Limited Depravity Leads to an Earned Eternity

There is a very dangerous and deadly error that creeps into theology when natural man is not seen as utterly, completely, and totally sinful in both nature and desire. Not all natural men manifest the same degree of evil as others do; some are morally and socially good, even very good, but all men in their own natural state are utterly and completely sinful in both their desires and their actions.

This doctrinal understanding is commonly known as total depravity, total inability, or something along those lines. It is my contention that the Bible unquestionably teaches this truth in detail starting in the time of the Great Deluge (Genesis 6:5; 8:21) throughout the narrative of the nation through the psalms and prophets of the Old Testament (Isaiah 64:6), and from the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 19:17) through the New Testament letters (Romans 1-3). I also believe that great harm is done to the gospel and the cohesive nature of the Scriptures when the Bible is contorted and over-contextualized so as to say that if the specific audience of a prophetic writing or psalm was a certain group of people, then nothing, not even the inspired writers of the New Testament, can clearly articulate a fuller meaning that was missed by the original audience for centuries.

This ugly error has two sides that disturb me in different ways. The first problem with the rejection of total depravity is the thought and staunchly held belief that man is not completely bad; that he has not been utterly ruined by sin. The second error, which is the true nature of this objection, is that man is truly good or righteous in some way and to some degree.

I was listening to the respective debaters’ own radio shows the day after the debate between James White and Steve Gregg when I heard a most astounding thing come out of the lips of Mr. Gregg. A caller named David, who seemed to be fairly ambivalent and didn’t hold to a Calvinist position or Mr. Gregg’s position (I would suggest that this type of person, by default, would usually be in Mr. Gregg’s camp), asked Mr. Gregg about the doctrine of total depravity. David made the statement that no one, not even Godly men in the Old Testament, were righteous apart from the imputed righteousness of Christ and that, if they were truly saved, they too were saved by faith. Mr. Gregg then responds by saying,

“But there are men in the Old Testament who are described as righteous; people like Job.”¹

In the exchange that followed, the caller goes on to make a point that men can seem good or righteous in comparison to the world system if they are “graded on a curve”, but this is not equivalent to the righteousness of God.² And in a further attempt to defend his doctrine of limited depravity, Mr. Gregg said the following,

“[Paul] is not making absolute statements about all people. Although the language sounds absolute, they are coming from poetic passages that are full of hyperbole; exaggerations. The same Psalm that says there are none who seek after God, the psalmist says these bad people; they eat up my people like bread. Well, that’s a poetic non-literal statement. Even later on in one of these quotes he says the poison of asps is under their tongues. These people don’t have snake venom in their mouth, its hyperbole and also it says in this passage “their feet run to shed blood”. Well, I don’t have very many non-Christian friends whose feet are running to shed innocent blood. Its true that some people do, but this is not describing every person.”³

David, the caller, then asked a very important and clarifying question. He said that if, in fact, Job really was righteous, would he then have had the need to be saved through faith? It was Mr. Gregg’s response to this part of the question that literally took my breath away,

“Well nobody is totally righteous, and if the psalm is simply saying that nobody is as righteous as they should be and nobody seeks God as much as they should, nobody does it all the time, then of course that would be true of all people.”⁴

In essence, what Mr. Gregg is saying here is that no one is totally righteous, but everyone has the possibility of being somewhat righteous apart from God. I don’t know how else to interpret the context of his entire answer to this line of questioning. His first few comments about Job and his being called righteous slid right on by me the first time I heard them. I didn’t really like some of the way that he phrased his thoughts, but they weren’t overly alarming in and of themselves. But, when taken in the same context as his statement that “nobody is totally righteous” implying that there is a degree of righteousness that some people do have on their own, this is a clear affirmation of human ability which he would call libertarian free will.

The problem with the type of mindset that goes along with libertarian free will is this: in this system, the individual sinner then cooperates with God, with the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and with Christ in His atoning work to end up being saved. So that the result will be that this same individual will then be able to look across the chasm that separates heaven and hell and legitimately say,

“I am so thankful to me that I was not as foolish and stubborn as those fools. I was wise enough to see the light. I was open enough to the gospel. I chose to make Christ my Lord. I did this because I was smart enough to understand the issues, weigh the evidence, and make a choice. They were not. Those fools had just as much of a chance as I did, but they were to stubborn, they were too foolish, and they were too lazy to really apply themselves. I am now in the inheritance that I deserve because of my own aptitude for understanding God and His plan.”

Whether or not Mr. Gregg would ever say this, and I don’t believe that he would, in fact I think that he would be appalled at the very thought of saying this, I still submit that this fact remains the same; a view of man’s sin that is one of limited depravity logically leads to the view that the same person earns their own eternity with God in heaven.

May it never be.

---

¹ Steve Gregg, The Narrow Path Radio Program (TNP) 4/10/08 30 (or so) min in

² “Graded on a curve” was an inserted comment by Steve Gregg during his caller’s comments. TNP 4/10/08 30 (or so) min in.

³ Steve Gregg, TNP 4/10/08 30 (or so) min in

⁴ Steve Gregg, TNP 4/10/08 32 min in

The Definitive Mover

After listening to a debate over the sovereignty of God in salvation, I am more convinced than ever about the fact that the doctrine of sin and man’s condition in sin is absolutely fundamental to having a correct perspective of and theology of salvation. The reason that this is so fundamental is, I believe, because the doctrine of sin must be understood before salvation can truly be understood. I am not saying that someone is not saved or cannot be saved if he or she has an inconsistent or a less-than-totally-true understanding of man’s state in sin. At the very least we must understand our sinful condition enough to see our dire need for the grace of God in Christ. All true Christians must understand, believe, and confess that all people everywhere are sinners and need God’s unmerited favor received on the basis of faith alone in Christ crucified.

That being said, I have many brothers and sisters in Christ today, as well as throughout the ages of faith, who ardently disagree about the extent of natural man’s fallen state. One side of the disagreement hold that man is totally dead in sin and unable to do anything at all, even have and express saving faith in Christ, to effect his eternal life, apart from a distinct and effectual act of God on this man’s behalf that God does not do for all men. The other side drifts away from the previous positions to varying degrees, but would hold (on some level) that man is truly sinful and justly under the condemnation of God, but he possesses the inner ability to savingly believe in Christ on his own accord apart from a specific work of God in his own life that is not present in everyone else’s life.

I believe that the root issue here is not God’s election of some men to salvation and not electing others. I don’t believe that the root issue is even the effectual nature of God’s grace that He bestows upon those whom He saves. The root issue is the sinful nature of man insofar as much as it is this doctrine that makes the statement of who is the definitive mover in the salvation of the individual.

I said above that there are, and have been, many godly men and women who would not understand man’s sinful state in the same brilliant colors and contrasts that the Bible paints it in. However, the fact that there are godly men and women bought by the blood of Christ who don’t see the complete sinfulness of man and his utterly corrupt and depraved nature that totally effects every fiber of his being in an ultimately definitive way does not for one second boast as a proof that their view on the sinfulness of man is correct. Likewise, the fact that so many pillars of the faith, both in antiquity and in modern times, believe and have defended the totally depraved nature of man in sin that holds his will utterly under the yoke of the slave master of sin does not act as the ultimate trump card for the validity of this view.

And it is in light of this conviction that some of the comments on the debate between Steve Gregg and James White on God’s sovereignty in salvation were truly shocking. During one of the least productive exchanges in the fourth installment of the debate, Mr. Gregg is attempts to show a problem with the doctrine of total depravity as traditionally understood in Calvinist and reformed camps by looking at the first chapter of Romans.

“I would think that Dr. White’s view is that all unbelievers are born with their hearts darkened. He describes them as dead in sin and darkened in their hearts, there imaginations and so forth. I don’t find anywhere in the Bible that states that this is the birth condition of every man. I do see Paul saying that there are certainly many men, and he’s talking about them right here, who have known the truth and they’ve rejected the truth and as a result, darkness has come upon their hearts. I believe this is true in virtually all of the passages that talk about total depravity, at least that are used. The reason that I wanted to ask some specific questions about a passage, and in my opinion why Dr. White didn’t want me to do so, is because it does not allow the Calvinist to simply rattle off passages and say “see there”. For example, when Dr. White gave his original argument, he talked about the state of the antediluvian people, that the thoughts and imaginations of their heart were only evil continually…. He used a lot of Scriptures, which the Bible directs towards certain audiences and says, “this is true of them”. But if we look at the context of each of these, we find that it’s a specific group of people. If we want to exegete the passage, we can’t go to Genesis 6, or Jeremiah, or these passages and find a place where it is saying that all human beings fit this category.¹

Quite frankly, I am not sure how one can actually read the context of the first eight chapters of Genesis and come to the conclusion that “the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5) or “the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21) are anything less than a comprehensive statement about the whole of humanity. I’ll grant that the first statement was made about the pre-flood people who were virtually totally rotten and unredeemed, so I can understand how someone could take the universality of Genesis 6:5 and think that it referred to all “unsaved” people, even if that conclusion is wrong. But when Genesis 6:5 is put next to 8:21, I think that the sweeping statement made by God concerning man’s condition is an utter condemnation of all individuals. God even makes the point of noting that the intent of man’s heart, not just his action, is evil from youth.

Again, I say, that I am utterly convinced that one of the most important and fundamental theological issues that Christians need to understand rightly is that of man’s state in sin. Getting that right doesn’t ensure that your other theologies will always be correct. However, getting it wrong virtually ensures that you will be incorrect on other very vital theologies. I don’t think that getting the doctrine of the depravity of man wrong, saying that he’s not totally depraved from birth, will lead you away from understanding justification by grace though faith alone; but without properly understanding the depravity of man, then there is no need for the complete and utter grace of God in salvation because faith can, and does (in their view), come from the individual and is not a gift of God Himself (cf. Phil 1:29). If man is not depraved, then I am the definitive mover when it comes to my salvation, and not God. This is a horrible and grace-destroying belief that is a scourge inside the body.

May God open the eyes of the Body, not simply as a whole, but as individuals, to the truth of our depravity and the glorious pervasiveness of His grace and His glory.

---

¹ James White vs. Steve Gregg, Debate day 4, 4/8/08 (emphasis mine)

“Whosoever will” and God’s Sovereignty in Election

Since the last Friday of 2007 I have been thinking about the subjects of sovereignty, depravity, grace, free will, election, and the atonement in order to formulate an answer a question that was posed to me regarding a sermon I preached on December 9, 2007 titled "For To You It Has Been Granted" based on Philippians 1:29. The following is both the thoughts of my heart and an intentional articulation of how I understand the gospel.

My intention with this article is not primarily to win an argument or to “convert” anyone to the theological convictions that I hold. I say that while also believing that my position is true (otherwise, why would I hold it), the theology that I am defending has been the victor in the debate in my mind (otherwise, why would I hold to it), and that I would not be at all upset if anyone who currently disagrees with me were to come to be in agreement with me over time. That being said, I truly want to be subordinate to Scripture, and so I will not neglect to look at these issues or passages that may be difficult to understand because they may seem to push me away from my understanding of sovereignty.

To start off this article, I would like to articulate a few of the many points of agreement that I share with my more Arminian brethren. Many of those who may have some points of contention with the force of my convictions and their doctrinal implications are good friends of mine, and those who are very passionate about the preaching of the gospel to the lost. Some are family, some are Baptists, some are both of these, and some are friends who also love me and my family. That being the case, I am sure that we agree, believe, confess, and would defend the following things:

• Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and not based on man’s merit or works (Ephesians 2:8,9).
• Man must be born again to inherit eternal life (John 3).
• The correct response by any man to the hearing of the gospel must be faith in Christ and repentance of sin (Mark 1:15).
• The gospel is and should be preached to anyone and everyone and anyone who will believe will be saved. (Rom 10:10-17).

I am sure that there are more issues and things pertinent the focus of this article that we would agree on and stand shoulder to shoulder on, but these were just a few to begin with. However, what tends to be a primary point of disagreement seems to be dealing with the compatibility or incompatibility of human responsibility, or free, will and that of God’s sovereignty in all things including election and salvation. I submit that in each of our understandings of these two things they are compatible in our own minds. The difference is that our understandings of sovereignty and free will are different. So, perhaps the best way to begin is to briefly articulate how I define these words and make a distinction from how many of my Christian brethren may define them.

1. Free Will (not my definition):
• Definition: Man’s will is free to choose to believe in God. Even though man is dead in sin, there is a real sense that he is able (in and of himself and his own power apart from a specific working of God) to place his faith in Christ that goes against his sinful nature.
• Application: Natural man will freely choose to sin, but he can also freely choose to believe in Christ and repent of sin.
2. Free Will (my definition):
• Definition: Man’s will is able to choose anything that is able to choose. He can choose anything that his desire and nature will allow him. He, in and of himself, is not able to make choices that supersede or counteract his nature and desire.
• Application: Natural man will freely, consistently, and constantly choose to sin, reject God, and never ever repent of sin, trust in, believe in, or worship Christ because that is not what the sinful nature desires.

Whether or not the second definition that I gave accurately reflects any specific person’s personal definition or not, I believe that it may be a good way to state how many people think of free will. So, realizing this, in an effort both to defend my position while at the same time showing how and why I believe that the other position (which is drawn from the first definition above) is not correct, I will divide the body of my thoughts into three sections. The first section will be addressing the theological and Scriptural support for my position. The second section will address the theological and Scriptural objections commonly raised against the position that I hold. The third section will address practical concerns that may arise.

Let it be noted that neither my statements in affirmation of the sovereign understanding of salvation that I will put forth nor the objections to that understanding that I will address are to be understood as being a full treatment of the issue at hand. I am sure that this is obvious, but if there are concerns or proofs that are not addressed, either adequately or at all, in this article, it is not out of an intentional shirking of verses or arguments. So, please feel free to raise verses in objection, affirmation, or question regarding this debate so that we can be as iron sharpening iron.

Section One: Scripture Support

To start off this section, let me say that I completely and whole-heartedly believe that anyone who calls on the Lord can and will be saved. It is impossible for someone who calls on the name of the Lord in true repentance and faith not to be saved. So, I am not trying to duck any passages that say this. I believe it! Let me say again, “for ‘WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’” (Romans 10:13)

The issue, in my mind, is not can “whosoever will” call on the name of the Lord and be saved. The question is “who will” and “how will” they believe. Or, how can the “whosoever will” call on the name of the Lord and be saved. And to begin to answer this question, I will say that God makes a sweeping declaration of the extent of the vileness of the human condition both before the great flood and directly after. In both of these places, God sums up man’s condition by stating that “every intent of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5) and that “the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21). I don’t believe that one can read what God has said here and come up with any notion of some ability to do the very opposite of evil which is trusting in and believing in God. The New Testament is not silent on this predicament either. When writing to the Galatians about the differences between the fruits of the Spirit and the deeds of the flesh, Paul begins by setting up a dichotomy,

“For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” (Galatians 5:17)

Even in the heart and lives of those who are saved (as the context is referring to here), there is nothing similar about the desires and inclinations of the flesh as compared to the Spirit of God that is present in the believer. And let it be noted that it is only after God has saved a person that there is even this type of a struggle.

“¹ And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, ² in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:1,2)

¹⁰ as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; ¹¹ THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; (Romans 3:10,11)

Before the gift of faith and the new birth, the flesh still is opposed to the Spirit, but there is no Spirit to move the person away from evil and toward God. In other words, unless there is a distinct and sweeping work of God on any person’s behalf, there would not be anyone who would call on the name of the Lord.

So, my contention is that all men are dead until they are made alive, born again (John 3), by the Spirit. And until that time, all men would freely and continually choose to blaspheme God and reject Him utterly. No one would (or could) believe in Christ. And the primary disagreement, if I were to guess, that we have is not even with what I have laid out so far, but it is with the implications that I drew (based on my understanding of Scripture) about the “whosoever” people.

On Sunday the 9th, my only goal with the portion of the passage that I was preaching out of (Phil 1:29) was to make the point that faith, initial saving faith (but also continuing faith), is a gift from God and it does not originate with man. I did this based on three points, the first is that faith had to be a gift from God because the Bible says so (Eph 2:8, Phil 1:29). But I built the case, drawing on the above Scriptures from Genesis, Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians to say that man is also incapable and unwilling to believe in Christ on our own.

My point on Sunday was not to preach on Predestination or election because that is not what the verse was talking about, and I tried to be very careful not to preach about those issues. However, the only way to completely address the “whosoever will” concern is to bring up the idea of election.

And to do that, I will just reference a few passages that are clear (I believe) statements to the affirmative and make some brief comments about them, and then once I’ve done that I will try to deal with one or two that are used as objections against it.

But once again, I want to be clear that this was not material or subject matter that I preached at all on Sunday evening.

¹ Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; ² And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; ³ And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” (Genesis 12:1-3)

God called Abraham, who was a wretched sinner in opposition to God if he was not a practicing idol worshipper like those around him as well. God chose Him instead of Lot, Terah, or anyone else including Noah or Shem (both Noah and Shem were still alive at that time) to father the chosen people.

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, ⁴ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love ⁵ He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, ⁶ to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. ⁷ In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace ⁸ which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight ⁹ He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him ¹⁰ with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him ¹¹ also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, ¹² to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. ¹³ In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14)

God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world according to the kind intention of His will, not according to the future choices of humans. We have been predestined according to His purpose based on the counsel of His will, not according to our purpose, will, choices, or seen future faith.

³⁵ Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. ³⁶ "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. ³⁷ "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. ³⁸ "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. ³⁹ "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. ⁴⁰ "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." ⁴¹ Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven." ⁴² They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, `I have come down out of heaven'?" ⁴³ Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. ⁴⁴ "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:35-44)

Whoever believes will be saved (v.41), but Christ makes a clear statement about who will believe and come to Him. The Father will give to Christ all of those people who will come to Christ, and Christ will keep all of them (v.37). But He also goes on to say that no one can come to Him unless God draws him (v.44). The meaning is that all of those whom God draws to Christ are saved by Christ. Those who are not drawn are not saved. Not everyone is drawn because not everyone is saved.

¹⁰ And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; ¹¹ for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, ¹² it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." ¹³ Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

¹⁴ What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! ¹⁵ For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." ¹⁶ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. ¹⁷ For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." ¹⁸ So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. ¹⁹ You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" ²⁰ On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? ²¹ Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? ²² What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? ²³ And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, ²⁴ even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:10-24)

This section in Romans 9 is extensive and I cannot address everything here, but first of all if election was not based on sovereign grace alone but on the foreseen faith of individuals based upon their free will decision to believe in God, would this objection that Paul addresses here even be raised? How could God ever seem unjust if you, the individual, bore the full weight of your own non-election because you weren’t smart enough, wise enough, or “whatever” enough to receive salvation based on your own person and attributes? The objection of injustice only comes when our minds have a hard time dealing with the truth that God freely elects and chooses whom He desires to be saved according to the council of His will (cf. Eph 1).

Paul clarifies that he is stating what he is stating in this section “so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls”. It is not based upon any future seen faith, but on the sovereign Lord who is doing the calling. Furthermore, God claims the authority and the right to have compassion on whomever He wants. Some vessels were created for honorable use and some for common use, and that is done so by the choice of the potter. And God shows His patience by enduring the vessels of wrath that were prepared for destruction when He has no obligation to do so.

”⁴ But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, ⁵ He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:4,5)

Now while this verse is specifically in response to the works righteous heresy of the Judaizers, I think that the application is true for any “deed done in righteousness” and that would, in my opinion, include saving faith. Again, if we understand that saving faith is to have originated from the person himself and not in response to a specific work done on his or her life by God that is not done to those who do not believe, then we, in effect, make man his own savior. I don’t say that lightly or flippantly, but purposefully and intentionally. If my decision, apart from any specific work on God’s part, is the thing that activates my salvation, then I truly am the one who adds my mite, however small that mite might be, to the scales of God’s justice that tips it all to the side of salvation and not damnation.

Also, I fully understand that Christians, true Christians, who would hold a different view of depravity and election than what I hold would never say that they believe that they are their own saviors. That is precisely why I stated that I believe we are in agreement about salvation being by grace through faith and not on account of works at the beginning of this response. So my statement was to point out what seems to be the logical conclusion of the understanding of free will that I am opposed to. So I am not attacking the genuineness of the salvation of believers who disagree with me, but I am trying to point out that their theology in this regard, however genuine, is not consistent.

² "But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. ³ "To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ⁴ "When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.

²⁶ "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. ²⁷ "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; ²⁸ and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. ³⁰ "I and the Father are one." (John 10:2-4, 26-30)

I think that John 10:26 is pivotal here. Those who Jesus is talking to don’t believe because they are not His sheep; He didn’t say that they are not His sheep because they do not believe. The point is important because it goes to the root of the problem. The sheep believe because they are His, they are not His because their faith in Him ultimately makes that so. Their belief doesn’t make them (in an eternal sense) His sheep. Their being His sheep and having been chosen from before the foundation of the world is the reason why they believe.

“When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48)

Corresponding to John 10, those who were appointed to eternal life believed the preaching; it is not the believing of the preaching that caused them to be appointed to eternal life.

Section Two: Scriptural Objections Addressed:

One of the most common objections to the view of sovereign grace and election that I have put forth has to do with an understanding of the “whosoever” passages in the Scriptures. In order to address this issue, I did a search for whosoever passages and found 179 in the KJV (that word is not used in the NAS, NKJV, ESV that I normally use)¹, and most of these don’t deal with the doctrine of salvation. So instead of trying to wade through them and address ones that are do not strong arguments for the position that is opposite mine, I will deal with seems to be the primary “whosoever” passages that many people have raised. These “whosoever” passages that will be addressed are Romans 10:13 and John 3:16, but I will also address a few others that are commonly brought up.

¹ First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, ² for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. ³ This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

I think that it is accurate here, and not a stretch, to understand that the “all men” here is referring to all types of men including kings “who are in authority.” One of the things that is key to remember, I think, is that the Jewish culture was a very racist one, and gentiles were possibly considered to be a little better than dogs. And to think that Jehovah would save Jews was totally reasonable, but Jesus and all of the writers of the New Testament are continually stating that there are sheep of a different flock (i.e. from the gentile nations), and so Jews needed to understand this (cf. John 10). The whole issue of circumcision and law keeping was rooted, at least in part, in the false idea that Christianity and Christians had to be Jewish. So, the gospel call and salvation is for all types of people, not just Jews.

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

This one honestly had given me much concern, but I think that I understand it better now. The hardest thing about this passage is trying to understand that the letter was written to the elect of God or to those who have “received a faith of the same kind as ours” (cf. 2 Peter 1:1), and the specific intended and primary meaning of these words were for those who were saved and in the churches at that time. So the “you” are the saved. The Lord is not wishing that any of His own perish, but that all of His own would come to repentance.

for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” (Romans 10:13)

This verse is absolutely true and correct. The problem is that this verse does not describe the person who calls or how they call on the Lord. It simply says that “whoever will call on the name of the Lord” will be the beneficiary of salvation in Christ. This addresses the question of “what will happen” to those who call on Christ, but it does not address “how” question. How can a dead man call on anyone? How can a dead man desire anything? It is the “how” question that is the heart of the issue, not the “who” or “whosoever”. The answer is, I believe, apart from God’s specific work in an individual’s heart (the new birth, the granting of faith, the grating of repentance), there would be no “whosoever”.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

This is the primary “whosoever” passage that I could come up with, and I want to address it delicately. First of all, I have to come to this verse understanding that natural man, under no circumstances because of his depravity, would or could choose to believe in the glorious Son of God. “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18). Secondly, there is a very true sense that God loves the world, the whole world, the sinful and the redeemed, “for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:45b) So, there is a general grace and a general love and patience that God displays to all humanity. I mean, the vilest rejecter of God will sin and live to breathe again. That is truly a display of God’s general grace toward mankind. John also tells us that if we love the world that the love of the Father is not in us (cf. 1 John 2:15). I don’t think that we should be too extravagant in our understanding of God’s love for the whole world.

Q: Does God love the world?
A: Yes.

Q: If anyone believes in the Son and repents of their sin, will they be saved?
A: Yes.

Q: Do those who do not believe in Christ also reject Him and sin against God willfully (i.e. in line with their will)?
A: Yes. (cf. Gen 6:7; 8:21)

Q: Do those who receive salvation by repentance and faith do so willfully?
A: Yes. Their wills have been transformed by the new birth and they have been given faith and repentance.

This is how I have come to understand God’s sovereign work in salvation. I believe that it is consistent to the whole counsel of God, it magnifies God above all things, and it still holds man accountable for his actions toward God. In short, both the continual sinful rejection of God by unregenerate man as well as faith in Him by regenerate man are free, willful, and deliberate acts done in accordance with the thoughts, intents, and desires of that individual person. In no way does God’s work in election drag a sinner “kicking and screaming” into heaven so that “heaven would be like hell”²

Section Three: The Practical Objections:

The first objection tends to be a concern that taking a firm stance on the doctrine of election completely disregards 'whosoever will'. I did attempt to deal with this in the previous portion of my response. But, for the record, I do not see any contradiction or compromise in understanding what the Bible puts forth as the doctrine of election and the doctrinal understanding of man’s corrupt nature.

Another objection usually deals with the concern that pride, arrogance, or a lack of evangelistic motivation is the inevitable result of taking a firm and defined position on the doctrine of election and God’s sovereignty. Basically, the call to witness is not ever limited to “go find the elect and preach to them only”. We are to go the world and preach the gospel to everyone. I still contend that understanding the doctrines of election, grace, and depravity are the most self-stripping truths that break down every pillar of pride or self-importance and cultivate the exact opposite reaction; that of humility and being poor in Spirit.

Some simply dislike a “hard line” stance taken on these doctrines. But to be quite frank, I am not sure what is totally meant when they refer to this position as being “hard line”. If they are simply referring to a clear, definite, and forcefully preached understanding of God’s sovereignty in election that is fairly summarized by the 5 points of Calvinism³, then that is fine. If that is the case however, I do not know if it is any more “hard line” of a position than a “hard line” position of non-distinction or assertion that the answer is so complete a mystery that the understanding of the doctrine of election as I have put forth is not possible. And if that is the case, we have a choice of which hard line to be on. However, if by “hard line” people are referring to hyper-Calvinism, which may see no need of evangelism or other types of perversions, let me make it clear that I am not a hyper-Calvinist.

Christians are to preach the word so that the elect can hear it and believe. But, more than that, evangelism is the method that God has setup for the furthering of His will, His kingdom, and done for His glory. We do it out of obedience to Christ and love for Him. I should witness with the primary motivation of glorifying God, not of saving sinners. Do we want sinners saved? Yes. But if we put our primary goal or intention on anything other than God and His glory (since I believe that is the primary thing that He is concerned with), this goal or intention that is idolatrous at the heart. No matter what replaces God and His glory as our focus, whatever “it” is, “it” is being exalted above God and that is unacceptable.

I truly believe that God will save all of His own, but that does not ever give me the cause to think that I should sit back, eat potato chips, and shut my mouth about the gospel. That kind of an attitude (that some hyper-Calvinists espouse) is as false an understanding of the Scriptural call to evangelize as universalism is. This perversion of the command to evangelize is easily defeated by simply looking at the Scriptures. I am commanded by Scripture to go and preach the gospel, and that is something that I both take seriously and fail miserably at.

Is it possible that this understanding of “chosen” can or does bring up the sinful reactions of pride, laziness, or others among believers at times? Yes, that is possible. But the possibility or reality of sinning because of a certain theological stance no more condemns my theological stance than another. Likewise, a more strongly held “whosoever will” focus in theology with the emphasis placed on man’s decision over and above God’s sovereign plan may produce the sinful reaction of pride or produce a mindset that says “I was smart enough to believe, but those people were too dumb…”. The issue is this: which theology is true? It is not which adherents sin less, evangelize more, or anything else.

I hope that my treatment of these issues have come across in a way that both has been fair to objections that can be raised and that has addressed some of the pertinent texts. I hope and pray that this will encourage anyone to engage the texts with me, and if we still disagree, we can reason together over specific passages of Scripture. This article has been a labor of love for me. Love for my friends and their families. Love for my church and fellowship. Love for the Scriptures. Love for the gospel. Love for the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

---

¹ http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?section=0&showtools=0&version=kjv&word=whosoever&st=1&sd=0&new=1

² Hank Hanegraaff, the Bible answer man, is a staunch advocate of libertarian free will that characterizes election with this type of language. I have heard it on the air many times.

³ As a note, the 5 points of Calvinism only became “points” in response to the theological false teachings put forth by Joseph Arminius’s followers.

Arminian’s Theological Assertions (5 Points of Arminianism)	Dutch Church’s Response (5 Points of Calvinism)
Free-will/Human Ability	Total Depravity/Complete Inability
Conditional Election (God ratifies human faith)	Unconditional Election
Universal Redemption/General Atonement	Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption
Resistable Grace	Irresistible Grace
Falling from Grace (can lose your salvation)	Perseverance of the Saints

For To You It Has Been Granted

It seems to me that the first chapter of Philippians is book ended by two great passages that intertwine the doctrines of the perseverance of the saved with the actual doctrine of salvation itself. Both the Philippians’ continual perseverance in the faith of Jesus Christ and the fact that intensifying persecution was looming on the horizon for them seem to be the immediate motivation for why Paul provides both of these encouraging statements.

The opening book end in chapter one is that Christ will complete the “good work” of the gospel that He started in the life of all who believe (v.6). The true Philippian believers, as do all true believers for all time, were to have no fear that God will allow them to fall from grace, be lost, or apostatize. The very fact of their final, total, and eternal salvation was as sure of a reality as the fact that they even possess saving faith, because, just like their perseverance and final salvation, faith too is based upon God’s work and His perseverance alone. This powerful and gloriously stated truth was given as a comfort to the Philippian believers in their continuing life of faith. What makes this truly glorious, in my opinion, is that Paul bases the reason for their comfort on nothing less than God’s character and nature; the fact that since God began their faith, He will finish what He began.

The closing bookend of the first chapter of this book is set in the context that the Philippian believers will endure the “same conflict” or suffering that Paul was undergoing. And in his desire to comfort and encourage them in this increasing persecution, Paul again connects the reality and purpose of this type of suffering with their faith itself; not simply the faith in the gospel, but the actual reality, presence, and existence of their own faith (believing) as well as the “why” and “how” that they now possess this faith.

The Scripture here leaves nothing to the imagination. It is clear that Paul is telling these Philippian believers that they are (or will be) on the receiving end both of the gift of faith and the gift of suffering, and that the giver of these gifts is God Himself. But the question that I have, and I am sure this is the question that we all want answered by God is this: Are we the beneficiary of both of these gifts too?

And in order to address this question, I want to first look at the issue of suffering and then look at the issue of faith. And the reason why I want to deal with it in this order is that the primary intention of the text here, I believe, is encouragement in the face of coming suffering, whereas the underlying, larger principle that is the basis for comprehending this uncomfortable reality is the reality that they understood about their faith and that it is naturally foreign to them as well. Saving faith is as foreign to the natural man as transatlantic flight is to the North American continent.

The main point that I want to communicate with the issue of suffering and the Christian, at least at this time, is this: suffering for the sake of Christ is truly a gift from God to those who believe in His name.

”¹¹ Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. ¹² "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matt 5:11-12)

”¹⁸ If the world hates you ,you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. ¹⁹ "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. ²⁰ "Remember the word that I said to you, ' A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.” (John 15:18-21)

”12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; 13 but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. 14 If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.” (1 Peter 4:12-14)

Christians in America have been blessed with centuries of virtual persecution-less existence. Now, I use the word “blessed” cautiously here, but that is the fact. Since the founding and taming of this nation and its geography, the greatest extent of persecution that Christians have had to endure has been fairly harmless. Christians may be asked to move a few feet, get off private property, or be the recipients of a frustrated cough or grunt, or even the occasional verbal berating, but it is nothing compared to the violence perpetrated against God’s people throughout the history of the church. That being said, I think that it is safe to say that today’s American culture is far more openly hostile to Christianity than it has been at any other time in its existence. And in that light, perhaps Paul’s statement to the Philippians is, to a great extent, a message that will ring true with us in our cultural context.

One of the things that the Philippians prided themselves on was the fact that they were Romans. This is not uncommon or unheard of because being Roman citizens instead of simply being occupied and conquered foreigners carried with it rights, status, and privileges that others did not enjoy. And looking back with the 20/20 vision of history, we can see that the Roman Empire was rocked with the persecution of Christians. And this persecution was carried out upon all people, citizens or not, by the government itself.

The stories of the Neronic persecution are far too gruesome and on too great of a scale for me to deal with them here, but the main point that I want to get across is simply this: The Philippians’ status as Roman citizens did nothing to stop the persecution that was on the horizon and was being driven by their own government. And as a point of warning for all of us in the West, hear me well: our status as American citizens will not save us when (I personally don’t think that it is a question of “if”) persecution begins to intensify in the states. The unjust persecution and suffering of those chosen by God is a consistent occurrence throughout the history of the world.

I am not convinced that Christians, at least in America or the West, really understand, like, or agree with either of Paul’s statements here. In the West we have been so sheltered from persecution on account of our faith because we have been privileged to live in various forms of democracy that have protected religious liberty. But going along with that, the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty over all things, including our salvation, is so contrary to our democratic, capitalistic, American ideals and society (where we have rags to riches stories of millionaires who grew up on the streets with nothing and ended up in the highest class of citizens) that the very notion that I would have no “right” to heaven or that I would not be able to cast my “vote” for Christ slams up against so many of our presuppositions about all of life.

So it is with a desire to exalt God in all of His glory and to proclaim His greatness that I would like to look at the gift of faith. God has granted the faith to believe in His son to those individuals whom He has chosen from before time began, and this is one of the most precious gifts that any man could ever receive from God.

There are many words used to describe those of us who have placed our faith in Christ Jesus as Lord and have repented of our sins and have been born again by the Spirit, “chosen” is only one of them but some people tend to recoil at the concept that individuals are chosen by God to receive His grace. For instance, in the Bible the name for a gathering of Christians or the universal body of Christ is “church”. But there are many different words that are used to speak of those who make up the church.

• “Christians” is used 3 times in the New Testament.
• “Believers” is used 12 times in the New Testament. And one of the truths that we understand from the text at hand is that the faith that we have to become “believers” is itself a gift of God.
• “Elect” or “chosen” (the same Greek word) is used 22 times in the New Testament.
• “Called” is used 31 times in the New Testament.
• “Saint” is used 61 times in the New Testament. “People who have been separated from the world and consecrated to the worship and service of God.”¹ Who does the separating and who does the consecrating?
• “Church” is used112 times in the New Testament. The Greek word “eklesia” is a compound word. “ek” means out of or from, and “kalein” means to call. So literally, the term “church” speaks of “the called out ones”.

My point is this; I cannot find a word that describes our relationship with God or our position as those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ that doesn’t specifically imply and proclaim the fact that God is the active one in our salvation and we are not. So I as again that faith is a gift of God to those who have been chosen by God to receive it.

One other interesting note is that the Greek in verse 29 uses the same root words as does Ephesians 2:8. The words translated “grace” (Eph 2:8) and “granted” (Phil 1:29) both have “charis” as the root word. Likewise the words “faith” and “believe” in these texts both have “pistis” as the root word.

In Philippians, Paul is using doctrinal truth as a foundation for their understanding of the coming suffering. But in Ephesians Paul is declaring a doctrinal truth of man’s salvation. If the understanding of “grace” were insufficient, Paul makes it absolutely clear that the faith by which we are connected with that saving grace of God has its roots in God Himself alone and not in our condition as men.

“Faith is the most beautiful, the most God honoring, the most humble of all acts that a human being can perform. Therefore, we must not imagine that a natural man, who cannot even receive the things of the Spirit, would have the inclination to do the most wonderful, beautiful, God honoring, humble act that can be performed by a human being. Before a person can perform that act, the best of all possible acts, he must be born again. Thorns do not give forth figs, an apple tree does not give forth olives, and natural men do not believe, they cannot.”²

“Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:17)

So I believe that we must understand faith in terms of being a complete gift from God. The first reason is simply that this text, as well as others, states that faith is a gift of God. That should be the end of any discussion of human merit or ultimate human determination over if one possesses faith in Christ or not, but sadly the debate rages. I believe, over and above the simple reason that the Bible says that faith is a gift; there are two very powerful Biblical arguments to say that faith must be a gift.

Now before I get into my argument much further, I want to be absolutely clear that fact that my doctrinal conviction that faith is a gift bestowed upon unworthy sinners, and thus it is only those who receive this gift of faith who are enabled to believe in Jesus does, not negate any personal responsibility on the part of an individual sinner. When we proclaim the gospel, we call all men everywhere to repent, and all of those who do repent of their sin and trust in Christ alone as savior will be saved. The issue here is not the response or responsibility of the sinner to the message of the cross. The issue here is who is ultimately responsible for the faith that any man expresses and places in Christ. It is my contention that since faith in God goes so far against anything that is natural to the unsaved man, it must have its origin with God.

First of all, the Bible says that the natural man is completely unwilling to choose to believe in God. God makes a sweeping declaration of the extent of the vileness of the human condition both before the great flood and directly after. In both of these places, God sums up man’s condition by stating that “every intent of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5) and that “the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21). There is no way that one can read what God has said here and come up with any notion of some ability to do the very opposite of evil by trusting in and believing in God. The New Testament is not silent on this predicament either. When writing to the Galatians about the differences between the fruits of the Spirit and the deeds of the flesh, Paul begins by setting up a dichotomy,

“For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” (Galatians 5:17)

Even in the heart and lives of those who are saved (as the context is referring to here), there is nothing similar about the desires and inclinations of the flesh as compared to the Spirit of God that is present in the believer. And it is only after God has saved a person that there is even this type of a struggle. Before the gift of faith and the new birth, the flesh still is opposed to the Spirit, but there is no Spirit to move the person away from evil and toward God.

This dovetails into the next reason why faith must be a gift is that man is completely unable on his own to choose to believe in God. It is fair to say that the extent of man’s unwillingness is virtually indistinguishingly intertwined with his inherent inability to do so. And the inability of man to do anything righteous is best understood in our spiritual deadness in sin.

“¹ And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, ² in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:1,2)

It is my belief and experience that if this doctrine of faith is rightly understood, it will be one of the most self-stripping, pride-crushing, and God-glorifying truths that will cause more thanksgiving to God and a richer understanding of grace. You don’t have to be a card carrying member of the Synod of Dort in order to agree with these truths. You don’t have to agree with everything that a French pastor and reformer ever wrote to understand the implications of this truth of the Bible. But what you need to be is humble, and see God as God is described in the Bible and see man as we are described in the Bible.

---

¹ (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

² John Piper – “That Which is Born of the Spirit is Spirit” 7/30/07 DGR (cf. Matt 7:16)/span>

The Correlation Between Election, Grace, and Sin

Over the past few days, I have been listening to John Piper preach out of Romans 8, specifically referring to Romans 8:28 and the following verses, and he has dealt a lot with what it means to be “called”. It was really enjoyable for me to hear these messages where the issue of predestination, or election, was specifically dealt with. While I am sure that the thoughts that I am having are nothing new to the theology of election or the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, they did seem cause the issues of election and grace to come into sharper focus for me than they had previously been.

In an effort to continue on the same line of thinking as my previous article concerning what was recently said on the Bible Answer Man regarding the host’s characterization and rejection of the doctrine of election, which is historically held by Christians who emphasize a completely sovereign view of God in salvation (modernly known as Calvinists), the issue of man’s role in the salvation process, specifically regarding our depravity, has been embedded on my thoughts. I have been thinking a lot about this, not because I find it enjoyable in and of itself to examine just how rotten I am, but it is enjoyable because I want to understand myself and magnify God’s glory, power, and beauty in my salvation and my ongoing sanctification.

If, in an attempt to get a broad and biblical view of the ideas pertaining to election, grace, and salvation, we begin to think about the nature of sin and mankind’s state in sin, I think that we will naturally and logically come to the necessary conclusion that election, the predetermined and sovereign choosing of individuals to be saved by God, is a central and indispensable part of the gospel of salvation by grace that the Bible teaches.

The doctrine of sin, in a nutshell, says that the first and only sinless man who was created by God, freely chose to sin in rebellion against God’s revealed command and authority. This rebellion resulted in such a cataclysmic backlash from God, and neither Adam nor Eve, I think, had any way to comprehend this magnitude (if any at all) of God’s retribution prior to their sin, nor did they posses any lexicon that would enable them to express the reality which immediately followed their plunge into sin. And because it was such an egregious affront to God when mankind sinned, that is why we are all actually and literally dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 5).

The physical, mental, and emotional components of every natural man’s being were condemned to suffering, deterioration, disease, and death following Adam’s sin. This physical death occurs, either gradually or without warning, after a period of life, whether long or short in duration. However, contrasted to that, we see the initial and perpetual state of man’s spirit as being dead. The spirit does not experience life in any real sense before dying, for it is dead from the point of its very creation.

The bible does not show man as simply being wounded in a sinful condition and therefore able to move closer to God. No. The bible clearly says that no man seeks after God (Romans 3:12) and all men’s hearts are wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). This paints a bleak picture for man, not only is he dead, but he doesn’t want to seek after God. I don’t want to gloss over the fact that man’s state is ‘dead’ too quickly, because it seems to me that if we genuinely deal with what it means to be spiritually dead, it will clear up a whole lot of problems and objections before they can gain any traction.

The word translated into the English word “dead” is the Greek word the Greek word nekroV (nekros) which literally means “dead” or “inanimate” and is used to describe a dead body or a corpse. In fact, I did a quick survey of the use of this word in the New Testament, and out of the 131 times that it is used, only a small amount of that time (I believe around 10 times) is this word used figuratively. For instance, “the guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men” (Matthew 28:4) and, “for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found” (Luke 15:32).

The vast and overwhelming majority of the time that this word is used, it is explicitly referring to exactly what we, in our modern context, would refer to by using the words “dead” or “corpse”. Furthermore, I am provoked to study the use of this word and the concepts surrounding it further because it seemed that virtually every time that someone was first described as dead and subsequently as alive, it was stated very clearly that it was God who resurrected them. This may seem (and it may well turn out) to be nothing of magnificent importance to the discussion over election, but I believe that if we are taught and come to understand that when God physically raises someone from the dead that he or she plays absolutely no part in it, why would there be any difference when it comes to God’s and life giving act and spiritual resurrection of people?

Even on the surface of God’s resurrecting and life giving work, there is no circumstance where a cooperative effort between the dead and the life giver is present. For example, Jesus commanded Lazarus to live by saying, "Lazarus, come forth." (John 11:43) Christ didn’t meet Lazarus half-way. He didn’t offer to resurrect Lazarus as well as other friends or relatives of His that may have died during His lifetime. Christ didn’t ask Lazarus if he wanted to be alive again. He chose to resurrect Lazarus and Lazarus was made alive. My whole point in belaboring this story and the fact that men are dead in sin is that if we are dead, then we are unable to do anything spiritually positive.

In other words, dead men can’t choose life…because they’re dead. Lazarus couldn’t and neither can anyone who is only spiritually dead. A person’s dead spirit does not have the ability nor the desire to make itself alive.

Now, moving on to grace! The concept of grace as it relates to salvation has been communicated in our contemporary society by using the letters as an acronym stating that grace means, “God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense.” This statement is true, but I do not believe that it is fully true. And the danger of having the contemporarily understood definition of grace embodied in a pop-Christian-culture acronym is that this says nothing about man’s involvement and contribution (or lack thereof) to grace. J.I. Packer articulated the danger of this type of an over-simplification or dumbing-down of a concept or truth, whether the chnage is intentional and devious in nature or if it is innocent and good hearted in nature, when he said,

“A half truth presented as a whole truth is complete untruth.” ¹

Again, it is absolutely true that the grace of God in our salvation is truly God’s (Christ’s) Riches applied to us At Christ’s Expense. However, this statement says nothing concerning how it is then applied to us. The response would be to say that we receive it by grace, and that is true, but again, grace has turned into such a misused word in Christendom that it, sadly, no longer has the specific power of the truth of the full meaning. For instance, Mormons, Catholics, Arminians, and Calvinists all would probably agree with the definition of grace and say that man is saved by grace. But the question that needs to be answered is this; what do they all mean when they say, “grace”? When pressed what they mean, a Mormon would quote 2 Nephi 25:23 in the Book of Mormon which says, “for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”

Roman Catholicism, in their New Advent Encyclopedia, breaks down the concept of grace into (at least) two categories: actual grace and sanctifying grace. For this article’s purpose, I’ll deal with actual grace which because they define this grace as a “transient help to act,”²
specifically in the act of believing. This source goes on to state that this grace “is granted by God for the performance of salutary acts”, but coupled with the prior articulation that it is a “help” in the action of faith implies, necessarily, that man, to a certain extent, wills on his own (i.e. not moved specifically by God) to believe.

Arminians would hold that man chooses to receive the forgiveness of his sins in his free will. The Holy Spirit, necessarily, does not push Joe Pagan harder or softer than Doug Christian in their spiritual journeys, but pleads with them equally and the both have an equal ability to respond in faith. If an Arminian would say, in any form, that someone who believes was given more grace or special grace that an unbeliever does not receive, that person would no longer be a true Arminian. John Piper summarized a problem with this type of view (actually, it could be applied to the Catholic and Mormon views too),

...it assumes that ultimately we, in our own will power, provide the decisive, ultimate cause of our faith. That’s the point of that interpretation. That God only foresees people, not resting in God to provide the ultimate, decisive, faith that they need to believe, but producing, on their own, the decisive ultimate ground and cause of their faith.³

Calvinists hold that grace means unmerited favor and that God favors a man (or woman) apart from any of his own works or merits. Man takes no initiating part in his own salvation in and of himself. The part that this man plays, repenting from sin and expressing faith in God, is done through a special working of the Holy Spirit in him that is not present in unbelievers. In other words, God saves a person by giving them the faith to believe as well as the desire and ability to do so.

“ ⁵ In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. ⁶ But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” (Romans 11:5,6)

It seems to me that the force of the distinction between grace and works is contained in the rejection of the very idea that any works that would be done in concert with God’s saving “grace” betray and contradict grace itself. The Judaizers were notorious for requiring some “works of the law” to be done in concert with faith for the salvation of the sinner. The New Testament categorically rejects this false notion of co-operating with some human work in order to attain salvation. But, even further than that, the New Testament itself describes the faith for salvation as a being gift of God itself (see Jeremiah 32:40; Matthew 16:17; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:24-26), and so the faith that man expresses is not, by definition, something that he does apart from God because the faith comes from God.

It seems to me that the Calvinist understanding and exposition of scripture is the only one that consistently holds to the truest understanding of God’s complete and total sovereignty and grace in the salvation of men. Since the term grace has, unfortunately, lost some of its teeth and offense in our culture, I am seriously considering using other terms in conjunction with grace that have not been watered down in order to be crystal clear about the biblical understanding of grace.⁴ There were three words that I believe will, when used in combination with grace, clarify the meaning of grace and hopefully dispel any misinterpretations or misunderstandings of what is meant when I use the term grace. These three words are “apportion”, “impart”, and “lavish”.

Where as both “apportion” and “impart” refer to the bestowing of something one another person (“bestow” was another word in the running), “lavish” seemed to communicate the massive quantity or quality of the gift as well giving the mental picture of dumping the gift on the other person in an overwhelming fashion. Furthermore, if I were to use a word and meaning that is even more contemporary in our society, I would say that God unloads His grace on us. In this context, “unload” is used in the sense of firing a gun’s ammunition at a target or in the sense of someone dumping out of their thoughts and emotions onto a willing, or unwilling, listener. God’s grace is more accurate than a sniper’s bullet, and the sinner on the receiving end of His unloading of grace is less willing to choose grace on his or her own behalf than the target caught in a sniper’s crosshairs chooses to receive the deadly bullet.

Again you may be thinking, “What does this have to do with the doctrine of election?” Well, my goal up until this point has been to articulate two doctrinal stances that most Protestant and evangelical Christians would confess because they are so plainly laid out in the Scriptures. First, man is dead, not wounded and in need of a physician, in his sins. And second, salvation is by God’s lavishing of His grace upon us. I firmly believe that all of my protestant brethren would agree with these statements. The problem, and where the division and disagreement comes from, is that these same people do not maintain a sense of continuity between these confessions of faith and truth with how they relate to one another in salvation.

The Bible clearly and unabashedly uses the terms “predestine”, “foreknown”, “elect”, and “chosen” when referring to those who have been saved by Christ. If we hold to the two biblical principles that I have been laboring to articulate, then when it comes to defining and articulating what the doctrine of election is, what possible optional understandings do we have? If we are elected based upon our own free-will choice of God that is necessarily uninfluenced by God, we then turn the cross of Calvary into a bargaining table where if we bring our choice, then we’re saved. By doing this, we neither maintain the doctrine of man’s deadness in sin nor the complete grace of God in salvation.

For reasons that are eternally glorious to the Holy Trinity, and only the Trinity, God has chosen to lavish some men and women with a special elective love that is only bestowed upon some. None deserve this treatment by God, neither those who are elected nor those who are not elected. Could God have chosen to save all mankind and still have remained the same just and holy God that He is? I assume that He could have, but He didn’t. Could God have chosen to save no one and still have remained the same loving God that He is? I assume that He could have, but He didn’t.

It is not for me to validate God’s plan and method of saving the sinners that He has chosen to save, nor is it my task to come up with articulate ways of expressing the revealed plan of God in salvation so as to make it completely understandable and seen as infinitely benevolent and gracious to all men. That is for the Holy Spirit to do in the heart of the believer. My desire is to attempt, in my feeble way, to show what the Bible says and show that the conclusion of sovereign election in salvation is both biblical and logical. It is for me to read the Word of God, to say what it says, but it is not to make a doctrine more palatable to men by changing what words mean by means of clever speech or imposing debating techniques. The simple and plain articulation of God’s Word is sufficient to validate itself and persuade the heart and mind of one who truly desires to be conformed to the mind of Christ. This conformity is not an easy thing to achieve for anyone, even the elect, to do, and it is definitely not something that is easy to do consistently.

---

¹ Heard on the radio on 3/30/07 WOTMR

² http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm

³ John Piper “Foreknown, Predestined, Conformed to Christ” preached on 8/4/02, radio broadcast 3/30/07. This quote came from transcribing the audio of this sermon.

⁴ The “teeth” and “offense” of the idea of grace is profound. It is offensive because man is naturally disposed (because of sin) to want to be master and in control. Grace takes it out of our control. It has teeth because it cuts any cords of man’s contribution, no matter how small or large we might see them, toward his own salvation.

Concerning the Doctrine of Election

One of the greatest sources of ongoing encouragement, edification, and positive challenge in my life is the relationship that I have been privileged to form with my brother-in-law. It has been a blessing for me to have been used by God, in some small way, in his conversion, and it is been an even bigger blessing for me to be built up and challenged in a wide variety of worthy areas.

Most recently he alerted me to an episode of the Bible Answer Man (8/13/07 broadcast) where Hank was asked a question concerning the doctrines of sovereign election and limited atonement and if holding these theological convictions has a negative impact on evangelism. It is no secret that Hank very strongly holds to an Arminian theology as well as to the idea that man has a libertarian freedom of the will. Both of these convictions stand starkly in contrast to what I believe and hold to as what is revealed in the Bible. So, I have transcribed Hank’s response, and I want to deal with what he brings up.

"The idea is that Christ died for the elect. And the basic idea has to do with what's known as circumstantial or compatibilistic freedom which is to say that God creates people in such a way that they cannot respond to the gospel, but the elect are…rewired, as it were, in such a way that they can respond to the gospel. And therefore it is only the elect that are saved because it is only the elect that can respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit.

Now the polar opposite of that, within the pale of orthodoxy, would be what is known as libertarian freedom which is the ability to act or the ability to act otherwise. So that people are genuinely able to respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit. Not just some, but everyone can respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit, and thus they are genuinely culpable if they do not. And this is said to preserve both God's sovereignty, because He works through genuinely free creatures in order to affect His purposes (and doesn't have to work, as it were, with a stacked deck), and also it reserves the justice of God because people are morally held culpable for their sin because they choose to rebel."

Then the caller asks, basically, that if Christ died for all (non-limited atonement) and only some responded, didn't Christ die needlessly for some, and isn't it true that 'those lives were paid for in vain?'

"Well the lives of the elect, of course, demonstrate the sufficiency of Christ's atonement on the cross. You have an interesting debate here, and often times the debate is defined by way of analogy like the analogy of the Shakespearian play, Macbeth. Macbeth, in the analogy, murders King Duncan, however as various Calvinists will argue using that analogy, Shakespeare was fully, 100%, the cause of Duncan's death because Shakespeare authored Macbeth. And likewise, by way of the analogy, God is the author of evil even though we as agents carry out that evil, and as such we are morally culpable. I think that's kind of a dangerous analogy personally, because again it makes God, in this case, the author of evil. I would say that God created the potential for evil but God is not the author of evil as in this analogy. God created the potential of evil and we are the ones who created the reality of that evil the actual choices that we make.”¹

I must say that even though Hank does not agree with the doctrines of grace (i.e. what is modernly known the Calvinistic sovereignty of God in the salvation of men), he does a fair job of articulating what the principles are. I characterize his articulation as “fair” as opposed to something better based on a few different reasons.

First of all, his way of describing the Christian’s freedom as “circumstantial or compatibilistic freedom” is not a fair representation of what we say. It is an unfair statement insofar as much that if the groundwork of the doctrine of original sin and man’s state as being dead in sin is not fit into place in order to illuminate what freedom in the will that men have, we cannot understand it properly. Even the view that Hank espouses has some limits on what man can choose, but I’ll deal with that later.

Secondly, his use of the term “rewired” as opposed using the language and concepts of regeneration or of being born again serves to, in my opinion, trivialize this grand stance of the reformed theology of salvation. This use of language, similar to my third concern, serves to paint the theology that he is opposed to in a negative light based more on the rhetoric and the words that are chosen as opposed to painting it in a negative light based on a correct and fair articulation of ideas themselves.

And thirdly, his characterization of the Calvinistic or reformed understanding of God’s sovereignty that He works “with a stacked deck” is actually quite offensive. It is not just a shot at our doctrine of salvation, but it is an offensive and evil characterization of God’s nature. Only cheaters, magicians (fakers), and hustlers work with stacked decks of cards, and to apply this idea same characterization to God in His dealings with humanity is very, very bad form.

Even though the two issues that Hank was asked to comment on were the doctrines of election and limited atonement, I think that the two issues that I would want Hank to address before coming to his conclusion are the issues of grace (i.e. sola gratia) and freedom of the will. It is primarily with these two interrelated issues that I want to focus on in my critique of Hank’s articulated position.

Hank’s overriding idea of his theological stance is, I think, understood with his repeated use of the word “genuine” when referring to man’s freedom to choose and therefore being “genuinely culpable” for the evil they commit, and they are equally “genuinely able to respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit.” It is then implied that there is no genuine freedom in making choices and there is no genuine culpability for evil.

To understand why I differ with Hank and why I contend that man does not have a libertarian free will is that I don’t find that to be the position of man as articulated in the Bible. The Bible says that men are dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1), and the Bible says that there are no men who seek Him (Romans 3:11) because every intent of our heart is, naturally, wicked and evil continually (Genesis 6:5). Furthermore, Jesus, in John’s gospel, firmly declares that no one comes to Him unless God first draws that person (John 6:44) and all of the people that the father draws will come (John 6:37).

Hank’s understanding of libertarian free will contradicts both accounts. He would argue that man can seek and choose God which is contrary to Romans 3:11, and he would argue that man can reject the wooing by the Holy Spirit aimed at saving that person’s soul which is contrary to John 6:37. Hank would argue that the preservation of God’s justice and sovereignty, but if that is what this doctrine of libertarian freedom does, it does so at the cost of the doctrine of original sin, the depravity of man, and the fact that salvation is by grace alone and faith alone.

I know that saying that libertarian freedom is contrary to two pillars of the reformation may be viewed as inflammatory because any gospel other than one of complete grace based on faith alone apart from man’s works is a false gospel. I do not believe that Hank is intentionally advocating a works based salvation, but I think that his doctrine of libertarian freedom does if it is brought to its logical conclusion and ending. Let me state, for the record, that I am not saying that Hank is a heretic or someone who is advocating a false gospel. Some of his theology, I would argue, is wrong and this error could lead to heresy, but I am not laying that charge at his feet.

The reason why libertarian freedom is, at its core, contrary to a gospel of faith alone and grace alone is that the only difference between a condemned man and a man who is saved is not the work of Christ or the drawing of the Father, but it is that man’s own choice that he does on his own apart from any causative act of God. That would then make salvation contingent upon something that a man must do instead of something that was done for that man.

Let me offer an illustration to show that the end result of a libertarian freedom is contrary to the gospel of grace alone: There are two men, Joe Pagan and Doug Christian, but for this example we’ll refer to them as Pagan and Christian. Pagan grew up next door to Christian, and they had virtually carbon copies of the same life. Their parents were the same age, their families went to the same church, their dad’s had the same job, and on and on. Both Pagan and Christian were taught the exact same things by their Sunday school teacher named Mr. Harold O. Grace. Near the end of High School, both Christian and Pagan were sitting in church when they both heard the gospel preached and were exhorted to repent and believe in Christ. They both understood that this meant a life devoted to Christ and a casting off of the sins that they both loved. As it happened, Joe Pagan decided to reject the gospel while Doug Christian repented and placed his full faith in Christ.

In this example, as viewed from a Libertarian freedom stand point, the only difference between these two men was their individual choice at the end. Both had been under the same influence of grace that brought them to a point where they could choose to believe or not to believe. One man chose life, the other chose death. Make no mistake; there is no room for the advocate of libertarian freedom to say that there was any special work of God done on the part of Christian that was not done on the part of Pagan that influenced Christian to faith. For if that were so, it would no longer be libertarian free will, but a degree of what Hank called circumstantial free will. Both men must have had the same exact ability and opportunity to choose Christ as well as to reject Him, otherwise their choice was not, as Hank put it, a genuine one.

If this example is viewed from a position of sovereign grace, Christian was the one who was made new and given the faith to believe from God Himself. Pagan was not and so he did not want to choose to seek after God, nor could he, and so he freely rejected Christ. All men would be exactly like Joe Pagan if it were not for our Father drawing us and giving us the faith to believe. Even if proponents of libertarian freedom would argue that all men are given the faith to believe by God and still only some have faith, this still must place the determining factor in any man’s salvation squarely on that man and his choice apart from anything that God has specifically done.

The idea of libertarian freedom as it has been espoused and expounded upon by men like Hank Hanegraaff comes, I believe, from the pure motive of defending God from any implication in sin. However, he does this at the ultimate cost of the gospel of grace that he is so ardently trying to defend. There are ditches on all sides of an issue that one can fall into. We must be wary so that we do not try to fix one problem and at the same time create ten more.

Does God delight in the death of the wicked? No. Does God desire for all men to be saved? Yes. Does God elect that some are to be saved and not others? Yes. Does God save all people? No. Could He save all people? Yes. Could He have saved no one? Yes. If anyone believes in Christ and repents of their sin, will they be saved? Yes. Our job is not to reconcile seemingly contradictory and paradoxical statements of the Bible. We are called to believe what God has said in His word and to communicate that which He has said to others. While the Bible does give us information on how to understand and make sense out of these paradoxes, I believe, we must always be so careful about the answers that we give and what those answers imply.

“…while the truth of eternal punishment is the one most objectionable to non-professors, that of God’s sovereign election is the truth most loathed and reviled by the majority of those claiming to be believers.”²

---

¹ Bible Answer Man Broadcast, 8/13/07

² A.W. Pink “The Doctrine of Election” Chapter 1: Introduction http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Election/elec_01.htm