TULIP (Calvinism)

Never does the Bible say, ‘Be saved in order to believe’ | Geisler

Published by Papa Giorgio

Jump to James 2:19

Here is an excerpt from page 77 of Ronnie Rogers book, “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist.”

Pastor Ronnie Rogers

Jesus continually called on people to believe so that they would not die in their sins. “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). The obvious conclusion to draw from this statement is that they need to believe and can believe in order not to die in their sins; rather than the Calvinist secret that while it is true, that if one does not believe he will die in his sins, the other truth is that Jesus is telling them what to do but knows they cannot unless they are the elect; therefore, Calvinism transmogrifies this merciful plea into an academic recitation. This is a disquieting reality.

As far as the Scripture is concerned, it is very clear that faith and believing come first and the new birth follows. The Scripture is replete, lucid, and compelling in teaching that the order is faith prior to regeneration, and faith is a gift that God endowed man with in creation not in selective regeneration; moreover, God is working in order to give men and women a real chance to trust Him unto salvation (John 16:8). Salvation is offered as a free gift (Romans 6:23) to all who are in need of forgiveness (Romans 5:15, 18), and people are summoned to act upon the offer by accepting the gift by—grace-enabled—faith (John 1:12). “Never does the Bible say, ‘Be saved in order to believe; instead, repeatedly, it commands, ‘Believe in order to be saved.'”80

80. Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 129

Here is an extended section from Geisler’s Systematic (PDF):

Professor Norman Geisler

Loss of Fellowship

Not only did Adam lose his relationship with God, he also lost his fellowship with Him. Adam no longer wanted to talk with his Creator but instead hid from Him in the Garden. John reminds us:

If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. (1 John 1:6–7)

The Effects of Sin on Relationship With Other Human Beings

Along with the loss of relationship (and fellowship) with God, the relationship between Adam and other people was also disturbed; sin has a horizontal as well as vertical effect, which is evident in two events that followed.

First, Adam blamed Eve for his situation. Responding to God’s questioning about the forbidden fruit, he said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it” (Gen. 3:12).

Second, sibling relationship was disrupted by sin when, because of anger, Cain killed his brother Abel (Gen. 4:1–8).

The Effects of Sin on Relationship With the Environment

Adam’s sin affected his relationship with God, other human beings, and the environment. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were told to “subdue” the earth (Gen. 1:28); they were to “work” and “take care of” the Garden (Gen. 2:15), not destroy it; to rule over it, not ruin it; to cultivate it, not pollute it.

However, after the Fall, Adam’s connection with his environment was disrupted. Thorns and thistles appeared. He had to work by the sweat of his brow. Death became a fact of life. Indeed, everything, because of his sin, was put under bondage. Paul writes:

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. (Rom. 8:20–21)

The Volitional Effects of Adam’s Sin

In addition to Adam’s sin affecting his relationship with God, other human beings, and the environment, it also had an effect on his will.

Free Will Before the Fall

The power of free choice is part of humankind having been created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply their kind (1:28) and to refrain from eating the forbidden fruit (2:16–17). Both of these responsibilities imply the ability to respond. As noted above, the fact that they ought to do these things implied that they could do them.

The text narrates their choice, saying, “She took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it” (Gen. 3:6). God’s condemnation of their actions makes it evident that they were morally free to choose (Gen. 3:11, 13).

The New Testament references to Adam’s action make it plain that he made a free choice for which he was responsible. Again, Romans 5 calls it “sin” (v. 16); a “trespass” (v. 15); and “disobedience” (v. 19). First Timothy 2:14 (RSV) refers to Eve as a “transgressor,” pointedly implying culpability.

Free Will After the Fall

Even after Adam sinned and became spiritually “dead”22 (Gen. 2:17; cf. Eph. 2:1) and thus, a sinner because of “[his] sinful nature” (Eph. 2:3), he was not so completely depraved that it was impossible for him to hear the voice of God or make a free response: “The LORD God called to the man, ‘Where are you?’ He answered, ‘I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I Fhid’ ” (Gen. 3:9–10).23 As already noted, God’s image in Adam was effaced but not erased by the Fall; it was corrupted (damaged) but not eliminated (annihilated). Indeed, the image of God (which includes free will) is still in human beings—this is why the murder or cursing of anyone, Christian or non-Christian, is sin, “for in the image of God has God made man” (Gen. 9:6).24

Fallen Descendants of Adam Have Free Will

Both Scripture and good reason inform us that depraved human beings have the power of free will. The Bible says that fallen humans are ignorant, depraved, and slaves of sin—all involving choice. Peter speaks of depraved ignorance as being “willingly” ignorant (2 Peter 3:5 KJV). Paul teaches that unsaved people perceive the truth, but they willfully “suppress” it (Rom. 1:18–19),25 so that they are, as a result, “without excuse” (v. 20). He adds, “Don’t you know that when you offer your selves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:16). Even our spiritual blindness is a result of the choice not to believe.

With respect to initiating or attaining salvation, both Martin Luther and John Calvin were right—fallen humans are not free with regard to “things above.”26 Salvation is received by a free act of faith (John 1:12; Eph. 2:8–9), yet it does not find its source in our will but in God (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16). With respect to the freedom of accepting God’s gift of salvation, the Bible is clear: fallen beings have the ability to so do, since God’s Word repeatedly calls upon us to receive salvation by exercising our faith (cf. Acts 16:31; 17:30; 20:21).

Thus, the free will of fallen human beings is both “horizontal” (social) with respect to this world and “vertical” (spiritual) with respect to God. The horizontal freedom is evident, for instance, in our choice of a mate: “If her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). This freedom is described as having “no constraint,” a freedom where one has “authority over his own will” and where one “has decided this in his own heart” (v. 37 NASB). This is also described in an act of giving “entirely on their own” (2 Cor. 8:3) as well as being “spontaneous and not forced” (Philem. 14).

The vertical freedom to believe is everywhere implied in the gospel call (e.g., cf. John 3:16; Acts 16:31; 17:30). That is, humans are offered salvation as a gift (Rom. 6:23) and called upon to believe it and accept it (John 1:12). Never does the Bible say, “Be saved in order to believe”; instead, repeatedly, it commands,

“Believe in order to be saved.”27 Peter describes what is meant by free choice in saying that it is “not under compulsion” but “voluntarily” (1 Peter 5:2 NASB). Paul depicts the nature of freedom as an act where one “purposed in his heart” and does not act “under compulsion” (2 Cor. 9:7 NASB). In Philemon 14 he also says that choice is an act of “consent” and should “not be … by compulsion, but of your own free will” (NASB).

Unsaved people have a free choice regarding the reception or rejection of God’s gift of salvation (Rom. 6:23). Jesus lamented the state of those who rejected Him: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem … how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37). John affirmed, “All who received him [Christ], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12). Indeed, as we have frequently observed, God desires that all unsaved people will change their mind (i.e., repent), for “he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

Like the alternatives of life and death that Moses gave to Israel, God says, “Choose life” (cf. Deut. 30:19). Joshua said to his people: “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Josh. 24:15). God sets morally and spiritually responsible alternatives before human beings, leaving the choice and responsibility to them. Jesus said to the unbelievers of His day: “If you do not believe that I am … you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:24), which implies they could have and should have believed.

Over and over, “belief” is declared to be something we are accountable to embrace: “We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:69); “Who is he, sir?… Tell me so that I may believe in him” (John 9:36); “Then the man said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him” (John 9:38); “Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe’ ” (John 10:25). This is why Jesus said, “Whoever believes in [me] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18).

NOTES

22 Again, spiritual death in the Bible does not mean “annihilation” but “separation”: “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (Isa. 59:2). Likewise, the “second death” (Rev. 20:14; cf. 19:20; 20:10) is not permanent non-existence but eternal conscious separation from God.

23 See chapter 4.

24 Note that Genesis 9 is post-Fall; see also James 3:9.

25 That is, they willfully “hold it down.”

26 See Luther, Bondage of the Will, especially 75–76; 126–28; 198; 216; 316–18 and Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, especially 1.1.15; 1.1.18; 1.2.4.

27 See chapters 12 and 16.

Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin, Salvation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), 127-130.

Pastor Ronnie Rogers again

The non-Christian can still respond to such things as:

Grace Enablements

Includes but are not limited to: God’s salvific love for all (John 3:16), God’s manifestation of his power so that all may know he is the Sovereign (Isa 45:21–22) and Creator (Rom 1:18–20), which assures that everyone has opportunity to know about him. Christ paying for all sins (John 1:29), conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7–11), working of the Holy Spirit (Heb 6:1–6), enlightening of the Son (John 1:9), God’s teaching (John 6:45), God opening minds and hearts (Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14; 26:17–18;), and the power of the gospel (Rom 1:16), without such redemptive grace, no one seeks or comes to God (Rom 3:11).

Because of these gracious provisions and workings of God, man can choose to seek and find God (Jer 29:13; Acts 17:11–12). Moreover, no one can come to God without God calling (Acts 2:39), drawing (John 6:44), and that God is drawing all individuals (John 12:32). The same Greek word for draw, helkuō, is used in both verses. “About 115 passages condition salvation on believing alone, and about 35 simply on faith.” Other grace enablements may include providential workings in and through other people, situations, and timing or circumstances that are a part of grace to provide an opportunity for every individual to choose to follow Christ.

These are grace enablements in at least three ways; first, they are provided by God’s grace rather than deserved by mankind; second, the necessary components for each and every individual to have a genuine opportunity to believe unto salvation are provided or restored by God; third, they are provided by God without respect to whether the individual will believe or reject, which response God knew in eternity past.

The offer of the gospel is unconditional, but God sovereignly determined to condition the reception of the offer upon grace-enabled faith; therefore, faith is not reflective of a work or virtue of man, but of God’s sovereign plan of salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). This indicates faith is the means to being regenerated and saved, not the reason for being saved. This truth of Scripture does not imply God is held captive to the choice of man, but rather it demonstrates God in eternity coextensively determined to create man with otherwise choice and provide a genuine offer of salvation, which can be accepted by grace-enabled faith or rejected. Additionally, to fulfill this plan, God is not obligated to disseminate the gospel to people he knows have rejected the light he has given them (Rom 1:18–23) and will also reject the gospel; although he may still send the gospel to them.

From the authors glossary in the book

And some Charles C. Ryrie in his book standing against Lordship Salvation:

Charles C. Ryrie

Chapter 11 / IT’S NOT EASY TO BELIEVE

There ought to be a law. A law against a merchant accepting a personal check in payment for anything under twenty dollars.

How often I have waited and waited in line while someone writes a check to pay for six dollars’ worth of groceries or eight dollars’ worth of miscellaneous items.

Why the wait? Simply because it is not easy to believe.

Imagine you are the customer trying to cash the check. You know the check is good. And perhaps even the cashier has received your checks from you earlier and knows you’re good for the amount. It doesn’t matter. The scenario is always the same. “Let me see your driver’s license.” Then she has to punch in the number to be sure your record is clear. All clear. “Let me see a major credit card.” She punches in that number. All clear. At last the clerk initials the check. Now the store believes you. But it wasn’t easy.

We’re only talking about money. And most of the time not a very large amount.

BELIEVING IN JESUS IS NOT EASY

Suppose the issue was not six or eight dollars but eternal life? And suppose I was being told that to have eternal life all I had to do was believe. It would not be easy to believe. Too much is at stake, and the more that is at stake, the harder it is to believe.

When we Christians ask someone to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, we are asking something very difficult. We are asking the person to believe in someone he or she has never seen. Someone who lived in the very distant past. Someone who has no living eyewitnesses who can vouch for His character and the truth of His words. Someone whose biography was written very long ago and by those who were His friends.

For another reason, we are asking someone to believe in an almost unbelievable concept when we ask him to believe that Christ can forgive his sins. The issue at stake is not the tab at the supermarket or whether someone lived and said this or that. We are asking the person to believe that this unseen individual, Jesus, who lived so long ago, can forgive sins, give eternal life, and guarantee us a home in heaven. And this forgiveness can be given because He died as our substitute. Is this easy?

If one’s faith is mistaken or misplaced, it could be a very costly error. The issue does not concern a few dollars or a few years of life on earth. It concerns eternity. Since all of this is involved in faith, it is not easy to believe.

WE BELIEVE ALL THE TIME

And yet we all do believe in hundreds of ways every day. We believe that everyone at the water company is doing his job well, so we can turn on the tap and drink safely. We believe that the letter we mailed will be delivered. We believe that the skill of engineers and contractors who designed and built the many buildings we walk in and out of will keep them from falling on our heads. And (this one always amazes me) we believe the cashier who tells us, “Your photos will be back in one hour.”

WHAT IS FAITH?

What is faith? Is it merely assent to facts? Does it involve any kind of commitment, particularly the commitment of the years of one’s life on earth? What does it mean when the Bible says that the demons believe and shudder (James 2:19)? How can some people apparently believe and not be saved, while others believe and are saved?

Faith means “confidence, trust, holding something as true.” Certainly, faith must have some content. There must be confidence about something or in someone. To believe in Christ for salvation means to have confidence that He can remove the guilt of sin and give eternal life. It means to believe that He can solve the problem of sin, which is what keeps a person out of heaven.

One can also believe Christ about a multitude of other things, but these are not involved in salvation. A person can believe He is Israel’s Messiah, and He is. One can believe He was born without a human father being involved in the act of conception, and that is true. A person can believe that what Jesus taught while on earth was good, noble, and true, and it was. He can believe Jesus will return to earth, and He will. One can believe Christ is the Judge of all, and He is. A person can believe He is a prophet and a priest, that priesthood being shaped after the order of Melchizedek, and one would be right.

We can believe all those things. You and I also may believe He is able to run our lives—and He surely is able to do that, and He wants to. But these are not the issues of salvation.

The only issue is whether or not you believe that His death paid for all your sin and that by believing in Him you can have forgiveness and eternal life.

Faith has an intellectual facet to it. The essential facts are that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:3–4; Romans 4:25). In addition, faith involves assent or agreement with those facts. One can know the facts of the Gospel and either agree or disagree with them. But faith also involves an act of the will, for we can decide either to obey or to reject God’s command to believe (Acts 16:31). And making whichever choice we do involves our will.

These three aspects of faith are quite standard in theology. For example, Charles Hodge summarized the meaning of faith that is connected with the Gospel this way:

That faith, therefore, which is connected with salvation includes knowledge, that is a perception of the truth and its qualities; assent, or the persuasion of the truth of the object of faith; and trust, or reliance. The exercise, or state of mind expressed by the word faith, as used in the Scriptures, is not mere assent, or mere trust; it is the intelligent perception, reception, and reliance on the truth, as revealed in the Gospel.[1]

Please observe the clear focus of Hodge’s definition. He is defining faith “which is connected with salvation.”

Louis Berkhof, a Reformed theologian like Hodge, included the same three elements in faith: (1) an intellectual element (notitia) or knowledge; (2) an emotional element (assensus) or assent to the truth; and (3) a volitional element (fiducia) or the involvement of the human will.[2]

In elaborating on the third element in faith—the volitional— Berkhof focused clearly on what that consists of. He wrote: “The third element consists in a personal trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord, including a surrender of the soul as guilty and defiled to Christ, and a reception and appropriation of Christ as the source of pardon and spiritual life.”[3] And further, “The object of special faith, then, is Jesus Christ and the promise of salvation through Him. The special act of faith consists in receiving Christ and resting on Him as He is presented in the gospel.”[4] Berkhof did not speak to the issue of the mastery of Christ over one’s life when discussing these three elements of faith. His third aspect, fiducia, concerned the involvement of the human will in personal trust in the Lord for salvation, not commitment of the years of one’s life to His mastery (contrary to the proponents of lordship salvation).[5]

John Murray, another Reformed theologian, also saw the same three elements in faith: knowledge, conviction, and trust are his words. In further describing trust, he wrote it is

A transference of reliance upon ourselves and all human resources to reliance upon Christ alone for salvation. It is a receiving and resting upon him. It is here that the most characteristic act of faith appears; it is engagement of person to person, the engagement of the sinner as lost to the person of the Saviour able and willing to save…. Faith is trust in a person, the person of Christ, the Son of God and Saviour of the lost. It is entrustment of ourselves to him. It is not simply believing him; it is believing in him and on him.[6]

MORE THAN FACTS

From these suggested descriptions of faith, it is obvious that faith involves more than the knowledge of facts. The facts must be there or faith is empty. But even assent, however genuine, must be accompanied by an act of the will to trust in the truth that one has come to know and assented to.

Hodge’s use of the word trust may be particularly appropriate today, for the words believe and faith sometimes seem to be watered down so that they convey little more than knowing facts. Trust, however, implies reliance, commitment, and confidence in the objects or truths that one is trusting. An element of commitment must be present in trusting Christ for salvation, but it is commitment to Him, His promise, and His ability to give eternal life to those who believe.

The object of faith or trust is the Lord Jesus Christ, however little or much one may know about Him. The issue about which we trust Him is His ability to forgive our sins and take us to heaven. And because He is the Lord God, there is an element in bowing before Him and acknowledging Him as a most superior person when one trusts Him for salvation.

BELIEF THAT DOES NOT SAVE

But is there not a kind of faith that does not save? Do not the demons exhibit such faith? In James 2:19 we are told that the demons believe and shudder. What is it that demons believe? The first part of the verse answers that question. They believe in one God. They are monotheists. And they shudder because they know that this God will someday judge them. They will not have the option of being judged by some other god who might overlook their sins, since there exists only one true God. James does not say what else they believe. In this verse, the only thing we are told is that they believe in one God. Thus this verse that is often quoted to show that some creatures can believe but not be saved is irrelevant to the issue of salvation, for it says only that demons are monotheists.

Nevertheless, it is true that some people can believe and not be saved. King Agrippa apparently believed the facts that confirmed that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Savior (Acts 26:27). But he refused to receive Jesus and His salvation.

What makes the difference between those who believe and are not saved and those who believe and are saved? Apparently those who believe and are not saved know the facts of the Gospel and may even give assent to its truthfulness, but they are unwilling to trust the Savior for their personal salvation. Knowledge and assent without being willing to trust cannot in themselves save.

The New Testament always says that salvation is through faith, not because of faith (Ephesians 2:8). Faith is the channel through which we receive God’s gift of forgiveness and eternal life. God has arranged it so that no one can ever boast, not even about his faith.

Normally the New Testament word for believe is used with the preposition that means “in” (John 3:16), indicating reliance or confidence or trust in the object of the faith. Sometimes the word believe is followed by a preposition that means “upon,” emphasizing laying hold on the object of faith (Romans 9:33). Sometimes it is followed by a clause that explains the content of faith (Romans 10:9, 11).

Does the New Testament use other words interchangeably with believe? Yes, it does. Receive is one (John 1:12); call is another (Romans 10:13). Confess is one (Romans 10:9; Hebrews 4:14); ask is another (John 4:10). Come is one (Revelation 22:17); take is another (Revelation 22:17).The person who asks or confesses or calls or receives or comes or takes, believes.

Of course, when one believes he commits to God. Commits what? His eternal destiny. That’s the issue, not the years of his life on earth. Certainly when one believes he bows to a superior person, to the most superior person in all the universe. So superior that He can remove sin.

But it is not easy to believe that someone whom neither you nor any other living person has ever seen did something nearly two thousand years ago that can take away sin and make you acceptable before a holy God. But it is believing that brings eternal life.

Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe In Jesus Christ (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1989), 115-123.

NOTES

[1] Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 29.

[2] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 503–5.

[3] Ibid., 505.

[4] Ibid., 506.

[5] John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 173.

[6] John Murray, Redemption—Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 138.

This is an update to the above
after conversation broke out over this post.

While we are discussing Calvinism… I was recently discussing faith with a Calvinist, and they mentioned that even the Demons believe, quoting James 2:19. I want to mention here that my friend was reading too much into this verse. First a video I shared with him and then some commentary to elucidate others:

James 2:19 Observation

Transcript below video:

  • Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well. The devils also believe and tremble.

People often misinterpret and misuse James chapter 2 verse 19 in an attempt to discredit and disprove salvation through faith alone. Here’s why that falls flat on its face. Number one, the word of God is explicitly clear that salvation is by grace through faith alone. The question was put forth in Acts chapter 16, verse 30, and the answer was given in verse 31 of the same chapter. Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

And brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved in thy house.

Secondly, James chapter 2, verse 19 does not say, The devils believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Is that what it said? The devils trust in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation. The devils believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. No, it says, Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well. The devils also believe and tremble. The devils also believe what? That there is one God. That’s what the Bible says the devils believe. Believing that there is one God saves no one. The Jews believe that there is one God. The Muslims believe that there is one God. What must I do to be saved? Believe that there is one God? No, the devils believe that. What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and now shall be saved. So this verse is often quoted to discredit and disprove salvation through faith alone. It doesn’t say that the devils believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It says that the devils believe that there is one God. Believing that there is one God will not save you. You must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death. that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Thirdly, Jesus did not die for devils. I’ll say that again. Jesus did not die for devils. The Word of God says He is the Savior of all men. Not all devils, not all angels. Jesus did not die for angels. The Word of God says He tasted death for every, watch this, every man. So the third reason why this application makes absolutely no sense is that Jesus did not die for devils. Jesus does not offer salvation to devils. Salvation is offered to mankind and mankind alone.

This was one of my first videos I came across about 3-months ago by this guy. Good find on my part. I also enjoy this commentary on the verse via

The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

2:19. It may be well to include even verse 19 as part of the respondent’s argument: You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. If so, he may be a typical Gentile believer who attacked the creedal belief of monotheism accepted by all Jews. He was saying, to “believe” in one God may be good so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. The demons do that. In fact not only do they believe (the same verb, pisteuō); they even “shudder,” or “bristle up” (phrissousin, an onomatopoeic verb used only here in the NT). The “belief” in one God may not be “trust” in that God. Unless it is “trust,” it is not true faith and will not be evidenced in good works.

In other words the respondent is saying, “Faith is not the key; what counts is works.” Thus the respondent has gone too far. James did not say that works are essential to faith, or that faith is unimportant. His argument was that works are evidence of faith.

Other writers understand this passage to mean that James (v. 18b) challenged the “someone” to show his faith without deeds—the point being that it cannot be done! James, however, said that faith can be demonstrated (only) by what one does (v. 18c). The demons’ “belief” in God is inadequate. Such a so-called but unreal faith is obviously unaccompanied by deeds on their parts.

2:20. James did not launch into a lengthy refutation of the respondent. The apostle simply addressed him forcefully, You foolish man, and returned to his original argument that faith without deeds is useless (argē, “lazy, idle, negligent”). The adjective “foolish” (kene) is usually translated “vain,” “empty,” or “hollow” (cf. mataios, “worthless, fruitless, useless,” in 1:26). Flimsy faith is dead; so are empty, faithless works. James’ argument is not pro-works/anti-faith or pro-faith/anti-works. He has simply said that genuine faith is accompanied by good works. Spiritual works are the evidence, not the energizer, of sincere faith

Ronald Blue, “James,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 826.

James emphasizes that acceptance of a creed is not enough to save a person. In another great commentary on James, we see the main idea being fleshed out by James regarding the “testing”

Beacon Bible Expositions

3. James now turns to two Old Testament illustrations. They are drawn from opposite realms of experience and stand in sharp contrast to each other. Yet both show clearly the need for holding together true faith and loving obedience.

a. The faith of Abraham, 21-24. No name meant more to a Jew than the name of Abraham. Abraham was universally respected as the father of the nation. His willingness to offer his son Isaac was a clear example of the reflex action of works as the fruit of faith, and faith as made perfect by works (21-23).

This two-way relationship between faith and obedience is of great practical importance. Faith leads to obedience. But obedience in turn strengthens faith. “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself,” said Jesus (John 7:17). Augustine wrote, “The Word of God belongs to those who obey it.” Both understanding and faith depend upon obedience.

There are indeed real intellectual problems in the Christian faith. Yet in many cases, the root of the problem is “not with the Apostles’ Creed but with the Ten Commandments.” Disobedience creates doubt. Obedience dissolves doubt.

James does not dispute the record of Gen. 15:6 or the application Paul made of the same truth in Rom. 4:1-3: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” He simply points out that a faith lacking in obedience is not faith at all. The only way the scripture can say that Abraham believed God and was counted righteous is that Abraham’s faith was both genuine and full. Justification is not by a truncated faith that has no obedience in it. Justification is by a faith that works (24). Paul says this also in Gal. 5:6.

b. The faith of Rahab, 25-26. The second illustration of faith is Rahab, the Canaanite woman who hid Israel’s two spies (Joshua 2). Some have thought to soften the meaning of the term harlot as applied to Rahab (Josh. 2:1) on the ground that the same term may mean simply “innkeeper.” But the word James uses (pome) admits of no softening. It means a prostitute, an immoral woman.

The faith of Abraham, the seeking pilgrim from Ur, was the faith that finds truth and righteousness through obedience. The faith of Rahab, the prostitute, was the faith that redeems and lifts the fallen. How complete was that redemption is testified to by Matthew in his genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:5-6). A man of the tribe of Judah by the name of Salmon married Rahab. They had a son named Boaz (Ruth 4:21-22; Matt. 2:5). Boaz married Ruth, the Moabitess widow. Their son Obed was the father of Jesse and the grandfather of King David, from whose line of descent came Jesus the Messiah.

James concludes his discussion with an analogy already introduced in vv. 17 and 20: For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also (26). A religion of externals is a ghost, spirit without body. But a subjective faith without loving obedience to the will of God is a corpse. The one is futile. The other is empty. What our day demands, as has every day, is full-orbed faith expressing itself in love and obedience.

W.T. Purkiser, Beacon Bible Expositions: Hebrews, James, Peter – Volume 11 (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press Of Kansas City, 1974) cf., James 2:14-26

Note, this section can be paired with my response to an atheist author’s position on faith: What Is Faith? Is It Blind? Or Is It Trustworthy?

How To Pray Like An Honest Calvinist | IDOL KILLER (+RPT)

Published by Papa Giorgio

The 2nd video is Idol Killer’s original, the first is my reimagining it:

Praying Like A Consistent Calvinist | Adapted from Idol Killer >>> I rejiggered it into a better order [IMHO], added some graphics/quotes, and uploaded it a second time finding an edit error on my part.

Not for the faint of heart!

Somewhere outside the city of Geneva, on Earth 1689, it happened that a Calvinist Theologian was praying, and when he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Pastor, teach us to pray, just as John also taught his disciples.” and he said to them:

“Oh Sovereign God, whom from all eternity, freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass, I thank you… I know you bring about all things in accordance with your will,… I know the evils of this world have NOT arisen by your mere permission, (or as a result of your patient call to repentance), but that YOU yourself bring about all evils for your glory and good pleasure,…

I thank you for bringing evil into the world. I thank you for the brutality at Birkenau and at Auschwitz.

I thank you for the terrible killings of Dennis Rader.

I thank you for the brutality of war, and the countless widows and orphans it creates. I thank you for the perverse abuse of young children. I know these evil men were perfectly obeying your Sovereign will.

I thank you. I see your gracious hand in the hurts others do to me, (like the Ford Focus that cut me off at the light this afternoon).

I thank you. I thank you for my wife, and the abuse she inflicts upon our children while I’m away from the home. I know you did this to build mine and my children’s character. I thank you that its only been bruises and bloody noses. I know you saw fit to have my boss fire me from my job, during the holiday season, just as I know it was your Sovereign will that he hire Stephanie this past Spring and that we have an affair.

I thank you for giving me an irresistible desire for red heads. Above all, I know it was your Sovereign hand keeping my wife ignorant of our illicit love making, (during our lunch break at the motel six).

I thank you. I know that it was your perfect will that my neighbor got drunk and took his own life this morning, just as it was your perfect will that I was distracted on my cell phone and backed the car over his son last week.

I thank you. I know you’ve regenerated me and elected me unto salvation, and while I’m unsure about my wife and children’s eternal destiny, I thank you. Please bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies and bless the hands that prepared it, or don’t. Whatever your Sovereign will is. Thank you, and amen!”

Total Depravity Defined (Soteriology 101)

Published by Papa Giorgio

What you will find below:

The long debate [which I won’t replicate here] from Soteriology 101 Discussion’s Facebook Page, is over — essentially — this portion of Leighton Flower’s’ book, “Drawn by Jesus.” BUT FIRST, what I will reproduce is the extent of the debate summed up in these two back-n-forths:

ROGER H. responds to Jason R.

[Jason R said] “This is a clear logical impasse you are confronted with…“

What is the logical impasse? A person is born with no ability to choose God. This requires that the person be regenerated. Once regenerated, a person can desire God and can choose God.

[Jason R said] “and there is no compatibilism that can harmonize this faulty logic.”

Once a person is regenerated, he has new desires. He can choose according to his greatest desire.

I don’t see a problem.

JASON R. responds to ROGER H.

it is fascinating to observe how you see no problem with the fact that God ultimately judges the majority of humanity for not receiving Christ when He determined that they never could do so in the first place. You seem content to accept that God can judge someone for their sin of non-repentance even though they have no way of repenting. This is blatantly unjust. You admit that God necessarily has to regenerate someone so that they can believe which equates to conceding that man cannot choose God unless God first chooses and changes them. Man is born into a hopeless state of inability and you cannot see a problem with God judging and condemning man for this inability when he has no way of escaping its pre-determined inevitabilities. I have never heard a sound defense against this Achilles heel of Calvinism… only concessions such as yours.

The entire discussion is enlightening, as it is a real working out of the issue. But this is the portion that Roger H. started out with, mistakenly saying it was from chapter 3:

Chapter 5

The Calvinistic Presupposition of Total Inability

A presupposition is “a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument.”23 We all have presuppositions. Some of them are right, but others are wrong. Wrong presuppos­itions brought to a passage can influence people to draw erroneous conclusions about the meaning of the text in question. This is why objectively evaluating our presuppositions is so important when any passage is in dispute between well-intending brethren.

Your theological opponents have every right to challenge your presuppositions. After all, wrong presuppositions lead to bad exe­gesis. And assuming your presuppositions are correct is just a falla­cious game of question-begging. Unfortunately, this has been James White’s bread and butter. When non-Calvinists have challenged one of his presuppositions in the past, he accuses us of either “changing the topic,” “running off to other scriptures,” or “doing improper exe­gesis.” This is ironic, given that proper exegesis requires biblically correct presuppositions.

Calvinism’s underlying premise is that God decreed for all people since the Fall to be born morally unable to believe what He Himself teaches, so unless you were unconditionally chosen before you were born and irresistibly regenerated into a new creation by a supernat­ural intervening work of God, you will never be morally capable of believing in Him.24 Needless to say, that premise will greatly influence how you understand the Bible regardless of the hermeneutical methodologies, grammatical nuances, contextual considerations, or semantic word studies. A wrong premise skews everything and, therefore, must be evaluated objectively prior to getting into the other pertinent matters. So, let’s start by looking at these three major presuppositions White brings into John 6 based primarily upon his Calvinistic interpretation of Paul.25

Total Inability26

The entire sixth chapter in White’s book on the topic, titled “Human Inability,” sets out to establish this doctrine. Based on his in­terpretation of other scripture, White presupposes that God decreed for all people (since the Fall) to be born unable to believe His own teachings, but God still punishes all who do not believe. Therefore, when White reads John 6 through those presuppositional lenses, he understands the phrase “no one can come” to mean that the natural condition of everyone from birth is such that they cannot under­stand and believe what God teaches.27 For instance, White wrote,

In response to the crowd’s disbelief, Jesus also gives forth a clear explanation of their inability to understand and their inability to come to Him as the one and only source of spiritual life.

Notice that White assumes that the reason the crowds cannot come to Christ is due to a universal inherent condition in which they were born, something God Himself decreed and the individuals had absolutely no control over. In other words, in White’s view, the crowd remains in unbelief because they were born inherently blinded to divinely revealed truth, and God has not intervened to irresistibly change their inherent “default” condition. This is the root of what is known as theistic determinism, a primarily philosophical commitment to the idea that God unchangeably brings to pass (or deter­mines) every meticulous detail, including all moral evil.28

NOTES

23 Oxford Languages Online Dictionary (Oxford University Press)

24 This represents the T,U and I of the Calvinistic TULIP, which will be ex­plored further in the following pages.

25 White wrote, “When the doctrine of election is discussed, most people think immediately of the discussions provided by the Apostle Paul in such great passages as Romans 8-9 and Ephesians 1.” James R. White, The Sovereign Grace of God (New York: Great Christian Books, 2003), 68.

26 White wrote, “Some Reformed writers like others names for this doctrine. One of the best alternatives is `total inability.” Ibid., 48.

27 White wrote, “[Man] is utterly… incapable of coming to Christ, incapable of accepting and understanding spiritual things…” Ibid., 59. Given that White also affirms the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, we know that he affirms God’s universal exhaustive decree of whatsoever comes to pass, which must necessarily include mankind’s innate “default” inability to believe.

28 White wrote, “God’s knowledge of the future is related to His role as Creator —He knows the future because He ordained the future! The course of the future is certain because God created it.” Ibid., 68. Vicens wrote, “We might, for instance, take Feinberg’s definition of an `unconditional’ decree as one `based on nothing out­side of God that move[s] Him to choose one thing or another’ (2001, p. 527) and then characterize theological determinism as the view that God unconditionally decrees every event that occurs in the history of the world. Such a view would ex­clude the possibility that God merely permits some events which He foresees will happen in some circumstances but which He does not Himself determine.” Leigh Vicens, Theological Determinism (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource) accessed online on 12/19/2023. [RPT: 1/29/2026]

Leighton [Charles] Flowers, Drawn By Jesus (Trinity Academic Press, 2024), 47-49.

ROMANS 3:11

A common verse I hear from my fellow believers is “…there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.” – Romans 3:11

SOTERIOLOGY 101 posts combined are from:

In an effort to demonstrate that all people have fallen short of the glory of God and broken His law, Paul quotes from Psalm 14:2-3, which says:

“The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

There are basically two theological approaches for interpreting this passage:

(1) Calvinistic Approach: Apart from a Divine irresistible work of regeneration (by which God changes a chosen individual’s nature and desires), mankind cannot willingly seek to know, understand, or follow God.
(2) Non-Calvinistic (Traditionalist) Approach: Apart from God’s gracious initiative in bringing His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel appeal, no one can merit salvation or consistently seek to obey God in a way that will attain his own righteousness.

The contrast between these two perspectives can be illustrated by this simple question: Does proof that I am incapable of calling the president on the telephone also prove that I am incapable of answering the telephone if the president were to call me? Of course not, yet that is essentially the principle a Calvinist is assuming in their theological approach to this text.

Calvinists read this text to mean that our lack of initiative somehow proves our inability to respond positively to His initiative. They presume that God’s work in sending His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel, calling for all to be reconciled through faith in Christ, is insufficient to enable the lost to respond in faith. But the text simply never says this.

In Romans chapter 3:10-20 the apostle is seeking to prove that no one can attain righteousness by means of the law. But in verse 21 he shifts to reveal a righteousness that can be obtained by means of grace through faith in Christ.

Calvinists seem to think that because mankind is unable to attain righteousness by means of the law that they must equally be unable to obtain righteousness by means of grace through faith in Christ. This, however, is never established anywhere in the pages of Scripture.

Of course, we all can affirm that no one is righteous with regard to the demands of the law. But there have been many throughout the pages of Scripture who have been declared righteous by means of grace through faith.

Calvinists wrongly assume that because mankind is unable to fully keep the demands of the law that they are equally unable to admit their inability to keep those demands and trust in the One who has. Again, this is simply never established in the Bible. HERE>

THE “HERE>” EXCERPT

… If I told my son to clean up his room it would strongly imply that I believed it was within his abilities to do so, especially if I punished him for failure to do so. No decent parent would tell their two day old infant to clean up a mess and then punish them for not doing so. Such an action would expose the parent as insane or completely immoral.

This is basic common sense, but is it applicable to how God deals with humanity? Is the implication in scripture of “you should” mean that “you could?” I think we can all agree that “ought” strongly implies moral ability for all practical purposes, but is that a biblical reality? Sometimes the Bible defies our practical sensibilities and turns our reality up on its ear. Is that the case here? Do God’s expressions of what we SHOULD do imply that we actually COULD do it.[1]

Could the “Rich Young Ruler” have willingly given up his wealth to follow Christ as Zacchaeus does in the very next chapter? Or was Zacchaeus granted an ability that was withheld from the Rich Young Ruler? (Note: I’m speaking of man’s moral/spiritual abilities to repent in faith, not their physical ability or mental assent, so please don’t try to rebut this article with the all too often “catch all” phrase of, “He is able but not willing.”)

Calvinists would agree with the Traditionalists that both Zacchaeus and Rich Young Ruler SHOULD have given up everything to follow Christ, but only the Traditionalist maintains that both of them COULD have willingly done so.

Why do Calvinists insist that COULD doesn’t imply SHOULD when it comes to the Biblical revelation?

Dr. Wayne Grudem, a Calvinistic scholar, explains the issue in this manner:

“Advocates of the Arminian position draw attention to the frequency of the free offer of the gospel in the New Testament. They would say that these invitations to people to repent and come to Christ for salvation, if bona fide, must imply the ability to respond to them. Thus, all people without exception have the ability to respond, not just those who have been sovereignly given that ability by God in a special way.” [2]

Grudem, like John Hendryx of mongerism.com, rebuts this perspective by making arguments such as:

“What the Scriptures say we ‘ought’ to do does not necessarily imply what we ‘can’ do. The Ten Commandments, likewise, speak of what we ought to do but they do not imply that we have the moral ability to carry them out. The law of God was given so that we would be stripped of having any hope from ourselves. Even faith itself is a divine command that we cannot fulfill without the application of God’s regenerative grace by the Holy Spirit.”[3]

Are you following the Calvinistic argument? Here it is put very simply:

  1. God tells man they SHOULD keep all the commandments.
  2. Man CANNOT keep all the commandments.
  3. God also tells man they SHOULD believe and repent for breaking commandments.
  4. Therefore man also CANNOT believe and repent for breaking commandments.[4]

If the fallacy in this argument is not obvious to you, please allow me to explain in this way:

Back when my kids were younger we did a family activity that our church had suggested. I stood at the top of the stairs with my four children at the bottom.

I said to them, “Here are the rules. You must get from the bottom of the stairs to the top of the stairs without touching any of the railing, the wall or even the stairs. Ready, go!”

My kids looked at me and then each other and then back at their mother. With bewilderment in their eyes, they immediately began to whine and complain saying, “Dad, that is impossible!”

I told them to stop whining and figure it out.

The youngest stood at the bottom and started trying to jump, slamming himself into the steps over and over. The more creative one of the bunch began looking for tools to help build some kind of contraption. Another set down on the floor while loudly declaring, “This is just stupid, no one can do that!”

Finally, in exasperation one of the kids yelled out, “Dad, why don’t you just help us?” I raised my eyebrows as if to give them a clue that they may be on the right track. The eldest caught on quickly.

“Can you help us dad?” he shouted.

I replied quietly, “No one even asked me.”

“Can you carry us up the stairs?” he asked.

“I will if you ask me,” I said.

And one by one, I carried each child to the top after they simply asked.

Then, we sat down and talked about salvation. We talked about how it is impossible for us to get to heaven by our own efforts, but if we ask Christ for help then He will carry us. It was a great visual lesson of God’s grace in contrast with man’s works.

But suppose that my children’s inability to get to the top the stairs also meant they were incapable of asking me for help. Imagine how this story would’ve played out if it was impossible for my children not only to get to the top of the stairs but equally impossible for them to recognize that inability and request help when it was offered.

This illustrates the mistake of Calvinism. Let’s go back to their fallacy above as it relates to my story:

  1. Dad tells his kids they SHOULD get to the top of stairs.
  2. Kids CANNOT complete this task as requested.
  3. Dad also tells the kids they SHOULD ask for help.
  4. Therefore the kids CANNOT ask for help.

Do you see the problem now? The whole purpose of presenting my kids with that dilemma was to help them to discover their need for help. To suggest that they cannot realize their need and ask for help on the basis that they cannot get to the top of stairs completely undermines the very purpose of the giving them that dilemma. ….

George C. Scott Explains Calvinism

A scene from the 1979 movie Hardcore, in which an old Calvinist elder goes to find his runaway daughter in the porn underbelly of Los Angeles. This scene with George C. Scott inspired Richard Mouw’s book “Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport.” HEADS UP: there’s some saucy language. And the rest of the film is what you’d expect from a movie about the porn industry in the 70’s.

And here is that promised chapter:

DISHENCHANTED CALVINIST

Chapter 9, GRACE (PDF)

  1. I affirm that the grace of God can be and is at times resisted, and this includes but is not limited to the genuine offer of salvation and resisting the Holy Spirit. The Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 that reprobates “perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” (italics added) Of course, I am rejecting the Calvinist and compatibilist answer that a person refuses because, as a sinner, that is all that he can do. It seems crystal clear in reading the passage without Calvinist spectacles on that the context and language clearly imply that they “should not have refused” and therefore could have believed which entails the idea of otherwise choice, exactly what Calvinism denies.

Further, I affirm that the ability of man to accept or to resist God’s genuine offer of salvation is a part of God’s plan and redounds to His glory; moreover, this genuine offer of the gospel is more than “a good faith offer” as taught by the Calvinist. It is an actual offer from God through His chosen medium, which can be accepted by faith or rejected unto damnation. Finally, this includes the reality that God has given the gift of repentance, and that the clear call of Scripture is for everyone everywhere (Acts 17:30) to repent and be saved, which implies that those called upon to repent can, by the grace of God, repent (Matthew 3:2, 4:17, 11:20; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32, 13:3, 13:5, 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 5:31, 11:18, 20:21, 26:20; Romans 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

Jesus pronounced woe upon all the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida because they did not repent, obviously indicating He believed they had the capacity to repent (see Matthew 11:21). The book of Revelation leaves believers stunned that unregenerate people refuse to repent even when they are suffering from the wrath of God (see Revelation 9:20-21, 16:9, 11). Acts 17:30 reminds us that the call of God to repent is for everyone. Paul said, “and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). The implication obviously means that they could have received the love of the truth and been saved.

In like manner, Stephen preached, “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did”(Acts 7:51). The writer of Hebrews said of those who draw back unto destruction, “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace”? (Hebrews 10:29, italics added). In Noah’s day, God said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever” (Genesis 6:3), clearly implying that He was then. Also why did God bring judgment upon leaders and Jews so they could not hear and see and return if that in fact was their state already? (Isaiah 6:9-10 and Matthew 13:10-17).

Lastly, I affirm the biblical doctrines of grace. Calvinists refer to their beliefs as “The Doctrines of Grace,” which is fine, but it actually does not tell us much. That is to say, the doctrines of any Biblicist are all “doctrines of Grace.” There simply are no other kinds. It is similar to the Calvinist’s continual reference to the sovereignty of God. It tells us nothing since all believers with any biblical fidelity and understanding of God believe in His sovereignty. Further, disavowal of the Calvinist’s definition of the doctrines of grace and sovereignty is not a denial or undermining of the doctrines of grace or the sovereignty of God, but it is what it is, a denial of Calvinism’s definition.

  1. I disaffirm that the Bible teaches that God carries out His salvation plan through selective “irresistible grace.” John Piper describes irresistible grace thusly, “When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of the resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God “irresistible grace.”63 Note that those who receive this act of grace against their will can only believe and those who don’t receive this cannot be saved; therefore, any talk from a Calvinist that God loves people, the lost, hurting, etc., is double-talk because He, according to Calvinism, actually only loves some lost and hurting people enough to offer help. This is a disquieting reality.

Piper says also, “The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills.”” I would note that the Calvinist, as well as Piper’s position, is actually stronger than this in that, not only does the doctrine of irresistible grace mean that God can overcome, but it actually means He will or must. Further, I disaffirm that all verses that say, teach, or imply that man can resist are merely reiterating the position of compatibilism—sure they resist salvation because that is all, according to their nature, that they can do. Moreover, I disaffirm that an offer of salvation through proclamation of the gospel by anyone who views salvation through the grid of Calvinism constitutes a real offer of salvation from God if it can be resisted; because according to Calvinism and compatibilism the real offer of salvation, in any meaningful sense to the person, cannot be resisted because the real offer of salvation from God always results in regeneration. This is a disquieting reality. An example of my point is, in what sense can a person be said to be offered a job if it is impossible for him to accept it, and not only is there no intent to actually give it to him, but in reality there was a predetermined unalterable decision by the CEO not to give it to him; this is in spite of the personnel manager’s sincerity in offering the job. The answer seems obvious, NONE!

Let me elucidate this further. Calvinists seek to emphasize the positive of irresistible grace, e.g., God saves some unworthy sinners who otherwise would perish in hell. But the dark side of irresistible grace is that although the “good faith offer” of a Calvinist seems to exonerate him from being guilty of making an artificial offer of salvation (as long as he is careful not to say specifically to someone things like “God loves you or God cares about you or God wants you to go to heaven”) to sinners who cannot, according to Calvinism, really repent, believe, and be saved, because the Calvinist can never be sure who God has selected to regenerate. However, even if the Calvinist is vindicated, it does not exonerate God from using language, commands, parables, etc., which clearly picture God as wanting all to be saved even though, according to Calvinism, He is the sole determiner and only reason they cannot be saved. Therefore, Calvinism’s irresistible grace makes God the sole determiner of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell because He could have saved everyone. This truth is dramatically contrary to the picture of God and His offer of salvation as drawn in Scripture, a disquieting reality.

We all seek to emphasize what we deem to be the positives of our message or position. However, it is morally incumbent upon every messenger to quest for full disclosure and to shun any appearance of obscuring the negative or harsher teachings of our position. The Calvinist emphasis that irresistible grace assures salvation for some, while minimizing the truth that irresistible grace just as assuredly and irrevocably destines some to eternal torment in hell, reminds me of the Darwinist obsession with the beauty of natural selection’s determination that the strong and healthy survive, while they seldom with the same clarity and enthusiasm speak of the dark side of natural selection that requires the brutal and merciless elimination of the weak.

Consequently, the insurmountable obstacle to irresistible grace determining who receives eternal salvation—besides the fact that it is not taught in Scripture—is that it puts God the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the position of appearing to offer deliverance from the wrath to come to all who cry for mercy while, actually, God has no intention of doing so. For, according to Calvinism, He predetermined, contrary to what the gospel and the Scriptures say, to offer salvation to only a few. In other words, it makes God the CEO who allows, yea commands, and says He wants all to be hired, but He has in reality predetermined long ago that they cannot ever be hired even though his personnel managers continue to offer jobs to them. This is a disquieting reality. In order to sustain the idea of irresistible grace, it appears that we must turn common language upon its head, take the obvious and simple meaning of language as seen in Scripture and used in everyday life, and subject it to biblically unnecessary restrictions and meanings, which is one of the pervasive problems in Calvinism. This is a disquieting reality.

For example, Christ felt love for the rich young ruler and out of that love told him how to receive salvation, but the young man refused; after which Jesus noted how difficult it was for a rich person to “enter the kingdom of heaven.” The passage clearly indicates that the young man could have been saved if he had chosen to follow Christ, and part of the reason that he chose not to follow Christ was that he was rich (Mark 10:21-23). From the standpoint of Calvinism, whether he was rich or poor had no bearing on whether he would come or not because the draw is irresistible. Christ’s encounter with this young man also demonstrates that Christ loves the lost and loves them enough to tell them how to have eternal life. By every normal meaning, those words meant he could have received salvation at that time had he chosen to believe. The idea of a “good faith offer” may relieve the human Calvinist of malicious deception, but it cannot be so of Jesus or the Trinity. The statement that “all things are possible with God” is exactly my point and in no way proves Calvinism true, but is actually contrary to their system. This is a disquieting reality. Therefore, I absolutely disaffirm that the Scripture teaches or logic demands that God’s sovereignty is undermined or minimized when He grants the opportunity to resist His genuine offer of salvation because He sovereignly chose to grant that choice.

Finally, I disaffirm that the doctrine of irresistible grace applied to some in salvation is what the Scriptures teach, or that it is consistent with what God reveals about Himself. The truth is that God revealed Himself in Scripture as actually loving the world—human race—so much that He sent His own Son to die for them (John 3:16), thereby providing for their salvation. And any human can receive this salvation if he will obey God’s command and repent and believe, which he can do by God’s grace. I do not believe that God offers what cannot be accepted or what He has no intention of providing. Nor do I believe that God condemns people for rejecting what He predetermined that they could not accept.

NOTES

  1. John Piper, “Irresistible Grace” in What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism, copyright Desiring God.org, revised March 1998.
  2. J. Piper and the Bethlehem Baptist Church staff, “What We Believe About the
    Five Points of Calvinism,” #Grace