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.
So since I reject the “Reformed” definition of God’s sovereignty and hold to more of a Provisionist stance… I am an atheist?
Is Tozer an atheist?
“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.”
In an earlier post I highlight Dr. Wayne Grudem, a five-pointer, saying our prayers are even scripted since before time by the [Calvinistic] sovereignty of God. Hear it for yourself:
I re-edited the original video from SOTO 101 because I cannot stand double time playback. Plus, I wanted to isolate this section… see some of Phil Bair’s books HERE.
I wanted to share a couple videos of a longer interview of Dr. Flowers by Chadd Wright. BTW, Chadd and Leighton are both very sweet men… they model how to interact on contentious issues.
Is Provisionism Man-Centered or Christ-Centered? w/ Chadd Wright
Former Navy SEAL Chadd Wright sits down with Dr. Leighton Flowers to unpack one of the most common accusations against Provisionists: Is Provisionism man-centered?
God’s Sovereignty and Human Freedom—Can Both Be True?
What does it mean for God to be sovereign? Does He allow human freedom without compromising His rule? In today’s conversation, Dr. Leighton flowers and Chadd Wright explore whether God can truly be sovereign and humans still genuinely free.
Here is the original video that Got Chadd Wright to bring Dr. Leighton on:
Joe Rogan is Calvinized instead of Evangelized
Chadd Wright joins Joe Rogan, who hosts the most popular podcast in US, to talk about his life and his faith. Chadd does well to talk boldly about his faith, but unfortunately he shares Calvinism rather than Biblical truth. Let’s Discuss!
And here is the 3-hour interview via Chadd Wright’s YouTube Channel:
Ep. 465 Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers
Join Chadd as he sits down with Dr. Leighton Flowers for a great conversation centered around soteriology.
(Jump to update if you wish) Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, gives a brief 10 minute overview of Ephesians 1 from a Traditional/Provisionist perspective as in contrast with the typical Calvinistic reading.
Pages 132-138 of pastor Ronnie W. Rogers’ book, Does God Love All or Some: Comparing Biblical Extensivism and Calvinism’s Exclusivism. This is chapter 20, titled:
A Better Gospel!
THE GOOD NEWS ACCORDING to Calvinism is to be proclaimed to everyone everywhere, but it is not good news for everyone who hears. I believe the gospel according to Jesus presents a better gospel.
To many, it appears Calvinists, Arminians, Molinists, and Traditionalists (the last three I refer to, broadly speaking, as Extensivists) all believe the same thing about the gospel while merely differing on tertiaries. Consequently, they quite understandably retort, “Why all of this divisive bickering; let us just preach the gospel.” I wholeheartedly agree that we can all communicate the gospel message so that anyone and everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Consequently, we should do so and applaud all endeavors at such. I also believe both Extensivists and Calvinists can be evangelistic.
However, I do think it is incumbent upon Christians to make clear that even though these things are true, the differences between Calvinists’ and Extensivists’ perspectives regarding salvation do in fact influence the evangelistic and missionary endeavor. This influence is even determinative of what one can and cannot say to a lost and hell-bound individual and world when we communicate the gospel. These differences are not tertiary as some claim, for they do in fact change the raison d’être (reason for being or existence) of the gospel, the purpose for sharing the gospel, the language used in communicating the gospel, and the nature of our passion derived from the gospel. These dissimilarities are substantial. So much so they actually and unavoidably define the missiology of the church; accordingly, they are not tertiary. Our differences even affect our understanding of arguably the most well-known, lucid, humbling, and awe-inspiring verse regarding the gospel and mission of evangelizing (John 3:16).
John Piper asked the question, “What message would missionaries rather take than the message: Be glad in God! Rejoice in God! Sing for joy in God! . . . God loves to exalt himself by showing mercy to sinners.”[1]My answer to this question is the truth that when someone hears this glorious message that same someone has a chance, by the grace and mercy of God, to receive the truth of the message by faith. Further, without opportunity for all sinners to accept, Piper’s message should be changed to say, “Some can be glad in God if he predestined you” or “God loves to exalt himself by showing mercy to some sinners.” This rephrasing of his statement is not a mischaracterization of Calvinism, but rather it is the actual message of Calvinism, and everyone who understands Calvinism knows it. Unfortunately, it is popularly and ubiquitously stated in the manner cited by Piper (or similarly opaque phrases) that shield most from yet another disquieting reality of Calvinism. I would greatly appreciate Calvinists’ due diligence to speak in such a way that all can be reminded of this reality (as some Calvinists are very careful to do). Any suggestion this distinction is tertiary is baffling indeed.
Some like John Owen postulate a covenant of redemption which limits the atonement to the elect. David Allen gives several problems with Owen’s belief in the Covenant of Redemption. For example, “no such covenant within the Godhead is revealed in Scripture. . . . This shifts the focus from God’s revealed will in Scripture to a focus on God’s secret will in eternity.”[2]
The two irreconcilable approaches to understanding the presentation of the gospel can be seen in these brief synopses. Extensivists affirm that salvation is entirely a work of God because he has provided everything necessary, even the gift of faith, by which every sinner can by faith receive the salvation of the Lord.[3] The offer of salvation is unconditional, whereas the experience of salvation by an individual is conditioned upon grace-enabled faith (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). Many verses attest to the accuracy of this understanding of salvation. Man’s part in salvation is seen repeatedly in the book of Acts, e.g., Acts 2:37–41; 3:19–26; 7:51; 8:6–14, 22–23, 36–37; 9:35, 42; 10:34–35, 43; 11:21; 13:8–13, 38–41, 46–47; 14:1; 15:19; 16:30–34; 17:2–4, 11–12, 17, 30–31; 18:4–8, 19, 27–28; 19:8–9, 18; 20:21; 22:18; 26:17–20; 28:23–24. The epistles teach the same (Rom 5:1; Gal 3:26; Eph 2:8–9; Heb 11:6). In addition, God gave repentance as a grace gift (Acts 5:31; 11:18).[4]
In contrast, Calvinism generally argues the new birth precedes faith.[5] Piper asserts, “The native hardness of our hearts makes us unwilling and unable to turn from sin and trust the Savior. Therefore, conversion involves a miracle of new birth. This new birth precedes and enables faith andrepentance. Nevertheless, faith and repentance are our acts. We are accountable to do them . . . God grants us the inclination we need.”[6] The Synod of Dort says, “Men are chosen to faith . . . therefore election is the fountain of every saving good; from which proceed faith.”[7] R.C. Sproul declares, “We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe.”[8]
Such explanation creates an abstractness in Calvinism’s understanding of the gospel, which results in a concomitant chilling unfriendliness of the good news when shared one-on-one. It is one thing to say God loves Africa and desires the gospel to go there, or that he desires for Africans to be saved. It is quite another for the missionary to look into the eyes of a lost and perishing African and say God loves you and desires you to receive the good news of the gospel, which is the friendliness of the gospel in Scripture. The former has an abstract quality about it that the latter does not have (like the difference between saying I love Africans and then really loving the one who moves in next door). A Calvinist can say, “Believe in Jesus for the remission of sins,” but there is a secret aloofness embedded in the invitation for the vast majority of individuals who hear the gospel; an aloofness the Calvinist is very aware of and staunchly committed to.
Further, this abstract quality of Calvinism is the provenance of the good faith offer, which is reflective of Calvinism’s different understanding of the gospel. I for one find neither this abstraction, with its secret indifference for the majority of individuals who hear the gospel, nor the suggestion of such a concept as a good faith offer in the scriptural presentations of the gospel. This abstract quality transforms the simple straightforward gospel as seen in Scripture from being exoteric (available to all) into an esoteric gospel (only available to some). The exoteric gospel of Scripture calls upon every individual with whom we share to receive the gospel and gives every indication that he should and can believe. It is authentically and dependably what it appears to be, the good news of God’s love and compassion offered to all who hear.
In contrast, the esoteric gospel according to Calvinism says everyone should come, but the secret is that while God has told Calvinists to tell all the lost to come, be forgiven, and flee the wrath to come, the inner circle— Calvinists—know it has pleased God to exclude a host of individuals with whom the Calvinist presents this message. This means if one is to be consistent with Calvinism, the gospel must be protectingly presented so that the hearer believes God loves him and truly desires for him to be delivered from the fiery cauldron of God’s eternal fury; something no Calvinist can say to any particular individual unless God inspires him to intuit that the lost man to whom he is witnessing is one of God’s elect. If God gives such enlightenment it behooves the Calvinist to share such glorious news with the individual, or so it would seem.
According to Calvinism, the gospel is good news for some, but inherent in their understanding of the gospel is that for most with whom they speak it is the ghastliest horror one could ever imagine (whether a sinner desires to believe or not does nothing to palliate this point). That being the case, one may rightly question the righteous legitimacy of indiscriminately declaring a gospel so construed that, in any way, intimates it is for all who hear because it is emphatically not; something every knowledgeable Calvinist knows. To wit, if a Calvinist shares the gospel in such a way so that all those who hear believe God loves them and desires for them to repent and be saved by faith in Jesus, the Calvinist has been true to Scripture but not to Calvinism. One must genuinely ask, is there not a point when a good faith offer is transmogrified into an ungodly deception? Calvinists can avoid this point by determinedly shunning any semblance of offering, via precisely chosen guarded language, what the Calvinist is convinced does not exist. Or is the concept of a good faith offer an unchallengeable and un-fillable reservoir for storing gospel secrets of Calvinism? I am simply asking Calvinists to be clear in presenting what they so resolutely believe to be the whole good news, and I do not think that is too much to ask.
David Allen, referring to 2 Corinthians 5:19–20, says, “Here we have God himself offering salvation to all. But how can he do this according to limited atonement since there is no provision for the salvation of the non-elect in the death of Christ? Furthermore, how can God make this offer with integrity? It seems difficult to suppose he can. Without belief in the universal saving will of God and a universal extent in Christ’s sin-bearing, there can be no well-meant offer of salvation from God to the non-elect who hear the gospel call.”[9]
Extensivists follow the scriptural pattern of presenting the good news as good news for everyone who hears because, by God’s loving grace, they should and can believe. If they choose to reject, which they do not have to do, they will forfeit being adopted as a child of God and succumb to a sinner’s just deserts. This is based upon a clear, simple, and straight-forward reading of the clearest presentations of the gospel and the declared nature of God. Calvinism’s understanding of the gospel disallows any meaningfully eternal difference in the gospel if they simply said, “God hates you and has a terrible plan for you because the elect will get saved and the non-elect will not.” For Calvinists to respond that they are sharing the gospel out of obedience is not a solution to the problem I pose but rather it is symptomatic of it. Further, for a Calvinist to rely upon such an idea as a good faith offer does nothing to absolve God from intentionally obscuring his real plan.
In contrast to Calvinism, Jesus clearly warned those to whom he spoke to repent, with every indication they should and could, which warning he issued repeatedly (Matt 4:17; 11:20–21; Luke 5:32; 15:7; 24:47). The same can be said for the Apostles (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). If Christ knew some of them could not repent because they were not the elect, his warning seems disingenuous and misleading. Some Calvinists will say Jesus was making a “good faith offer” (if there is such an idea) because as a man, he did not know who the elect were.
As an example of Jesus not knowing certain things, in his humanity, they reference Jesus saying “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt 24:36). Of course, we all recognize as a human, Christ did not know certain things. However, this explicit statement of not knowing does not seem to justify the good faith offer since he gives every indication of speaking as forthrightly in presenting the gospel as he did regarding his second coming, consistent with the way things really are. There is really something to believe, he really as a human did not know the hour, which it seems all could choose to believe. There is no pretense. When he said he did not know, he really did not know, and they could believe what he said. They need not be cryptographically savvy.
Further, Calvinists’ reliance upon this example assumes they are justified in presenting something so that those who hear believe they can act on it when Calvinists know they cannot. That seems to be an illegitimate deduction. Clarification of the way things really are would only take a moment when Calvinists present the gospel according to Calvinism. I do not accept leaving the listener believing he is receiving a good offer when he is really hearing only a good faith offer to be noble evangelism. Unless one is a Calvinist who needs to justify the extra-biblical concept of the good faith offer, I doubt one would be able to mine it from this passage on the second coming. There is a crucial difference between Jesus not knowing certain things due to his role as a servant and his speaking forthrightly things that are either misleading or not true—do not correspond fully to reality. Moreover, Jesus stated he did not know the hour of his coming, but he never says nor even hints that he does not know the gospel.
Additionally, there are problems with assuming Jesus’s words were in any way misleading or ill-informed. First, Jesus would have to have forgotten all about unconditional election and selective regeneration. This seems unlikely since, as part of the Trinity, he would have had to help devise the plan of unconditional election, which would at least make his “good faith offer” a little less good than such an offer from your everyday Calvinist. While he did not know the hour of the second coming, he did know there was a second coming; to wit as a servant, he lacked precise knowledge of the event’s time not of the event, which he detailed in Matt 24–25. Second, and more problematic for the Calvinist, is that Jesus said he always did the will of the Father (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 17:4) and spoke not of his own initiative but what the Father wanted him to speak (John 3:11, 34; 5:19; 7:16; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49–50; 14:10, 24, 31; 17:8). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit was upon Jesus filling him without measure (Isa 61:1; Matt 12:18; Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14; John 3:34; Acts 10:38).
Consequently, even if Jesus did not know, the Father and the Holy Spirit did know; therefore, the Calvinist doctrine of selective regeneration makes the Trinity complicitous in this misrepresentation. The obvious truth is that Jesus commanded them to repent because he was not willing that any would perish and desired that all would come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9); something God has grace-enabled everyone who hears the truth to do.
The gospel according to Calvinism is the gospel that is commanded to be preached to all, presented as available to all with an urgency that it be received by all, and yet cannot be received by all who hear the message; even though its universal availability is the obvious inference any listener would draw based upon most Calvinists’ carefully guarded presentation of the gospel (guarding the divulgence of the secret limitations of the gospel according to Calvinism). In reality, the doctrine of selective regeneration preceding faith dictates the gospel—good news— is really not good news at all because it cannot be received by anyone who just hears the good news, and this unavailability is just as true for the elect as the non-elect.
Reception of the Calvinistic gospel is divinely limited to the selectively regenerated; therefore, the primary good news of Calvinism is not the gospel, but rather that some to whom they speak are on the secret list of those who have been selected for regeneration, which results in receiving the good news — the gospel. That is to say, according to Calvinism, the gospel is not the good news to be received by all or any listener, but rather a description of the benefits that will be bestowed upon those on the secret list of the unconditionally elect. Simply put, the gospel according to Scripture is a better gospel than the gospel according to Calvinism.
NOTES
Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad, 33.
Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, 217.
Spiritual faith is the ability to trust what God has said and is a gift given by God in creation as are all the endowments of man. It is also a gift in the sense that God restores the ability to exercise spiritually restorative faith as a sinner through the provision of grace enablements (John 12:35–36). It is not a gift in the Calvinist sense of being resultant of God’s irresistible grace upon the unconditionally elect, understood to be so in part by a misreading of Eph 2:8.
Repentance and faith are inseparable. Repentance focuses upon turning from sin, whereas faith focuses upon turning in trust to the Savior. Repentance is neither a predetermined irresistible work of God upon the unconditionally elect only, nor is it merely a humanly derived act. Rather, the ability to repent is given to all by God through grace enablements and is required by God for salvation.
See my answer to Calvinists’ argument for only a logical relationship between faith and regeneration in Appendix 4.
Piper, Desiring God, 62.
Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, article 9.
Sproul, Chosen by God, 72–73.
Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, 786.
Dr. Leighton Flowers explains a Traditional Southern Baptist perspective of Eph. 2:8-9:
Yes, faith is a gift from God, but the point of contention between the Traditionalist and the Calvinist is whether it is a gift that is given irresistibly (or effectually).
Traditionalists affirm God enables (or grant) faith by means of His Word (the gospel), but we disagree that God effectually causes some people to believe the gospel while leaving others in a morally hopeless condition from birth.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (ESV)
What is “This”?
The main question is: What does this refer to? “This” is a demonstrative pronoun. Paul is demonstrating that something, this thing, is a gift. He’s pointing at something he just said in the previous phrase, “For by grace you have been saved through faith”, and he saying “this thing is a gift”. But what is Paul referring to as a gift? To help answer this question, let’s repeat this passage with the Greek word, gender, and number displayed:
For by grace [charis, feminine, singular] you have been saved [sesosmenoi, masculine, singular] through faith [pistis, feminine, singular]. And this [toutō, neuter, singular] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
There are six possible interpretations for the gift. Based on the grammatical structure of the verse (seen above), four interpretations will be ruled out. They will be ruled out because ancient Greek authors used the gender and number of pronouns to make it clear to their reader which noun the pronoun is referring to. Here are the six possibilities:
1: The gift is “by grace you have been saved through faith” 2: The gift is “by grace you have been saved” 3: The gift is “been saved through faith”
4: The gift is only grace
5: The gift is only salvation
6: The gift is only faith
You’ll notice that the pronoun “this” [toutō, neuter, singular] does not match a single one of the previous nouns in question; neither “grace”, nor “saved”, nor “faith”. If Paul wanted to say only one of those was the gift, then all he would have had to do was match the gender and number of “this” with that noun. But he chose to make it match none of them. So the gift can’t be only the grace, nor only the salvation, nor only the faith.
Even though it’s not possible, interpretation six, that only faith is the gift, is often argued because faith is the last thing referenced. Most who quote Ephesians 2:8-9 to claim that ‘faith is a gift’ are arguing from this position. This seems like a natural interpretation to English readers because…that’s how we would denote which noun to which the pronoun refers. The problem is: Paul didn’t write in English. Piper, as well as many other scholars, correctly understand that this interpretation is impossible due to the grammatical formatting of the Greek.
In Greek, pronouns must agree with their antecedent in gender and number. English somewhat does this with pronouns like “he” and “she” but other pronouns like “they” and “it” are more difficult to determine. No so in Greek. All pronouns in Greek have gender and number, and they must always agree in gender and number to the noun they are pointing to, whether it is masculine, feminine, or neuter.
In the verse, “this” is neuter, meaning that it must connect two genders: Feminine, masculine, or neuter. Faith is a feminine word. The word “this” would need to be written as feminine for it to refer to faith. While interpretation 6 is quoted often, it can safely be ruled out. Interpretations 5 & 6 can be ruled out for the same mismatched gender problem. The remaining three interpretations are discussed by Piper and will be analyzed in the arguments below.
[….]
Why Didn’t Paul Just Say The Thing?
If Paul was concerned about anybody thinking that faith is something that you’re supposed to do, he would have simply written ‘faith is a gift’ somewhere in one of his many letters. Since Paul never wrote this, we cannot exegetically assume that this was his motivation. Paul could have said “these” to mean all three individually or he could have just added a sentence somewhere that clarified it. Claiming that this is what Paul was thinking or worried about is unsupported by any of his work.
Paul Wrote About Faith, Grace, Works, and Boasting Elsewhere
In order to make any claims about the motivations of Paul in regards to faith and boasting, we must take a close look at the other passages were Paul addresses these issues. As a matter of fact, several years before writing his letter to Ephesus, Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. In chapter 3 & 4, Paul goes into great detail about the relationship between salvation, grace, faith, works, and boasting. Since these chapters are much more explicit than Ephesians 2:8-9, we must incorporate them into our interpretation. Here are some snippets of his writings, but go read these chapters for yourselves and then read Ephesians 2:8-9.
“the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith . . . It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law“ (Romans 3:24-25 ESV)
“What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”
“For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”
“No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”” (Romans 4 ESV)
Paul makes it extremely clear that his concern for boasting lies in who is the justifier of our salvation, who powers it, who does the work. Paul spends all of this time communicating that promise must “rest on grace” and that this is accomplished only through faith as the means. If we are the justifier through works, then God is not glorified. Nowhere in the long exposition of Romans does Paul say that ‘faith is a gift’. Paul invalidates Piper’s argument by saying that our boasting from being justified by faith “is excluded.By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law”. Using Piper’s own reasoning, Paul could have easily said “Boasting is excluded because faith is a gift”. But instead he says “Boasting is excluded because of faith” . Faith is non-meritorious and is not worthy of boasting. No one can exegetically claim that faith is a work. If faith is not worthy of boasting because it is not a work, where is Paul’s concern that we ‘create faith’? Why does Paul say that “Abraham believed God”? This seems like the perfect place to drop this supposed additional information about faith being effectually given or that you are unable to put faith in God. Nowhere in the entire Bible does it say that man is unable to believe, repent, or put their faith in God unless effectually given faith. This concept has to be read into the text. If putting faith in God is boast worthy, why didn’t Paul address it as clearly as he addresses faith not being a work?
Does faith rob God of his glory? Romans 4 says no. Abraham “grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God”. The text doesn’t say God made Abraham grow strong in faith. Instead, the text gives Abraham credit for his faith. If this was a concern of Paul’s in the slightest, why would Paul write it this way? Paul clearly writes that salvation through faith gives God all of the glory. Where is Paul’s concern? Piper’s argument that faith somehow takes glory from God is an attempt to turn faith into a work. One can only boast if it is under the law of works. Assuming that Paul holds this concern is completely unfounded by his work.
Bibliotheca Sacra BSAC 122:487 (July 1965): 248–253. (PDF HERE)
Most Calvinistic commentators believe that the gift of Ephesians 2:8 is saving faith rather than salvation: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9). This interpretation leads some to a hyper-Calvinistic doctrine of faith, which in turn leads to an unscriptural plan of salvation.
For example, Shedd says: “The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration.”1This results in a strange plan of salvation. Because the sinner cannot believe, he is instructed to perform the following duties: 1. Read and hear the divine Word. 2. Give serious application of the mind to the truth. 3. Pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.2
Thus an unscriptural doctrine of total depravity leads to an unscriptural and inconsistent plan of salvation. Doubtless the sinner is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1b). If this means that regeneration must precede faith, then it must also mean that regeneration must precede all three of the pious duties Shedd outlines for the lost. A doctrine of total depravity that excludes the possibility of faith must also exclude the possibilities of “hearing the word,” “giving serious application to divine truth,” and “praying for the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.” The extreme Calvinist deals with a rather lively spiritual corpse after all. If the corpse has enough vitality to read the Word, and heed the message, and pray for conviction, perhaps it can also believe. Incidentally, it would seem evident that the person who would pray earnestly for conviction must already be under a deep state of conviction.
Arthur W. Pink agrees with Shedd. He says the sinner is to “ask God … to bestow upon him the gifts of repentance and faith.”3
Berkhof’s position is similar: “This faith is not first of all an activity of man, but a potentiality wrought by God in the heart of the sinner. The seed of faith is implanted in man in regeneration.”4
The tragedy of this position is that it perverts the gospel. The good news becomes only a hopeful possibility. The sinner is wrongly instructed to beg for that which God is already beseeching him to receive (2 Cor. 5:20). He is given no assurance that his prayer will be answered. He is really being told that the condition of salvation is prayer instead of faith.
The one verse which seems to teach that saving faith is the gift of God is Ephesians 2:8. But a careful study of this verse and its context shows clearly that it is salvation which is the gift of God. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary gives this explanation: “The word that refers not to grace or to faith, but to the whole act of salvation.”5This is also the interpretation of Calvin, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Eadie, and others. The Greek text favors this meaning because the relative pronoun that (τοῦτο) is neuter while the word faith (πίστις) is feminine. In addition the whole context, especially verse 9, makes clear that the issue is salvation by grace opposed to the ever-present error of salvation by works. The same conclusion is reached by the grammarian J. Harold Greenlee.6
Sir Robert Anderson’s footnote on Ephesians 2:8 is well stated: “Eph. 2:8. ‘The gift of God’ here is salvation by grace through faith. Not the faith itself. ‘This is precluded,’ as Alford remarks, ‘by the manifestly parallel clauses “not of yourself,” and “not of works,” the latter of which would be irrelevant as asserted of faith.’ It is still more definitely precluded, he might have added, by the character of the passage. It is given to us to believe on Christ, just in the same sense in which it is given to some ‘also to suffer for His sake’ (Phil. 1:29). But the statement in Ephesians is doctrinal, and in that sense the assertion that faith is a gift, or indeed that it is a distinct entity at all, is sheer error. This matter is sometimes represented as though God gave faith to the sinner first, and then, on the sinner’s bringing Him the faith, went on and gave him salvation! Just as though a baker, refusing to supply empty-handed applicants, should first dispense to each the price of a loaf, and then, in return for the money from his own till, serve out the bread! To answer fully such a vagary as this would be to rewrite the foregoing chapter. Suffice it, therefore, to point out that to read the text as though faith were the gift, is to destroy not only the meaning of verse 9, but the force of the whole passage.”7
There are those who agree that Ephesians 2:8 does not prove that saving faith is the gift of God, but they believe the doctrine is taught by other passages, such as: Acts 5:31; 11:18; Phil. 1:29; 3:9; Romans 12:3; 2 Peter 1:1; 2 Timothy 2:25; and John 6:44–45. A careful look at these verses yields no proof that faith or repentance, as a synonym for faith, are special gifts of God.
“Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). If repentance in this verse refers to a special gift for salvation, then all Israel would be saved. It is evident that the reference is to God’s general offer of repentance, which most of the Jews rejected. The same explanation applies to Acts 11:18 where the Gentiles are in view.
“For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29). Sir Robert Anderson’s comment on this verse has been noted: “It is given to us to believe on Christ, just in the same sense in which it is given to some ‘also to suffer for his sake.’ ”8
“And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9). It would be a strange and strained interpretation of this verse to make “the faith of Christ” refer to a gift of faith from Christ, which Paul then exercised as his own in order to receive the righteousness of God. The ASV renders the phrase “through faith in Christ.” Even if the AV rendering is accepted, the expression clearly refers to the gospel as centered in Christ, and not to the manner in which Paul obtained his personal faith.
“For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3). The novice in Bible study would recognize that this section of Romans deals with the exercise of faith with the gifts for service (cf. Rom. 12:6) and has nothing to do with saving faith.
“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:1). Here Peter states that believers have “obtained” their faith, but he does not say how it was obtained. To use such a verse to prove that saving faith is a special gift of God is only to show how desperate the advocates of this theory are for Scriptural proof.
“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:25). The gift of repentance of this verse is clearly to recover members of the church out of the snare of Satan, and has nothing to do with saving faith. Even this gift is not an unqualified sovereign bestowal because it is dependent on the instruction of Timothy and the co-operation of the one ensnared, as the context (vs. 26) indicates.
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:44–45). It should be noted, first of all, that these verses do not say that saving faith is the gift of God. This is an assumption based on other assumptions. The method of obtaining faith is by hearing and learning of the Father. This is in harmony with Romans 10:17. Later the Lord explained his strong statement by the simple proposition that some could not come to him because of their unbelief (vss. 64–65), not because they did not receive a gift of faith. Some could not believe because they were interested in free bread and board, but not in the true bread from heaven. The sovereignty of God in salvation is a profound mystery that has its place in theology, but it need not be invoked to explain a problem which the Lord Himself explains in a far simpler way. The moral state of the enemies of Christ precluded their coming to the Father or Christ. The same situation is seen and clearly explained in John 5:44: “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”
In the Bible there is no clear and dogmatic statement that saving faith is a gift of God. On the other hand, the Bible clearly states the way in which faith is obtained: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). The Scriptures speak of saving faith as “thy faith” (Luke 7:50), “his faith” (Rom. 4:5), and “their faith” (Matt. 9:2); but never as the faith of God.”
It can be agreed that saving faith is the gift of God in the broad sense in which all things come from God (1 Cor. 4:7; Rom. 11:35, 36). However, this is entirely different from the position that an unsaved person cannot believe until he first receives a special gift of faith from God. Such a doctrine is opposed by the “whosover” passages of the Bible, and by passages which beseech the sinner to be saved (i.e., John 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:20).
But it is argued that if the sinner has sufficient ability to hear the Word of God and be saved, then salvation is by works, or partly by works. Not at all! “Faith is no more than an activity of reception contributing nothing to that which it receives.”9
Machen, himself a Calvinist, agrees emphatically that faith is not a kind of good work: “The faith of man, rightly conceived, can never stand in opposition to the completeness with which salvation depends upon God: it can never mean that man does part while God merely does the rest; for the simple reason that faith consists not in doing something but in receiving something.”10
A gift from a good man to a beggar does not cease to be a gift because the beggar stretches forth his hand to receive it.
On the other hand, it is the hyper-Calvinist who is open to the charge of teaching salvation by works. Prayer is doing something, and the man who prays hard and gets saved could justly believe that he had made his contribution to the plan of salvation. Those who deny the sinner the ability to believe end by imputing to him the impossible and unscriptural ability to find God through pious works.
Calvin did teach that faith is a gift of God, but his conclusion was not based on Ephesians 2:8. Contrary to popular opinion, Arminius also believed that justifying faith is the gift of God. He said: “Faith is the effect of God illuminating the mind and sealing the heart, and it is his mere gift.”11However, he believed that God bestows sufficient grace upon all men to believe if they will. Thus he held a position in harmony with a sincere proclamation of the gospel to all men. But did not both Calvin and Arminius go beyond the authority of the Bible in teaching that saving faith is a special gift of God?
Many passages, and whole books of the New Testament, are written to prove salvation is a gift of God and not the reward of good works. But where are the passages to prove saving faith is the gift of God? Is not this theory a deduction from the doctrine of election rather than an induction from the teaching of the Word?
NOTES
1 W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, p. 472.
* After soldiers returned from ‘the war to end all wars,’ prohibition brought turmoil, but the economy boomed. A seemingly indestructible country complacently stood at the threshold of the Great Depression. And it came about in those days that Dallas Theological Seminary—first known as the Evangelical Theological College—had its birth. And at the end of the first academic cycle, the first student to graduate—a young man named Roy L. Aldrich—crossed the stage to receive his degree. (More Here)
Dr. Leighton Flowers responds to a book recently published by Matthew Cserhati titled, “A Critique of Provisionism: A Response to Leighton Flowers’s ‘The Potter’s Promise.'” Join us LIVE as we demonstrate how Matthew’s arguments never get off the ground by surviving even the most basic level of unbiased scrutiny. To get your copy of Dr. Flowers book, Drawn By Jesus.
To assist in this video above, I will also excerpt a large portion of a must read book pictured below… it is a long read but well worth the time. Under that book quote I will put a very recent interview with Ken Wilson [Jump To] regarding Augustine… also worth your while IMHO.
Chapter IV titled: “Is God’s Grace Irresistible? A Critique of Irresistible Grace
[….]
The Bible and Irresistible Grace
What does the Bible say about irresistible grace? The easy answer is the Bible does not specifically address it. The phrase “irresistible grace” does not appear anywhere in Scripture. Neither can one find such important Calvinist words as “monergism,” “compatibilism,” or ordo salutis. This absence alone does not mean irresistible grace might not be a reality. Other doctrines such as the Trinity are described in Scripture but not with the theological name that we now give them. So let us examine Old Testament texts, New Testament texts, and the ministry and teachings of Jesus to see if they support irresistible grace. We will also see how the repeated all-inclusive invitations to salvation throughout Scripture and the descriptions of how to be saved argue against irresistible grace.
Key Texts Affirming Resistible Grace
Old Testament Texts—Some Scripture texts appear to deny irresistible grace and to affirm resistible grace explicitly. For example, in Proverbs 1, the wisdom of God personified speaks to those whom “I called” (Prov 1:24 NASB), to whom “I will pour out my spirit on you” (v. 23b), and to whom wisdom has made “my words known to you” (v. 23c). Nevertheless, no one regarded God’s truth, for the hearers refused God’s message and disdained wisdom’s counsel (vv. 22–26). Some might claim this message merely exemplifies the resistible outward call. The problem becomes complicated because these are God’s elect people, the Jews, with whom God had entered into covenant: “I called and you refused” (v. 24a). God makes them the offer: “I will pour out my spirit on you” (v. 23b), but they would not turn and instead refused to accept the message (v. 24). The grace that was so graciously offered was ungraciously refused. The proffered grace was conditional on their response. Acceptance of God’s Word would have brought blessing, but their rejection of it brought calamity upon themselves.
In the Prophets and the Psalms, God responds to the Israelites’ refusal to repent and their rejection of his Word:
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so they went from them; they sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them. He shall not return to the land of Egypt; but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to repent. And the sword shall slash in his cities, devour his districts, and consume them, because of their own counsels. My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the Most High, none at all exalt Him. How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred. I will not execute the fierceness of My anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim. For I am God, and not man, the Holy One in your midst; and I will not come with terror.” (Hos 11:1–9 NKJV)
They did not keep the covenant of God; they refused to walk in His law. (Ps 78:10 NKJV)
“But My people would not heed My voice, and Israel would have none of Me. So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart, to walk in their own counsels. Oh, that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways!” (Ps 81:11–13 NKJV)
They have turned their backs to Me and not their faces. Though I taught them time and time again, they do not listen and receive discipline. (Jer 32:33 HCSB)
New Testament Texts—One of the most direct references to the resistibility of grace in the New Testament is in Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7:2–53, just before his martyrdom in vv. 54–60. In confronting the Jews who had rejected Jesus as Messiah, Stephen said, “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did” (v. 51 NASB). The Remonstrants referenced this specific Scripture, as do most scholars who reject the notion of irresistible grace. Stephen is not speaking to believers but to Jews who have rejected Christ. He not only accuses them of “resisting the Holy Spirit” but observes that many of their Jewish ancestors resisted God as well. The word translated as “resist” (antipiptō) means not “to fall down and worship,” but to “oppose, ” “strive against,” or “resist.”21 Clearly this Scripture teaches that the influence of the Holy Spirit is resistible. A similar account in Luke describes the Pharisees’ response to the preaching of John the Baptist: “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him” (Luke 7:30 KJV).
Another example of resistance occurs in Paul’s salvation experience in Acts 26. As Saul was on the road to Damascus to persecute Christians, a blinding light hit him, and a voice out of heaven said, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14 HCSB). Saul had resisted the conviction of the Holy Spirit in events such as the stoning of Stephen, but after his dramatic experience with the risen Christ, Saul did believe. Even so, some time lapsed before Ananias arrived and Paul received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). However, in both the Old and New Testaments, other people saw miracles yet continued to resist God’s grace.22
What do Calvinists say about these texts? First, Calvinists do not deny that people can resist the Holy Spirit in some situations. Unbelievers can resist the “ outward call” of the gospel, but the elect cannot resist the “effectual call.” John Piper has said, “What is irresistible is when the Spirit is issuing the effectual call.”23 However, Calvinistic explanations do not appear to help in this instance. The Jews, after all, were God’s chosen people, and the entirety of the Jewish people were covered under the covenant, not just individual Jews. Calvinist covenantal theology sees the entire nation of Israel as being God’s chosen people. The elect, after all, are supposed to receive the effectual call. Calvinists often quote, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” (Rom 9:13 NKJV) as strong evidence for election.24 But these divinely elected people have not only rejected Jesus as Messiah but resisted the Holy Spirit through many generations in history. Therefore, it would seem God’s grace is resistible, even among the elect who are eligible to receive the effectual call.
Resistible Grace in the Ministry and Teachings of Jesus
Throughout his teaching ministry, Jesus taught and ministered in ways that seem to be inconsistent with the notion of irresistible grace. In each of these occasions, he appears to advocate the idea that God’s grace is resistible. For example, hear again Jesus’s lament over Jerusalem: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem! [The city] who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!” (Matt 23:37 HCSB, emphasis added; cf. Luke 13:34). What was Jesus lamenting? He was lamenting that despite God’s gracious love for “Jerusalem” (by metonymy including all Jews, not merely the leaders) and his desire to gather them to eternal security under his protection, and the many prophets and messengers he sent them with his message, they rejected the message that was sent them and “were not willing” to respond to God. In fact, the Greek sets the contrast off even more sharply than the English does because forms of the same Greek verb thelō (to will) are used twice in this verse: “I willed . . . but you were not willing.”25 Gottlob Schrenk described this statement as expressing “the frustration of His gracious purpose to save by the refusal of men.”26 Note also that his lament concerned the entire city of Jerusalem, not just a small number of the elect within Jerusalem. Indeed, Jesus’s “how often” signified even his preincarnate salvific concern about not only the persons living in Jerusalem at that time but for many previous generations of Jerusalemites.
Again, one might suggest that the prophets were merely the vehicles for proclaiming the general call, and thus these Jerusalemites never received the efficacious call. However, this argument will not do. First, the Jerusalemites were God’s chosen people. As the elect, they should have received the efficacious call, but in fact, they were still unwilling to respond. Some Calvinists might make this argument: the election of Israel included individuals within Israel, not all of Israel as a people. Only a remnant of physical Israel, not all of it, will be saved. But the proposal that God sent the efficacious call to just a portion of Israel nevertheless does not match up well with this text or numerous other texts.
Even so, the greater issue is that if Jesus believed in irresistible grace, with both the outward and inward calls, his apparent lament over Jerusalem would have been just a disingenuous act, a cynical show because he knew that God had not and would not give these lost persons the necessary conditions for their salvation. His lament would have been over God’s hardness of heart, but that is not what the Scripture says. Scripture attributes the people’s not coming to God to their own unwillingness, that is, the hardness of their own hearts.
What is generalized in Jesus’s lament over Jerusalem is personalized in the incident with the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18–23). The ruler asked, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (v. 18 HCSB). If Jesus were a Calvinist, one might have expected him to answer, “Nothing!” and admonish the young ruler for the impertinence of his question, particularly the idea that he could do anything to inherit eternal life, as if to steal glory from God’s monergistic salvation. Instead, Jesus told him what he could do: he could go and sell all his possessions and give them to the poor. This instruction was not just about the young ruler’s money; it was about his heart. He loved his money and the privileges it gave him, and he just could not live without it. In other words, Jesus would not grant him eternal life unless he was willing to make a total commitment of his life to God, but the young ruler was unwilling to do so. Jesus let him walk away and face the solemn consequences of his decision.
Noting the rich young ruler’s unwillingness, Jesus then commented about how hard it is for a rich person to enter heaven—indeed, as hard as a camel going through the eye of a needle (Luke 13:24–28). Of course, if Jesus were a Calvinist, he never would have suggested that it was harder for rich people to be saved by God’s irresistible grace than for poor people. Their wills would be changed immediately and invincibly upon hearing God’s effectual call. It would be no harder for a rich person to be saved by God’s monergistic and irresistible calling than it would be for any other sinner. But the real Jesus was suggesting that their salvation was tied in some measure to their response and commitment to his calling.
The same idea of resistible grace arises frequently in the parables of Jesus’s teaching ministry. In the parable of the two sons (Matt 21:28–32), Jesus described their differing responses. One son initially refused to do the work he was told to do, saying “I don’t want to!” but later “changed his mind” and did it (v. 29 HCSB). Meanwhile, the other son said he would do the work, but later he did not do the work. What was the main point of this parable? The point was that tax collectors and prostitutes were going to enter the kingdom of heaven before the chief priests and elders who resisted Jesus’s teaching (vv. 31–32). The distinction between the two was not that one was a son and one was not, for they both were sons from whom the father desired obedience. The distinction between them is the response of each son— resistance from one, repentance and obedience from the other. Evidently Jesus thought that a personal response to the Father’s will is important!
A similar teaching follows in the parable of the vineyard (Matt 21:33–44). Using the familiar Old Testament symbol of a vineyard to represent Israel, Jesus told of the owner of the vineyard going away and leaving it in the hands of the tenants. He sent back a series of messengers and finally sent his own son to instruct the tenants about running the vineyard, but they rejected each messenger and killed his son in the hope of seizing the vineyard for themselves. The owner then returned and exacted a solemn punishment on the rebellious tenants. Jesus then spoke of the cornerstone, the rock that was rejected by the builders but became the chief cornerstone, obviously speaking of himself (vv. 42–44). Jesus then told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and “given to a nation producing its fruit” (v. 43 HCSB). Again, the key differential was whether persons were willing to be responsive to the Word of God.
The parable of the sower (or of the soils) in Matt 13:1–23; Mark 4:1–20; and Luke 8:1–15 highlights the issue of personal responsiveness to the Word of God. The invariable element is the seed, which represents the Word. The variable factor is the receptiveness of the soil on which the sower sowed the seed. The seed on the path, on the rocky ground, and among the thorns never became rooted enough in the soil to flourish. The seed on the path was snatched away by the evil one. The rocky ground represents the person who “hears the word” and “receives it with joy” (Matt 13:20 HCSB) but does not flourish because “he has no root in himself” (v. 21). The seed that fell among thorns represents the person who also hears the Word of God, but the message becomes garbled by worldly interests. Only the seed that fell on good, receptive ground flourished. Again, the variable is not the proclamation of the Word but the response of the individual.
Resistible Grace in the All-Inclusive Invitations in Scripture
One of the most off-repeated themes throughout many genres of Scripture is the broad invitation of God to “all” people. This invitation parallels in many ways David L. Allen’s discussion on the issue of a limited atonement in this volume and in other works.27 However, the question relating to irresistible grace is why, when receiving irresistible grace is the only way persons can be saved, would God choose only a small number of people to be saved? In essence, Calvinists blame God for those who do not come. These lost souls cannot come because God did not give them irresistible grace, the only way they can be saved. Roger Olson compared the roles of Satan and God in Calvinism: “Satan wants all people damned to hell and God wants only a certain number damned to hell.”28 While Calvinists would insist that the sinners who reject the message of salvation merely receive their just deserts, there is really more to it than that. Calvinists affirm that God elected some for his own reasons from before the world began, and he gave them irresistible grace through his Spirit so they inevitably would be saved. Obviously, those whom he did not choose to give the irresistible effectual call but merely the resistible outer ineffectual call can never be saved. These are no more or less sinners than others, but God for no obvious reason does not love this group (Calvinists call this “preterition,” or intentionally overlooking some persons), while he loves the other group through election. God chose not to give them the means of salvation, and thus they have zero chance of being saved. The alternative perspective that I affirm is that God does extend the general call to all persons and unleashes the Holy Spirit to persuade and convict them of their need for repentance and faith. The Holy Spirit, however, does not impose his will irresistibly. At the end of the day, response to the grace of God determines whether the call is effectual.
The key issue, then, is whether salvation is genuinely open to all people or just to a few who receive irresistible grace. What does the Scripture say concerning this issue? First, Scripture clearly teaches that God desires the salvation of all people. The Bible teaches that:
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 HCSB)
“It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven for one of these little ones to perish.” (Matt 18:14 NASB)
“The Lord is . . . not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Pet 3:9 KJV)
“[God] wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:4 HCSB)
The Greek word pas (πᾶς) and its similar cognate synonym words (pantes, panta, and hos an), meaning “all” or “everyone,” such as in 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Pet 3:9, in all the standard Greek dictionaries means “all” without exception!29
Those who would like to translate the word pas as something other than a synonym for “all” should ponder the theological cost of such a move merely because it disagrees with their theological system. For example, Paul used the same term in 2 Tim 3:16, when he declared that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God”(2 Tim 3:16 KJV, emphasis added). He did not mean that God inspires merely some selected portions of Scripture but that God inspires all Scripture. Likewise, the Greek word pas (“all”), used in the prologue to John, makes the enormous claim about creation that “all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3 KJV, emphasis added). Jesus was not involved in merely creating a few trees and hills here and there, but all things were created by him. We see the word again in Ephesians when Paul looked toward the eschaton and claimed that in the fullness of time will be gathered “all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth” (Eph 1:10 KJV, emphasis added). Thus, an accurate doctrine of the creation of the world, the inspiration of Scripture, and the consummation of the world hinges on an accurate rendering of the Greek word pas as “all.” So does the doctrine of salvation—that God desires the salvation of all people and has made an atonement through Christ that is sufficient for all people.
This same all-inclusive Greek word pas (translated as “everyone,” “all,” or “whosoever”) is used repeatedly in the New Testament to offer an invitation to all people who will respond to God’s gracious initiative with faith and obedience (italics in the following Scripture passages are mine):
“Therefore whoever [pas hostis] hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock.” (Matt 7:24 NKJV; see Luke 6:47–48)
“Whosoever [pas hostis] therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever [hostis an] shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt 10:32–33 KJV; see Luke 12:8)
“Come to Me, all [pantes] who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt 11:28 NASB1995)
John the Baptist “came as a witness, / to testify about the light, / so that all [pantes] might believe through him.” (John 1:7 HCSB)
Jesus is “the true light, who gives light to everyone” [panta]. (John 1:9 HCSB)
Whoever [pas] believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever [pas] believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:15–16 NKJV)
“Everyone [pas] who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever [hos an] drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” (John 4:13–14 NASB1995)
“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone [pas] who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40 NASB1995)
“Everyone [pas] who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:26 NASB)
“I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone [pas] who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.” (John 12:46 NASB1995)
And it shall be that everyone [pas, hos an] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Acts 2:21 NASB)30
“Of Him [Jesus] all [pantes] the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone [panta] who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 10:43 NASB1995)
As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever [pas] believes on Him will not be put to shame.” (Rom 9:33 NKJV)
For the Scripture says, “Whoever [pas] believes in Him will not be disappointed.” (Rom 10:11 NASB1995)
Whoever [pas] denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:23 NASB)
Whoever [pas] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (1 John 5:1 NASB1995)
Many more of these broad invitations are found throughout Scripture than space permits to list here. In addition, the New Testament often uses a form of hostis, which when combined with an or ean is an indefinite relative pronoun best translated as “anyone,” “whosoever,” or “everyone” and refers to the group as a whole, with a focus on each individual member of the group.31
An All-Inclusive Invitation in the Prophets
In the famous prophecy of Joel, the prophet commented on whom God delivers:
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. (Joel 2:32 KJV)
Note that the “whosoever” (translated “everyone” in NASB and HCSB) refers to “the remnant whom the Lord shall call.” These are not two distinct groups but are one and the same.
All-Inclusive Invitations Offered by Jesus
Jesus offered an all-inclusive invitation in the Sermon on the Mount and throughout his teaching ministry. Note that Jesus did not say “whoso-elect” in these invitations; the invitation is always addressed to “whosoever.”32
“And blessed is he, whosoever [hos ean] shall not be offended in me.” (Matt 11:6 KJV; see Luke 7:23)
“For whosoever [hostis an] shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Matt 12:50 KJV; cf. Mark 3:35)
“If any man [tis] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever [hos an] will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matt 16:24– 25 KJV; cf. Mark 8:34–35; Luke 9:23–24)
“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone [ean tis] eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (John 6:51 NASB1995)
“If anyone [ean tis] is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” (John 7:17 NASB1995)
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone [ean tis] is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.” (John 7:37 NASB)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone [ean tis] keeps My word he will never see death.” (John 8:51 NASB1995)
All-Inclusive Invitations in the Proclamation and Epistles of the Early Church
“And it shall be that everyone [pas, hos an] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Acts 2:21 NASB)
“Of Him [Jesus] all [pantes] the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone [panta] who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 10:43 NASB1995)
For everyone [pas, hos an] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Rom 10:13 HCSB)
Whoever [hos an] confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. (1 John 4:15 NASB1995)
All-Inclusive Invitations in John’s Revelation
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone [ean tis] hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.” (Rev 3:20 NASB)
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev 22:17 KJV)
To be sure, Calvinists attribute all these verses to the “general call” or “universal call” that God gives to all people although he has no intention of actually saving many of them. But in so doing they impose their own theological beliefs on the text. These verses mention no difference between a “ general call” and “specific call,” or between “common grace” and “enabling irresistible grace.” Therefore, when we see the same all-inclusive invitation over and over again in the various genres of Scripture, the question must be asked if the Calvinist theological system is doing justice to the biblical text. Calvinists should take seriously Paul’s admonition in Rom 9:20 (NIV): “But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?” In Romans 9 Paul was addressing believers from a Jewish background who believed they were among the elect people, the “frozen chosen.” But much to their surprise, God in his sovereignty extended salvation to others—the Gentiles whom they hated. If God has chosen to save those who come to him by faith in Christ, as Romans 9–11 repeatedly assert, who are we to disagree with his sovereign choice? Just so, if God says he desires the salvation of all people, I believe he means it, not just in his revealed (for Calvinists, evidently deceptive) will, but also in his secret (real) will. The call is indeed universal or general for everyone to be saved. But the elect are not limited to a select group that God has chosen because he especially and savingly loves them and rejects by preterition all others, but are coterminous with those who have trusted Christ as Savior and Lord.
Resistible Grace in Descriptions of How to Be Saved
Another line of evidence in Scripture that supports the idea that grace is resistible is in biblical descriptions of how to be saved. Whenever anyone in the New Testament asks a direct question about how to be saved, the answer never refers to election. The answer always calls for an action on the part of the person to receive the salvation that God has provided and offers to each person. In Scripture, eternal life is proffered to all those who hear the gospel, not just to a few select persons who receive effectual grace irresistibly. What do the New Testament salvific formulas say is required to be saved?
The Teachings of Jesus
Jesus directly tied salvation to faith in him realized through human response to the proclamation of the gospel:
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:14–18 NKJV).
The Need for Persuasion
At the end of the sermon at Pentecost, some of the hearers “were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’” (Acts 2:37 NASB1995). Peter’s answer was not, “Are you elect or not?” His answer was, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). Even after this, “with many other words he [Peter] solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation!’” (v. 40, emphasis added). The word translated “exhorting” in the NASB1995 is variously translated in other Bible versions as “strongly urged” (HCSB), “entreated” (Weymouth), “pleaded” (NIV), or “begged” (NCV). The word that is translated “exhort” is parekalei, meaning to invite or summon someone to a decision, to beseech or implore someone, or to plead with or call someone to a decision.33 The same meaning applies to all six other usages of parekalei in the New Testament. Of course, had Peter known that grace was irresistible, he wouldn’t have wasted his time with such a solemn exhortation, knowing that God had already regenerated them by irresistible grace. What persuasion is necessary for one who is already convinced?
Likewise, Paul wrote that his preaching was an effort intended to “ persuade” people (2 Cor 5:11 NIV). The word Paul used here is peithō, meaning to persuade or convince someone, to try to win someone over to your point of view.34 Why would there be a need to persuade someone who had already been regenerated by irresistible enabling grace?
The Appeal to the Philippian Jailer.When the Philippian jailer saw the miraculous intervention of God in releasing Paul and Silas from his jail, he fell at their feet and asked the salvation question in the most direct way possible: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30 NASB). Peter did not respond by talking about election. Instead, he answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (v. 31; emphasis added). Being saved was conditional on his belief.
The Appeal to the Ethiopian Eunuch.After Philip had witnessed to the Ethiopian eunuch from the Old Testament prophecies, the eunuch exclaimed, “‘Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God’” (Acts 8:36–37 NASB1995). And so he was baptized. Note that his being baptized was conditional upon his trust in Christ.
The Teaching of Paul. “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation” (Rom 10:9–10 HCSB). Again, salvation is conditional on trusting in Christ.
To summarize, the Scriptures contain significant evidence against irresistible grace. The Bible specifically teaches that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. It repeatedly calls upon all people to respond to God’s gracious invitation. The descriptions of how to be saved focus on the requirement for a positive human response to God’s initiative. The texts do not seem to support irresistible grace, but they call upon persons to respond to the grace of God in specific ways. The plain reading of these texts tends to support the belief that God’s grace, by his own intent and design, is resistible, and choosing Christ is voluntary (guided by the conviction and convincing of the Holy Spirit).
Assessing Calvinist Arguments and Proof Texts for Irresistible Grace
In the previous version of this article in Whosoever Will, I explored seven theological concerns about irresistible grace.35 While I still affirm those concerns, in this article I have chosen to address some arguments and proof texts proffered by Calvinists to defend the notion of irresistible grace. Specifically, we will examine Calvinist proof texts in John 6 and 12; Rom 8:29–30; and Eph 2:1 in the light of the best hermeneutics.36 Then we will examine two theological arguments made by Calvinists—that irresistible grace is required for God to be sovereign, and it is necessary for God to receive glory.
Calvinist Argument #1: John 6:37–44, 65 and 12:32
Probably the Scripture most frequently cited by Calvinists regarding
irresistible grace is John 6:44, along with related verses in John 6 and 12:
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. . . . No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. ” . . . And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” (John 6:37–40, 44, 65 NASB1995)
“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:32 NASB1995).
John Frame,37 R. C. Sproul,38 Matthew Barrett,39 Loraine Boettner,40 William Hendrikson and Simon J. Kistemaker,41 and Robert Yarbrough42 (among others) list these verses as among the primary proof texts for irresistible grace. To make their case, several of them referred specifically to a citation in Kittel’s ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.43 As Sproul noted, one translation for the word “draws” (helkuō) is “to compel by irresistible superiority.”44 Barrett waxed eloquent to infer from that one definition that John 6:44 teaches God’s drawing is “indefectible, invincible, unconquerable, indomitable, insuperable, and unassailable summons,”45 words which appear neither in this text or any other biblical text regarding God’s grace, but appear only when Calvinistic presuppositions color the reading of Scripture. Calvinists like to appeal to other New Testament references in which the word “draw” is used literally, such as Acts 16:19 and Jas 2:6, in which prisoners are being physically dragged against their wills by authorities.
The Calvinist use of helkuō in Jas 2:6, Acts 16:19, and other places as justification for understanding helkuō in John 6:44 as meaning “to compel by irresistible superiority,” or a “forceful [irresistible] attraction,” commits a word-study fallacy known as “word loading” or “illegitimate totality transfer.”46 Word loading occurs when an interpreter takes a meaning of a word in one context (physical) and then seeks to apply that same meaning into a different context (spiritual). A simple example of this fallacy is to overlook the fact that the same word “spirit” (pneuma) that refers to the human spirit can also refer to the divine Holy Spirit. It is the same Greek word with two very different meanings, depending on the context. “The immediate context always determines the meaning for any word—no matter how many times a word carries such a meaning in another context.”47
Perhaps more embarrassingly for the Calvinists’ exegesis of John 6:44, the article on elkō in the abridged one-volume TDNT, which focuses more on biblical interpretation than general usage, was authored by the same Albrecht Oepke who authored the article in the ten-volume edition. Oepke noted that helkein in the Old Testament “denotes a powerful impulse . . . [that] expresses the force of love.” Oepke’s specific interpretation of John 6:44 deals a stunning blow to the Calvinist interpretation of that would-be proof text:
This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic.48
By no means is the abridged version of Kittel the only lexigraphical reference favoring a non-Calvinist reading of John 6:44. Note how the following well-respected lexicons address “draw” in John 6:44 to be interpreted metaphorically or figuratively rather than literally:
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., by Bauer and Danker: “to draw a pers. in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract, an extended fg. [figurative] mng. [meaning] . . . J[ohn] 6:44 . . . J[ohn] 12:32.”49
The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament by Mounce: “met. [metaphorically] to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32.”50
Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament by Hickie: “met., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. 12:32. Cf. Joh. 6:44.”51
Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Friberg, Friberg, and Miller: “figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44).”52
Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament by Robinson: “to draw, by a moral influence, John 6:44. 12:32.”53
The New Analytical Greek Lexicon by Perschbacher: “met. to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32.”54
Note that these respected lexicons all take “draw” in John 6:44 to be a figurative or metaphorical usage when applied to spiritual issues within persons. In short, these standard lexicons provide no support for the Calvinist reading of John 6:44.55
Other exegetical points can be raised to show the error of the Calvinist interpretation of John 6:44,56 but one more must be mentioned here. Who is it that the Father draws? Is it some arbitrary choice he makes in his “secret will”? Schreiner and Ware asserted that the “drawing” in John 6:44 is only for the elect:
Is [this an] unlimited or common grace, given to all? Or is it a particular grace, an efficacious grace given only to some? The second half of verse 44 answers our question, for there we find that . . . the one who is given grace (who is drawn by the Father) is actually saved (raised up). The drawing of the Father, then, is not general, but particular, for it accomplishes the final salvation of those who are drawn. God’s grace, without which no one can be saved, is therefore an efficacious [irresistible] grace, resulting in the sure salvation of those to whom it is given.57
Who are “all that” the Father will draw (John 6:37 NASB1995)? Woven throughout John 6 (and prior chapters) are repeated references to the necessity of believing in Jesus as Savior and Lord to receive eternal life (John 3:16, 18, 36; 6:27–29, 40, 54). Schreiner and Ware also acknowledged that those who are “coming” to Christ (John 6:35, 37, 44, 45) are essentially synonymous with those “believing” in Christ. John 6:39–40 are verses woven together with the preposition “for,” and these verses mirror the structure of each other in an ABCCBA pattern (“A” being the repeated phrase “raise them up,” for example).58 What this makes clear is that the identity of those whom the Father gives to Jesus are precisely identical with those who believe. Calvinist F. F. Bruce supported this reading of John 6:37–40: “In the first part of verse 37 the pronoun ‘all’ is neuter singular (Gk. pan), denoting the sum-total of believers. In the second part (‘the one who comes’) each individual of the sum-total is in view. This oscillation between the [believing] community and its individual members reappears in verses 39 and 40.”59
Likewise, Lenski noted that those who are given by the Father to the Son sum up “the whole mass of believers of all ages and speaks of them as a unit.”60 Vincent described it as “all believers regarded as one complete whole.”61 Jesus stated God’s will clearly and unequivocally: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40 NASB). To be sure, because of human depravity, it is essential that the Father must draw humans unto himself through the convicting and convincing of the Holy Spirit. God’s grace is a necessary condition of our salvation, but God’s saving grace does not become operational in our own lives until we place our faith in Jesus Christ.
Ben Witherington pointed out the necessity of both God’s grace and human response by faith in addressing this passage:
Both God’s sovereign grace and human response play a role in human salvation, but even one’s human response is enabled by God’s grace. God’s role in the relationship is incomparably greater than the human one, but the fact remains that God does not and will not save a person without the positive human response, called faith, to the divine leading and drawing.62
Richard Lenski affirmed that both God’s grace and human response are voiced in John 6:37 and 6:44:
But in these expressions, “all that the Father gives,” and, “all that he has given,” Jesus speaks of all believers of all ages as already being present to the eyes of God, he also thus is giving them to Jesus. . . . God’s grace is universal. He would give all men to Jesus. The only reason he does not do so is because so many men obdurately refuse to be part of that gift. . . . “Him that comes to me” makes the matter individual, personal, and a voluntary act. The Father’s drawing (v. 44) is one of grace alone, thus it is efficacious, wholly sufficient, able to change the unwilling into the willing, but not by coercion, not irresistibly. Man can obdurately refuse to come. . . .63
Here [in John 6:44] Jesus explains the Father’s “giving” mentioned in v. 37 and 39: he gives men to Jesus by drawing them to him. This drawing [helkuō] is accomplished by a specific power, one especially designed for the purpose, one that takes hold of the sinner’s soul and moves it away from darkness, sin, and death, to Jesus, light, and life. No man can possibly thus draw himself to Jesus. The Father, God himself, must come with his divine power and must do this drawing; else it will never be effected. . . . The drawing is here predicated of the Father; in 12:32 it is predicated of Jesus, “And I will draw all men unto myself.” . . . The power by which these Jews are at this very moment being drawn is the power of divine grace, operative in and through the Word these Jews now hear from the lips of Jesus. While it is power (Rom. 1:16), efficacious to save, it is never irresistible (Matt. 23:37, “and ye would not”). Nor is this power extended only to a select few, for in 12:32 Jesus says, “I will draw all men.” The power of the gospel is for the world, and no sinner has fallen so low but what this power is able to reach him effectually.64
Therefore, we need not speculate about what God’s “secret will” might be, because Jesus clearly revealed what his will actually is: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40 NASB; emphasis added). The Father draws those whom he has foreseen will believe in his Son as Savior and Lord! God’s grace is necessary for salvation, but God’s grace does not become operational in our own lives until we respond by placing our faith in Jesus Christ.
Calvinist Argument #2: Romans 8:29–30
Another proof text cited by many Calvinists is Rom 8:29–30, sometimes called the “Golden Chain of Redemption”:
For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; and those He called, He also justified; and those He justified, He also glorified. (Rom 8:29– 30 HCSB)
For example, Matthew Barrett argued that Rom 8:29–30 is an ideal example of the “effectual calling.”65 He cited Doug Moo in arguing that the links in the chain are all connected by the demonstrative pronoun “these” (toutous): “This leaves little room for the suggestion that the links in this chain are not firmly attached to one another, as if some who were ‘foreknown’ and ‘predestined’ would not be ‘called,’ ‘justified,’ and ‘glorified.’”66
The Priority of Divine Foreknowledge
I absolutely agree with Moo’s assertion. But it is ironic to me that Calvinists consider Rom 8:29–30 to favor their position. I cite it as a text favoring a non-Calvinist interpretation, so it obviously depends on the proper interpretation of the text. Note that the first link in that chain of redemption is not predestination, but foreknowledge. God does not first predestine the elect and then foreknow them. Rather, God’s foreknowledge of human responses comes first, with God’s election, calling, and justification flowing from his foreknowledge. The entire discussion of election in Romans 9–11 is framed by references to foreknowledge, both as a prologue to the discussion in Rom 8:29–30 and near its conclusion in Rom 11:1–2: “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew” (Rom 11:1–2 NASB1995; emphasis added).
Who are these people whom God foreknew? The apostle Paul made it very clear in Romans 9–11 that God will save whosoever will come to Him by faith:
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.” (Rom 9:30–33 NASB1995; emphasis added)
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Rom 10:8–13 NASB1995; emphasis added)
Exegetical Evidence
God’s foreknowledge is consistently affirmed in the Bible (Ps 139:1–10; Acts 2:23; Rom 8:29; 11:2; 16:27; 1 Pet 1:2). The Greek word translated “foreknew” is the verb proginoskō. In any standard lexicon, the root Greek word for “foreknew” (proginoskō) simply means knowing something before it happens.67 In his classic commentary on the letter to the Romans, Frederic Godet noted that “knowledge” is the “first and fundamental meaning” of prognosis.68 In his commentary on Romans, R. C. H. Lenski likewise affirmed that “both linguistically and doctrinally the knowing cannot be eliminated and an act of willing, a decree, be substituted. . . . ‘Foreknew’ ever remains eternal advance knowledge, a divine knowledge that includes all that God’s grace would succeed in working in us.”69 Ben Witherington also distinguished God’s foreknowledge from predestination:
Paul distinguishes between what God knows and what God wills or destines in advance. Knowing and willing are not one and the same. The proof of this is of course that God knows very well about human sin but does not will it or destine it to happen.70
The belief that divine election is based upon his foreknowledge of a believer’s faith is not a new idea. This understanding of Scripture goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. Lenski noted of the earlier church fathers, “The older dogmaticians interpreted: quos credituros praevidit, ‘whom he foresaw as believers.’”71 Gerald Bray and Ben Witherington also have documented that the belief in divine foreknowledge is seen in both Judaism and in the early church fathers, including Diodore of Tarsus, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ambrosiaster, Cyril of Alexandria, and John Chrysostom.72 Election based on divine foreknowledge is also affirmed by Molinism, in which God’s foreknowledge is described as “middle knowledge.”
The Requirements for Salvation
What requirements has God sovereignly established for salvation? The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God requires repentance and faith for salvation. As noted earlier, every formulaic statement of what is required for salvation makes the necessity of repentance and faith crystal clear (Matt 10:32–33; Mark 16:15–16; John 3:14–17; 6:40; 11:26; 12:46; Acts 2:21, 27–30; 10:43; 16:30–31; Rom 9:33; 10:9–11; 1 John 5:1). The question is not what God could or might have done, but what he has done. God does foreknow, elect, and predestine a particular type of person from before the foundation of the world—and that is believers! Based on his foreknowledge of those who will (under the conviction of the Holy Spirit) repent of their sins and trust Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, God elects, predestines, justifies, and glorifies (Rom 8:29–30).
Since the traditional interpretation of Rom 8:29–30 as God electing based on his foreknowledge of the future faith of believers does not square with Calvinist theology, they reinterpret Rom 8:29–30 in various ways. Calvinist scholars have raised at least three challenges to the traditional interpretation of Rom 8:29–30: that “foreknew” really means “foreloved,” that God’s foreknowledge is not chronologically and logically before God’s predestination, and that genuine human freedom would violate God’s foreknowledge and sovereignty. What is wrong with each of these alternative explanations?
Does foreknew mean foreloved? No. As noted earlier, standard lexicons make it clear that the primary meaning of “foreknew” is “foreknew,” not “foreloved.” Witherington pointed out that the next reference to foreknowledge in Romans, Rom 11:2, makes this distinction between God foreknowing believers and election even clearer:
Love for God can be commanded, but it cannot be coerced, compelled, or engineered in advance, or else it loses its character as love. The proof that this line of thinking, and not that of Augustine, Luther, or Calvin, is on the right track is seen clearly in 11:2, where Paul says plainly that God foreknew his Jewish people, and yet not all of them responded positively to his call. Indeed, only a minority have as he writes this letter. God’s foreknowledge, and even God’s plan of destiny for Israel, did not in the end predetermine which particular individual Israelite would respond positively to the gospel call and which would not. In 10:8–15 Paul will make clear that the basis of that response is faith and confession.73
Does God’s predestination precede his foreknowledge? Some Calvinists suggest that foreknowledge is an overarching summary, so that the first link in the “Golden Chain of Redemption” is really predestination. However, although this view squares with Calvinist theology, it does not square with Rom 8:29–30. As noted earlier, the “Golden Chain of Redemption” is intended as a series of events, one following after the other, linked in each case by the Greek word hous, translated, “whom.” God foreknowing believers is clearly the first link in that chain.74 Witherington commented, “Hous, ‘whom,’ at the beginning of v. 29 must refer back to ‘those who love God,’ that is, Christians, in v. 28. The discussion that follows is about the future of believers.”75 Witherington lamented that what some commentators “seem to have clearly missed is that we continue to have reference to the same hous: once in v. 29, and three times in v. 30. . . .” One implication of this series of connected statements is that
since vv. 29–30 must be linked to v. 28, the “those who” in question are those about whom Paul has already said that they “love God”—i.e., Paul makes perfectly clear that he is talking about Christians here. The statement about them loving God precedes and determines how we should read both hous in these verses and the chain of verbs. God knew something in advance about these persons, namely that they would respond to the call of God in love. For such people, God goes all out to make sure that in the end they are fully conformed to the image of Christ.76
Does human freedom obviate God’s sovereignty? Calvinists question how God could foreknow all things before the foundation of the world and yet allow us genuine libertarian free will. If he knows for sure what we are going to choose to do before we do it, do we really have a choice? How could God foreknow that we are going to change our minds? Once God knows what we are going to do, does it not become fixed and determined so that we have no real free choice—we can choose nothing else?
The fundamental problem with these objections is that they put nonlogical limitations on God’s omniscience and foreknowledge. Human choices reflect our God-given creaturely freedom, and God foreknows the future free choices of individuals. As an omniscient being, God timelessly knows all future human choices (not only the actual choices, but also the possible choices in any conceivable circumstance). To deny the complete foreknowledge of God is to deny the omniscience of God.
Second, from a logical perspective, the claim that God’s foreknowledge takes away any real human choices fundamentally confuses the difference between knowledge and causation. Two plus two is not four because I know it; it is true because it is true in reality. In fact, two plus two equals four whether or not I believe it. Knowing something does not cause it to happen, even for God. Knowledge, no matter who holds it, is causally indeterminative. Therefore, it is a misconception to think that God’s foreknowledge of future human choices causes a person’s acceptance or rejection of faith in Christ.
Third, the claim that God’s foreknowledge takes away any real human choices fundamentally confuses the important distinction between necessity (what must happen) and certainty (what will happen). Since God’s omniscient knowledge does not cause future events, his (fore)knowledge does not make these events necessary. God knows future events with certainty, but that does not mean that those events had to happen by logical necessity. Future events are contingent on the future decisions of his free creatures.77 As explained earlier, God simply knows before we make those choices what our choices are going to be.
Ponder this analogy, although human analogies about God are inherently limited because he is not bound to our limitations of time and imperfect knowledge. Jim and Rusty were fans of a basketball team playing a game that would determine the league championship, but their schedules did not permit them to watch the game. So they taped it to watch later. Jim got out of the meeting early and witnessed the team making a remarkable comeback to win in the last seconds of the game. When Rusty came in, he did not know the outcome of the game (or that Jim had seen it). As their team trailed the opponent for most of the game, Rusty kept lamenting that their team was going to lose, but Jim told Rusty that he is confident that they could come back and win. Jim encouraged Rusty to have faith in their team. Sure enough, as Jim foreknew, the team came back in the last seconds of the game and won a dramatic victory. Rusty was amazed that Jim seemed so sure that their team would rally and win the game. In truth, of course, Jim did not really have “faith”—he had knowledge of what would actually happen that was inaccessible to Rusty.
The point is this: Jim’s certain knowledge of what would happen at the end of the game had exactly nothing to do with his team winning the game. His knowledge did not predetermine the fouls, the plays, or the last-second shot that won the game. Jim knew the result with certainty, but not of logical necessity. He simply knew ahead of time what would actually happen without causing what happened. Likewise, God knows our future choices with certainty without making them logically necessary. So the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom is coherent, and more importantly, it aligns with the description of God’s foreknowledge of human choices in the pages of Scripture.
[….]
FOOTNOTES
21 William E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1966), 286; Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1977), 51; BDAG, 90.
22 John Chrysostom said in a sermon on 1 Cor 1:4–5, “But some man will say, ‘He ought to bring men in, even against their will.’ Away with this. He doth not use violence, nor compel; for who that bids to honours, and crowns, and banquets, and festivals, drags people unwilling and bound? No one. For this is the part of one inflicting an insult. Unto hell He sends men against their will, but unto the kingdom He calls willing minds.” John Chrysostom, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, homily 2, point 9 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1854), 17.
23 Piper and staff, “Five Points of Calvinism.”
24 Israel’s election to service as a chosen people and individual election to salvation for Christians are interwoven in Romans 9–11. Calvinists often do not give adequate attention to the former. See the article by William Klein in this volume.
25 Gottlob Schrenk, s.v. “theō, theleōma, theleōsis,” in TDNT, 3:48–49.
26 TDNT, 3:48–49.
27 Allen, The Atonement (see intro., n. 20); Allen, Extent of the Atonement (see intro., n. 10); David L. Allen, “Commentary on Article 3: The Atonement of Christ,” in Allen, Hankins, and Harwood, Anyone Can Be Saved, 55–64 (see intro., n. 20).
28 Roger Olson, Against Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 159.
29 Bo Reicke, s.v. “pas,” TDNT, 5:886–96; Thayer, “pas,” Greek-English Lexicon, 491–93; BDAG, 782–84. Danker noted that pas pertains “to totality” with a “focus on its individual components.” BDAG, 782. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida similarly observe that pas denotes “the totality of any object, mass, collective, or extension” (L&N 1:597).
30 Note the commentary on Acts 2:21 by John Calvin himself: “He [God] says, all things are in turmoil and possessed by the fear of death, only call upon Me and you shall be saved. So however much a man may be overwhelmed in the gulf of misery there is yet set before him a way of escape. We must also observe the universal word, ‘whosoever’. For God himself admits all men to Himself without exception and by this means invites them to salvation, even as Paul deduces in Rom. 10, and as the prophet had earlier recorded. ‘Thou Lord who hearest prayer, unto Thee shall all flesh come’ (Ps. 65.2). Therefore since no man is excluded from calling upon God the gate of salvation is set open to all. There is nothing else to hinder us from entering, but our own unbelief.” Calvin, “The Acts of the Apostles 1–13,” in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., trans. J. W. Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 6:61–62, emphasis added. Evidently Calvin does not always agree with Calvinists.
31 Thayer, “hostis,” Greek-English Lexicon, 33–34, 454–57; BDAG, “hostis,” 56–57, 725–27, 729–30. Danker noted that hostis means “whoever, everyone, who, in a generalizing sense,” and when combined with an “the indefiniteness of the expression is heightened.” BDAG, 729.
32 See also Mark 8:38/Luke 9:26; Mark 9:37/Luke 9:48; Mark 10:15; and Luke 14:27.
33 Otto Schmitz, s.v. “parakaleō,” TDNT, 5:773–79, 793–94.
34 Rudolf Bultmann, s.v. “peithō,” TDNT, 6:8–9.
35 Lemke, “Critique of Irresistible Grace,” in Whosoever Will, 109–62.
36 For more on sound hermeneutics, see Steve Lemke, Grant Lovejoy, and Bruce Corley, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2nd ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2002).
37 John Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R, 2006), 184.
38 Sproul, Chosen by God, 69; Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 153–54.
39 Barrett, “Monergism,” 141.
40 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Faith (Philadelphia: P&R, 1984), 11.
41 William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel according to John, 2 vols., New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 1:238.
42 Robert Yarbrough, “Divine Election in the Gospel of John,” in Still Sovereign: Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 50n10.
43 Albrecht Oepke, s.v. “Elkō,” TDNT, 2:503.
44 Sproul, Chosen by God, 69; Grace Unknown, 153.
45 Barrett, “Monergism,” 141.
46 See Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 53 (see chap. 3, n. 21); and Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 25–27.
47 Steve Witzki, “Free Grace or Forced Grace?” The Arminian 19, no.1 (Spring 2001): 2.
48 Albrecht Oepke, s.v. “elkō,” TDNTa, 227; emphasis added.
49 BDAG, 251.
50 William Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Zondervan Greek Reference Series (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1993), 180.
51 William J. Hickie, Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (New York: Cosimo, 2007), 13.
52 Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Bloomington, IN: Trafford, 2006), 144.
53 Edward Robinson, A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament (Charleston, SC: Bibliolife, 2009), 240.
54 Wesley J. Perchbacher, ed., The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 135.
55 Furthermore, if “draws” meant irresistible drawing, John 12:32 would affirm universal salvation.
57 Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware, introduction to Still Sovereign, 15. Schreiner and Ware thus interpret John 6:44 to mean, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise the one whom the Father draws up on the last day.” However, John 6:44 must be read in light of a preceding verse with a parallel construction, John 6:40: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (NASB). Therefore, the proper interpretation of John 6:44 should be, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise up on the last day the one who comes to me (through faith).” As noted above, the lexical definition of “draw” does not mean the irresistible drawing that Calvinists try to make it mean to suit their theology. This promise of the resurrection is given to believers who respond to the gracious invitation of God.
58 Witzki, “Calvinism and John 6, Part One,” 4–5.
59 F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 154.
60 Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 463.
61 Marvin Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1886), 2:150.
62 Ben Witherington III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 158, emphasis added.
63 Lenski, Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, 464–65; emphasis added.
64 Lenski, 475–76; emphasis added.
65 Barrett, “Monergism,” 128–30.
66 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 535; cited in Barrett, “Monergism,” 129.
67 Rudolf Bultmann, s.v. “proginoskō, prognosis,” TDNT, 1:715–16.
68 Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 325. Godet notes that “the act of knowing, exactly like that of seeing, supposes an object perceived by the person who knows or sees. It is not the act of seeing or knowing which produces this object; it is the object, on the contrary, which determines this act of knowing or seeing. And the same is the case with divine provision of foreknowledge; for in the case of God who lives above time, foreseeing is seeing; knowing what shall be is knowing what to Him already is. And therefore it is the believer’s faith which, as a future fact, but in His sight already existing, which determines His foreknowledge” (emphasis added).
69 Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936), 558–59.
70 Ben Witherington III, with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 230.
71 Lenski, Romans, 559.
72 Gerald Bray and Thomas Bray, eds., New Testament VI: Romans (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 233–44; Witherington, Romans, 227–28. Additional early church fathers who endorsed this perspective on human freedom and foreknowledge include Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Jerome.
73 Witherington, Romans, 229–30.
74 F. F. Bruce noted that these phrases are also connected in what is called a sorites construction, in which the predicate of one clause becomes the subject of the next clause. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Tyndale, 1963), 176.
75 Witherington, Romans, 227.
76 Witherington, 229, n. 28.
77 For more on the confusion of contingency and necessity, see Kenneth D. Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 8–9, 31–38; and Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will—Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House, 2002), 36–63.
Whether you are familiar with Augustine or not, chances are you have encountered Calvinism and its core doctrines—especially the idea of unconditional election. Perhaps you have Reformed friends who hold to the belief that God has sovereignly chosen some individuals for salvation and others for damnation, entirely apart from their free will. This deterministic view of salvation has become deeply embedded in much of Western Christianity. But what if we could trace this theological development to a specific moment in church history? What if we could say, with confidence, when and how this view was introduced—and argue that it was not part of the original Christian faith?
On today’s show, we take a critical look at one of the most influential figures in Christian history: Augustine of Hippo. We’re joined by Dr. Ken Wilson, Oxford-trained scholar and author of The Foundations of Augustinian Calvinism. In his historical research, Dr. Wilson demonstrates how Augustine’s later theology—particularly his embrace of determinism and unilateral grace—marked a significant departure from the teachings of earlier Church Fathers and laid the foundation for what would become Calvinistic theology.
The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism with Dr. Ken Wilson
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. ……
I affirm that God’s predetermination and foreknowledge are coextensive, which is to say that God is essentially omniscient rather than knowing things perceptively. God has always known all contingencies (decisions yet to be actualized) because even though they do not exist external to the mind of God, they have eternally existed in the mind of God by virtue of the nature of His being. Moreover, I affirm that the distinction between predestining something to happen a certain way and predestining to allow some human freedom to determine outcomes are both within the scope of the biblical meaning of predestination and foreknowledge. I further affirm that both understandings of predestination are compatible with and demonstrative of sovereignty so long as He made the decision freely, which He did in fact do, thereby being part of His plan rather than contrary to His plan.
The Calvinist position that God elects to regenerate some, the elect, and all that He regenerates will necessarily believe inescapably leaves God determining to send some to hell who could have been spared that torment if He had chosen for them to be spared because all that He elects to regenerate must believe and all that He chooses not to regenerate cannot believe. This position is in contrast to the position I am advocating, whereby God enables all to have a real choice of whether to believe or not, and those who go to hell are there because they rejected a real chance to not be there.
I further affirm God’s omniscience, which includes perfect, exhaustive knowledge of every actuality, potentiality, contingency, and conditional reality. Thus, God knows everything about the future including every potential and actual choice of every person. He also knows the consequence of every potential and actual choice. God’s foreknowledge is in reality just knowledge for God. He has known every future event in an eternal present. W. T. Shedd notes, “Omniscience excludes both foreknowledge and subsequent knowledge.”14 Augustine said, “What is foreknowledge but the knowledge of the future. But what is future to God? For, if the divine knowledge includes all things at one instant, all things are present to him, and there is nothing future; and his knowledge is knowledge, and not foreknowledge.”15
Thus, the future, or tomorrow for us, has always been known to God. In this sense, there is no future with God, although He differentiates between what is past, present, and yet to sequentially happen. As far as knowledge, He knows the future as well and certain as He knows the past. Charnocke says, “the knowledge of one thing is not, in God, before another; one act of knowledge doth not beget another. In regard of the objects themselves, one thing is before another; one year before another; one generation of men before another; one is the cause, and the other is the effect; in the creature’s mind there is such a succession, and God knows there will be such a succession; but there is no such order in God’s knowledge; for he knows all those successions by one glance, without any successions of knowledge in himself.”16 This is what I mean by saying God’s predestination and God’s foreknowledge are coextensive. God does see the sequence of events, but he does not learn from looking at sequential actions or choices and then choose to act because He sees them all simultaneously.
Shedd says, “God has a knowledge of all things that are possible ….He knows all that he can do ….It is knowledge that… never causes an act of the will….God has knowledge of what is conditionally possible, that is, of those events which have never come to pass, but which might have occurred under certain possible conditions ….For example, God knows that if a certain person should live to middle life, he would become exceedingly vicious and wicked. He prevents this by an early death of the person. Biblical instances are Matthew 11:21-23 (the repentance of Tyre and Sidon; of Sodom and Gomorrah); 1 Samuel 23:5-14; Jeremiah 38:17-20.”17
So when we speak of God’s foreknowledge, it does not convey the idea of learning, or becoming aware, but rather as Shedd notes, “Foreknowledge, strictly taken, implies an interval between the knowledge and the event.”18 Lewis Sperry Chafer says, “Omniscience brings everything—past, present, and future—with equal reality before the mind of God.”19Again, he notes “The omniscience of God comprehends all things—things past, things present, and things future, and the possible as well as the actual.”20
Therefore, “by divine arrangement, events do follow in sequence or chronological order. Yet, to God, the things of the past are as real as though now present and the things of the future are as real as though past. (Isaiah 46:10; Romans 4:17)”21 Creation was the omnipotent act of bringing knowledge or the conceptual that had existed eternally in the mind of God into experiential knowledge or reality. God was not surprised or in any sense unaware of the choices of Lucifer or Adam and Eve. Although He abhors sin and is perfectly holy in all of His thoughts and actions, He chose to create man as a free moral agent, with real free choice. God never desires sin, but rather He always unwaveringly desires holiness. When time is no more, we will understand more fully how even the evil of man and Lucifer fit into God’s plan, which ultimately assures that man created in His image with libertarian freedom will live eternally, freely choosing only righteousness. Chafer notes, “The perfect foreknowledge of God was aware of the fact that sin would call for the greatest sacrifice even God could make—the death of His Son …. God was not overtaken by unforeseen calamity and failure. His purposes are being executed and will be seen in the end to have been holy, just, and good.”22
I disaffirm that God’s infallible foreknowledge or predetermination caused man to sin or spend eternity in hell, and further, that foreknowledge or predetermination eliminates real free choices of man in salvation and the first sin. I also disaffirm that God’s foreknowledge of events, which makes certain their coming to pass, means that He was the efficient cause or in any way the direct cause of every event that comes to pass. He is the ultimate cause of all good, the direct (efficient) cause of many things, but other events (sin) happen because He sovereignly and freely created efficient causes, e.g., man and his ability to choose.
Further, I disaffirm that foreknowledge is the same as causation because epistemology (study of knowledge) deals with foreknowledge and etiology (study of cause) deals with causation, and to conflate the two is a fallacious confusion of categories. I am not saying that all knowledgeable Calvinists do this, but it is a common mistake among young Calvinists, as well as many others who label themselves as Calvinist. In fact, the Scripture ties salvation to God’s foreknowledge on more than one occasion (Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2). Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination; the very sentence before us distinguishes the two. “His foreknowledge marks out the persons; His predestination determines His purposes and acts on their behalf.”23
Moreover, I disaffirm that God’s absolute foreknowledge of future events or choices necessitates or often even includes, in any sense, that God determined those events or choices in such a way that man did not make an actual free choice, although at times, God certainly does intervene, and has every right to do so. In particular, God’s foreknowledge of a person’s choice regarding the gospel does not cause the choice. Many often conclude that foreknowledge is causal and therefore there is not a real choice between two actual alternatives, e.g. to accept or reject the gospel. Chafer notes, “Divine prescience of itself implies no element of necessity or determination, though it does imply certainty.”24
What God knows will certainly come to pass, but that certainty is not causality. God’s foreknowledge and man’s ability to choose are both presented in the Scripture with clarity and frequency. Chafer says of this, “On the one hand, revelation presents God as foreknowing all things including the actions of human agents, and apart from such knowledge God would be ignorant and to that degree imperfect. On the other hand, revelation appeals to the wills of men with the evident assumption that man is capable of a free choice—’whosoever will may come.'”25Needless to say, I am disaffirming that the plea of Scripture “whosoever will may come” cannot be answered by grace enabled faith. According to Calvinism, this plea is true, but equally true is that no one will come until God selectively regenerates him, and then he will most certainly come. This belief transforms this beautiful plea of the Savior into a recitation of brute facts. Of course, consistent Calvinism asserts, “whosoever can come”, but the unspoken counterpart of Calvinism is that whosoever really does not mean anyone because only some of the “whosoevers” will be selected to come; the unselected cannot come. This is a disquieting reality.
Some ask, would God be wrong, and therefore not perfect, if He knew Adam would sin, and Adam chose at the last moment to not sin? The answer is no. Because if Adam’s real free choice would have resulted in Adam choosing not to sin, God would have eternally known that. Chafer says concerning this, “If the question be asked whether the moral agent has freedom to act otherwise than as God foresees he will act, it may be replied that the human will because of its inherent freedom of choice is capable of electing the opposite course to that divinely foreknown; but he will not do so. If he did so, that would be the thing which God foreknew. The divine foreknowledge does not coerce; it merely knows what the human choice will be.”26 Therefore, contrary to Calvinism, foreknowledge establishes certainty but not causation.
Although all human examples of God’s foreknowledge seem to break down at some point, e.g. humans never can know the future perfectly; the following illustrates the difference between foreknowing and causing even though the foreknowledge is not absolute. I tell people that I know whom Gina (my wife for over 41 years) will vote for when she goes into the voting booth. I know this with mathematical certainty. I can tell you whom she voted for before I ever see her or talk with her after casting her vote. Why? Is it because I forced her, I coerced her, or that I somehow rigged the booth to cause her to vote a certain way? Absolutely not! I know how she will vote because I know her intimately. My knowledge of how she would vote actually has no bearing on her choice of whom to vote for, but rather I know because I know her. Therefore, knowledge and causation of certain actions are not synonymous.
《《 《《 FOOTNOTES 》》》》
14 William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (n.d., reprint with introduction by Edward E. Hindson, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980), 355.
Reviewing John MacArthur’s view on Foreknowledge in Romans 8:29
Dr. Leighton Flowers critiques MacArthur’s rather simplistic explanation of Divine Foreknowledge from the non-Calvinistic worldview. For Dr. Flowers commentary over Romans 8:28 and following you can go here:
(Video Description from YouTube) Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Personal Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, responds to some critics of Billy Graham’s views on Inclusivism and some unfounded accusations leveled against his own perspective as it is very similar to that of John MacArthur in a 1981 sermon, in which he said,
““Creation, conduct, conscience, contemplation, what they do, how they deal with the good and bad in their own life and how they deal with it in the lives of others indicates that they know the law of God as written in them. Now, here is the most important thing I’ve said yet. The sum of it is this: If they live up to that much light, and they accept that much light, God will reveal to them the full light of Jesus Christ. I believe that with all my heart. You see, that’s what it says in Acts 17, ‘He is not far from us if we would feel after Him.’ You see? If they would just take what they have and accept that. John 7:17 – mark it down. ‘If any man wills to do My Father’s Will, he shall know of the teaching.’ If the willing heart is there, he’ll know. ” – John MacArthur
SOTERIOLOGY 101 has an excellent post encapsulating this presentation as well.
Here is the original short clip of Matt Slick saying God saw what his “good works” were and chose him based on his study habits, I guess? Apparently through the corridor of time?
It is really important that we correctly represent Calvinists when we are arguing with them. You have incorrectly represented Matt Slick. He is NOT talking about God saving him because of his good works. He is talking about God giving him specific skills and tasks because he knew what his plan for Matt Slick was. This much of the problem with using short snippets to refute people. Use their entire context to be sure that you are actually on topic. Slick is not speaking soteriologically here, and so this is a fallacy called a strawman.
The “I freely chose…” is immediately mitigated with his Calvinist doctrine of election, BTW.
TROY M. Thank you. I wasn’t tracking with that. I will give it a listen again [….] Okay, the best route is to say maybe Matt Slick, upon further reflection would say he misspoke. But here is what I am hearing, and it was all about soteriology — but please, give me a time-stamp and I will revisit (emphasis added – time stamped to my clip):
MATT SLICK
(00:00:00) Responsibility. OK, you said give us the ability to relate via faith, not signs and wonders. The signs and wonders were done to demonstrate who Jesus was, but you’re basically implying he wants relationship over salvation. The question is if God wants every individual to be saved, all he has to do, you would agree all he’s got to do is just let his kind of presence shine.
(00:00:20) I know this now. (00:00:21) I’m not trying to be unfair. You can’t execute my experience and I’m not trying to use in that way. Now. See, you prove me wrong. It’s not fair thing for me to do it. I’m not trying to be unfair in that. (00:00:31) I’m just saying that I know of this and it reflects in, excuse me, Act 9:15 when Paul was riding along, this is what happened to Paul the Apostle, the whole Jesus himself, bam, knocked him off his horse knocked, knocked him down. I understand what that means. Not to the extent I’m sure that it happened there because you heard an audible voice.
(00:00:51) I didn’t, but I’m telling you, I know what it means to be in the presence of incredible holiness, and the only thing you can do is put your face to the ground and weep because you are in the presence of, of, of, of purity, and you’re a Sinner. I freely chose to believe in him right there at that moment when I was 17.
(00:01:10) Why doesn’t God do that? Calvinist would say, because God Sovereignly chooses not to do that. I believe the reason he gave that to me was because he knew what I’d be doing for a living. [Thru the corridors of time?] He had to have something very powerful, very strong, to keep me strong through all the cult crap I gotta study – and everything for hours and years and years. That’s what, that’s what my opinion [is], but whatever. (00:01:22) The thing is, all he’s got to do. (00:01:30) Is do the same kind of (00:01:31) thing he did to Paul the (00:01:32) Apostle, he can just sit there and go Wham! (00:01:37) He’s a chosen vessel of mine. Why is it good to everybody? I have an answer cause God chooses not to. You don’t.
[….]
LEIGHTON FLOWERS
(00:01:37) So your answer… (00:01:42) OK, so your your answer is God’s decree. Did you know? That’s my answer to. Yeah. (00:01:47) I believe that God sovereignly decrees not which choice will make, but that will be free to make a choice that is his choice, which he chooses to grant you responsibility and the choice. Yeah. And acts. Paul actually says that he could resist it. The, the the call upon his heart. And so….
Dr. Leighton Flowers plays a clip from a 1972 John MacArthur sermon on the hardening of the heart to contrast it with the claims of Calvinistic doctrine.
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).
Due to the overwhelming popularity of this passage when it comes to the defense of Calvinistic soteriology, I feel it is necessary to provide a verse by verse exegetical commentary from a traditional non-Calvinistic perspective.
Romans 8:28
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.
The Greek verb oida (“we know”) is a perfect active indicative form of the verb, which may simply refer to knowledge gained by observance or remembrance of the past. This is paralleled earlier in verse 22 (using the same Greek verb tense of oida) when speaking about their observation of creation “groaning as in the pains of child birth right up to the present time.”
Paul seems to be saying “we have observed” and “therefore we know.” The context and grammar appear to indicate a reference not to an intuitive knowledge of Paul’s readers, but to that which comes from observation of the past, or a remembrance.[73]
Paul means that believers know, from observation of God’s past dealings with those who love Him, that he has a mysterious way of working things out for the greatest good. By observing the stories of the saints of old —those called to accomplish His redemptive purposes—believers can rest in knowledge of this truth. God can take whatever evil may come our way and redeem it for good. Believers can know this because God has been doing it for generations.
Paul does not say that his readers should intuitively know how God works things out for those who love Him in the present. He is saying believers know what is true of God by observing what He has done in the past for those who have loved Him. The New Testament saints have a great cloud of witnesses that have gone before them (Heb. 12:1), giving evidence of God’s trustworthiness toward all who enter into a covenant with Him.
A simple survey of the verses leading up to this point reveals that Paul is reflecting on the problem of the evil and suffering in our world since the beginning:
Rom. 8:20-22: “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.”
N.T. Wright comments on Rom. 8:28–30, saying in part:
“[This passage] is a sharp, close-up, compressed telling of the story of Israel, as the chosen people, whose identity and destiny is then brought into sharp focus on Jesus. Jesus, in a sense, is the one ‘chosen One.’ But, then that identity is shared with all of those who are ‘in Christ.’ And he [Paul] is not talking primarily there about salvation. He is talking primarily about the way God is healing the whole creation. There is a danger here. What has happened in so many theological circles over the years is that people have come to the text assuming that it is really saying how we are to get to heaven, and what is the mechanism and how does that work. And if you do that, interestingly, many exegetes will more or less skip over Romans 8:18–27, which is about the renewing of creation.”[74]
In verses 28 and 29 the focus shifts to providing comfort for those in suffering by reminding them to observe God’s dealings with others who loved God throughout history. Notice that this truth is not applicable to everyone. The passage is specifically an observation of those who “love God,” or as Wright notes, “those who are in Christ.”
The point is not that God causes everything for a good purpose, but that God redeems occurrences of evil for a good purpose in the lives of those who love Him. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to use this passage to support the concept of divine meticulous determinism of all things.[75] Again, God does not cause occurrences of evil for His purposes; instead, He redeems moral evil for a good purpose. Traditionalists would typically agree with what John MacArthur, a Calvinistic pastor, wrote on this point:
“But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things—including all the fruits of all the evil of all time—work together for a greater good.”[76]
The focus of the apostle’s observation is on the saints of old, those from the elect nation of Israel who were called to fulfill God’s plan to redeem His creation from its groans and sufferings. This passage does not mean that the truth being revealed is not applicable to those of other nations. Rather, it means that what is proven to be true of God by observing His dealings with those called out from Israel throughout history must also be true of anyone who comes to follow and love the God of Israel.
Consider this analogy: Suppose a new pastor is called to a church. The staff members are nervous about his leadership style and how they might be treated, but a letter of reference which reflects on his past relationships might ease their fears. The pastor’s reference might say something like, I have observed this pastor’s dealings with the staff members he knew before, and he has always worked to lovingly support anyone who gets behind the vision and direction of the church. By reflecting on the pastor’s history, the new staff can know what to expect in their future dealings with him. So too, Paul gives a divine reference by reflecting on the trustworthiness of God in His dealings with the saints of old so as to ensure his readers of what they may expect of Him.
Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Here the apostle reveals his focus on the saints of old, “those God foreknew.” Paul seeks to provide evidence of his claim in verse 28 by reflecting on God’s faithfulness to His chosen nation, those beloved who were known before. Paul provides a reference of sorts to ease the fears of those who are now coming to faith. This point continues to be the apostle’s focus for the next three chapters.
Much debate centers on the meaning of the word proginōskō (“to know beforehand”).[77]Many popular authors fail to recognize all the available options for consideration. For example, John Piper lists only two options for interpreting this verse:
Option #1: God foresaw our self-determined faith. We remain the decisive cause of our salvation. God responds to our decision to believe.
Option #2: God chose us—not on the basis of foreseen faith, but on the basis of nothing in us. He called us, and the call itself creates the faith for which it calls.[78]
Piper overlooks the most basic meaning of this word, which is “to know beforehand” or to have known in the past. The same Greek word is used by Peter and Paul in the following passages,
2 Pet. 3:17: “Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.”
Acts 26:4–5: “The Jewish people all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that I conformed to the strictest sect of our religion, living as a Pharisee.”
Clearly, this word can be understood simply as knowing someone or something in the past, as in those known previously (i.e. the saints of old). Non-Calvinistic scholars, Roger Forster and Paul Marston, convincingly argue,
“God ‘foreknew them’ or ‘knew them of old’ thus it does not mean that God entered in some former time into a relationship with the Israelites of today, it means that he entered a (two-way) relationship with the Israel that existed in early Old Testament times, and he regards the present Israelites as integral with it.”[79]
If Paul intended to use the word proginōskō in this sense, then he meant simply that because we have seen how God worked all things to the good for those whom He knew before, we know that He will do the same for those who love and are called by Him now.
Some Calvinists contend that the word foreknew is equivalent to fore-loved. That use of the word generally fits this interpretation since the Israelites of the past who loved God certainly would have been loved by God before (i.e. fore-loved). Of course, the Calvinistic interpretation differs because they insist this passage is about God unconditionally setting His “effectual” salvific love upon certain individuals before the foundation of the world. Calvinists go to great lengths to show that God did not merely foresee the behavior and choices of the elect by looking down the corridors of time. Rather, God knew them intimately and set His effectual love on them before the foundation of the world.[80]
This argument might address the classical Arminian approach (Piper’s first option),[81] but it fails to rebut the approach being advocated here. Fore-loved is a viable and even likely meaning of the term proginōskō, yet it does not clarify who might be the intended target of that divine love.
Was Paul intending to introduce for the first time in this epistle a particular group of people out of the mass of humanity who were unconditionally elected to be effectually saved before the world began? Or, was he simply referencing those from the past whom God had known and faithfully cared for throughout the generations?
Romans 8:29b states “He (God) also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son.” Who was “predestined” and to what ends were they predestined, according to this passage? Remember the point of the apostle leading up to this verse. He began speaking about the futility and suffering that has come into this world due to the fall of humanity into sin (vv. 20–22). In verse 28-29a, Paul provides comfort to lovers of God in his audience by reminding them of God’s trustworthiness for those who have loved Him throughout the generations.
Paul reminds his readers that God will redeem the suffering and evil for a good purpose in their lives just as he has done in the lives of those known before and loved throughout the previous generations. It is these whom God previously knew (Israelites whom loved God in the past) who were predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ so as to make the way for His coming.
God planned to accomplish salvation for those who were previously known and loved (i.e. Abraham, Moses, David, etc) by conforming them into the image of the One who would come to purchase their redemption. This is the ultimate example of God causing “all things to work for the good” of those saints of old who loved God. Paul is saying that God brings about the redemption of their souls and He will do the same for whoever loves Him. N. T. Wright states,
“Here is the note of hope which has been sounded by implication so often since it was introduced in 5:2: hope for the renewal of all creation, in a great act of liberation for which the exodus from Egypt was simply an early type. As a result, all that Israel hoped for, all that it based its hope on, is true of those who are in Christ.”[82]
Romans 8:29c states “that He (the Son) might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” Consider the fact that he is speaking about what Christ might be, which strongly implies that Paul still has the saints of old in focus here. Why would Paul speak of future generations being conformed to the image of Christ so that He “might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” if He were already the firstborn prior to this discourse?
The term prōtotokos (“firstborn”) can simply refer to the one who is first to be born in a family, which carries much significance in the Jewish culture (Luke 2:7). Typically, the birthright given to the firstborn son signified a place of preeminence, by which he would receive the father’s inheritance and blessing. For instance, Psalm 89:20, 27 states, “I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him. . . And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.” David, who was the last one born in his family, was called by God the firstborn. David was given a place of preeminence.[83]
The term firstborn also speaks of Christ’s preexistence as the eternal Creator.[84] God created the world through Christ and redeemed the world through Christ (John 1:3, 10; Heb. 1:2–4). The former speaks of His eternal nature and the latter of His temporal role as the redeemer of the world.
Yet, even when speaking of our preexistent Lord, the biblical authors addressed Him as “becoming” or “fulfilling” His role as our Messiah within the temporal world. For example, the Psalmist writes, “And I will appoint Him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27). For the Old Testament saints, the firstborn Savior was the expected One that was yet to come. From their view, the long-awaited Messiah was the future hope, not a past and completed reality.
In contrast to the Old Testament saints, a modern-day preacher would not teach that we are being conformed to Christ’s image so that Jesus might be the firstborn among many brethren, because we know Him to already be the firstborn of many brethren. Our being conformed into Christ’s image today has nothing to do with the future coming of Christ’s birth, whereas the saints of old were part of His very lineage. It is through the life of men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and many other saints of old that Christ is brought into this world “that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters (Rom. 8:29c).”
Paul is reflecting on God’s redemptive purpose being accomplished through those who loved God in former generations. That redemptive purpose included bringing the Messiah into this world through Israel (Rom. 9:4-5), or those Israelites set apart for that noble purpose (Rom. 9:21). This was God’s predestined plan of redemption, which was brought to pass through those who loved God and were called according to His purpose. Tim Warner describes this purpose,
“Paul was not referring to some prior knowledge in the mind of God before creation. Nor was He speaking about predetermining their fate. He was referring to those whom God knew personally and intimately, men like Abraham and David.
The term ‘foreknew’ does not mean to have knowledge of someone before they were conceived. The verb προεγνω is the word for ‘know’ (in an intimate sense) with the preposition προ (before) prefixed to it. It refers to having an intimate relationship with someone in the past… Literally, we could render Rom. 8:29 as follows: ‘For those God formerly knew intimately, He previously determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.’
The individual saints of old, with whom God had a personal relationship, were predestined by Him to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is, God predetermined to bring their salvation to completion by the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf.” [85]
Likewise, William R. Newell, a colleague of D.L. Moody and a notable teacher at the Bible Moody College, explained that God “had acquaintanceship” with the Israelites of the past. So, it was not “mere Divine pre-knowledge” of certain individuals, but a real intimate “pre-acquaintanceship.”[86]
Romans 8:30
And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.
Notice the apostle’s use of the past tense in this verse. If Paul intended to speak about the future salvation of every elect individual, then why would he use these past tense verbs? When writing these words, Paul and his readers had not yet been glorified, so there is no explicit reason to use the past tense. Thus, there is no reason to assume Paul has in mind the future glorification of all believers.
The past tense suggests that Paul is referring to former generations of those who have loved God and were called to fulfill His redemptive purpose. They were known in the past generations and predestined by God to be made in the very image of the One to come, “the firstborn among many brothers and sisters,” which is something already completed in the past through the working of God in former generations. These are the individuals whom God called, justified, and who now, even as Paul was writing these words, are already glorified in the presence of God.
If indeed Paul was referencing the saints formerly known and loved by God, he would have communicated the certainty of their being justified, sanctified and finally glorified in a way that some might describe as a “golden chain of redemption.”[87] To presume, however, that Paul’s unbroken chain of past tense verbs is not in reference to people of the past is a linguistic stretch. [88]
Calvinists must explain away the use of the past tense verbs in order to maintain their interpretation of Paul’s intent. For instance, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, a Calvinistic source, provides this explanation, “Glorified is in the past tense because this final step is so certain that in God’s eyes it is as good as done.”[89]
Calvinists must interpret Paul’s use of the past tense (aorist indicative) as meaning “it is as good as done” because it was predestined. But this is a very rare usage in the original language and the immediate context does not clearly support a Calvinistic rendering.
We must take into account Paul’s usage of the same term earlier in the chapter as a future hope for believers. Romans 8:17:
“Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in His sufferings in order that we may also share in His glory” (emphasis added).
Paul does not speak of glorification as a past and completed action in reference to the believers in his day. Rather, he seems to qualify their being glorified upon the condition that they persevere through the suffering that is to come. If it is “as good as done” due to God’s predetermination, then why would Paul make such a qualification and use the future tense of the same verb? Further, Paul speaks of the eager expectation of the glorification that is to come in verses 22–25:
“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently” (emphasis added).
Is the reader to believe that Paul shifts from speaking of glorification as a future hope for those who persevere, to speaking of it as a past and already-completed act for those who have not yet been glorified? Or, could it simply be that Paul has the Old Testament saints in view as he makes his case for the trustworthiness of God throughout all generations? The latter seems to be the most basic understanding of the apostle’s words in their context.
This interpretation may seem foreign to some Western readers because of the philosophical and theological baggage that has been attached to the concept of divine foreknowledge over the years, but to the first century reader the simple concept of proginōskō, understood as “previously known,” would have been far more likely. In fact, if one can objectively back away from their presuppositions and approach this passage with fresh eyes, I believe they will discover the utter simplicity and clarity of this perspective.
Instead of introducing a complex concept of divine prescience, unconditional election, and effectual salvation never once clearly expounded upon in the Scriptures, could it be that Paul may intend simply to communicate that those who were previously loved and known by God were also predestined to be conformed to the image of the One to come? Paul seems to be giving a brief history lesson of what God had done in former generations as a reference for God’s trustworthiness for all who come to Him in faith. Wright explains it this way:
“The creation is not god, but it is designed to be flooded with God: The Spirit will liberate the whole creation. Underneath all this, of course, remains Christology: the purpose was that the Messiah ‘might be the firstborn among many siblings’ (8.29). Paul is careful not to say, or imply, that the privileges of Israel are simply ‘transferred to the church,’ even though, for him, the church means Jews-and-gentiles-together in Christ. Rather, the destiny of Israel has devolved, entirely appropriately within the Jewish scheme, upon the Messiah. All that the new family inherit, they inherit in Him.”[90]
Those who object to the suggestion that Paul’s use of the term proginōskō is limited to the beloved of Israel’s past should consider the apostle’s use of the same word just three chapters later, Rom. 10:21-11:2a:
“But concerning Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ I ask then: Did God reject His people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject His people, whom he foreknew” (emphasis added).
Notice that Paul uses the term proginōskō in reference to God’s intimate relationship with the faithful Israelites of old. Paul continues to make his case, Rom. 11:2b-4:
“Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me?’ And what was God’s answer to him? ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’”
Elijah and those who refused to bow a knee were among the ones who were previously known (foreknown/fore-loved) by God. To foreknow refers to God’s intimate relationship with people who loved Him in the past (like Abraham in Rom. 4:22–5:5). Nothing in this or any other text supports the concept of God in eternity past preselecting certain individuals out of the mass of humanity for effectual salvation. It would be difficult to substantiate this meaning of the term foreknow in reference to the Israelites who were in covenant with God. It is best interpreted in reference to those known by God in former times. William Lane Craig explains,
“In certain cases, proginōskō and prooraō mean simply that one has known or seen (someone or something) previously. For example, in Acts 26:5 Paul states that the Jews had previously known for a long time the strictness of his life a Pharisee, and in Acts 21:29 Luke mentions that the Jews had previously seen (prooraō) Trophimus in Paul’s company. This sense is probably operative in Romans 11:2 as well, where Paul states of apostate Israel that ‘God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew [proginōskō],’ that is, whom He had previously known in an intimate way.”[91]
Romans 8:31–39
Returning to the analogy above, the pastor had former staff members whom he intimately knew and loved. The new staff would be comforted to know of the pastor’s prior relationships. Likewise, those being grafted into covenant with the God of Israel for the first time (i.e. the Gentiles) would be thrilled to learn of God’s faithfulness to those He formerly knew and loved (i.e. men like Abraham and David, etc.). What can the readers say in response to these teachings of Paul about God’s faithfulness toward the saints of old?
That is the very question the apostle poses in Rom. 8:31a as he transitions to the application of His message,
“What, then, shall we say in response to these things?”
This interpretation is consistent with the view that present-day saints who love God and are called according to His purposes (vs. 28) have nothing to fear, for…
“If God is for us, who can be against us?” (vs. 31b).
God, who gave up His Son, justifies, intercedes, and places His undying love upon all who love Him and are called according to His purposes (vv. 32–39).
The objector in Paul’s mind asks: Paul, you have made a good case regarding God’s faithfulness to the Israelites in the past, but what about the Israelites today? Have God’s promises for Israel failed? Why are the Israelites today refusing to accept their own Messiah? The apostle attempts to answer these questions in Romans 9 and following.
NOTES:
[73] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 29.6.
[74]N.T. Wright in a question and answer session at Oklahoma Christian University on April 1, 2014. Samuel Selvin, “Dr. N. T. Wright on predestination,”
[75]This is also true of Eph. 1:11, which is often misapplied to support the idea of meticulous determinism.
[76]John MacArthur, “Is God Responsible for Evil?” Grace To You Ministries web page. Quote taken from: http://www.gty.org/ resources /articles/A189/is-god-responsible-for-evil; [date accessed: 5/19/15]
[76] The definition of progin-osk-o is from The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2011), 30.100.
[78] Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1973), 179–90.
[79]John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Volume I (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1959), 316-318.
[80]Frederic Godet’s commentary on Romans 8:29, inquires: “In what respect did God thus foreknow them?” and answers that they were “foreknown as sure to fulfill the conditions of salvation, viz. faith; so: foreknown as His by faith.” The word “foreknew” is thus understood by Godet, a classical Arminian, to mean that God knew beforehand which sinners would believe, and on the basis of this knowledge He predestined them unto salvation. Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Messrs Clark, 1880), 325.
[81]N.T. Wright, Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 30–67.
[82]James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 38a (Dallas: Word, 1988), 1: 484.
[83] Theologian Bernard Ramm noted that “It has been standard teaching in historic Christology that the Logos, the Son, existed before the incarnation. That the Son so existed before the incarnation has been called the pre-existence of Christ.” Bernard Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 1993) 47.
[86]Some Calvinistic scholars describe this as the unbreakable “golden chain of redemption” meant to communicate the unchangeable plan of God to irrevocably justify, sanctify and glorify those He elected before the world began.
[87] Greek scholars teach that while the aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed, this usage is “not at all common.” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1997) 564.
[88] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds. The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Dallas: Victor Books, 1983), 474.
[89] “And all this is viewed as past; because, starting from the past decree of ‘predestination to be conformed to the image of God’s Son’ of which the other steps are but the successive unfoldings—all is beheld as one entire, eternally completed salvation.” Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, “Romans 8.”
[90] Wright, Pauline Theology, 20.
[91] William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 31–32.
God is the Creator – there would not be a universe or human beings without him. God is the sovereign upholder of the universe – none of its history is outside his control. Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer – apart from him there would be no salvation.
Furthermore, we have seen that God’s initiative is expressed in Scripture in terms like election, foreknowledge, predestination, and calling, all of which occur together at the climax of one of the major sections of the letter to the Romans in chapter 8. By this stage Paul has already argued universal human guilt and the consequent need of salvation. He has explained that salvation is by faith in Christ and not of works. He has developed the theme of human responsibility to live a holy life in the power of God’s Holy Spirit. He has described the inner battle against our human nature (the flesh) that we all experience as we seek to walk after the Spirit.
The inner battle is not the only battle, however. Paul himself was no stranger to suffering – he had lived with persecution for many years. And so in Romans 8 Paul addresses suffering directly. He describes the provision that God has made for him and his fellow believers to remain firm in their faith when the winds of adversity blow. Here is the wonderful passage in full:
I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all – how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:
“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Romans 8:18–39.)
In all of Scripture this is one of the most magnificent statements of the love of God in taking the initiative to provide salvation in all of its aspects, so that nothing whatsoever can separate us from his love for us in Christ Jesus – not even death itself. I have emphasised the passage that is relevant to our discussion. In the context of suffering, weakness, and uncertainty, we are to know that God is working in all things for the good of those who love him. Paul describes them as those who have been called according to his purpose. What that grand purpose is, he is about to explain. But not before he gives another description of believers as those whom God foreknew, which (as we have seen) does not imply that God caused or forced them to do anything in advance. It is a great encouragement to believers under pressure to know that they have experienced the call of God; God has known them, and knows all about them – and he has a purpose for them. What is that purpose? He has predestined them to be conformed to the image of his Son.
Under the pressure of an assumed paradigm it is all too easy to read into this that Paul is saying that God has predestined them to be believers, and then using this statement to buttress theistic determinism. However, Paul is saying something completely different: that God has predestined those who are believers to be conformed to the image of his Son. That is, he plans to confer unimaginable dignity upon believers. As creatures of God they were made in the image of God. But now that they have put their faith in Christ and received his salvation, a destiny of almost indescribable glory awaits them. In his love for them God has determined that they should be like his Son. The sheer wonder of this purpose now defines the illimitable nature of God’s grace and glory. In one sense, God could have predestined us to anything glorious that he willed, but he has chosen this ultimate accolade. The objective is that the Lord Jesus should be the firstborn (first to be glorified and also first in rank) among many brothers.
This is God’s staggeringly gracious goal. Achieving it involves all of God’s provision in the gospel that Paul has been expounding up to this point – calling, justification by faith, and glorification. It is the sheer glory of the achievement that calls forth Paul’s triumphant and confident conclusion – If God is for us, who can be against us?
Arising directly from these glorious thoughts, however, there comes a question that deeply disturbs and concerns the apostle. In light of such a magnificent and gracious message, how is it that his fellow Israelites, Paul’s own kith and kin, mainly reject such a wonderfully gracious message and deny that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God? Paul’s pain is palpable as he explains:
I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit – I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised! Amen.
(Romans 9:1–5.)
Paul faces an apparent contradiction. His nation of Israel by and large rejected Christ, who was also their own flesh and blood, even though as a nation they were uniquely privileged. God had adopted them as his people – as his sons, even, those who inherit the family assets; he had visited them in his glory at Sinai, and in the tabernacle, given them the covenants, the law, and the worship programme of the temple; he had lavished his promises on them. Not only that, it was God who had given them the patriarchs, from whom the ancestry of the Messiah would be traced – the Messiah who is none less than God himself. And they don’t believe in him!
This was no new issue for Paul. He faced it many times as he sought to persuade men and women of the truth of the Christian message. For instance, he held lectures in the synagogue at Thessalonica on three sabbath days:
As his custom was, Paul went in to the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he said.
(Acts 17:2–3.)
One can easily imagine some intelligent Jew saying, “That was a very interesting talk, Paul, and I find it impressive that a rabbi with your undoubtedly high qualifications, having studied under Gamaliel, is prepared to argue in this way. However, what bothers me is that you seem to be on your own in this. Or am I mistaken? Can you tell me of any other senior rabbis who believe that your interpretations are correct?”
And Paul might reply, “Well there’s Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea, both on the Sanhedrin Council in Jerusalem.”
“Is that all? If what you say is true – and I admit I was moved by it – surely one might expect the majority of the Jewish thinkers to accept it? After all, on the basis of our Scriptures you are claiming that Jesus is the Messiah expected by our nation, yet the experts in the interpretation of those Scriptures don’t agree with you. Surely you can see why I am puzzled!”
Paul could see it, and it affected him deeply. He got the same question from Gentiles as well. “If something is really authentically Jewish, the Jews should be the first to accept it. And yet most of them reject it. How can that be?”
Paul was heartbroken about the situation and desperately wanted to do something about it. It threatened to become a serious stumbling block in the way of people taking the gospel seriously. As he writes in chapter 8, how can he believe that nothing shall separate us from the love of God, when it appears to many that something has separated Israel from God? How can Israel have lost her way so dramatically?
So Paul writes Romans 9–11 in order to show that, far from being an objection to the Christian message, what has happened historically with Israel, in their rejection of the Lord Jesus, in fact confirms the truth of it.
At this point some interpreters of Scripture argue that the ultimate answer to this question is given by Paul in his letter to the Galatians. There he abolishes all distinctions between Jews and non-Jews in his famous statement, that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek… (Galatians 3:28). Surely this means (it is argued) that all the promises given to Israel in the Old Testament are now to be understood as fulfilled in the church. Hence God has not cast off his people, since “his people” now equates to “the church” which is alive and thriving.
However, Paul’s statement in Galatians is not relevant to his problem in Romans. In Galatians 3:21–29 Paul is discussing the basis of salvation, and he stresses that it is the same for everyone, whatever their ethnicity, social status, or gender – Jew, Greek, slave, free, man, woman. That common basis is faith in Christ alone. Paul is not talking there about the question of roles in history or in the world, which for obvious reasons might well be different for each of these groups. To deduce from these verses that, now that Christ has come, there is absolutely no difference between the roles of Jews and Gentiles, would be as absurd as saying that, since Christ has come, there is absolutely no difference between the roles of slave and free or between the roles of male and female. Their roles can remain the same without prejudice to their status in Christ.
By contrast Paul’s concern in Romans 9–11 is not the basis of the gospel but why it is that the very nation that was privileged by God to be the vehicle of his revelation to the world now mainly rejects the gospel of the Messiah. That is the problem he has to address, and it is so complex that he takes three chapters to do it.
The first main argument is based on the fact that not all ethnic Israelites are the genuine people of God. His discussion involves considering the sovereignty of God in history regarding the role of different individuals and the nations descended from them.
The second main argument is that Israel’s unbelief is culpable. God has made every provision for them. Paul goes through every excuse that might be raised to let Israel off the hook and concludes in each case that they are responsible for their unbelief.
The third main argument concentrates on the fact that there are some Israelites, like Paul, who do believe in Jesus. Indeed, all through history there has been a “remnant” of true believers within Israel, whose number has at times been underestimated. Paul then discusses the historical roles that Israel and then the Gentiles have had in witnessing for God in the world, and concludes with the glorious hope for his nation that one day “all Israel will be saved”. Paul is in no doubt that there remains a role for his nation in the future, but not until they come to faith in Jesus as Messiah.
