Was Original Sin Wiped Away at the Cross?

I have recently had the pleasure of interacting with a gentleman and his wife in the comments section of one of my older posts. In the original post and the comments, two issues have come up that are causing concern. The first is how I articulate God’s disposition to the sinner when I say something similar to, “God hates the sinner.” The second surrounds my contention that children, from conception, are guilty before God and deserve – deserve – an eternal punishment for our sin in Adam. And the gentleman has come back and stated that it is his belief that original sin was ultimately dealt with on the cross and that we are sinners only when we know right from wrong and choose wrong.

So, in an effort to more fully answer this objection, I am dealing with it here. I will, in effect, be trying to answer this question: Did Jesus’ death on the cross forgive the personal effects for all of humanity of Adam’s sin? In a request for Scripture passages that would positively affirm the position that original sin has been dealt with for all men, I was given the following Scriptural passages that I will deal with: John 1:29; Romans 5:12,13, and Hebrews 9:26.

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)

I must honestly say that I was shocked to see this text used to prove the above assertion. No where does this text or the surrounding context specify that the singular use of the word “sin” refers to original sin. Actually, in this context one could just as easily use this verse as a proof text for universal salvation (God forgave all men of all sin for all time so that all will go to heaven) just as easily as my commenter has used it to fit his presupposition to make this verse say that original sin is what the “sin of the world” was that forgiven of all men.

It is true that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world – yes and amen. But we must look through the rest of the Scriptures relating to His ministry as the sacrificial Lamb to find out exactly what was done for whom. John 1:29 is not a passage proclaiming that Jesus’ death forgave original sin for all men of all time. There is no basis in the context to make this assertion.

Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

The context of the above passage in Hebrews is the author’s argument for how Christ in His ministry and sacrifice supersede and replace that of the old Mosaic covenantal system of priests and sacrifices. The old system had a high priest enter a “mere copy” of the holy place and sacrifice with blood not his own on a “year by year” basis, whereas Christ went to the true holy place with His own blood to make His sacrifice once. It seems to me that the context here is referring not to a specific individual sin that was put away, but the fact that sin was put away by His once for all sacrifice, and therefore it does not need to be repeated. Furthermore, the context of Hebrews 9 and the work that is being done is about accomplishing eternal redemption.

and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. (Hebrews 9:12)

Hebrews 9 is a great place in Scripture to look at for the singularity and the finality of the sacrifice of Christ for the salvation His own, but is not saying that Christ was manifested to put away original sin for all men of all time by the sacrifice of Himself. To make that statement would do great disservice to the text and be rending it out of context.

¹² Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- ¹³ for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:12,13)

In the first few chapters of Romans, Paul goes to great lengths to show how all humanity has sinned. And Romans 5 helps us to put our understanding of sin and death in a comparative context with salvation and redemption. Adam’s sin was imputed to all men, and thus all men are guilty. Christ’s righteousness was imputed to all men who have faith and their sin is imputed to Him, and those men are now not guilty (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21).

The imputation of sin that seems to be in view in this passage is the sinning against the Law of Moses, and this seems to be brought out in the next verse when Paul writes, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” In other words, even though the Mosaic Law may not have been individually transgressed by babies in the womb (those are the ones who die who have not sinned on their own in the likeness of Adam), but they die because they are guilty of sinning in Adam – original sin. Death doesn’t occur except where sin is, and babies die before they can overtly sin. Therefore sin must be reigning in them because of their father Adam and the sin that we are guilty of in him.

John Piper gives a good illustration as to why we should understand the “all sinned” in verse 12 as being original sin or “all sinned in Adam” instead of “all sinned individually”.

Let me try to illustrate what's at stake. If you say, "Through one man sin and death entered the world and death spread to everybody because all sinned individually," then the comparison with the work of Jesus could be, "So also through one man, Jesus Christ, righteousness and life entered the world and life spread to all because all individually did acts of righteousness." In other words, justification would not be God's imputing Christ's righteousness to us, but our performing individual acts of righteousness with Christ's help and then being counted righteous on that basis. When Paul saw that as a possible misunderstanding of what he said, he stopped to clarify.¹

Original sin was not universally dealt with on the cross for all people of all time so that babies are born without original sin. We are conceived in sin (Ps 51:5) every thought of ours is only evil and sinful (Genesis 8:21). The sin of man is dealt with in Christ Jesus on the cross and is applied by faith to those who repent of their sin and trust in Him. However lovely and loveable our children are when they are born, our children are born with original sin and with only the propensity to desire and act upon that sinful nature.

The next common question has to do with babies and what happens to them when they die. To be sure, I don’t have as solid of a case to make for them, but I can tell you that on the basis of what I see in the Scriptures, namely 2 Samuel 12:23, that there is some distinct gracious mercy of God extended to children who die in or before infancy.

---

¹http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ScriptureIndex/10/22_Adam_Christ_and_Justification_Part_2/

Marriage, Cartoons, Ice Cream, and Beer

If there was any doubt of the truth that American culture is in a downward freefall toward unfettered debauchery and smut in our society, then May 15th, 2008 was a day that pushed those doubts farther and farther out. I am not a conspiracy theorist, so I don’t think that the three things that I am referring to were orchestrated by any one evil mastermind in a corporate office somewhere. However, I do believe and know that there is a demonic lord of the world whose plan is to further corrupt the world and saturate it with unclean and sinful things. So, in that sense, they are all connected.

Marriage:

SAN FRANCISCO , CA -- California's Supreme Court declared that gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry -- a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.¹

Same-sex Marriage is already legal in Massachusetts, so it was really only a matter of time before this happened again. I’m not surprised that it happened, nor shocked where it happened, but I am upset and concerned that it did happen. The Bible is clear that marriage is between one woman and one man, and this covenant lasts for a lifetime. But when Christians have an equal or higher number of divorces on average as the culture at large, we’ve got a serious marriage problem in our society, but more importantly in our church.

As far as the cultural impact on my society, I am very concerned about this ongoing issue. Leaving aside the fact that homosexuals have the exact right to marry in every state that heterosexuals do; one man can marry one woman. There is no distinction or discrimination on account of your sexual orientation. Leaving aside what this will mean for the raising of children in a same-sex household, the amount of children who will be impacted in homes and schools where this life-situation will necessarily be defended and validated is enormous. But this will definitely speed up the time when it will become illegal hate speech for Christians to declare that homosexuality is a sin condemned by God. It is not the only sin, or the grossest of sins, but it is a vile sin nonetheless. And when it is declared hate speech, it will be prosecutable by law. And this, my friends, is what primarily concerns me. The gospel will begin to be shut-up from the public square under force of law. We will still preach it, but our own families will suffer the retribution of our apostate society.

Cartoons, Ice Cream, and Beer:

Starbucks logo has always had the extremely subtle hint of nudity, I grant you, but their newest version of their logo takes all hints out of it. I find it very concerning that the breasts of a woman are exposed on the logo of a company that is known for its business’s saturation level in our society. I know full well that pornography is more readily accessible to anyone because of the Internet. I also realize that pornography and other lewd activities, like strip clubs and the like, are more accepted in our most tolerant society. This sexual de-sensitivity has gotten to such a point that sex sells everything; from cars to TV, and from coffee to ice cream. And this is just the latest in the over-stimulation and de-sensitization of our society towards sex and nudity.

Our culture is getting so bad, that the flirtatious game of a young girl (grade-school aged) that she plays in the presence of her mother in order to get a free ice cream doesn’t only get aired, but I haven’t heard any outrage over this. In the wake of the Miley Cirus “sex symbol” scandalous photographs, I would have thought that the latest Dairy Queen add would have been more condemned. And for those people who might think that I’m overreacting to this commercial let me ask this: would you want your third-grade daughter playing that sort of sexually charged game to get free ice cream? Would you want your twenty-year old daughter playing that sort of card to get free stuff? Ever wonder where the sexual inhibitions that leads to hooking up and Girls Gone Wild begins? Apparently, it begins at Dairy Queen and Starbucks now.

Not only is the over-tolerance of sexuality and nudity getting ever more pervasive, but so is foul language. A recent commercial for Amstel Light’s prominently used a play-on-words to be catchy for their new add campaign. It goes like this: Amstel Light is apparently made in Amsterdam. “Amsterdam” ends with in “dam” which sounds just like “damn”. Damn is a word that is considered course and has, to the best of my knowledge, not been allowed to be used on TV advertising. But good ‘ol Amstel Light found a way to swear and get it past any censorship. The final line of the commercial is, “One Dam Good Bier”. This, of course, makes no sense if we understand the word “dam” as it is spelled. However, if we understand it in its common usage in our culture as well as the meaning conveyed in this commercial, it makes sense. Its course and foul, and it is on your TV.

Starbucks, Dairy Queen, and Amstel Light didn’t come up with their advertising in a vacuum or in a culture that had not been heading in this direction for some time. Still, when you look at the pervasiveness and acceptance of all things sexual and course, how then can the claim be made that we are a mostly Christian nation. We might have been at one time, but we’re not now. I guess that we still might be a Christian nation if you define “Christian” the way that most of the evangelical world does. With the foul mouthed preachers, the sermon series’ on sex that could well be defined as soft-porn, and the increasing amount of alcoholic saturation of churches, whether it be churches in active bars or beer at bible studies or church events, perhaps America is a Christian culture. Its just that the Christianity of our culture is devoid of Christ and His sanctifying power.

May God have mercy on us.

---

¹ http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/national_world&id=6144920

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)

The Great Deluge

On a Sunday, probably much like this one in so many ways, a little over two years ago, our world was rocked by a massive disaster. Called the Asian Tsunami or the Boxing Day Tsunami, an unimaginably large earthquake shook the very foundations of the earth, and death emanated from its epicenter.

This earthquake was one of the largest ever recorded in modern history, it registered a 9.3 on the Richter scale having originated nearly 100 miles off the coast of northern Sumatra and about 19 miles under the ocean’s surface that produced waves that peaked at nearly 100 feet above the ocean’s surface. It has been guessed that if you could put all of the seismic activity relating to earthquakes since 1906 into a mathematic equation, nearly 13% of that total occurred on December 26th, 2005. The resulting loss of life is almost an unfathomable 229,866 men, women, and children.

On Thursday, November 12th 1970, an intense cyclone referred to afterwards as the Bhoda Cyclone, producing winds of between 111-130 mph and flooding of 9-12 feet, which is equivalent to the strength of a category 3 hurricane, descended upon what is now Bangladesh and claimed the lives of between 300,000 and 500,000 people.

In the 20th century alone, terrors emanating from atheistic communism have claimed the lives of between 65 and 95 million people. Through wars, genocide, purges, political maneuvering, and random and wanton murder, small segments of powerful men have condemned millions of others to death.

The horrific scope and reality of tragedies and atrocities, whether of man’s own creation or as the result of divine or “natural” causes, are often communicated in a variety of ways. For instance, these types of events are often recounted in numbers of jobs lost, dollars lost, homes or property destroyed, homes evacuated, people infected, square miles covered, miles per hour (wind), depth of flood waters, and lives lost.

That being the case, the single greatest calamity ever to fall upon the earth and to afflict mankind cannot be measured in the numbers of homes lost, lives lost, property destroyed, or in terms of economic impact. No, the greatest of all calamities – the worst of the worst – was so massive, so far reaching, and so devastating that it can only be communicated, numerically speaking, by the number of survivors. And there were only eight of them.

This climaxing event, and the events that lead up to it and flowed from it, is recorded for us in Genesis 6-9. And it is on this 17th of February, 2007, that I want to first look back the events of the Great Deluge and then look forward to the greatest single tragedy. Why look at this today instead of picking up where we left of last year with the 2nd chapter of Paul’s letter to the Philippians?

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. (Genesis 7:11)

Now I am fully aware that the Jewish calendar of Moses’ time and before is not equivalent to our current 365 ¼ day calendar year. And so, it was not on February 17th in the year 1656 after creation. But for tonight, just think of it as Sunday February 17th 2008, or February 17th of some other year. My only point with emphasizing the date is this: who in Noah’s time (including himself) would have guessed that the world would end on a normal day in the middle of February? And likewise we must all be mindful that we do not choose the day, hour, or manner in which we will die or in which those around us will die – it will most likely occur on an otherwise normal day.

Why, why was the world destroyed in this way at this time in the single greatest natural disaster in history?

⁵ Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ⁶ The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. ⁷ The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." (Genesis 6:5-7)

The answer: sin. Generally speaking, it was the overall and continual wickedness of man on the earth. But the “straw that broke the camel’s back” as it were, was the great perversion of the coming of the sons of God into the daughters of men. This was, specifically an unholy mingling in marriage. And as flashy or notably horrid as this sinful act was, the reality is that it was not simply this one single sin that caused God’s anger to burn towards the people.

The simplicity of this answer – namely, that the world was destroyed because God was angry about the sin of the people – should not cause a thoughtfully dismissive “hmmm” or “duh” or any other reaction that would cause us to gloss over this vitally important and pertinent truth. It should cause us to sit in awe of God’s perfect and holy standard of perfection.

Even using words like “perfection”, “holiness”, or “righteousness” are so lacking in their ability to communicate, at least to me, what God’s standard truly is. I understand the idea…to a point, but the weight of the truth of God’s demands and expectations especially in light of my inability to meet these expectations, is so fleeting and impossible to wrap my mind around.

So, how did God deal with the lawbreakers in Noah’s day? As terrible as the Boxing Day Tsunami was, as bad as the Bhoda Cyclone was, or as devastating as 100 years of Communism has been, the great deluge in Noah’s day minimizes them all.

The Bible records in Genesis chapter 7 that the “all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened” (11) and that the rain continued for 40 days. The flood was so dramatic that it covered the highest peaks of the mountains by as much as 25 or 30 feet. Mt Everest’s is 29,028 feet above sea level. That means that the waters reached nearly 29,050 feet above sea level. That is, of course, unless there were greater and loftier peaks that were swept away during the great deluge or have since been worn down. So, at least, the waters were around 29,050 feet in depth.

This means that, if the water surge was consistent throughout the entire 40 days, the waters increased in depth by ½ foot every minute, 30 feet ever hour, 726 feet each day, until it reached its final depth of over 5.5 miles. The rains stopped after 40 days, but the flood waters remained for a total of 150 days. And it was not until July 17th, at the end of the 150 days, that the ark rested on Ararat. But it was not until February 27th of the following year that God finally commanded Noah to leave the ark.

This is a massively clear picture of just how much God hates sin.

But the flood is not just a story about God’s hatred of sin, no. It is a picture of that, yes, but it is also a beautiful picture of God’s grace. God saved Noah and his family.

⁵ Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ⁶ The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. ⁷ The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them. ⁸ But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD." (Genesis 6:5-8; emphasis mine)

The Hebrew word translated as “favor” means graciousness, a subjective (kindness, favor) or objective (beauty); and in the Greek Septuagint, this word is translated “xariV$” which is the same Greek New Testament word that is used for God’s unmerited favor that is bestowed upon us in Christ Jesus because of His good pleasure.

This was an exercise of divine mercy in the midst of judgment, for the transmission of the human family. This preservation may be regarded as a reward of his piety. But it was a 'reward of grace,' as one that trusted in a better righteousness; and it is no small proof of its being a reward of grace, that it extended to his whole family, though one of them was wicked.¹

“This is a Hebrew expression that means God was propitious to Noah and favored him. The Hebrews often spoke in this way. They would say, “If I have found grace in your sight: instead of saying, “If I am acceptable to you” or “If you will grant me a favor.” This phrase needs to be noted, because certain ignorant people infer with futile subtlety that if men find race in God’s sight, it is because they seek it through their own industry and merit. I acknowledge, indeed, that here Noah is declared to have been acceptable to God because by living uprightly he kept himself pure from the pollution of the world. But from where did he attain this integrity except from the preventing grace of God? The origin, therefore, of this favor was gratuitous mercy. Afterward the Lord, having once embraced him, retained him under his own hand, so that he would not perish with the rest of the world.²

God graced Noah for the same reason, even though the manifestation itself was different, that He acts graciously towards all of those who have been saved and will be saved.

That being said, Noah was not an average American evangelical in the way that he carried himself and acted. The prophet Ezekiel puts Noah, along with Job and Daniel, as the symbol of piety and obedience that – even if they were present in Jerusalem during the time of God’s judgment against it, could not spare even their families for their own sake, but only themselves (cf. Ez 14:14ff). The writer of the Hebrews puts forth Noah as an example of his faith in and reverent obedience to God (cf. Heb 11:7). And Peter referred to Noah as a “preacher of righteousness” (cf. 2 Peter 2:5).

Even with this impressive resume that few mortal men can equal, God was gracious to Noah and his family because God was gracious to Noah and his family.

Following Noah’s Deliverance from the Great Deluge, God made an unsolicited and an unconditional covenant with Noah, and through him, He made it with you and me, that God would never again destroy the earth in the waters of a great and terrible flood. And in order to remind us of this promise, He gave to us the beautiful rainbow.

What a glorious picture of God’s gracious salvation! This picture and view of salvation was not lost to the Church, but before I can get into that, I want to go back to look at the reason that brings us to the brink and puts us in the cross-hairs of God’s perfectly aimed rifle.

The cause of our problem before God is no different than the root cause that brought about the Great Deluge in Noah’s day. And God’s wrath has been kindled against many individuals and nations in the past – sometimes He stays His hand for a while, and other times He does not hold back.

God destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah, and their surrounding cities. God was going to kill Moses just after He’d commissioned him to lead Israel out of captivity and slavery, but Moses was spared when his wife circumcised their son on the spot. God was seemingly on the verge of destroying the nation many times just following their miraculous Exodus from Egypt. God declared destruction of the nation of Israel if they disobeyed, and He carried it out through Assyria and Babylon. And God has prepared a place of the most extreme torment and misery for all people everywhere who die in a state of sin – even if the only infraction was that you disobeyed your parents one time when you were a teenager.

Sin is horrible. Sin is repulsive. Sin is repugnant. The glamorous nature of the sins of Sodom & Gomorrah, the people of Noah’s day, or even the blatant idolatry of the Nation of Israel shouldn’t desensitize us to the horrific nature of the smallest transgression of His divine standard. Hatred is murder. Lust is adultery. Doubt of God’s promises is slander against His good name! Pornography is a vile and disgusting perversion of sexuality, a betrayal of your spouse – whether you’re married now or you will become married in the future – no matter if you’re in your clean and isolated home sitting at your computer or at Naked Sushi night at a Twin Cities restaurant that is being advertised on radio that is targeted to people who would hold to many of our same social ideals and political values.

And again, let me restate that we must not casually hear and agree with the general idea that human sin is evil in the sight of God. I would argue that the more we seek to understand sin, not in a desire to revel in sin as the world does, but in order to understand just how great our debt is to Christ, and it is this understanding when coupled with a greater understanding of the beauty, majesty, glory, and mercy of God displayed through His grace in our salvation that we grow in our walk with Him by leaps and bounds.

“We are all loathsome to God, before we are washed pure in the blood of Christ!

By nature, we are all in a filthy and cursed condition. We are a lump of clay and sin mingled together. Sin not only blinds us—but defiles us. It is called filthiness (James 1:21). And to show how befilthying a thing it is, it is compared . . .
to a plague of the heart (1 Kings 8:38),
to corruption (Deuteronomy 32:5),
to vomit (2 Peter 2:22),
to a menstrual cloth (Isaiah 30:22).

If all the evils in the world were put together and their quintessence strained out—they could not make a thing so black and polluted as sin is! A sinner is a devil in a man's shape! When Moses' rod was turned into a serpent—he fled from it. If God would open men's eyes and show them their deformities and damnable spots—they would fly from themselves, as from serpents!

When grace comes—it washes off this hellish filth! It turns ravens into swans. It makes those who are as black as hell—to become as white as snow!

"Christ gave Himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for Himself a people that are His very own." Christ shed His blood—to wash off our filth. The cross was both an altar and a laver.

Jesus died not only to save us from wrath (1 Thes. 1:10)—but to save us from sin! (Matthew 1:21). Out of his side came water which signifies our cleansing—as well as blood which signifies our justifying (1 John 5:6).”³

The final destination for those who are found in contempt of God’s Holy Court is the same for us as it was for Noah’s friends and neighbors. This is a place of eternal and unmatched suffering and horror.

“Hell is described as a place where "their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." Repeatedly Jesus spoke of outer darkness and a furnace of fire, where there will be wailing, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.

The Book of Revelation describes hell as "a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (Rev 19:20; 20:10,14-15; 21:8). Into hell will be thrown the beast and the false prophet (Rev 19:20). At the end of the age the devil himself will be thrown into it, along with death and hades and all whose names are not in the Book of Life. "And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev 20:10 b).

Because of the symbolic nature of the language, some people question whether hell consists of actual fire. Such reasoning should bring no comfort to the lost. The reality is greater than the symbol. The Bible exhausts human language in describing heaven and hell. The former is more glorious, and the latter more terrible, than language can express.”⁴

Now whereas there has not been a singular event that God has caused virtually the entirety of mankind to meet with their eternal fate since the Great Deluge, there has been a single event that has occurred that has more perfectly and more manifoldly displayed God’s hatred of Sin and need for justice to be served. It is the greatest tragedy that has ever occurred – not because of the outcome, but because of the actual event itself. The only way for God’s wrath at you, and me, and every other redeemed individual to be satisfied was with the death of His own Son.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Cor 5:21)

And it is here – in the sacrifice of the Beloved Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, that Peter draws our minds back to the catastrophe of the flood.

¹⁸ For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; ¹⁹ in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, ²⁰ who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. ²¹ Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. (1 Peter 3:18-22; emphasis mine)

Two questions come up from this text. The first is this: Does baptism – and by that I mean water baptism – save us? To that question I would answer with an un-hesitating “NO!” The second question is this: If water baptism is not what saves us, what in the world is Peter saying here? And I want to answer that in two ways.

First, what Does the Bible clearly say about how man is saved?

Whoever believes in him 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)

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (John 5:24)

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. (John 6:47)

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (Romans 3:28)

nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; ⁹ not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8,9)

¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ¹⁷ For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” (Romans 1:16,17)

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36)

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 3:5)

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, (Romans 5:1)

I have only given a few verses that argue for the fact of salvation being through faith by the means of God’s grace. But the fact that there are so many more verses than what I have provided is an argument for the overwhelming nature of the Bible’s clear statement about the doctrine of justification by faith.

Justification by Faith. Although the Lord Jesus has paid the price for our justification, it is through our faith that He is received and His righteousness is experienced and enjoyed (Rom 3:25-30). Faith is considered righteousness (Rom 4:3,9), not as the work of man (Rom 4:5), but as the gift and work of God (John 6:28-29; Phil 1:29).⁵

Second Question: If we’re saved by grace through faith and not by means of water baptism, what on earth is Peter saying here? What is the analogy that he is drawing?

The first key is to understand what ideas are “corresponding” in what Peter is trying to say. Peter is relating Christ’s sacrifice and our salvation through it to the entire story of Noah and the ark. He is not comparing the act of water baptism and a salvation effecting quality that it might have with Noah’s experience. Noah was saved by the ark, not by the water.

The water of the Great Deluge baptized the world in death, but Noah sailed safely through it in the Ark that the Lord provided. Similarly, when we are saved by Christ we are placed inside of the perfect ark that has been baptized in the wrath of God’s judgment on the cross.

“But baptism (from baptize) simply means ‘to immerse,’ and not just in water. Peter here uses baptism to refer to a figurative immersion into Christ as the ark of safety that will sail over the holocaust of judgment on the wicked.

God preserved [Noah and his family] in the midst of His judgment, which is what He also does for all those who trust in Christ.”⁶

Therefore, by being found in Christ Jesus, through faith, God displays His desire to give mercy and grace while still showing His requirement for justice.

God offers two promises, one desirable and one undesirable. The first promise is that if you, as a sinner, die in your sins, God promises to cast you into a reality that is far clearer, far more tangible than anything you know here on earth. And that reality will completely and utterly crush you, but you will be preserved to endure it in misery. That is the first promise, the promise of God’s vengeance and His righteous and holy wrath that will be poured out on all ungodliness.

The second promise is God’s promise of grace. Oh, if you will but call on the Lord, confess and turn from your sins, place your complete trust in Him alone to deliver you from His wrath by means of His substituting His Son in your place – if you trust in the finished and perfect work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary, God promises to give you eternal life. He will give you a new heart, with new desires, and you will wage war on those sins that so justly condemned you before the throne of Glory. He will cause you to grow in holiness and cause you to desire His word and love His Son.

It is possible that we can experience some conviction and yet be unchanged. After hearing a much more powerful sermon and articulation of the gospel than I have presented tonight, King Herod Agrippa said, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.” (Acts 26:28) He had some conviction there – but I don’t know of a good historical account that tells of the conversion of King Agrippa II.

Don’t let the conviction of the Holy Spirit wane as you move it to the back of your mind and ignore it. For there will come a time that, after having done that so often and so long, that you will no longer be convicted and you will be adrift in your unbelief.

---

¹ (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

² Genesis, John Calvin. p. 71.(The Crossway Classic Commentaries)

³ The Beatitudes, Thomas Watson, 1660

⁴
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

⁵ (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

⁶ 1 Peter, John MacArthur, p. 217

Forgiveness of Sins, a Cure for the Sick

⁶ "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home."

¹² But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.” (Matthew 9:6,12)

It amazes me how quickly and easily I can sometimes read over verses that I am so familiar with and miss something that is truly awesome. It is so beautiful and clear how these two verses fit together with the overall message of salvation in Christ. And it is the punctuating statement of verse 12 that is so powerful. I used to think that Jesus was saying that the “sick” were people who had not been born again whereas the “healthy” were people who had already. But, the more I understand the Savior’s audience and the overall message of the gospel, the more I see that the “sick” refer to those who know of their sins and of their need for a savior whereas the “healthy” are the self-righteous who do not need a savior.

The reality of life is that everyone is worse off than the paralytic that Jesus healed; we are like Lazarus, we’re dead, until we are born again by the Spirit of God. But the sad situation is that the vast majority of men proclaim their own goodness with their mouths and see their situation as less than dire before God. This condition is not limited to the practitioners of self-righteous religious systems, but it extends to all men. And in a real way, all non-Christians are practitioners of a self-righteous system even if they are unaware of it. Many of the non-conformist or non-religious people have individual and self-styled idolatrous systems that they have created for themselves to go along with the god that they’ve made in their minds.

I thank God for his grace in showing me my own sinfulness so that I may repent of it and be made more like my Lord. I consider it one of my primary goals in ministry to shine the light of God’s Word onto the sins of those who are under my care and teaching. And once the Word has done its work, I pray that the flood of grace would abound to those who find themselves to be sick and in need of a physician.

But God Remembered Noah

The story of Noah always makes me sit back and read it as a little child. I mean, there is so much in this story that the scale alone makes me want to catch my breath. Perhaps it is just me, but when we see the whole earth as wretched and vile and that it deserved to be wiped out completely, it makes me sit back and marvel at God’s favoring Noah. If Noah’s heart, just like all men everywhere for all time, was only continually evil from his youth (cf. Genesis 6:4; 8:5), then when Noah found favor in God’s eyes, it must have been because of God’s desire to have mercy on Noah.

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. (Genesis 6:8)

God would have been justified in wiping out Noah and the rest of his family that were saved when He destroyed the rest of humanity. I think that it would be extremely detrimental to gloss over this fact or not to address it when reading and meditating on the story of Noah and the flood. And that Noah found favor in God’s eyes must have been attributed only to God’s mercy and grace. Furthermore, for anyone to find favor before God happens despite anything and everything that the person says, does, or thinks.

But God remembered Noah (Genesis 8:1a)

The fact that God remembers His own is an astoundingly glorious truth. Even amidst the destruction of literally everything else on the planet, Noah could have (and should have) had the uttermost peace and felt completely than safe and secure in the ark. One of the truly great things about God’s favor in salvation that we learn see clearly from the New Testament is that once God has saved you, once you have found favor with God based on His grace and mercy alone, we have no need to fear even though the world comes crashing down around us. As a practical note, this doesn’t mean that Christians won’t endure hardship, persecution, torture, or violent and horrible deaths, but it does mean that this is the extent at which we can be tormented or suffer (cf. Matthew 10:28). But Noah had the expressed promise of temporal delivery from this maelstrom (cf. Genesis 6:18ff), and so he could confidently wait for God to deliver him even though he was on the ark for over one year.

Regardless of the time between the promise and the deliverance, God is faithful. If anyone has trusted in Christ alone for salvation, whether they did that at 5, 55, or 105 years of age, God will remember the saving work that He has done when death comes and we have nothing to fear.

But know that the LORD has set apart the godly man for Himself; The LORD hears when I call to Him. (Psalms 4:3)

Praise God that He sets apart those in whom He favors, and He then hears us when we call to Him.

“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>