TULIP - P

Well, we've made it to the end. We're at the "P" of TULIP. "P," of course, is for Perseverance of the Saints. Now, when I was younger, I believed myself to be a "Calvinist" because I believed in "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS), and those misguided Arminians thought you could lose your salvation. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that I was a one-point Calvinist, rejecting those first 4. But, of course, God had the last laugh. I ended up embracing the TULI (or so) and rejecting the OSAS. So ... what does that "P" signify?

We've seen, from Scripture, that Man is a sinner and, therefore, sins. It's in his nature. That nature touches every part, making him dead in sin, hostile to God, and God's enemy. The only hope, then, is God's work. He has chosen some to save, not on their own merit, but for His purposes. He has provided the solution to their sin in the Atonement, which Christ completed perfectly for the ones God has chosen. And, leaving nothing to chance, the Spirit applies grace to the chosen without requiring their permission. He regenerates, provides repentance (2 Cor 7:9; 2 Tim 2:25) and faith (Rom 12:3; Php 1:29; 2 Peter 1:3). Now, this "dead in sin," "hostile to God" sinner has a changed heart and comes, in faith and repentance, to receive that Atonement. And ... then what?

If you read the Scriptures you will find that believers can lose their salvation and cannot lose their salvation. That is, you'll find verses to support both perspectives. Interestingly, all of the "lose your salvation" passages (e.g., Heb 6:4-6; Matt 7:21-23; Ezek 18:24-26; 2 Tim 2:11-12; Rev 3:5; etc.) are from Man's perspective, and all of the "can't lose your salvation" passages are from God's perspective. So, which is it? First, consider. The term often used for "salvation" is "eternal life." Now, if "eternal life" can stop ... it's not eternal, is it? John wrote, "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). That's "has" -- present tense. Paul told the Philippians to "work out your salvation" ("See? You can lose it.") for "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). Our work versus God's work. Jesus said, "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" (John 10:29). "Oh," some say, "but I can." Alright, so you're "no one"? Jude wrote that God is "able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 1:24). Paul wrote something very similar. "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Php 1:6). I can only conclude, then, that God is the means by which everyone who comes to Christ will be saved, and that without fail.

I said at the outset that I rejected OSAS. I believe that's an error. It suggests it's possible to become saved and never change. It's not. John wrote, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). A believer can sin, but he can't make a practice of it "because he is born of God." John also wrote of those who "went out from us." Of them he says, "they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). I cannot make a coherent argument that God is willing and able to save to the end all who believe ... and can't. So I'm going with God on this one. That's why I prefer to call this last point "the Perseverance of God for the Saints." I'm offering one last Scripture for you to consider: Romans 8:31-39. You're likely familiar with the text. Note, however, the sentence right there in the middle. "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies" (Rom 8:33). There it is, the connection between "Unconditional Election" and "the Perseverance of God for the Saints." But read the whole thing. It's much larger than this connection, and it is certainly no less than this connection. We trust in God ... for life, for salvation, for being kept, for everything. That's a certainty.
________
One last thought. The ideas that comprise TULIP that I've just laid out this past week are not "essentials." At least, I won't divide from fellow believers who don't agree. But I want you to see that I haven't offered you philosophical speculations or some "tradition." I've offered Scripture. You're certainly free to understand these Scriptures in a different way, but you should be able to admit that, even if you don't agree, these doctrines come from Scripture. At least we should be able to agree on that. If you disagree with the interpretation I offer, please be careful to align Scripture rather than refute it.

TULIP - I

We're up to "I" in this series. We started with the problem: Man's radical depravity that cuts him off from God without any means of remedying it himself. We went to "U" which says that God, therefore, chooses whom He will save without regard to their own merits. He saves on the basis of His own purposes. Then to "L" where we see that the Atonement -- our only means to salvation -- was intended to pay for all the sins of those whom He has chosen ... and does so perfectly. And then there's "Irresistible Grace."

Remember. These are all linked. Radical Depravity requires that God chooses whom He will save without regard to their merits ... because they have none (Sovereign Election). Particular Atonement holds that those who are sovereignly elected have their sins paid for. So, the next question is, how effective is God's choice of you? Can you refuse? Does it all boil down to me and my choice? So, again, let's look at what "Irresistible Grace" does not mean. It does not meant that God's grace cannot be resisted. Clearly people all over the world resist the Holy Spirit all the time (Acts 7:51). What it does mean is that, if you are among the elect, at some point the Holy Spirit will certainly overcome your resistance and you will be saved. Does the Bible agree?

On one hand, Scripture is clear that "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 6:44). Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (John 6:37). No exceptions. In Antioch in Pisidia Paul left the Jews and took the gospel to the Gentiles, and "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Note how "appointed" precedes "believed." Jesus gave the same cause-and-effect concept when He told the Jews, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). That is, in order to believe, you have to be first "one of My sheep." In Romans 8 where God tells us why "all things work together for good" according to God's purpose, he explains, "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified" (Rom 8:28-30). There is no break in that chain, starting from "foreknew" all the way to "justified" and "glorified" ... and there is no mention of anything we do to cause or prevent it. Paul knowingly upset his readers when he wrote, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). Nothing about us being in the loop. John wrote that we are born again "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). Not your birth, not your will, not your choices -- just God. Clearly, then, everyone that the Father gives the Son will indeed come to the Son and not by their own skillful efforts or willingness. God successfully overcomes the hostility of Natural Man (Rom 8:7) by first redeeming him and then applying grace ... without the permission of the recipients, as it were. We are, as we all know, saved by grace and not of ourselves (Eph 2:8-9).

Given the extent of the problem -- our "dead in sin" nature -- God requires a means of salvation that does not rest on the unsaved. He chooses on the basis of His own purposes, redeems those whom He chooses, and regenerates those He has redeemed. If left to our own devices, we would accept none of that. We couldn't understand; we wouldn't receive. So He does it. He does it all. In Paul's terms we are all "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," ready for the wrath God so willingly has to give (Rom 9:22), and He graciously makes of us vessels of mercy (Rom 9:23). No thanks to us. No merit to us. No dependence on us. He ... just ... saves ... whom He chooses and with perfect efficiency. How about, instead of "Irresistible Grace," we call it "Effectual Grace"?
________
For your added reference: Rom 5:8; John 10:27-29; Php 2:13; 2 Cor 4:6; Rom 1:16; etc.

TULIP - L

Okay, so far we have "T" where mankind as a whole are sinners from birth, dead in sin, hostile to God, without hope. So how would anyone get saved? First, we have "U" where God chooses whom He will save ... which is good since none of us merit His choice. He chooses for His own purposes and has already, before time began, recorded everyone who will be saved. What else is needed? Well, we need some method of being saved. We need what Scripture calls "atonement" -- an "at-one-ment" whereby our sins are forgiven and set aside and we can have peace with God. That's our "L" -- Limited Atonement.

This one is one of the most hotly contested points. "Limited Atonement??? Christ died for all sin!" So, as before, I need to explain that "Limited Atonement" is not about limitations to the Atonement Christ made for our sin; it's about the intent. Here's the question. When Christ died on the cross, when He died for sins, when He said, "It is finished" (John 19:30), to what was He referring? What was His aim? Did He die to forgive all sin for all mankind for all time? Or ... not? Scripture is abundantly clear that not all will be saved. John wrote, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (John 1:12). Clearly there's the "other shoe" there: "Those who do not receive Him do not receive the right." Jesus warned of Hell more than anyone else. He told of those, in the end, who would call Him "Lord, Lord" and He would reject them (Matt 7:21-23). So, quite clearly, not all sin was forgiven at the cross. "Well," I've often heard it said, "you have to accept the forgiveness." The illustration is used of the prisoner on death row who is pardoned by the governor. The warden goes to him and shows him the pardon, but the prisoner refuses to accept it. So, the warden carries out the execution. Surely you can see the massive injustice perpetrated on a pardoned prisoner who is, essentially, executed without fault simply because he wouldn't accept the pardon. That's a variety of things, but "justice" is not on that list. If all sin was paid for at the cross, all humans are forgiven and God is obligated by His own justice to welcome them all into heaven.

What does Scripture say? Jesus said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). "Many," not "all." (Also Matt 26:28; Heb 9:28.) Paul said that Jesus purchased "the church of God" with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Jesus specifically did not pray for the world, but for His own (John 17:9). The author of Hebrews says "those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15). That's the elect, not everyone. In Revelation 5:9 they sang a song of praise to God who redeemed us "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Clearly Christ didn't intend to pay for the sins of all mankind and, thus, save all mankind. He did, however, pay for all the sins of His people (Matt 1:21; 1 Peter 3:18; Titus 2:14). Christ made atonement for sin, but His intent was to pay for the sin of those whom He intended to save.

"Limited Atonement," then, misrepresents the idea. A better term would be "Particular Atonement." It's not about the extent of the Atonement, but the intent. Did Jesus intend to pay for all sin for all mankind and fail, or did He intend to pay for the sin of the elect and succeed? Scripture is clear that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of the world. "Particular Atonement" simply says that He never intended to do so, so His sacrifice is not efficient for covering all sin. That was never His aim. It does not apply to all sin. But, thank God, it applies to all the sin of all who believe, without limitation and without our contribution. Jesus paid it all for those He has chosen.
________
As usual, I'm providing more reading for your examination: John 10:15; Eph 5:25; John 3:16; 1 John 2:18-19; Isa 53:11; Mark 14:24; John 15:13; Rom 3:25; etc.

Please note: the most common error I see when people are contending over this topic is to bring up Scriptures that appear to show the opposite. That's all well and good, except trying to prove your point by making Scripture contradictory simply makes Scripture unreliable. Agree or disagree, but make sure you are harmonizing Scripture and not pitting Scripture against Scripture. If you believe that Jesus paid for sin for all mankind for all time, what do you do with the texts that say otherwise? If you believe that Christ paid only for the sins of the elect, what do you do with the texts that seem to say "all"? Don't gloss it over. Let God be true though every man a liar.

TULIP - U

The so-called "Five Points" aren't just 5 random ideas. They are a rational line of thinking. They feed into each other. They begin with the premise of "T," what I prefer to call "Radical Depravity." We are dead in sin, incapable of even understanding the things of the Spirit, without hope or the inclination to change. In fact, we are hostile to God (Rom 8:7). The obvious next question is, "Now what? What hope is there?" Enter the concept of "U." The "U" refers to "Unconditional Election," but that, again, can be misleading.

In its memory tool form, Unconditional Election refers to the question, "What is it in me that causes God to choose me?" Before we answer that, let's set aside an immediate objection. "God doesn't choose! I do!" Nice thought, but consider two facts. First, if the Scriptures on the "T" part are accurate (biblical), we lack the capacity to choose. Second, and the real objection, is the objection that God does the choosing. Don't be deceived. The doctrine of Election is not a Calvin thing. It is throughout Scripture. God chose Noah. God chose Abraham. God chose the nation of Israel (Deut 10:15), and not because they were so wonderful (Deut 7:7-8). In the New Testament, Jesus told His disciples that they didn't choose Him, but He chose them (John 15:16). The doctrine that God chooses whom He will save is all over Scripture. We can discuss how He chooses, but there is no room to question that He chooses. The claim, then, is that God chooses whom He will save not on the basis of anything in the ones He chooses. His choice is not conditioned on the chosen. It is "unconditional" in that sense. Maybe "Sovereign Election" would be better.

Scripture repeatedly says that God's choice occurred before time began. It says, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ..." on the basis of "the kind intention of His will" (Eph 1:4-5). The Revelation says the names of those who will be saved are "written from the foundation of the world in the book of life" (Rev 13:8; Rev 17:8). Scripture says we are chosen "not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace (2 Tim 1:9). In his example of Esau and Jacob, Paul wrote, "... 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 ..." (Rom 9:11). Paul concludes, "So then it (God's choice) does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). God chooses, then, not on anything in us -- anything we do or are -- but according to His purposes.

Those who object often call such a God "capricious." "That would mean God's just playing with us without cause or reason." No, it doesn't. It means that we are not the reason. It means that He does have reasons and purpose; it's just not us -- our merits, or our choices ("the man who wills or the man who runs"). His reasons are entirely His own. "Unconditional Election" doesn't mean "random" or "capricious." It means that God does not choose whom He will save based on the objects of His choice. It means that He clearly chooses whom He will save and He is sovereign in that choice. Which, as it turns out, is very good since, left to our own devices, our own depravity would preclude God from choosing any of us.
________
For more reading on this principle, you can try Acts 13:48; 2 Thess 2:13; Rom 8:29; John 15:16; Eph 1:11; Jer 1:5. There are certainly more. Do your due diligence.

TULIP - T

I've said before that I don't like the common acronym, "TULIP," not because I disagree with the principles, but because the chosen memory tool misrepresents the principles. So, I'm going to look at "T" -- Total Depravity -- with the aim of eliminating the misconceptions and showing in Scripture what it really is. (Please note: I won't be presenting this as philosophy or fine arguments. I'm not using Calvin or anyone else. My source document is the Bible.)

"Total Depravity" suggests that Man (I suppose, in today's world, I have to explain that "Man" is not male, but "mankind," "humanity," the human race) is depraved, totally depraved, as bad as he/she can possibly be. That would (obviously) be a mistake. The principle is not that we are as bad as we possibly can be, but that sin has affected us to the very core. There is no part of us that is not touched. And it's a bigger problem than we imagine. Maybe "Radical Depravity" is better.

The Bible explains that God made humans perfect (Gen 1:31). That didn't change until Genesis 3, when the serpent tempted Eve and the couple leapt into sin. That fall affected all of Adam's race (Rom 5:12). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). If that's not bad enough, the ramifications of this condition are larger than we think. Scripture says we are sinners from birth. David cried, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Psa 51:5). Elsewhere he says, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth" (Psa 58:3). That is, we aren't just sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. God said, "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). We understand that we're all sinners, but Scripture says, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). And, if you can believe it, it gets worse. Paul wrote, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). That's a "cannot." Natural man lacks the capacity to understand the things of God. Why? Natural man is dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3). Instead, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor 4:4). We're not as bad as we could be, but we're in a hopeless condition of sin that permeates everything.

That is the concept of "Total Depravity." It's not that we're really, really bad people. It's that we're sinners at the core and neither capable of understanding the things of the Spirit or pleasing God. Until God intervenes, we are without hope (Eph 2:12). We've all heard the calls. We're all encouraged to choose Christ. What we fail to grasp is, left to our own devices, it cannot happen. We are a rebellious people, dead in sin, without the capacity to even understand. If Someone supernatural does not do something -- something radical -- it's a story with a dreadful ending. Sugar-coating or covering up the truth of human depravity only covers the real problem. But ... obviously ... I'm going to have to continue this series to offer a solution ... God's solution.
________
For more Scripture on this, I offer John 1:12-13; John 3:5-7; John 6:63-65; 1 Peter 4:6; Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Rom 8:7-8. Feel free to find more.

The Bottom Line

I once wrote a piece entitled, "Why I Am A Calvinist." Not too long after that I wrote a piece entitled, "Why I Am NOT A Calvinist." I don't like "Calvinist" as a term because I have nothing at all predicated on John Calvin in my theology. I like "Calvinism" as a concept because it fits with what I find repeatedly in Scripture. I don't like "Calvinism" because so many people use the name and abuse the doctrines. I like "Calvinism" because I dearly love what it brings me.

That, I think, is something I've never written on. I can spend a great deal of time (and I have) explaining what I mean by Calvinism and the Scriptures that bring me to those beliefs. I find it, biblically, unavoidable. But then I pull out the listing or "those beliefs" and ... sigh ... I really don't like them. You've heard them, I'm sure. They are the classic "TULIP."

T Total Depravity
U Unconditional Election
L Limited Atonement
I Irresistible Calling
P Perseverance of the Saints

So I have to explain what every one of them means because they are not likely what you think they mean or, at least, not what they mean on the face of them. They speak of the sin nature that prevents Man from saving himself -- the sinfulness of Man. The biblical concept of Election is explained as not being conditioned on me. The concept of the Atonement is that Christ's death actually pays for every sin the Elect have or will commit. Given the condition of Man in sin and the election of individuals on the basis of God's choice rather than something in the person, it is important to understand that God's call can override human inability to respond. And, after receiving such a marvelous salvation, you have to wonder whether and how such a salvation can be maintained, and the principle of God's perseverance for the saints answers that dilemma.

These are all fine and dandy. I can show you where I get them; not from some clever writings of John Calvin or subsequent folk, but from the pages of my Bible. I can demonstrate how they fit together in the texts, the contexts, and in the whole assembly of God's Word. It just fits.

But, that's primarily "doctrine," a bad word for some and somewhat remote for others. That is, "So what?" Accepting that this is all true from the pages of God's Word, what does that give me? I have to say that the outcome is wonderful.

Listing them in the TULIP order, here is what I get out of it.

1. A clear and practical picture of the true nature of Man.
2. An overwhelming realization of the immensity of God's grace in choosing me.
3. The complete certainty that Christ's death satisfied God's just demands for the payment of my sins.
4. A genuine gratitude that God would not let my fallen condition prevent Him from saving me.
5. The amazing peace from the confidence in God's pledge that guarantees that my salvation doesn't rest on my good works to be kept intact.

There is one other point here. One of the fundamental concepts of the whole "Reformed Theology"/"Calvinism" thing is the principle of God's Sovereignty. And that, dear reader, is the best. In that principle, overarching (or underlying) all, I get the peace that passes understanding granted by the realization that God really is in control, that He does what He pleases, that no one can stay His hand and that all He does is good.

We may disagree on this point or that. We may dislike "Calvinism" as a term or as a connection to some guy hundreds of years ago. We may differ over points or precision. We may agree that all we see and hear from "Calvinists" is not necessarily good stuff. Sure. But given the solid foundation of the principles in the Word and the overwhelming peace and joy they bring, would you really want to ask me to toss them out? That would just seem unkind.

The "Alones" that are not Alone

October 31, 2017, marks the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. On this date in history an obscure Roman Catholic monk posted his famous "95 Theses", a simple request for a debate on some topics. It marks the beginning of the effort to return the Church to its original condition. The Reformation was not "trying to make the Church better"; it was trying to return the Church to its origins.

There are five basic statements that make up the core of the problems that the Reformers were addressing. They have become known as "the Five Solas", where "sola" is Latin for "alone". (We could call them the "five alones", but that just doesn't sound as cool.) These five "alones" were sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. In English, it is Scripture alone, the claim that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and the doctrine that all glory goes to God alone.

You have to admit that, in spite of the fact that we're talking about a lot of "alones", these can be quite confusing. I mean, if we're saved by grace alone through faith alone ... then neither is alone, are they? This "alone" function, then, becomes problematic in discussions. So what is critical for our understanding of these Five Solas is that we understand what they meant by "alone" ... because they did not mean "utterly alone".

The first problem with Roman Catholic theology to the Reformers was their three-sided authority structure. Roman Catholicism holds that authority in regards to what we believe and how we are to practice what we believe is in Scripture, in Holy Traditions, and in the Church. The Reformers argued that the sole authority is God Himself, and that His Word perfectly and sufficiently transmits His teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17) So Scripture alone is the authority apart from the Traditions or Church. That "apart from" was the intent of sola scriptura. It was not that there are no other sources for truth, authority in life, etc.

The Roman Catholic theology really liked (and still does) the concept of merit. They have condign merit (the merit of Christ) and congruent merit (where we begin to earn our own merit) and the Treasury of Merit (where those who have had more merit than they needed have stored merit for those who have not). Lots and lots of merit. It was the idea behind Luther's biggest complaint in his 95 Theses -- the sale of "indulgences" where people could buy merit to get themselves or others out of Purgatory. So sola gratia claimed that saving grace was apart from merit. While "grace" (Greek: charis) simply means "favor" and it is certainly reasonable to favor those who merit your favor, but Paul is abundantly clear that the grace of God that saves is apart from merit (Rom 11:5; Eph 2:8-9). That "apart from" was the intent of sola gratia.

The Roman Catholic Church would absolutely nod and agree with the assertion that we are saved by grace through faith, but when you pin them down, it turns out that it is "grace through faith plus." That "plus" is works. They hold that we receive grace from God and that grace becomes works as part of faith. However, they hold that, having received that grace and exercised that faith, it is required that we work to maintain our salvation. The Reformers argued for what they termed "imputation" -- the righteousness of Christ imputed to the life of the believer so that once and for all the believer is now seen by God as the righteousness of Christ. Sola fide was intended, then, to separate (as Paul does) salvation from works. The Roman Catholic doctrine argued that works augmented our justification -- improving it, maintaining it, sustaining it. Sola fide intended that faith apart from works was what was required. It was not a claim that works were no longer significant or required; it was that they weren't required for justification.

The Roman Catholic Church taught that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, but they understood it quite differently. The regenerate (They believe in baptismal regeneration.) received the merit of Christ which produced in them the ability to produce more merit. They taught that the Church was the access point to God, that there was multiple what they called "mediators" (or, in the case of Mary, the "mediatrix", "mediatrices") -- that is, the Pope, the priests, and the saints. "Not so!" the Reformers cried. They argued that Christ alone was the mediator between God and Man (1 Tim 2:5; John 14:6; Heb 7:25; 1 John 2:1). But if we are saved by grace apart from merit through faith apart from works, where does that come from? Solus Christus was aimed at removing all other mediators, leaving Christ alone as the entry point for Man to God, giving us direct access through Christ. It spoke of the exclusivity and sufficiency of Christ. He declared Himself the only way, as He was God's only Son, nullifying all other ways. His sacrifice on our behalf was sufficient -- "It is finished" (John 19:30). As our sole source of merit, His work as God the Son, in His life, in His death, and in His resurrection was sufficient alone to reconcile us to God apart from other mediators, other methods, or other systems.

If you pile up all the "complaints", the issues that the Reformers had with the Roman Catholic Church, you'll find a common thread. They argued that the Church was amassing glory for itself. The Pope was on equal footing with God. The Church was the primary authority, even preventing the laity from reading Scripture. The Church forgave sin, determined merit, distributed merit, handed down salvation, and ultimately arbitrated everything having to do with Christian doctrine and practice. The Reformers, then, declared in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church that God and God alone was due glory (Psa 115:1; 1 Cor 10:31; Isa 43:7). And, let's be honest. Amassing glory for ourselves is something we all do. Even in our salvation. "He did it for me!" We do, absolutely, reap the benefit, but the bottom-line truth is that He did it for His glory (Rom 11:36; Col 1:16) ... all of it.

The point of the Reformation was to re-form the Church back to what Christ had instituted and God had made. The "Five Solas" were shorthand for the specific abuses they saw being perpetrated on biblical Christianity in their day. In this, then, neither the men of the Reformation nor the "Five Solas" -- the language of the Reformation -- were the key issue. At issue was the Gospel, which is Christ Himself. Anything else, Paul says, is a distortion and not another Gospel (Gal 1:6-9). We have God as our sole authority in matters of faith and practice and He has given us His Word as His written source. We are saved by grace apart from merit through faith apart from works in Christ apart from any other mediator or method to the glory of God and no other. That's it ... the Gospel. When you hear of the celebration of the Reformation, keep that in mind. It is a celebration of the Gospel ... soli Deo Gloria.

Postscript
I filed this under the "Reformed Theology" label because, after all, it's about the theology of the Reformation. I would hope that all believers in biblical Christianity would find it to be biblical and agreeable unlike many other of the "Reformed Theology" topics. I don't think I wrote anything here that all non-Catholics would disagree with.

Just Sharing

I've never hidden the fact that I'm convinced, for biblical reasons, that reformed theology is true. (Don't worry. This isn't an argument for reformed theology.) Of course, while many things -- the Trinity, birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, the authority of Scripture, salvation by grace through faith, etc. -- are things that all true Christians agree on, reformed theology isn't one of them.

It's a shame, too. I mean, I'm not really interested in debating the subject. I've offered clear biblical reasons for my conclusions. I've offered reasons why it's important to me, too. But I don't believe that if you don't agree you're not a true Christian, so I'm not willing to do battle over it. But it's a shame because it's so marvelous to me, and I really wish I could share it rather than debate it. I wish this was a place where I could share the wonders of God's Sovereignty (1 Tim 6:15; Psa 115:3; Psa 135:60; Prov 16:9; Prov 19:21) and His irresistible grace (John 6:35-36; Rom 8:29-30), the marvel that He would preserve His own, His choice to save some without something worthwhile in them (Rom 9:11,16), His unilateral regeneration (John 3:3; 1 John 5:1) to new life and the gifts of repentance (2 Tim 2:25) and faith (Phil 1:29), and so much more. I only wish.

There are those who will tell me that I'm not even a Christian with beliefs like these. Others assure me I'm following Man's teaching (and will likely provide a name for the man they have in mind). I've been tricked and confused. And I suppose I'd go along, except that I find it inescapably clear in Scripture, the only line of biblical reasoning that makes sense to me. I didn't pick it up from John Calvin or Augustine or some other teacher. I'm convinced by Scripture. Beyond that, I find the truths of these positions amazing, magnifying God. So I wish I could just share them with others and enjoy them with others. "Isn't this stuff wonderful?" "Yes, yes it is. Oh, did you notice this, too?" I'd love that. Too bad it has to be a conflict. I don't want it to be.

No Man Can

I have claimed on more than one occasion that the nature of the unregenerate Man (Natural Man) lacks the ability in himself to choose God. Understandably, I suppose, I am consequently ordered, "Show me where it says no one can choose to follow God." So let's see what the Bible says on the subject.

First, look what Jesus says to His disciples. "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you ..." (John 15:16). Well, now, that's interesting, isn't it? I mean, aren't we the ones that choose Him? So how would Jesus make such a claim? But He did, so we know it's true. But ... okay ... this has no bearing on whether or not we can choose. So let's dig deeper.

As it happens, the text that says "No man can choose to follow God; no, not one" is found in my favorite book of the Bible -- Hezekiah. Right there in Hezekiah 5:8. Okay, no, that text doesn't exist. But we aren't going to settle for "The precise words don't exist, so the statement isn't true," are we? Because "God is three in one" and other essentials of the faith are not stated explicitly in the Bible. They are, nonetheless, there. So can we find my assertion there, too?

First, we actually can find biblical claims limiting natural human ability. We find, for instance, that no man can come to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). That is a universal negative -- "No man can." And if the exception -- "the Father draws him" -- exists in all cases, the statement is meaningless. That is, if the statement is to have any meaning at all, there must be some who cannot. To put it another way, that there are some who can come to Christ is the exception, not the rule^[1]. Another biblical "cannot" is found at the end of the same chapter. Explaining why it is that some do not believe, Jesus says, "There are some of you who do not believe ... This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:64-65). There it is again -- that universal negative, "No man can." Again, if the text is to have any meaning, there must be some -- many -- who cannot come to Christ because it is not granted them by the Father. "No man can." So the Scriptures do comment on the ability -- the lack of ability -- of Man to do what he ought.

Note, by the way, that "Come to Christ" is not a recommendation; it is a command. The lack of ability is by no means an excuse. And that there is a lack of ability has just been established.

That was biblical text. Now let's look at biblical logic. What is required to choose something? First, there must be an inclination. You can't choose something toward which you have no inclination. If you are terrified by heights, climbing a tall ladder is outside of your ability to choose because it violates your natural inclinations. Second, there must be ability. Choosing to do that which you cannot do will not result in doing that which you cannot do. You can't choose, as a example, to climb that ladder if you have no arms and no legs. That's a different kind of "cannot", but it is an impossibility. Choose all day long; you won't climb. So you require both the inclination (the will) and the ability (the power). Does the Bible talk about these? In fact, it does. Here's what the Bible says about our natural inclinations.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen 6:5).

"The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21).

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:7-8)^[2].

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience -- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind (Eph 2:1-3).

There's a sampling of the biblical expressions of human inclinations. "Only evil continually", "evil from his youth", "hostile to God", "dead in sin" -- these are the types of descriptions of Natural Man in Scripture^[3]. The inclination, then, required to choose God would appear to be lacking in the Natural Man. To do so would require that the continually evil inclination that occurs from childhood and the natural hostility toward God that is part of the flesh and the spiritually dead condition in which we find ourselves as born sinners would have to change. Without that change, Paul says,

The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14).

And, once again, we have that "not able", that "cannot". A lack of ability. What, in this case, is the missing element that would enable the choice? It is spiritual discernment. And it is not available to Natural Man.

Contrary to this, in the regenerated we find that "It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13). See that? In this case, the two necessities for making the proper choices are provided. God works in the believer to have both the will and the ability. This constitutes a change in Natural Man.

It would appear, then, both from the explicit texts that say that there is a universal negative -- "no man can" -- unless there is a particular exception made as well as the biblical logic based on the conditions required to make the proper choice versus the condition of Natural Man that the unregenerate human lacks the necessary conditions to choose God.

There are a couple more items that need to be said before concluding here. First, note that I did not suggest that Natural Man lacks the ability to choose God. The Bible doesn't suggest that he is prevented from choosing God. The Bible says that he cannot because he will not. It would violate his own nature. What is required is a change of nature. So I don't think the Bible is saying that Man lacks the ability to make the choice, but the will.

The other issue is the claim that "God commands us to choose, so we must have the ability to do so." This is a problem. It is a problem of language. You see, verbs (like "choose") have "moods". In New Testament Greek, there are four moods: 1) Indicative (certainty), 2) Subjunctive (probability), 3) Optative (possibility), and 4) Imperative (command). A command (imperative) is not an indication of a possibility, but an indication of a command. "You must do X" is simply a statement of what you must do without any indication of whether or not it is certain, probable, or possible. This is standard English. A biblical example of an imperative is in Paul's "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12). That is a command. It doesn't say that you can or will, but that you must. Indeed, he explains the apparently impossible command in the next verse by telling us that it is God who does the work in us (which indicates that we do not have the inherent ability to carry out the command). The famous and beloved, "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16) is an indicative, telling about the method of God's love for whoever believes, but not about who that "whoever" will be. It does not say nor does it require "everybody can" to be a truthful, indicative statement. The command to "choose" does not require the ability to choose. Further, as I said, the Bible does not indicate an incapacity, but an unwillingness. So the "It's not fair of God to command something we can't do" doesn't quite work when the only thing preventing the unregenerate is himself.

The biblical description isn't actually that we cannot, but that we will not. Because to choose to follow Christ would violate the nature of the Natural Man, he cannot because he will not make that choice. That appears (at least to me and many others) to be the biblical position.
________

^[1] Please note: Included in that text is the certainty that those whom the Father draws will come to Him because Jesus concludes, "And I will raise him up on the last day." No question.

^[2] Paul goes on to say what determines the difference between "the mind that is set on the flesh" and the mind set on the Spirit in the next verse: "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you" (Rom 8:9). Thus, the difference between the mind set on the flesh and the mind set on the Spirit is not a matter of choice or effort, but the indwelling of the Spirit.

^[3] See also Isa 64:6; Jer 17:9; Jer 13:23; Matt 7:17-18; John 3:3; John 6:63; Rom 3:10-11; Rom 6:17-18; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 4:17-18.

Agreeing with the Enemy

I have heard a lot of debates lately between Calvinists and ... non-Calvinists. (Technically, like "Catholic" and "Protestant", you are one or the other. You either agree with Roman Catholicism or you protest them. You either agree with the particular five points in the Calvinist view or you do not. "Arminian" was simply defined as "We disagree with Calvin on these five points." If you disagree on them, that's "Arminian". But, hey, I get that we don't like to use those terms.) Something that has struck me listening to these dialogues has been the number of times that non-Calvinists have hurled accusations at Calvinists that, as it turns out, I agree with.

God doesn't force people to come to Him.

Being of the Reformed view, I agree with this statement. It is offered so often as a diatribe against my theology, and I just nod and agree. The notion is not that God drags some, kicking and screaming, into the Kingdom. Nor does He stand before some, pleading to get in, preventing them. The idea is that those whom God will save are given a heart of flesh in place of their heart of stone (Ezek 11:19), a new spirit (Ezek 36:26). From this new heart these people choose freely of their own will to come to Christ in faith and repentance. No force. No coercion. It is simply a removal of the part of Natural Man that blocks this option.

God doesn't program people to sin.

I've actually heard this very phrase in opposition to Reformed theology. I've actually agreed wholeheartedly. God does not program people to sin. Good! We're in agreement. Of course, they'll wag their finger and say, "Now you're being evasive! Don't you believe that God ordains all that comes to pass, even sin?" And I would have to agree with that. But is it necessary, in ordaining all that comes to pass, that God actively cause it? I believe He ordains all that comes to pass, but I don't think that requires in any sense a direct causal relationship to all that comes to pass.

God is not the author of sin.

It is argued that if God ordains all that comes to pass, including sin, then that makes God the author of sin. To which I would enthusiastically agree that God is not the author of sin. "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts no one" (James 1:13). Agreed! But if God knows that you will sin tomorrow and if He has the ability to change that (Gen 20:6) and if He does not, then can it be truly said that He did not ordain it without having caused it? And, as such, wouldn't you still bear the responsibility for your sin even though God allowed it and even "meant it for good" (Gen 50:20)?

Humans have free will.

I find this one interesting. Interesting because I agree that humans have free will. And so we're in agreement, right? Except that the nature of this "free will" turns out to be in question. Is it "Libertarian" -- humans can do whatever they want (which, to me, is manifest nonsense)? If God knows all that will occur and knows it rightly, do humans (who will surely choose to do all that God knows they will choose to do) have free will? I say that a choice that is not coerced, even if it is foreknown and even predestined (without, remember, causing it) is still free since nothing outside of the chooser caused the choice. So I agree that humans have free will. (And I agree that the Bible teaches that we must choose Christ.)

I don't know. With all that agreement, perhaps "enemy" isn't a good term.

Cause and Effect

Much of the debate about Election is about cause and effect. Reformed types even use the term "effectual cause" when claiming that God causes individuals to come to Him. The opposition says, "No, no, God doesn't cause it. He simply influences it." And they'll suggest that God draws or woos or urges or calls -- all things outside the person -- but that the person is the cause. But, oh, no, that is not what they say. Because now we've walked into a known problem.

You see, if I caused my own salvation, then I have something to boast about. And we all know that this cannot be the case. No one, then, will agree that I cause my own salvation. "It's a gift" they'll say and indicate that there is no room for boasting just because you received a gift.

I've used this illustration before, but it's worth repeating (primarily because it is likely forgotten or readers never heard it before). Imagine a town built at the base of a tall hill. At the top of the hill is a massive boulder. Thus, the town is called Boulder. (No, not Colorado. This is imaginary.) The boulder has never moved, but when geologists examine it they find that a single, small, key stone is wedged in at the bottom and keeps it in place. Interesting, but, well, okay. One day a couple of boys climb the hill as boys are wont to do and are playing around the boulder. One dares the other to grab that little stone, not actually believing that it would make any difference at all. So the dared one deftly snatches the little rock from its position and returns triumphantly. A minute later the boulder rolls down the hillside and crushes everything in its path, creating a swath of destruction. Now, the question. Who caused that boulder to roll down the hill? The town is certainly going to blame the kid. But, given the thinking of the non-Reformed, wouldn't it have to be God? I mean, those kids didn't put that boulder there. They didn't balance it precariously. They didn't wedge the stone in there. They didn't build the hillside or create gravity. No, no, God did 99.99% of the work here. All that kid did was one, little, tiny thing. He removed the stone. Of course, that one thing was the thing that changed the entire set of conditions -- from "town" to "crushed town". But if logic is to be consistent and we can see that God did 99.9% of the work here, shouldn't we exempt those boys from any responsibility?

Consider another illustration. "Pool party!!" I like this one, of course, living in the desert as I do. A fellow lives in the big house in the middle of his community. He loves his neighbors, so he has a brand new pool put into his backyard big enough to include everyone. He arranges the best possible pool party of all time. He goes door to door handing out flyers, meeting and greeting, inviting each and every person to come to his house for a pool party. Everything is paid for. Everything is provided. Just come! He is a little disappointed, then, when so many don't show up on the day of the party. So, who determined who would show up? Was it the fellow with the pool? Was it the guy in the big house who paid for everything and arranged for everything and invited everybody? Or was it the individuals in the community? Who made the final determination of who would get wet that day? The pool owner decreed that there would be a pool that would have people in it. Who decreed who would be in it?

Another Arizona example would be a firearm. I buy a gun. I load the weapon. I cock the weapon. I take the safety off the weapon. I put the weapon in your hands and point down the gun range at the target. You shoot the target. What determines whether that gun went off? I did all the work. All you did was point and pull. So where does the credit for shooting the target lie? Is it me who did all the work, or is it you who pulled the trigger? And to whom would the blame go if that weapon, prepared as it was by me, was used to do something illegal? You or me?

The constant claim by all sides is a sound, "We have nothing to boast about." No one will claim that our salvation is by our doing. It is "all of God." Right claim. I just can't figure out how, if I determine if I get saved and my choice determines that I am "in" or "out" it can be said that I and not God is the final determination.

God or Man?

In the debates between those who agree with the Scriptures that say that Man is dead in sin, inclined only to evil, hostile to God, unable to understand the things of God and, as such, must be first regenerated (born again), gifted with faith and granted repentance, and then come to Christ and those who believe that Man is not entirely dead, inclined only to evil, not so hostile to God that he can't respond, and not completely unable to understand the things of God and, therefore, is perfectly capable of generating his own faith and repentance to which God responds with new birth, it seems to me that both sides face ... issues. I tend to think of the difference as a conflict between the Sovereignty of God and Man's Free Will -- which will win? Others, of course, disagree. But it does seem to me that the real, core difference in the two is a God-based view over a Man-based view. Here, compare a couple of items between the two perspectives.

Reformed: Christ gave His life for His sheep. Whosoever comes to Him will be saved, but we know that unless God does a specific work in a person, no one will come. In this sense, then, Christ's atonement covers the Elect. Christ's death and resurrection actually procured salvation for those Elect.

Arminian: God wants to save everyone. Christ died to make Atonement for the sins of the world -- all sins. The free offer is for everyone and anyone at all is able to come to Christ to be saved.

As it turns out, both of these will run into difficulties that have to be addressed. You likely think that the one with which you disagree will have a problem, but it's not true. Both need to address some serious questions.

The Reformed Problem:
Is it a real offer if you say, "Whosoever will may come and receive salvation" and know that not everyone can? Doesn't Scripture say that He desires that all men repent and come to the knowledge of the truth?

The Arminian Problem:
God wants to save everyone ... but doesn't. Is it an inability or a refusal? We agree that "Whosoever will may come", but if everyone can, how does that align with all the Scriptures that say the opposite? If God desires the salvation of everyone and doesn't accomplish it, in what sense can it be said that "He works all things after the counsel of His will" or "He does whatever He pleases"?

And those are just a couple of examples of 1) the positions both sides take and 2) the problems they face. Now, I know how I answer the problems raised against my understanding of Scripture, but I don't know how the other side does. What I do see is that it appears to be an issue of God or Man. Here, let me explain.

From the Reformed point of view, God is Sovereign. Absolutely, completely, without doubt or exception. Man does indeed make choices without coercion, but only those that God allows and what He allows He does for His purposes. This includes salvation. Man doesn't decide if he will be saved; God does. He chooses whom He will save and certainly accomplishes it. That's the Reformed view. From the non-Reformed perspective (I choose that terminology because many, if not most, who disagree won't classify themselves as "Arminians"), God is sovereign, but we are constantly surrounded and involved in things that God didn't ordain. This may include natural disasters, disease, birth defects, and the like, but it certainly includes Man's Free Will. Man chooses whatever he chooses and God either works with it or works around it. "Redeems it" is the phrase some use. He takes something He never wanted to happen at all and figures out something good to use it for. He takes Man's Free Will lemons and makes lemonade, so to speak. Most importantly, though, is that God wants to save everyone but cannot because the salvation of any individual is predicated on his Free Will choice. A blanket salvation is laid out for everyone and you decide whether or not you will take it up.

Notice the direction of each view, then. One assumes a "God" direction, starting with His Sovereignty in everything and bringing it all the way down into who does and does not get saved. The other assumes a "Man" direction, starting with Man's Free Will as the primary deciding factor in what occurs and bringing God in to pick up the pieces -- to "redeem" our choices.

So which is it? I believe that the Bible is clear that we make choices. We are all agreed on that. But I believe further that the Bible is clear that, behind everything, God is Sovereign. He does whatever He pleases. He prevented Abimelech from sinning (Gen 20:6) and intended for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery to save many (Gen 50:20). He opened the heart of Lydia to respond to Paul's words (Acts 16:14) and "works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13). )If He is at work in you to will to do His good pleasure, is He not intervening in your will?)

The other side argues that Man's Free Will is paramount. "God doesn't want robots" is the catchphrase. The question remains. If God knew from the beginning of creation that Adam and the rest of us would sin, has the ability to prevent it (like He did with Abimelech), and still made everything and allowed the sin, what does that tell us about God? If "love" means obtaining what is best for the loved one, God loves everyone equally, and God fails to save every single person, how does He "love everyone equally"? Is He not able to save? Is He stuck, like parents today who say, "My little Johnny felt like he was a she, so we renamed him Joanie and let him be a girl; what's a loving parent to do?" Bottom line, if God offers a blanket salvation for all humans and Man's Free Will determines if I get saved or not, isn't Man the final authority on salvation? How is that Sovereign (Eph 1:11), doing "as He pleases" (Psa 115:3; 135:6), or even loving?

Here's the clearest example I can think of for how one side comes at it from God and the other from Man. Reformed theology holds that each individual that comes to Christ does so by God's prior election, that He predestines each one to salvation and brings it about. The other side argues invariably that the predestination is corporate. What they say is "God never predestines individuals to salvation. He simply predestined that there would be a body of believers." So, one side says that God chooses who will be saved and, in doing so, builds a body of believers (because both sides agree that there is a corporate "Body of Christ") and the other side says that God makes the setting for such a body but who is in that body is determined how? ... by the individual. One side says God chooses and the other says God does not, but Man does. That's what I'm talking about.

Please note: I don't offer these by way of tirade or assault. I don't understand. I see an issue here that I have not seen addressed. Is God Sovereign or has He surrendered that to Man's Free Will? Are we to approach these questions from God or from Man? Is Man the ultimate determiner of the outcome of salvation for the individual? These questions and more float around out there and I'm not getting it. I don't ask them as an enemy. I ask them as a confused observer. Because I'm not getting it.

I Object!

Preface: I've written this intentionally in a lighthearted way. I mean it largely as fun. It contains serious thoughts and all, but I'm not looking for an argument, a fight, or even a disagreement. Or even a conversation. I'm just asking people to think and I'm trying to do it in a fun way. If you are disturbed by this or riled by this or outraged by this, please feel free not to read it. None of those are intended here.
________

A belief system in Christianity that is currently in vogue (believe it or not) is "Calvinism". Yes, that's right. The counter-Calvinist (whatever contrary label you wish to apply) view has reigned supreme for quite some time and now this old/new view is rising. Time Magazine, the bastion of Reformed Theology (not) had a piece a few years back about "The New Calvinism" listed among the "10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now". Why? Why the rise in this belief system? Well, it's primarily because it makes sense. I mean, despite the term "Calvinism" applied to it, the justification comes from Scripture. Even its detractors admit that it's a well-thought-out view, rational, even complete (even if they say it's wrong). So it seems to be working today.

Of course, any belief system will have its detractors and this is no exception. Just as there is no shortage of poor representatives and false followers, there is no shortage of objectors. Please pick up a Complaints Form at your local "non-Calvinist" church or website and check off your favorite challenge to Calvinism. One of the top-of-the-list, absolutely-most-common, popular objections to the "Doctrines of Grace", "Reformed theology", "Calvinism", or whatever other term you might wish to apply is the objection of "free will". Consider.

The Bible (not Luther, Calvin, Augustine, or whomever) teaches that Natural Man is "dead in sin", "inclined only to evil", "blinded by the god of this world", "not able to understand the things of God", "hostile to God" ... oh, you've seen this kind of stuff before. (Let me know if you need the biblical references.) So those of whatever-you're-going-to-call-this-view (henceforth known as "WYGTCTV" for short) believe that, well, that's the way it is. Sinful Man without divine intervention will not choose God. To do so would violate his/her nature. It's not that the ability is absent; it's that the will is lacking. It's not that he/she cannot choose to fly because he/she lacks the wings. It's that his/her nature prevents it. The will won't. This belief is listed in the flower guide (TULIP) as "Total Depravity", an unfortunate shortcut term for the fact that humans are sinful at their core (something that every genuine Christian who has examined Scripture at all agrees on). It leads naturally to God choosing whom to save based not on Man's ability to choose God, but on God's choice ("Unconditional Election"). Which leads naturally to God (the Trinity, actually) carrying out the necessary procedure to save those whom God chose ("Limited Atonement"). Which leads naturally to the question of how God would bring about the salvation of a person who fits the description above -- apart from their own inability to favor God with their choice ("Irresistible Grace"). And, of course, given that all of this is the work of God, the natural conclusion is that God's work can't fail ("Perseverance of the Saints"). Shorthand. Please don't pick the TULIPs, because they are a very poor representation of the real ideas.

So with that construction, you can see that human beings have no Free Will, right? And there is no possible way you can read Scripture and conclude that human beings have no Free Will. How many times are we commanded to choose? How can we be commanded to choose if we have no choice? And, besides, doesn't logic dictate that we have Free Will? I mean, if we do not have Free Will, we cannot be held liable for that which we do not choose. So both Scripture and logic compel us to conclude that those doggone WYGTCTVists aren't merely wrong, they're anti-Scripture, anti-reason, and just plain annoying to boot! Burn the heretic! Burn the heretic! No, wait, that's not quite right. But you get the idea.

So what would someone like me, someone who is unfortunately classified as a WYGTCTVist, say to this very clear and coherent objection? Well, I cannot answer for someone like me; I can only answer for me. And my answer would be "Amen!" I do not believe that human beings lack free will. I believe that human beings absolutely have the capacity to make choices. I believe that humans inherently possess the ability to make personal choices without external coercion and not simply as determined by physical or divine forces.

There. That should clear everything up, right? I know that there are some of those dreaded WYGTCTVists that actually deny any existence of anything deemed "free will" with or without my dreaded capital lettering. I think they're wrong. I know there are hyper-Calvinists (because they really don't fall in the WYGTCTVist category) who discard anything resembling the ability to choose in human beings. Hard determinism, it's called. No choice whatsoever. And for those of you opposed to WYGTCTV based on that view, I'm with you. Cannot support it. Right out the window with it. Not possible biblically or logically.

Of course, you'll also see that it doesn't help at all, does it? Because I do believe that humans in their natural condition are "dead in sin", "inclined only to evil", "blinded by the god of this world", "not able to understand the things of God", "hostile to God", and so on. I do believe that "There is none righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Anyone need the reference for that?) So without even arguing for or against "Free Will" (or "free will"), I have to ask in what sense those who object to WYGTCTVism agree with Scripture on these points? I'm not asking you to agree with me ... or Luther or Calvin or Augustine or John Piper or R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur or ... you get the idea. I'm asking how you who disagree align your view with that Scripture. Me? I believe Man has free will (lowercase) and I agree with those passages. I'm asking you to correlate (if only in your own mind) your Free Will view with the very clear passages that put limitations on Man's ability to make this right choice. And you will also need to figure out how "I chose God on my own" doesn't put your salvation outside of unmerited favor (grace). Your move.

The Gospel on Tiptoe

According to the Bible, human beings in their natural condition are in deep trouble. They are described in various places as hostile to God¹, dead in sin², inclined only to evil³, hearts intent on evil from birth⁴, blinded by the god of this world⁵, and actually incapable of accepting the things of God⁶. We call it the "sin nature", and it's everywhere. And it's bad, very bad. Biblically humans are not "basically good" -- they're hopelessly evil⁷.

If the Scriptures are true, what possible hope is there for anyone? I mean, we aren't going to make it. We don't have the means. We don't have the ability. We don't even have the inclination. So what does that leave us?

Well, the Bible is equally clear that 1) God is Sovereign⁸ and 2) His salvation is a gift⁹, not something earned¹⁰. (Whew! Good thing! Because "earned" is not going to work for Natural Man.) God chose¹¹ before the foundation of the world whom He would save¹², who would be His. It was not based on human free will or on human effort¹³. It is not by human birth or work or will, but by God¹⁴. God chooses not on foreseen work or choices, but on His own purpose¹⁵.

In order to accomplish this salvation, God sent His Son¹⁶, Jesus, who laid down His life for His sheep¹⁷. He accomplished the atonement He intended¹⁸. With this act on the part of Father and Son, God would be both just and justifier of those who have faith in Christ¹⁹.

God is still left with a dilemma. Humans are not ready, willing, or able to come to Him. God issues a call, but Natural Man will not respond. Thus, God ensures that those who are called certainly respond²⁰. God makes absolutely certain that everyone He intends to save comes²¹. None are lost²².

That leaves only the outcome to consider. If sinful Man is chosen by God, paid for by Christ, and born of God, so that he cannot be lost, what possible outcome could there be? Well, biblically, He who believes in the Son has eternal life²³. None can be lost²². We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them²³. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God²⁴. What happens? Because it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure²⁵, Jesus loses not one of those whom the Father has given Him²⁵.

Now, I don't know how closely you've been paying attention, but I've laid out a basic, straightforward presentation of the Gospel. I've included a host of references straight from the Word of God. And I've given the standard "5 points of Calvinism", again, with a host of references straight from the Word of God. You may disagree, of course, and that's fine, but don't let anyone tell you that it's "doctrine of men" when the very clear source is Scripture. And maybe, just maybe, you might begin to see those "5 points" in a different light. Okay, perhaps that's overly optimistic. I can dream, can't I?
________
¹ Rom 8:7; ² Eph 2:1-3; ³ Gen 6:5; ⁴ Gen 8:21; ⁵ 2 Cor 4:4; ⁶ 1 Cor 2:14; ⁷ Rom 3:10-18; ⁸ 1 Tim 6:15; ⁹ Eph 2:8; ¹⁰ Rom 11:6; ¹¹ Matt 22:14; ¹² Eph 1:4; ¹³ Rom 9:16; ¹⁴ John 1:13; ¹⁵ Rom 9:11; ¹⁶ 1 John 4:9-10; ¹⁷ John 10:15; ¹⁸ John 19:30; ¹⁹ Rom 3:21-26; ²⁰ Acts 13:48; ²¹ John 6:37; ²² John 10:28-29; ²³ Eph 2:10; ²⁴ 1 John 3:9; ²⁵ John 6:39

The Works of God

I'm leaving this here for awhile just so people don't think something bad happened. Okay, something really bad. In fact, something normal happened. I was wrong. Again.

I inquired of an actual Greek scholar about the meaning of the phrase in the text. He said:

The expression, whether in the plural as in John 6:28 (τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ) or the singular as in 6:29 (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ), is an idiom that bears the sense, "the works God requires" (pl.) or "the work God requires" (sg.). So, when Jesus says, "This is the work of God," he is saying, "This is the work God requires, that you believe in the one whom he sent."

Live and learn. Now you know.

Jacob I Loved

I heard a preacher the other day speaking on Malachi. He came to the passage in the first chapter that says, "'Was not Esau Jacob's brother?' declares the LORD. 'Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation, and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness'" (Mal 1:2-3). The preacher went on to say that this passage is echoed in Paul's epistle to the Romans, so it was important to be clear what God was saying here. "He was talking not about individuals, but about groups. He was talking about the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom." And, of course, this is the popular contradiction to seeing Romans 9 as an abundantly clear presentation of the doctrine of Election.

Well, I thought about it. And I had a couple of questions.

The first question was regarding the general referencing of Old Testament passages in the New Testament. As an example, Isaiah speaks of a virgin (or maybe even a "maiden" as if that makes a difference) who will give birth. Matthew says that prophecy was fulfilled in the Virgin Mary's having borne Jesus. Is Matthew's reference the same as Isaiah's? Maybe not. Later Matthew tells how Joseph and Mary spent a couple years in Egypt, fulfilling Hosea's "When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son" (Hos 11:1). Clearly in this example Hosea was referencing something different than Matthew. Hosea was talking about Israel coming out of Egypt and Matthew saw it as a prophecy. This may sound like an error or a contradiction, but given the inspiration of the Spirit, there is no reason that both could not be true. The point, then, is that not all Old Testament references in the New Testament necessarily rely on their Old Testament contexts. So if the Malachi reference is in terms of Israel and Edom, why could it still not be in terms of Jacob and Esau as individuals when Paul uses it?

The second question, though, struck me as I looked at the passage itself. Note that God indeed is talking about Israel and Edom. No question. Still, He speaks first in terms of individuals. I say "first" because He seems to start with individuals (Jacob and Esau) and move on from there. He starts with Esau but then expands "I have hated Esau" to include "and ... his inheritance". The question, then, is this. When God said, "I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau", did He mean "Oh, I don't mean those guys as individuals, but the nations they spawned" or did He mean "I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I carried that on to their offspring"?

It would seem to me that given the fact that the New Testament relies more on the inspiration of the Spirit than formulaic hermeneutical principles when it references the Old Testament, and that God seemed to begin with individuals as He carried out His warnings to Edom that it is entirely possible and even likely that Paul's reference in Romans 9 is indeed a reference to individual election and not some nebulous "group election" concept.

Elect According to Foreknowledge

"Come on, guys," some have suggested, "this just isn't that hard. Look, Peter clearly said that we 'are elect ... according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.' It was Paul who said, 'Those whom he foreknew he also predestined ...' This isn't rocket science. God is omniscient. He knows everything that will occur. Looking down the corridors of time, He saw who would choose Him and then, from the beginning of time, chose them. There you go! Election and Free Will. It's just not that hard!" And there are some very bright, respectable believers who go with that. It's quite popular. I should know -- I used to believe that, too.

Let's think that through for a moment. What does it take to "choose Him"? What does it take to become one of the saved? Well, there are three basic ingredients that all of us agree about. It requires coming to Christ in faith and repentance. Slower. It requires 1) coming to Christ in 2) faith and 3) repentance. Not that hard, really, and we're all on the same page! Doesn't get much better than this, right?

Hold on. (You knew that was coming, I'm sure.) Where do these three components come from? The Bible is not silent on this. According to Scripture, believing is a gift from God. It doesn't come out of our own efforts. It's given to us. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, we're just not up to the task of placing our full confidence in Him as long as we're dead in sin. So He grants it. Jesus said it (John 6:65). Paul said it (Phil 1:29). It is, despite our preference to the contrary, a repeated concept in the Bible. Oddly enough, so is repentance. Paul told Timothy to keep on "correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). Note that repentance is granted by God, and note especially that He may grant it ... or He may not. The Jewish Christians thought that the Gentiles were not going to get salvation until Peter told them about his experience with Cornelius. They responded, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18). As for coming to Christ in the first place, Jesus said categorically, "No man can." Thanks be to God that He didn't end His sentence there. "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 6:44). Now if it's a given that the Father draws everyone, then we have two things to consider. First, why make the statement? It would be like saying, "No man can walk unless he has bones." But ... we all do have bones, so what's your point? Worse, according to Jesus, those whom the Father draws will be raised up on the last day. So if this is a universal drawing, you've just subscribed to Universalism.

As it turns out, salvation is quite simple. It requires only three components. And from there it gets even easier. We don't drum up those three parts; God gives them to us. How nice!

So, back to the original concept. Here's the suggestion. God will give to the elect the necessary pieces to be saved. Knowing that they will then come to Him (because He drew them) in faith and repentance (because He gave these to them), He will choose them. Well ... I suppose so ... if that's how you wish to phrase it. Seems a little odd to me. It would be like a team captain thinking, "I'm going to give this kickball to Timmy and then, because he's holding the kickball, I'm going to choose him for my team." Did Timmy get chosen because he was holding the kickball? Well, yes, but it wasn't Timmy's "free will" that got him there, now, was it?

One other thought here on the foreknowledge according to which God elects to save. The word is simple in Greek -- prognosis. (Yes, the forefather of our modern "prognosis".) It's a two part word with "pro" meaning "before" and "gnosis" meaning "know". And if it were a simple English translation we'd be done. But it isn't. You see, there is a fundamental difference between "knowing" facts and "knowing" people. Surely, even when I say it in our own English vernacular you see a difference between the two. When Jesus told the false prophets, "I never knew you; depart from Me", He was not telling them "I have no knowledge of you." He was not suggesting ignorance. No, when used in terms of people, there is more than being cognizant of; there is familiarity. When Adam knew his wife, it wasn't an "Aha!" moment. It was intimacy. And when the Bible talks about God knowing us, it would be redundant to speak of an omniscient being who knows us. No, when the Bible talks about God knowing us -- as in prognosis -- it is not "prescience", but familiarity, friendship, intimacy, connection ... in advance in the case of prognosis.

Are we chosen on the basis of His foreknowledge? Absolutely! But that doesn't mean that we're chosen because He saw in advance what we would do. It means that before we existed He had laid His affection on us and determined to provide for us all that would be required to be saved. He didn't do it because of our lovable nature. He did it in order that His purpose of election might continue (Rom 9:11). We weren't just so adorable He couldn't help Himself. In fact, He chose the losers, the foolish, the ones who wouldn't have any room to say, "He chose me because I'm so valuable." It's grace alone. Yes, it's His foreknowledge, but it's His prior love and awareness of what He would do. Yes, it really is all about Him.

Prevalence of Election

Sometimes when I discuss the doctrines of grace with people, they get agitated. They want to fight about it. I'm not interested, thanks. Enjoy together? Absolutely! Discuss? By all means! Fight? Not likely. The other option -- perhaps the more common one -- is the avoidance one. "Look, that whole 'election' thing is just minor. They couldn't figure it out in Church history. Why should we? It's no big deal."

I understand. They don't want to fight about it, either. I'm with you there. But I think that the suggestion that it's a minor point is shortsighted.

First, keep in mind that the notion of "the Chosen" was not a side issue or obscure up to the point that the Church began. It was ingrained in the mind of all Jews that they were the Chosen. "Never forget!" they would remind each other. Their lifestyles were prescribed to be a constant reminder. Ask a Jew in the 1st century AD, "Do you believe in election?" and they wouldn't offer a single objection. "Of course!" So solid was this that there had to be multiple statements from Jesus and the New Testament writers to assure the Jews that they were not the only ones. Jesus spoke of "sheep not of this fold." Paul wrote that in Christ there was neither Jew nor Greek. God had to give Peter a vision to shake his certainty that the Jews were the only chosen people. No, while they may have questioned whether there were elect among the Gentiles, there was absolutely no doubt that the early Jewish believers didn't even question the doctrine that God chose some out of the world to be His own, and the rest were not chosen.

But what about the New Testament? Sure, the Jews got it, but how big was this deal in the New Testament? A quick search is really enlightening.

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called ... to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:1,6).

Paul ... to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, (1 Cor 1:1-2).

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the church of God (2 Cor 1:1).
(Note: Keep this in mind. The term, "the church", is literally "the called out ones".)

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, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will (Eph 1:3-5).

Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. We give thanks to God always for all of you ... knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you (1 Thess 1:1,4).

Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago (Titus 1:1-2).

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure (1 Peter 1:1-2).

The elder to the chosen lady and her children (2 John 1:1).

Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ (Jude 1:1).

The fact is that it's harder to find a single epistle in the New Testament that does not mention election than one that does. It isn't a fringe item; it is central. It isn't even a matter of discussion for the most part. No, it is assumed over and over and over. "God choose whom He will save. They are indeed saved. End of discussion. We all agree. Moving on." And all of that is without examining the passages that provide the arguments for the doctrine or all of the passages that are not at the beginning of an epistle that mention the doctrine or the claims of the Gospel that affirm it as well.

Election is not a doctrine in question in Scripture. Nor is it peripheral. It is a central theme, an assumed fact from Old Testament on, a virtual certainty. Oh, sure, we can find the passages that argue it, but most of the time it is thought to be a given. It seems like today's Christians who are relatively sure that this isn't the case need to do a lot of work to get there because the doctrine is foundational in the Bible.

Ears to Hear

It's somewhat of a funny phrase that Jesus uses more than once in His ministry. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." What did He mean? Well, it could have meant that some people were born without ears, so He was only addressing those who had physical ears. No, that didn't make any sense. No one really thinks that. So it must mean spiritual ears. When His disciples asked Him why He taught in parables, His answer was interesting. "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted" (Matt 13:11). While we tend to think that Jesus came to be as clear as He possibly could, it appears that Jesus had other ideas. More than that, it appears that He spoke in parables to intentionally hide "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" from those who were not His disciples.

So we get to the "He who has ears to hear" question. There were, from what Jesus said, two categories of people. One category was "having ears" and the other was "not having ears". Now, on the side of the "having ears" category, it was possible to have them but not use them. Jesus was telling those who had them to use them. But what we typically ignore is the other category. Jesus's statement, "He who has ears to hear, let him ear," requires that there be a particular group of people who does not have ears. Or, to go with what Jesus said, we might add, "I'm not telling you who have no ears to hear. I'm only telling those who have ears to hear."

So ... what does it mean that there are some who have no ears? You see, those with ears could listen or not, but those without ears had no option to listen. They could not hear. So who was it that lacked the total capacity to hear? To hear most Christians talk today, the answer is "No one." This requires the conclusion that Jesus was confused. But in Deuteronomy Moses called Israel together and said, "You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders. Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear" (Deut 29:2-4).

Based on this passage, it would be the reasonable conclusion that those who do not have ears to hear -- those who lack the capacity to hear -- would be those whom the Lord has not given eyes and ears. Two important observations, then. 1) There are those who cannot see nor hear in the realm of spiritual things. Oh, they can see the signs and all. It's not hidden from them. They ... just don't get it ... because they don't have "ears". 2) Despite what you might think or like to think, there are those to whom the Lord does not give the capacity to see or hear. That seems to be the intent of Jesus's words and the self-proclamation of God.

Inability

I have claimed (because the Bible uses the term ... often) that Natural Man is unable to respond to God. Jesus uses the phrase "No one can ..." in reference to both coming to Him and believing in Him. Paul says that Natural Man does not respond to the things of God because he cannot. Jesus told the Pharisees that the reason they didn't believe was that they were not His sheep (suggesting that "not His sheep" = "cannot believe"). Over and over there is a "cannot" in Scripture when it comes to Man's ability to come in faith to Christ or even to do good.

The objection to this, of course, would be human responsibility. "If you're saying ..." (No, I'm saying that the Bible is saying it) "... that Man is incapable of responding rightly to God on his own, then in what possible sense could God hold Man responsible for not doing what he was incapable of doing?" Reasonable objection. Let's take a look.

First, I start with a premise that I often start with. It is entirely possible that something is true that I don't get. That is, if God says it's true, I don't have the luxury of saying, "No, it's not" just because I don't get it. With that premise, I start out with the fact that the Bible holds both that Natural Man is intrinsically incapable and that Natural Man is responsible for his failure to do what is required. Technically, I could stop right here. The Bible says it; I'll go with that. Done, thank you very much. But, of course, I don't like to stop there if I can find some more satisfying explanation, so I'll see how much further I can go. But I do start there and would challenge those who deny it not to. It's in there. Denying it simply because you don't understand it will not make it so.

So how is it possible that Man could lack the ability to obey and still be responsible for not obeying? The question is "What kind of inability are we talking about?" In Jonathan Edwards's terms, there is natural inability and moral inability. Natural inability is the pure incapacity to do something. You want to do it, but you can't. This inability would be due to external circumstances. A man with no legs cannot run not because he will not, but because he cannot. You could command him, "Run!", and he would have to ignore you and would not be responsible for failing to obey because he lacked the physical ability. Moral inability is something different. In this version it is not that you are prevented, but that you don't want to obey. A kid in bed early on a cold morning may not obey when you tell him, "Time to get up." It's not because he lacks the physical ability to get out of the bed. It's because he is so enamored with sleep and warmth that his desire for these outweighs his desire to obey. Moral inability occurs at that point -- when one desire prevents another possible desire from being acted upon. You may have heard it in the positive sense. "I could have ignored her pleas for help, but I just couldn't. I had to do something." The language is (rightly) that of coercion, but it is not an external coercion. The desire to help overrode the desire to do something else, and he found himself incapable of failing to help.

This type of inability does not excuse. Failing to obey because my personal desires didn't incline me to obey is not excuse, even if there is certainly a sense of "inability". That is, if I don't want to do something, it would not be "free will" to choose to do it. For me to freely choose to do something, it has to rise to the level of "want to" -- and that over the level of "don't want to" -- before I can do it. And the claim that Natural Man "cannot" do all those things that the Bible does is a claim to moral inability, a lack of inclination, not natural ability -- something preventing the action. Thus, the inability based on disinclination is not an excuse, and humans are still responsible for failing to obey. At least, it makes sense to me.