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/

The Ruin of Sin

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23)

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 Corinthians 5:21)

I am becoming more and more convinced every day that the root cause of so much faulty theology comes from a misunderstanding of the sinfulness of man. Whether my wife is talking to the Mormons that came to my door on Sunday evening while I was snoozing with my boys (I’m so proud of her), or whether you’re talking to a Jew or a Muslim (or any other religious affiliation), or if you are simply talking to a post-modern atheistic secular humanist who believes that religion is the cause for all of the problems of the world, the root cause of all of their false concepts of life and the afterlife come from a view that man is inherently good, or at that man is at least naturally neutral.

I am also becoming more and more convinced that a misunderstanding of man’s sinfulness is the root cause of various deviations inside of orthodox Christian theology as well as the fact that it is also a primary cause, while not the only cause, in the divisions between orthodox Christianity and false religion under the guise of a form of Christianity; Roman Catholicism would be the primary example, while it is surely not the only occurrence, of a truly false religion that masquerades under the guise of Christianity. Whether from Rome or a random preacher’s desktop computer, when men hold to the view that man is somewhat good or capable of good things on his own, they usually mess up the doctrine of salvation and consequently do not understand the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

I have heard (and read) men of many different stripes inside of Christendom make the mistake of commending to man some ability to do something truly good when the men they are referring to have not been transformed by the saving power of Christ that is received through faith. And it is a fundamental denial of the ruin of sin that lead men to create new ways for good people to get a “fair chance” before God. If we understand that there are no good people and furthermore that there is nothing innately good about any human and that all people are unrighteous and wicked to the core of their being, we then see the message of the cross in the correct way.

As a side note, I don’t believe that the errors of the anonymous Christianity as seen inside of protestant circles or the same types of theologies inside of Roman Catholicism come from a purposeful intent to destroy the gospel of God (for the masses, anyway). This error basically holds that there is, or must be, a way that a loving God has set up for those who have never heard of Christ to still be saved. And I believe that the majority of unbelievers, as well as believers, who sit in the pews each week and are sympathetic to this idea, seem to be motivated by the desire to preserve the justice of God. I believe that this is the reason why some less mature or Scripturally ignorant Christians might be wooed by this idea. But I would be amiss if I didn’t mention that while this might be a factor with unbelievers, a primary reason would also seem to be one of self preservation. You see, unbelievers still have the unmitigated guilt of their sin to deal with, and whether they are in a Christian church or not, this fictional possibility helps to soothe their own consciences with the hope that they might qualify for it if their professed faith is false.

The problems that come from a watered down view of the sinfulness of man and the indistinguishable idea of the ability of man (to do truly good things) very often result in views of salvation that are contrary to the gospel. Now, whereas many of my brothers and sisters in Christ are Arminian in their theological persuasion and they will disagree with me on some of the issues surrounding the doctrines of grace (a.k.a. Calvinism), they would ultimately hold to the correct understanding of the ruin of sin. They hold to the position that every man is able to receive salvation by faith in Christ, but it is not anything good about that man himself that lends to his salvation.

The reason for the importance of this doctrine is not in the fact that it is fun or that it makes people feel good to be made very aware of the fact that, just as the famous song says, we are all wretches because of our sin. Neither is it is not a reveling in the imminent damnation of the vast majority of humanity. It is a bold proclamation of the utter ruin of mankind so that Christ will be seen as the most beautiful and glorious Savior that He is. When you have a watered down view of sin and your own sinfulness, then you only need a watered down Christ to save you or to help you save yourself. The Bible doesn’t speak of Christ as a “kind of” or “mostly” savior; He is the perfect and ultimate savior of a ruined humanity. And it is only by faith in Him as He has been revealed through the pages of Scripture that we can be saved from the ultimate ruin of the wrath of God.

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

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

O Lord, Pardon My Iniquity

“For Your name's sake, O LORD, Pardon my iniquity, for it is great.” (Psalms 25:11)

I’ve been thinking about and meditating, if you will, about this verse for the past few days. I have wanted to write something about it, but haven’t had the time or taken the opportunity to do so until now. But the longer I gazed at this verse, the more and more I became amazed at how much truth is jam packed into it. I have taken to praying this in my mind throughout the day, and it is a great shot in the arm to realign my heart whenever it might go astray.

The phrase, “pardon my iniquity,” is such a stripping request because it is my confession and agreement with God that I have offended Him. Furthermore, I have no ability in and of myself to rectify this situation with my Lord. The awareness of the size of my debt is only increased the longer I dwell on the Lord because my sin and iniquity “is very great.” I understand that it takes a miracle for God to be merciful to me, and it is the mercy of a pardon that I truly entreat and so desperately do not deserve.

And if I ever found myself full of pride because I had found a Lord who would pardon my sin and wash my soul in the cleansing flood of His blood, I can hearken back to the truth that He saved me, He has forgiven me, and He will keep me for His name’s sake. For Your name’s sake, O Lord, restore my soul. For Your name’s sake, O Lord, lead me and guide me. For Your name’s sake, O Lord, act toward me in grace and not in due measure for my own works. For Your name’s sake, O Lord....

A Quiz for the Children Under my Care

Normally I will teach a lesson to the children in Awana each Wednesday evening, but last week I decided to do something a little different. I often wonder how much of what I, or any of the other Christian teachers in their little lives for that matter, am saying actually gets through to them and affects their thinking. So in my first ever attempt to create and facilitate a test, I went to some of the traditional Baptist catechisms for some questions. I also created a few of my own that were specifically targeted for these children based on the lessons that we’ve been going through in the past few years.

I ended up with 13 objective questions, 10 subjective questions, 2 extra objective questions, and an open “ask anything you want answers to” question at the end. I must say that even though I see ways to improve the way in which the test was prepared, presented, and completed, I am grateful for some of the things that this reveals. Specifically, I thought that the answers to four of the objective questions and one of the subjective questions were quite revealing. And I want to look at a few of those and provide my thoughts.

Question: How does God see me (because of Adam’s sin in eating the forbidden fruit as well as my own sins)?

• Correct Answer: Our Condition by Nature, is very bad: it is sinfull; and Cursed - Ephes. 2.1,2,3. Dead in sins. Rom. 5.12. 18. Gal. 3.12 (45%)
• Friend & sad/sinful; good & bad (18%)
• "mad and sad" (9%)
• Misc. Wrong Answer (27%)

First of all, the first answer to the question above (as in the rest of the objective questions) was the answer that I was looking for. In order to answer the question correctly, the children didn’t have to give a long and detailed answer that one would expect from a teacher, theologian, pastor, or other mature Christian. The children just had to show that they had the right idea. For example, if the child answered the question with the word “sinner” or “guilty”, that would be sufficient to be correct.

Even though 100% of the children answered the question of the penalty of sin correctly (i.e. death and hell), I was concerned to see that about 45% of the children don’t have a correct understanding of man’s position in sin. I understand that the children who answered with the idea that God is both mad and sad at our rebellion is pretty close to the right answer, but because of the emphasis that we’ve had for a long time in our lessons, this was close to the right answer, but not close enough. In other words, the 4th – 6th graders have had about one and a half years of teaching focused on this issue. But even if I threw that category into the general “correct answer” pot, there are still close to half of the children who missed it entirely. This means that I will need to address this issue in a different way. Not in a way that provides a different answer, but in a different way that will help the children to understand the correct answer better.

Question: If my sin deserves an eternal punishment in hell, what did God do so that He could forgive me as well as punish the sin that I have committed?

• Correct Answer: Penal Substitution - Jesus Christ Died for my sins, bearing my punishment (9%)
• died / died on the cross ["Jesus" and or "sin" not specificially named] (82%)
• "send His Son" (9%)

Now perhaps I was being a bit too much of a stickler on this one (I don’t think that I was), but an answer that referenced “dying on the cross” without referencing Christ’s name specifically or the reason (i.e. sin or the wrath of God) that He had to endure that were just not acceptable. Some may think that I’m being a bit too harsh, but I don’t think so. The question itself didn’t mention Jesus and the world in which we live in is so devoid of the true meaning of the idea of the crucifixion that an answer by any Christian, child or adult, that leaves out the name of Christ our Lord is not acceptable.

The resolution to this problem may be as simple as making it clear to the children that any answer to this type of question – whether on a test or in person – that leaves out the name of Christ is just not good enough. And even though people assume that the hearer might know that they’re referring to Jesus (especially if this question is in a church context), we must not neglect to forcefully proclaim the name of our savior.

Question: What does God require of me, to redeem me so that I can escape His wrath because of my sin? Hint: Think of what you would tell someone else if they knew that they deserved to go to hell because of their sin and they wanted to be forgiven.

• Correct Answer: Repentance and Faith (10%)
• Faith in God OR Repentance from sin [both not given] (45%)
• Misc. Wrong Answer (45%)

If there is any one subject that we have dealt with more than the fact that the 10 Commandments is the tool that God has given to illuminate our sinfulness and to lead us to Christ, it has been the subject of the gospel. The gospel is clear that man must have a repentant faith in Christ in order to be saved. Both of these elements (repentance and faith) are essential for salvation. Faith without repentance of sin shows that the faith has not permeated the individual with the fruit of a changed life or a willingness and desire to change. Repentance of sin without faith is also fruitless because the individual does not understand that a sinner is saved by grace through faith and not by works. And repentance without faith is essentially an attempt at works righteousness.

Both faith and repentance of sin are gifts from God to believers. And it may better be summarized that the faith that alone saves a man is a repentant faith. And again, to have virtually all of the children answer this incorrectly or incompletely was very disturbing. So much of our Christian lexicon needs to be tightened up. Cliché phrases and concepts such as “Jesus is my personal savior”, “the sinner’s prayer”, and others need to be more clearly explained and understood. Otherwise, like it is in much of the rest of evangelicalism, the true meaning of these phrases or concepts will be lost as will be those who hearken to the wrong understandings of them; lost.

Question: What does it mean to have faith in Jesus Christ? Hint: think of another word that we use to describe what faith in Jesus Christ is.

• Correct Answer: Trust in Him alone (45%)
• Repent of Sin (10%)
• Misc. Wrong Answer (45%)

And if I were to feel better about the previous question, this one here did nothing to help with that. If you ask a child what it means to believe in something, they may answer by saying that you have faith in it. But if you ask what it means to have faith in something, they will usually revert back to answering it by saying that you believe in it. Consequently, I am concerned that so many people don’t understand what it means to have faith as the Bible describes it. For years I have used the analogy of sitting in a chair or walking across a frozen lake.

If I have a chair made up of spaghetti noodles or a lake that has one eighth of an inch of ice covering it, it doesn’t matter if I have all of the faith in the world that these things will support me when I put my weight on them. No matter how much faith I have, when I sit in the chair or attempt to walk across the lake, I will fall. Likewise, if there is a chair made of granite and a lake that has four foot thick ice covering it in its entirety, it doesn’t matter if I have the least amount of faith in the chair or the ice, because when I sit down on the chair or step onto the lake, they will support me and I will not fall.

And in using these examples, the illustration of faith that I have brought out is with the word trust. And in explaining what that means, I have repeatedly said that an example would be that you not only believe that a chair can hold you up if you sit down on it, but you actually sit down on it. That is the example of trust that I use in order to give the children a picture and an idea to associate with the concept of faith. So, when over half of the answers were essentially nothing more than “really believe”, I see that the concept of what true faith is has not yet broken through to many of them.

Question: Do I really want to read the Bible on my own?

1. Yes (36%)
2. No (9%)
3. Kind of (36%)
4. Not Really (18%)

While some of the answers to the objective questions that I asked were frustrating and concerning, none made me sadder than this one. I understand that I am working with young children, but the fact that 27% have really no interest in reading the Bible on their own initiative and 36% “kind of” have a desire to do so just breaks my heart. I understand and believe that a true desire to read the Bible doesn’t always translate into a good solid regular reading time, but if you don’t have that desire it will not translate into a good regular Bible reading time.

I don’t have any way to change this response. My teaching, their parents’ teaching, or a fist-full of sermons and applications will not change this heart desire. The only thing that a father, a teacher, a mother, or anyone else can do is to pray that God would change their little hearts into ones that desire Him and His Word. I pray that I would not neglect this great task before me, as a teacher or as a parent.

May God grant grace to these children and cause them to desire His Word. May God also grant grace to so many adults in our churches who, if they answered this question honestly, would answer in the same way.

“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>