impressed with?
And it is this perceived contradiction that leads Calvinists to a polluting of God’s character, which A.W. Tozer tackles in his book, Knowledge of the Holy. Here is a excerpt…. I changed a couple words to read better:
… While a complete explanation of the origin of sin eludes us, there are a few things we do know. In His sovereignwisdom God has permitted evil to exist in carefully restricted areas of His creation, a kind of fugitive outlaw whose activities are temporary and limited in scope. In doing this God has acted according to His infinite wisdom and goodness. More than that no one knows at present; and more than that no one needs to know. The name of God is sufficient guarantee of the perfection of His works.
Another real problem created by the doctrine of the divine sovereigntyhas to do with the will of man. If God rules His universe by His sovereigndecrees, how is it possible for man to exercise free choice? And if he cannot exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct? Is he not a mere puppet whose actions are determined by a behind-the-scenes God who pulls the strings as it pleases Him?
The attempt to answer these questions has divided the Christian church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin. Most Christians are content to get into one camp or the other and deny either sovereigntyto God or free will to man. It appears possible, however, to reconcile these two positions without doing violence to either, although the effort that follows may prove deficient to partisans of one camp or the other.
Here is my view: God sovereignlydecreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereignwill of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, What doest thou? Mans will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereigncould not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.
Perhaps a homely illustration might help us to understand. An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of sovereignty.
On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port.
Both freedom and sovereigntyare present here and they do not contradict each other. So it is, I believe, with mans freedom and the sovereigntyof God. The mighty liner of Gods sovereigndesign keeps its steady course over the sea of history. God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfilment of those eternal purposes which He purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began. We do not know all that is included in those purposes, but enough has been disclosed to furnish us with a broad outline of things to come and to give us good hope and firm assurance of future well-being.
We know that God will fulfil every promise made to the prophets; we know that sinners will some day be cleansed out of the earth; we know that a ransomed company will enter into the joy of God and that the righteous will shine forth in the kingdom of their Father; we know that Gods perfections will yet receive universal acclamation, that all created intelligences will own Jesus Christ Lord to the glory of God the Father, that the present imperfect order will be done away, and a new heaven and a new earth be established forever.
Toward all this God is moving with infinite wisdom and perfect precision of action. No one can dissuade Him from His purposes; nothing turn Him aside from His plans. Since He is omniscient, there can be no unforeseen circumstances, no accidents. As He is sovereign, there can be no countermanded orders, no breakdown in authority; and as He is omninpotent, there can be no want of power to achieve His chosen ends. God is sufficient unto Himself for all these things.
In the meanwhile things are not as smooth as this quick outline might suggest. The mystery of iniquity doth already work. Within the broad field of Gods sovereign, permissive will the deadly conflict of good with evil continues with increasing fury. God will yet have His way in the whirlwind and the storm, but the storm and the whirlwind are here, and as responsible beings we must make our choice in the present moral situation.
Certain things have been decreed by the free determination of God, and one of these is the law of choice and consequences. God has decreed that all who willingly commit themselves to His Son Jesus Christ in the obedience of faith shall receive eternal life and become sons of God. He has also decreed that all who love darkness and continue in rebellion against the high authority of heaven shall remain in a state of spiritual alienation and suffer eternal death at last.
Reducing the whole matter to individual terms, we arrive at some vital and highly personal conclusions. In the moral conflict now raging around us whoever is on Gods side is on the winning side and cannot lose; whoever is on the other side is on the losing side and cannot win. Here there is no chance, no gamble. There is freedom to choose which side we shall be on but no freedom to negotiate the results of the choice once it is made. By the mercy of God we may repent a wrong choice and alter the consequences by making a new and right choice. Beyond that we cannot go.
The whole matter of moral choice centers around Jesus Christ. Christ stated it plainly: He that is not with me is against me, and No man cometh unto the Father, but by me. The gospel message embodies three distinct elements: an announcement, a command, and a call. It announces the good news of redemption accomplished in mercy; it commands all men everywhere to repent and it calls all men to surrender to the terms of grace by believing on Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
We must all choose whether we will obey the gospel or turn away in unbelief and reject its authority. Our choice is our own, but the consequences of the choice have already been determined by the sovereignwill of God, and from this there is no appeal.
This post is going to be a bit long, as if that is abnormal. (I am including an entire chapter from WHAT LOVE IS THIS? as you proceed… like I said, long.) For the record, I am not an Arminian, their view of prevenient grace is too Calvinistic for me. I added a few graphics to drive these excellent points home that Jerry Walls made in his larger presentation.
“Perhaps Christ died for you.”
“Maybe God so loved you.”
“Christ shed His blood for you, perhaps.”
“Salvation has been provided for you, maybe.”
“Possibly God commendeth His love toward you.”
“Hopefully He’s the propitiation for your sins.”
“There is a possibility that Christ died as your Substitute.”
“I bring you good news, maybe.”
“It’s possible that Christ died for you. If you get saved then we know that He did die for you, but if you continue to reject Him then He did not die for you.”
“Christ died for you only if you believe that Christ died for you (thus proving you are elect), but if you do not believe this and if you continue in your unbelief until the day you die, then Christ did not die for you.”
Here is Dave Hunt discussing the issue in a larger lecture: Why Baptist’s would import Calvinism into the pulpit and put up with it is the theme of the topic.
Here is chapter 5 from Hunt’s book
5
Irresistibly Imposed “Christianity”
Arguably, one of Satan’s cleverest and most effective strategies was to delude the Emperor Constantine with a false conversion. Accounts differ, but whether this came about through a vision or a dream as recounted by Eusebius and Lactantius,1 Constantine saw a “cross” in the sky and heard a “voice” proclaiming (by some accounts the words were inscribed on the cross), “In this sign thou shalt conquer.” In the prior year the god Apollo had also promised him victory.
Constantine’s edicts of toleration gave every man “a right to choose his religion according to the dictates of his own conscience and honest conviction, without compulsion and interference from the government.” 2 Schaff views Constantine’s conversion as a wonderful advance for Christianity: “The church ascends the throne of the Caesars under the banner of the cross, and gives new vigor and lustre to the hoary empire of Rome. 3 In fact, that “conversion” began the corruption of the church and its marriage to the world. 4
How could a true follower of the Christ whose kingdom is not of this world and whose servants do not wage war proceed to wage war in His name, and under the banner of His cross to conquer with the sword? Of course, the Crusaders did the same, slaughtering both Muslims and Jews to retake the “holy land” under Pope Urban II’s pledge (matching Muhammad’s and the Qur’an’s promise to Muslims) of full forgiveness of sins for those who died in this holy war (Muslim jihad). But it was all very Augustinian. The City of God had to be defended!
From Constantine To Augustine
As Durant and other historians have pointed out, Constantine never renounced his loyalty to the pagan gods. He abolished neither the Altar of Victory in the Senate nor the Vestal Virgins who tended the sacred fire of the goddess Vesta. The Sun-god, not Christ, continued to be honored on the imperial coins. In spite of the “cross” (actually the cross of the god Mithras) on his shields and military banners, Constantine had a medallion created honoring the Sun for the “liberation” of Rome; and when he prescribed a day of rest it was again in the name of the Sun-god (“the day celebrated by the veneration of the Sun” 5) and not the Son of God. 6 Durant reminds us that throughout his “Christian” life Constantine used pagan as well as Christian rites and continued to rely upon “pagan magic formulas to protect crops and heal disease.”7
That Constantine murdered those who might have had a claim to his throne, including his son Crispus, a nephew and brother-in-law, is further evidence that his “conversion” was, as many historians agree, a clever political maneuver to unite the empire. Historian Philip Hughes, himself a Catholic priest, reminds us, “in his manners he [Constantine] remained, to the end, very much the Pagan of his early life. His furious tempers, the cruelty which, once aroused, spared not the lives even of his wife and son, are … an unpleasing witness to the imperfection of his conversion.” 8
It was not long after the new tolerance that Constantine found himself faced with a problem he had never anticipated: division within the Christian church to which he had given freedom. As we noted in the last chapter, it came to a head in North Africa with the Donatists, who, concerned for purity of the faith, separated from the Catholic churches, rejected their ordinances and insisted upon rebaptizing clergy who had repented after having denied the faith during the persecutions which arose when the Emperor Diocletian demanded that he be worshiped as a god. 9 After years of futile efforts to reestablish unity through discussion, pleadings, councils and decrees, Constantine finally resorted to force. Frend puts it well:
In the spring of 317 he [Constantine] followed up his decision by publishing a “most severe” edict against the Donatists, confiscating their property and exiling their leaders. Within four years, the universal freedom of conscience proclaimed at Milan had been abrogated, and the state had become a persecutor once more, only this time in favor of Christian orthodoxy ….
[The Donatists] neither understood nor cared about Constantine’s conversion. For them it was a case of the Devil insisting that “Christ was a lover of unity” …. In their view, the fundamental hostility of the state toward the church had not been altered. 10
In his own day and way, Augustine followed Constantine’s lead in his treatment of the Donatists, who were still a thorn in the side of the Roman Church. “While Augustine and the Catholics emphasized the unity of the Church, the Donatists insisted upon the purity of the Church and rebaptized all those who came to them from the Catholics – considering the Catholics corrupt.”11Constantine had been “relentless [as would Augustine and his disciple Calvin be] in his pursuit of `heretics’ [forbidding] those outside of the Catholic church to assemble … and confiscated their property … the very things Christians had endured themselves were now being practiced in the name of Christianity.” 12
As a good Catholic enjoying the blessing of the Emperor and believing in the state church Constantine had established, Augustine persecuted and even sanctioned the killing of the Donatists and other schismatics, as we have already seen. Gibbon tells us that the severe measures against the Donatists “obtained the warmest approbation of St. Augustine [and thereby] great numbers of the Donatists were reconciled to [forced back into] the Catholic Church.” 13 Of Augustine it has been well said that “the very greatness of his name has been the means of perpetuating the grossest errors which he himself propagated. More than anyone else, Augustine has encouraged the pernicious doctrine of salvation through the sacraments of an organized earthly Church, which brought with it priestcraft with all the evil and miseries that has entailed down through the centuries.” 14
From Augustine To Calvin
There is no question that John Calvin had a great zeal for God and His Word. As we have already seen, however, there was a serious defect in his understanding of true Christianity. In many ways which colored his perspective until his death, he still viewed the church of Christ through Roman Catholic eyes. One of those ways was his acceptance of the church as Constantine had molded it and Augustine had cemented it: a partner of the state, with the state enforcing orthodoxy (as the state church defined it) upon all its citizens. Based upon this misunderstanding, Calvin applied his legal training and natural brilliance to the development of a system of Christianity based upon an extreme view of God’s sovereignty which by the sheer force of its logic would compel kings and all mankind to conform all affairs to righteousness. Indeed, in partnership with the church, kings and other civil rulers would enforce Calvinistic Christianity.
Calvin has impossibly been called both an amillennialist and postmillenialist. Of those who believed in a thousand-year reign of Christ upon earth, Calvin said their “fiction is too puerile to need or to deserve refutation.” 15 As far as Calvin was concerned, Christ’s kingdom began with His advent upon earth and had been in process ever since. Rejecting the literal future reign of Christ upon the earth through His Second Coming to establish his earthly kingdom upon David’s throne in Jerusalem, Calvin felt obliged to establish the kingdom by his own efforts in Christ’s absence.
The Bible makes it clear that one must be “born again” even to “see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3) and that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50). Ignoring this biblical truth and following Augustine’s error, Calvin determined (along with Guillaume Farel) to establish a beachhead for the kingdom of God on earth in Geneva, Switzerland. His first attempt there ended with his expulsion from that city. Boettner acknowledges, “Due to an attempt of Calvin and Farel to enforce a too severe system of discipline in Geneva, it became necessary for them to leave the city temporarily.” 16
Three years later, however, facing Catholic opposition from within and the threat of armed intervention by Roman Catholics from without, Geneva’s city council decided that they needed Calvin’s strong measures and invited him back. This time he succeeded in imposing his religion upon Geneva’s citizens with an iron hand. His first act was to hand the city council his Ecclesiastical Ordinances, which were adopted November 20, 1561. Stefan Zweig tells us:
One of the most momentous experiments of all time began when this lean and harsh man entered the Cornavian Gate [of Geneva]. A State [the walled citystate of Geneva] was to be converted into a rigid mechanism; innumerable souls, people with countless feelings and thoughts, were to be compacted into an all-embracing and unique system. This was the first attempt made in Europe to impose … a uniform subordination upon an entire populace.
With systematic thoroughness, Calvin set to work for the realization of his plan to convert Geneva into the first Kingdom of God on earth. It was to be a community without corruption, disorder, vice or sin; it was to be the New Jerusalem, a centre from which the salvation of the world would radiate … the whole of his life was devoted to the service of this one idea. 17
Tyranny in Geneva
Perhaps Calvin thought he was God’s instrument to force Irresistible Grace (a key doctrine in Calvinism) upon the citizens of Geneva, Switzerland, even upon those who proved their unworthiness by resisting to the death. He unquestionably did his best to be irresistible in imposing “righteousness,” but what he imposed and the manner in which he imposed it was far from grace and the teachings and example of Christ.
Many of those who profess a “Reformed” faith today, especially those known as Reconstructionists such as the late Rousas J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Jay Grimstead and others (including organizations such as the Coalition on Revival), take Calvin’s Geneva as their model and thus hope to Christianize the United States and then the world. Many Christian activists of looser attachment to Calvin hope in their own way, through protest marches and the organizing of large enough voting blocks, to force an ungodly American citizenry into godly living. No one ever worked so hard at attempting to do this and for so long a time as Calvin. Durant reports:
To regulate lay conduct a system of domiciliary visits was established … and questioned the occupants on all phases of their lives …. The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height ….
Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents and enlarged: books … of immoral tendency were banned …. To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation with imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death . . . a child was beheaded for striking its parents. In the years 1558-59 there were 414 prosecutions for moral offenses; between 1542 and 1564 there were seventy-six banishments and fifty-eight executions; the total population of Geneva was then about 20,000.18
Certainly, much of Calvin’s unusual zeal could not have come from the Holy Spirit’s guidance but rather from his powerful personality and extreme view of God’s sovereignty that denied all power of choice to man. Thus “grace” had to be irresistibly imposed. This was evident in the unbiblical manner in which he attempted to inflict his understanding of godliness upon the citizens of Geneva. In contrast to the humility, mercy, love, compassion and longsuffering of Christ, whom he loved and tried to serve, Calvin exerted authority much like the papacy which he now despised. Ironically, in spite of opposing the tyranny of the papacy, Calvin wielded the same unbiblical authoritarianism in attempting to enforce godliness upon ungodly people. Moreover, he criticized other Protestant leaders for not doing the same:
Seeing that the defenders of the Papacy are so bitter and bold in behalf of their superstitions, that in their atrocious fury they shed the blood of the innocent, it should shame Christian magistrates that in the protection of certain truth, they are entirely destitute of spirit. 19
Calvin’s defenders turn a blind eye to the facts when they attempt to exonerate him by blaming events in Geneva on the civil authorities. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary, Boettner even insists that “Calvin was the first of the Reformers to demand complete separation between Church and State.” 20 In fact, Calvin not only established ecclesiastical law but he codified the civil legislation. 21He held the civil authorities responsible to “foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the church” 22and to see that “no idolatry, no blasphemy against God’s name, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offenses to religion break out and be disseminated among the people … [but] to prevent the true religion … from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy.” 23
Calvin used the civil arm to impose his peculiar doctrines upon the citizens of Geneva and to enforce them. Zweig, who pored over the official records of the City Council for Calvin’s day, tells us, “There is hardly a day, in the records of the settings of the Town Council, in which we do not find the remark: `Better consult Master Calvin about this.’ 24 Za Pike reminds us that Calvin was given a “consultant’s chair” in every meeting of the city authorities and “when he was sick the authorities would come to his house for their sessions.” 25 Rather than diminishing with time, Calvin’s power only grew. John McNeil, a Calvinist, admits that “in Calvin’s latter years, and under his influence, the laws of Geneva became more detailed and more stringent.” 26
Don’t Cross Dr. Calvin!
With dictatorial control over the populace (“he ruled as few sovereigns have done” 27), Calvin imposed his brand of Christianity upon the citizenry with floggings, imprisonments, banishments and burnings at the stake. Calvin has been called “the Protestant Pope” and “the Genevese dictator” who “would tolerate in Geneva the opinions of only one person, his own.” 28Concerning the adoption in Geneva of a confession of faith that was made mandatory for all citizens, the historian Philip Schaff comments:
It was a glaring inconsistency that those who had just shaken off the yoke of popery as an intolerable burden, should subject their conscience and intellect to a human creed; in other words, substitute for the old Roman popery a modern Protestant popery.” 29
Durant says that “Calvin held power as the head of this consistory; from 1541 till his death in 1564, his voice was the most influential in Geneva.” 30 Vance reminds us that
Calvin was involved in every conceivable aspect of city life: safety regulations to protect children, laws against recruiting mercenaries, new inventions, the introduction of cloth manufacturing, and even dentistry. He was consulted not only on all important state affairs, but on the supervision of the markets and assistance for the poor. 31
Most of these were laudable efforts, but matters of faith were legislated as well. A confession of faith drawn up by Calvin was made mandatory for all citizens. It was a crime for anyone to disagree with this Protestant pope. Durant comments:
All the claims of the popes for the supremacy of the church over the state were renewed by Calvin for his church …. [Calvin] was as thorough as any pope in rejecting individualism of belief; this greatest legislator of Protestantism completely repudiated that principle of private judgment with which the new religion had begun …. In Geneva … those … who could not accept it would have to seek other habitats. Persistent absence from Protestant [Calvinist] services, or continued refusal to take the Eucharist was a punishable offense.
Heresy again became [under Calvin as under Augustine] … treason to the state, and was to be punished with death … in one year, on the advice of the Consistory, fourteen alleged witches were sent to the stake on the charge that they had persuaded Satan to afflict Geneva with plague. 32
Calvin was again following in the footsteps of Augustine, who had enforced “unity … through common participation in the Sacraments . . . .” 33 A medical doctor named Jerome Bolsec dared to disagree with Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. He was arrested for saying that “those who posit an eternal decree in God by which he has ordained some to life and the rest to death make of Him a tyrant, and in fact an idol, as the pagans made of Jupiter.” 34 Bolsec was arrested and banished from Geneva with the warning that if he ever returned he would be flogged. 35 John Trolliet, a city notary, criticized Calvin’s view of predestination for “making God the author of sin.” 36 In fact, the charge was true, as Calvin’s own writings clearly state. The court decreed that “thenceforward no one should dare to speak against this book [Institutes] and its doctrine.” 37 So much for the freedom of conscience which had been promised would replace the popes’ intolerable oppression!
Calvin’s power was so great that it was tantamount to treason against the state to oppose him. A citizen named Jacques Gruet was arrested on suspicion of having placed a placard on Calvin’s pulpit which read in part, “Gross hypocrite … ! After people have suffered long, they avenge themselves …. Take care that you are not served like M. Verle [who had been killed] . . . .” 38
Gruet was tortured twice daily in a manner similar to which Rome, rightly condemned by the Reformers for doing so, tortured the victims of her inquisitions who were accused of daring to disagree with her dogmas. The use of torture for extracting “confessions” was approved by Calvin. 39After thirty days of severe suffering, Gruet finally confessed-whether truthfully, or in desperation to end the torture, no one knows. On July 16, 1547, “half dead, he was tied to a stake, his feet were nailed to it. and his head was cut off.” 40
Good Intentions Gone Astray
No one has ever been as successful as John Calvin at totalitarian imposition of “godliness” upon a whole society. And therefore no one has proved as clearly as he that coercion cannot succeed because it can never change the hearts of men. Calvin’s theology as laid out in his Institutes denied that unregenerate man could choose to believe and obey God. Apparently he was ignorant of the commonsense fact that genuine choice is essential if man is to love and obey God or show love and real compassion to his fellows. By his determined efforts to make Geneva’s citizens obey, Calvin disproved his own theories of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. What he did prove, seemingly, by years of totalitarian and surely ungodly force, was the first of Calvinism’s Five Points, Total Depravity. Try as he might, there were many whom he simply could not persuade to live as he decreed, no matter how severe the penalty for failing to do so. He did succeed in creating many hypocrites who outwardly conformed to the law so long as the authorities were looking, but in their hearts longed for and practiced, when possible, the same old sins of the past.
Yes, there were reports from visitors that “cursing and swearing, unchastity, sacrilege, adultery, and impure living” such as were found elsewhere were absent from Geneva. 41 John Knox, of course, was enthusiastic. He called Geneva “the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the Apostles.” 42 A visiting Lutheran minister, who thought Calvin’s coercion was commendable, wrote in 1610, “When I was in Geneva I observed something great which I shall remember and desire as long as I live.” He praised the “weekly investigations into the conduct, and even the smallest transgressions, of the citizens” and concluded, “If it were not for the difference of religion, I would have been chained to Geneva forever.” 43Difference of religion? Yes, Calvinism was not Lutheranism, although both persecuted the Anabaptists. Protestantism involved several rival factions to say nothing of millions of true Christians who had never given allegiance to Rome and thus had not come out of her as “Protestants.” These believers had been martyred by Roman Catholics at the instigations of various popes for a thousand years before Luther and Calvin were born. Thus today’s representation of Calvinism as “Reformation theology” that supposedly revived true Christianity is grossly inaccurate. Calvinists have, in fact, hijacked the Reformation.
Admirers of John Calvin cite favorable stories as proof of the godly influence he and his theories exerted in changing a godless society into one that honored God. His methods, however, far from Christlike, could not be justified by any results. Nor could Calvin’s means, as we have already noted, be justified by the fact that torture, imprisonment and execution had been employed by Luther and the popes and other Roman Catholic clergy to force their religious views upon those under their power. A true follower of Christ is not to be conformed to this world but in his behavior is to follow Christ’s example.
Calvin’s followers boast that he was the greatest of exegetes and followed Scripture meticulously both in formulating his theology and in guiding his life. Supposedly, Calvin “was willing to break sharply with tradition where it was contrary to the Word of God.” 44 At the same time, he is defended with the excuse that he was only conforming to the traditions long established by Rome which began with Constantine. Scott says, “In the early years of the Reformation, censorship of manners and morals remained a settled, accepted part of existing, ancient police regulations not only in Geneva, but in all Europe.” 45 This is true. Such curbs discouraged rebellious attempts to leave one’s “class,” etc. But that was not Christianity as taught and exemplified by Christ and His apostles.
There is no way to defend Calvin’s conduct from Scripture. Yes, he was loving and caring toward those who agreed with him. Yes, he expended himself and shortened his life through visiting the sick, caring for the flock and preaching continually. But in his treatment of those who disagreed with him he was anything but a Christian.
The Hopelessness Of Imposed “Godliness”
Sadly, upon looking a bit more closely we find that in spite of threats and torture, Calvin’s Geneva was not as righteous a city as the selected optimistic stories seem to indicate. The surviving records of the Council of Geneva unveil a city more similar to the rest of the world than Calvin’s admirers would like to admit. These documents reveal “a high percentage of illegitimate children, abandoned infants, forced marriages, and sentences of death.” 46The stepdaughter and son-in-law of Calvin were among the many condemned for adultery. 47 Calvin had done his best, but at his death he felt that he had failed. Certainly he had not been able to produce among sinners, by the irresistible grace he sought to impose upon them, the ideal society – Augustine’s City of God – which he had envisioned when he wrote Institutes.
Some critics have falsely accused Calvinists of teaching that totally depraved man is incapable of responding to God. That is not exactly their position. They believe that the unsaved can and do respond to God but only in unbelief, rebellion and opposition. White explains: “Unregenerate men who are enemies of God most assuredly respond to God: in a universally negative fashion.” 48 That being the case, by his own theory, Calvin’s efforts at Geneva were doomed before they began! Speaking for all Calvinists, R.C. Sproul explains that according to the “Reformed view of predestination … before a person can choose Christ … he must be born again” 49 by a sovereign act of God. How could Calvin be sure that God had done this work in the hearts of all in Geneva? If God had not predestined every citizen of Geneva to salvation, then Calvin was wrong in trying to force them into a Christian mold. Yet coercion even by force was an integral part of the system as practiced by Calvin himself and his immediate successors.
Do Calvinists today approve of such conduct? It’s doubtful. Then is it not probable that the Calvinism which produced such tyranny was also wrong in other respects?
How many of the “elect” were there in Geneva? As Jay Adams points out, no one, not even Calvin, could know. Calvinism has no explanation for how the elect could have been identified with certainty among the hypocrites who acted as though they were among the elect by behaving themselves, but did so only out of fear of the consequences. No matter how hard Calvin tried, if God had not elected every citizen in Geneva to salvation (and He apparently had not), then evil would still persist – though not as blatantly as in other cities of that day.
One wonders why Calvin, while insisting upon the doctrine of Total Depravity, didn’t realize the hopelessness of trying to impose godliness upon the totally depraved citizens of Geneva. One wonders also, considering Calvin’s abysmal record of failure, why today’s Reconstructionists who hold to the same dogma nevertheless believe they will be able to impose righteous living upon entire nations – or why evangelicals continue to praise Calvin, the oppressor of Geneva.
Servetus: The Arch Heretic
Born Miguel Serveto in Villanova in 1511, the man known to the world as Michael Servetus “discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood – the passage of the blood from the right chamber of the heart along the pulmonary artery to and through the lungs, its purification there by aeration, and its return via the pulmonary vein to the left chamber of the heart.” He was in some ways “a bit more insane than the average of his time,” announcing the end of the world in which “the Archangel Michael would lead a holy war against both the papal and Genevese Antichrists.” 50
There is no question that he was a rank heretic whose ravings about Christ reflected a combination of Islam and Judaism, both of which intrigued him. He was, however, right about some things: that God does not predestine souls to hell and that God is love. His otherwise outrageous ideas might have passed unnoticed had he not published them and attempted to force them upon Calvin and his fellow ministers in Geneva with aggressive, contemptuous and blasphemous railings. That Servetus titled one of his published works The Restitution of Christianity could only be taken as an intentional personal affront by the author of the Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Servetus’s persistence is seen in the fact that he wrote at least thirty letters to Calvin, an attention which must have irritated the recipient greatly. On February 13, 1546, Calvin wrote to Farel, “Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word, for should he come, if my authority is of any avail, I will not suffer him to get out alive.” 51 Servetus made the mistake of passing through Geneva seven years later on his way to Naples and was recognized when he attended church (possibly out of fear of arrest for nonattendance) by someone who saw through his disguise and notified Calvin, who in turn ordered his arrest.
The Torture And Burning Of Servetus
Early in the trial, which lasted two months, Calvin wrote to Farel, “I hope that sentence of death will be passed upon him.” 52 To understand Calvin, we need to consider that if the God one believes in predestines billions of the “totally depraved” to a burning hell (all of whom He could rescue), then to burn at the stake an obviously totally depraved heretic would seem quite mild and easily justifiable. That logic, however, seems somehow to escape many of today’s evangelical Christians who admire the man and call themselves Calvinists.
The indictment, drawn up by Calvin the lawyer, contained thirty-eight charges (including rejection both of the Trinity and infant baptism) supported by quotations from Servetus’s writings. Calvin personally appeared in court as the accuser and as “chief witness for the prosecution.” 53 Calvin’s reports of the trial matched Servetus’s railings with such un-Christian epithets as “the dirty dog wiped his snout … the perfidious scamp soils each page with impious ravings,” etc. 54 The Council consulted the other churches of Protestant Switzerland, and six weeks later their reply was received: Servetus should be condemned but not executed. Nevertheless, under Calvin’s leadership, He was sentenced to death on two counts of heresy: Unitarianism and rejection of infant baptism. Durant writes:
He asked to be beheaded rather than burned; Calvin was inclined to support this plea, but the aged Farel … reproved him for such tolerance; and the Council voted that Servetus should be burned alive.
The sentence was carried out the next morning, October 17, 1553…. On the way [to the burning] Farel importuned Servetus to earn divine mercy by confessing the crime of heresy; according to Farel the condemned man replied, “I am not guilty, I have not merited death”; and he besought God to pardon his accusers. He was fastened to a stake by iron chains, and his last book was bound to his side. When the flames reached his face he shrieked with agony. After half an hour of burning he died. 55
The Failure Of Attempted Exonerations
Many attempts have been made by his modern followers to exonerate Calvin for the unconscionably cruel death of Michael Servetus. It is said that Calvin visited him in prison and pleaded with him to recant. Calvin’s willingness for Servetus to be beheaded rather than burned at the stake was not necessarily motivated by kindness, however, but was an attempt to transfer the responsibility from himself to the civil authority. Beheading was the penalty for civil crimes; burning at the stake was for heresy. The charges, however, were clearly theological rather than civil and brought by Calvin himself.
There is no question that the civil authority only acted at the behest of the church. According to the laws of Geneva, Servetus, as a traveler passing through, not a citizen and not being guilty of any crime within the city, should have been expelled from the city, not executed. It was only his heresy which doomed him – and only because Calvin pressed the charges. Calvin did exactly what his view of God required in keeping with what he had written to Farel seven years before. Here again, over Calvin’s shoulder, we see the long shadow of Augustine. To justify his actions, Calvin borrowed the same perverted interpretation of Luke 14:23 which Augustine had used. Frend said, “Seldom have gospel words been given so unexpected a meaning.” 56Farrar writes:
To him [AugustineI are due … above all the bitter spirit of theological hatred and persecution. His writings became the Bible of the Inquisition. His name was adduced – and could there be a more terrible Nemesis on his errors? – to justify the murder of Servetus. 57
There was wide acclaim from Catholics and Protestants alike for the burning of Servetus. The Inquisition in Vienne burned him in effigy. Melanchthon wrote Calvin a letter in which he called the burning “a pious and memorable example to all posterity” and gave “thanks to the Son of God” for the just “punishment of this blasphemous man.” Others, however, disagreed; and Calvin became the target of criticism.
Calvin’s Self-Justifications
Some critics argued that burning Servetus would only encourage the Roman Catholics of France to do the same to the Huguenots (70,000 would be slaughtered in one night in 1572). Stung by such opposition, in February 1554, Calvin published a broadside aimed at his critics: Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra Trinitate contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti. He argued that all who oppose God’s truth are worse than murderers because murder merely kills the body whereas heresy damns the soul for eternity (was that worse than predestination by God to eternal damnation?) and that God had explicitly instructed Christians to kill heretics and even to smite with the sword any city that abandoned the true faith:
Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them [with death] makes himself an accomplice in their crime … it is God who speaks, and it is clear what law He would have kept in the Church even to the end of the world … so that we spare not kin nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory. 58
Historian R. Tudor Jones declares that this tract, which Calvin wrote in defense of the burning of Michael Servetus, “is Calvin at his most chilling … as frightening in its way as Luther’s tract against the rebellious peasants.” 59 Eight years later Calvin was still defending himself against criticism and still advocating the burning of heretics. In a 1561 letter to the Marquis de Poet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, Calvin advises sternly:
… do not fail to rid the country of those zealous scoundrels who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard. 60
A year later (just two years before his own death), Calvin again justifies Servetus’s death, while at the same time acknowledging that he was responsible: “And what crime was it of mine if our Council at my exhortation . . . took vengeance upon his execrable blasphemies?” (Emphasis added.) 61 Much further documentation could be presented to expose the partisan bias of Calvinists who persist in offering one excuse after another for their hero. No wonder that even such a staunch Calvinist as William Cunningham writes:
There can be no doubt that Calvin beforehand, at the time, and after the event, explicitly approved and defended the putting him [Servetus] to death, and assumed the responsibility of the transaction. 62
Does The Christian Life Conform To Culture?
Today Calvin’s supporters complain, “No Christian leader has ever been so often condemned by so many. And the usual grounds for condemnation are the execution of Servetus and the doctrine of predestination.” 63 In fact, Servetus was only one of many such victims of Calvinism put into practice. Calvin is defended with the plea that such dealings were common practice and that he should be judged by the standard of his time. Do Calvin’s defenders really mean that “new creatures in Christ Jesus” are to rise no higher than the conventions of their culture and moment in history?
God’s sovereignty in controlling and causing everything that occurs is the very heart of Calvinism as conceived and taught by Calvin himself. Staunch Calvinist C. Gregg Singer declares that “the secret grandeur of Calvin’s theology lies in his grasp of the biblical teaching of the sovereignty of God.” 64Could Calvin truly have believed that he was God’s instrument chosen from past eternity to coerce, torture and kill in forcing Geneva’s citizens into behavior that God had predestined for them? How else could he have justified his actions?
Calvin has been acclaimed as a godly example, one who based his theology and actions upon Scripture alone. We have seen that his actions were in fact unbiblical in the extreme but were consistent with his theology. Is not that fact sufficient reason to question Calvinism itself and to examine it carefully from Scripture? That the Pope and Luther joined in unholy alliances with civil rulers to imprison, flog, torture, and kill dissenters in the name of Christ is no excuse for Calvin having done so also. Do his modern defenders really believe that Calvin’s conduct conformed to Scripture? Is it not possible that some of his theology was just as unscriptural as the principles which drove his conduct? William Jones declares:
And with respect to Calvin, it is manifest, that the leading, and to me at least, the most hateful feature in all the multiform character of popery adhered to him through life – I mean the spirit of persecution. 65
Is not Christ alone the standard for His followers? And is He not always the same, unchanged by time or culture? How can the popes be condemned (and rightly so) for the evil they did under the banner of the Cross while excusing Calvin for doing much the same, though on a smaller scale? Calvin’s conduct day after day and year after year was the very antithesis of what it would have been had he truly been led of the Spirit of God. We cannot escape drawing that conclusion from God’s Word. The following are just two passages among many that condemn Calvin:
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. (James 3:17)
He that saith he abideth in him [Christ] ought himself also so to walk, even as he [Christ] walked. (I John 2:6)
One wonders why so many of today’s Christian leaders who call themselves Calvinists are so quick to laud a man who was so far removed from the biblical exemplar reflected above.
FOOTNOTES:
1W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Fortress Press, 1984), 482.
2Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1959),11:72-73.
3 Ibid.
4FE Bruce, Lightin the West, Bk. III of The Spreading Flame (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956), 11-13.
5Codex Theodosianus, (July 3, AX. 321), XVI:8.1.
6Frend, op. cit., 484.
7Will Durant, “Caesar and Christ,” Pt. III of The Story of Civilization (Simon and Schuster, 1950), 656.
8Philip Hughes, A History of the Church (London, 1934), 1:198.
9 E.H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church (Gospel Folio Press, reprint 1999), 38-39.
10Frend, op. cit., 492.
11John Laurence Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, trans. Archibald MacLaine (Applegate and Co., 1854), 101; and many other historians.
12Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Vance Publications, Pensacola FL, rev. ed. 1999), 45.
13 Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Modern Library, n.d.), 2:233.
14 John W. Kennedy, The Torch of the Testimony (Christian Books Publishing House, 1963), 68.
15John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: xxv, 5
16Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 408.
17Stefan Zweig, Eden Paul and Cedar Paul, trans.,Erasmus: The Right to Heresy (Cassell and Company, 1936), 207-208; cited in Henry R. Pike, The Other Side of John Calvin (Head to Heart, n.d.), 21-22.
18Durant, op. cit., 474.
19George Park Fisher, The Reformation (Scribner, Armstrong and Co., 1873), 224.
20Boettner, op. cit., 410.
21Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation (Baker Book House, 1990), 29.
22Calvin, op. cit., IV:xx,2.
23 Op. cit., IV:xx,3.
24Zweig, op. cit., 217.
25 Pike, op. cit., 26.
26John T. McNeil, The History and Character of Calvinism (Oxford University Press, 1966), 189.
27Williston Walker, John Calvin: The Organizer of Reformed Protestantism (Schocken Books, 1969), 259.
28Op. cit., 107.
29Schaff, op. cit., 8:357.
30Durant, op. cit., VI:473.
31Vance, op. cit., 85.
32 Durant, op. cit., 465.
33 Frend, op. cit., 669.
34The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin, trans. and ed. Philip E. Hughes (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), 137-38; cited in Vance, op. cit., 84.
35Schaff, op. cit., 8:618.
36 G.R. Potter and M. Greengrass, John Calvin (St. Martin’s Press, 1983), 92-93.
37Register of Geneva, op. cit., cited in Vance, op. cit., 201.
38 Schaff, op. cit., 502.
39Fisher, op. cit., 222.
40J.M. Robertson, Short History of Freethought (London, 1914),1:443-44.
41Schaff, op. cit., 644.
42 Bard Thompson, Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and Reformation (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 501.
43Schaff, op. cit., 519.
44C. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits (A Press, 1989), 19.
45Otto Scott, The Great Christian Revolution (The Reformer Library, 1994), 46.
46Charles Beard, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge (London, 1885), 353; also see Edwin Muir, John Knox (London, 1920), 108.
47Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation (New York, 1920), 174.
48James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Calvary Press Publishing, 2000), 98.
49 R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 72.
50Durant, op. cit., VIA81.
51Roland P Bainton, Hunted Heretic: The Life of Michael Servetus (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1953), 144; cited in Durant, op. cit., VI:481. See also John Calvin, The Letters of John Calvin (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), 159.
52John Calvin, dated August 20, 1553; quoted in Letters, op. cit.
53Wallace, op. cit., 77.
54Durant, op. cit., VIA83.
55Op. cit., 484.
56Frend, op. cit., 672.
57Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (E.P Dutton and Co., 1886), 235-38.
58J.W. Allen, History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1951), 87.
59R. Tudor Jones, The Great Reformation (Inter-Varsity Press, n.d.), 140.
60John Calvin to the Marquis de Poet, in The Works of Voltaire (E.R. Dumont, 1901), 4:89; quoted in Vance, op. cit., 95, who gives two other sources for this quote.
61Schaff, op. cit., 8:690-91.
62William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 316-17.
63Scott, op. cit., 100.
64 Singer, op. cit., 32.
65William Jones, The History of the Christian Church (Church History Research and Archives, 5th ed. 1983), 2:238.
