The Five Points Revisited: for Today

H. Carl Shank The Five Points Revisited Calvinism for Today

Copyright © 2011 by H. Carl Shank ISBN 978-1-257-99779-4

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher. Permission to make reasonable numbers of printed copies of sections for educational or church use is granted as long as due credit is given.

Cover design: H. Carl Shank

First printing 2011

Printed in the of America

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the HOLY , NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.

2 About the Author

In addition to his M.Div. and Th.M. (systematics) work, H. Carl Shank has been a youth, associate, solo, staff and lead pastor in over thirty years of church ministry, pastoring beginning and established congregations in , Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and New York state. His passion for leadership development has resulted in mentoring numerous pastors, teaching in a number of local Bible institutes as well as serving as an adjunct faculty member of The King’s College, and training InterVarsity leaders on the East Coast. Carl has been regularly sought out for his acknowledged gifts of discernment and wisdom in dealing with church issues. He is now serving as the Executive Pastor of Cross Roads Brethren in Christ Church in Mount Joy, PA as well as a church health consultant through ChurchSmart, Inc. out of Chicago. Besides numerous seminars and church related articles, his written contributions include Qoheleth’s World and Life View As Seen in His Recurring Phrases, Westminster Theological Journal, 37 (1974), 57-73, More of Christ, Mack Publishing, 1973, A Faith Journey: Steps of Faith from Here to God, 2009 (www.blurb.com), The Two-Talent Church: Truths for Health and Growth, and Upfront and Indepth: Deeper Devotional Studies on Psalm 119, both self-published in 2010 and available from Amazon and other booksellers. Carl is married to his wonderful wife, Nancy, and has three grown, married children, Stephen, Jeremy and Heidi. He lives in the Marietta, PA area and can be reached for consulting, seminars or leadership development at [email protected] www.carlshankconsulting.com

3 4 Table of Contents

Preface: Do We Need This Book?...... 7 Chapter One: Just Believing the Bible and Other Theological Systems ...... 11 Chapter Two: Calvinism Today ...... 21 Chapter Three: As Bad As It Gets...... 31 Chapter Four: Sovereign Rescue...... 37 Chapter Five: Redemption That Matters...... 43 Chapter Six: Grace That Captures...... 55 Chapter Seven: Perseverance and Preservation...... 59 Chapter Eight: Let God Be God! ...... 69 Postscript: Personal Reflections...... 81

5 6 PREFACE Do We Need This Book?

hy would a pastor in a Wesleyan-Arminian denominational group write a book actually supporting Calvinism? My non- WCalvinist ministry friends, who think I am somewhat “on the edge” anyway, might just respond by saying, “Oh, that’s just Carl. He likes to stir up controversy.” My Calvinist ministry friends might say, “Oh, good! He’s writing for us. He’s back in the fold.” But both of these options miss the real reasons. I am writing for at least three reasons. First, I wish to give “fresh eyes” to the debate that has been currently raging in Southern Baptist and other circles.1 I have been a Reformed Baptist and have ministered in a number of Baptist churches in my ministry years.2 I have also ministered in strictly Presbyterian circles, namely Orthodox Presbyterian churches and groups.3 Presently I am in a non-Reformed setting. So, my wide ranging ministry service has enabled me to both stay clear of internal divisions and struggles in these groups, but also keep a vital Reformed or Calvinistic belief system in my personal life. After all, I am a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) in the years (1970–73 and 1975–79) when non-Presbyterian Calvinistic churches were gaining ground in this country. I therefore bring to the table some freshness to the debate. Second, there is a longing among Generation X and Y younger people for preaching and teaching of the Bible that is deeper and more profound than what they have been hearing in seeker-oriented churches and ministries. My kids are part of those groups desiring

7 more than just hand-me-down sermons from dumbed-down messages following the latest, greatest megachurch pastor or teacher. They grew up in Reformed Baptist and Orthodox Presbyterian circles that demanded a clear salvation by faith experience while imbibing the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Instead of leaving these years confused or dismayed, they have been informed and taught the “faith once for all delivered to the saints.” Others in that age range I have met and ministered to have complained of the vapid, shallow and less-than-satisfying Sunday by Sunday messages they had been hearing. They want more. They want meat not milk, truth not error, depth not skirting around the issues. They are dissatisfied with experience-only Christianity. In response, they now flock to Calvinistic churches, many of them not in the Presbyterian fold, to hear and experience the truth of God’s Word. A third reason is to articulate afresh the salient points that make Calvinism attractive and compelling to so many. It is more than logical analysis that drives people to Calvinism. It is rather a whole Bible, indepth, leaving-no-stone-unturned look at theology and systems and a definite God-centeredness that Calvinism offers. It is a world- and-life viewpoint that modern Christian analysts like George Barna say is desperately lacking from Christianity today.4 This is not an exhaustive book, nor a polemic against my Arminian friends. Nor is this a treatise on systematic theology, though there are many theological points in it. It is rather a personal restating of truths that God has impressed on my heart and mind since my college years. Rather than being weakened by all the different ministries and situations in which I have served, they have been strengthened, deepened and made more real for me by a continual study of God’s Word and interactions with many Christians from a variety of theological backgrounds.

Carl Shank 2011

8 Footnotes PREFACE

1References to the surge of interest in Calvinism, especially in Southern Baptist circles, can be seen in the introductions to the books, Why I Am Not A Calvinist, by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, InterVarsity Press, 2004, and Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism by David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, B & H Publishing Group, 2010. 2Church planter for Reformed Baptists in the 1970s in Wilmington, DE, Salisbury, MD and Baptist itinerant preacher in the mid-Atlantic states. These churches follow the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (Spurgeon type of Calvinism). 3Youth pastor in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Vienna, VA and solo pastor in the same denomination in Schenectady, NY in the 1980s. 4Such a judgment has been made by George Barna at the Barna Group at http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/131-a-biblical- worldview-has-a-radical-effect-on-a-persons-life.

9 10 ONE “Just Believing the Bible” and Other Theological Systems

“ just believe the Bible.” In over thirty years of pastoral experience and teaching, I cannot recall how often I have heard this sentence. IMany use it as a sincere declaration of their faith in God and reliance on the Bible as the Word of God. Some use it as a defense against a modernistic dismissal of the Bible as authoritative. Others use it as a comeback against “theology,” as if theological commentary somehow degrades or runs counter to the literal or printed words of Scripture. A few may use it as an excuse not to give themselves to serious study of the words, phrases and themes of Scripture. What many people often fail to recognize is that we are always doing theology. We are always making theological observations, applications and conclusions from the Bible. “Theology,” very simply is the study of God as He has revealed himself in His Word, the Bible.1 Theology proper has come to mean a systematic study of the truths of the Bible, or an exploration of those truths in a systematic way. However, everytime we make a comment on a biblical statement or term, we are doing theology. Saying we “just believe the Bible” means we believe certain truths revealed in the words of Scripture in a way that makes sense to us and in a manner in which we were taught. Thus, Baptists and Presbyterians believe “baptism” is a biblical truth, but their thoughts and explanations widely differ, even though both would maintain they just believe what the Bible says about baptism. So, when we say “I just believe the Bible,” we are making a

11 theological statement. Now, it is most likely a partial or only personally informed statement, but a statement about biblical truth nonetheless. But that’s the problem, isn’t it? And the attempted solution to this partially framed theology is to ask and try to answer, “What does the whole Bible say about a subject?” As my seminary friend and colleague, , points out, that is exactly the definition of systematic theology!2 Yes, you guessed it. Numerous writers have attempted to answer this question. Thus, the collection of theological systems. I work within the framework of what is called a Wesleyan-Arminian3 theological system, though I am more comfortable with another system, which I will talk about in this book. I was trained in a Reformed-Calvinistic4 system with a Presbyterian-covenantal bent. Many of my friends come from a Dispensational5 system of thought and others from a Pentecostal/Charismatic6 viewpoint. Some Christians become bewildered at theological systems, and thus the retreat to “I just believe what the Bible says,” and we are back at our circular starting point. So, let me make some clarifying and hopefully helpful statements about theological systems and their strengths as well as their limitations.

No one ultimate system The first thing we can say about theological systems is that no one system has answered the question, “What does the whole Bible say about a subject?” Sorry to my devoted and somewhat fanatic systematic theologian friends. Because we are finite human beings with finite capacities, we do not grasp the whole compass of Scripture about anything! This does not necessarily mean what we do grasp is untrue. It is rather unfinished. The Psalmist reminds us of the expansiveness of God’s revealed Word in Psalm 119:96 – “To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless.”7 That is why, for instance, the Westminster Standards, as they are called8, are “secondary” standards, secondary to the Scriptures. People make mistakes, ignore parts of

12 the Word of God, or just don’t follow through with the whole Bible. While technology has made the whole Bible more accessible, it is still fallible human beings accessing that technology. On the other hand, it could very well be that our system is defective and does not accurately represent what the Bible has to say. Clearly, theological errors have invaded the church since the Apostle Paul’s day (cf. Acts 20:28–31; 1 Corinthians 15:12ff; Galatians). That is why the Church early on made such statements as The Apostles’ Creed (3rd – 4th centuries A.D.), The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325 & 381), and The Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451). These statements of fairly universally agreed upon faith and theology grounded the Church in the truths of Scripture over against heresy, misinformation and miscommunication. Of course, later statements of faith and practice would follow. It would seem that the two major powerhouses of systematic theology, Calvinism and , are at times given ultimate status. In his book, Why I Am Not A Calvinist, Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell argue that

The reality is that Calvinists no less than Arminians rely on controversial philosophical judgments and assumptions. When this is not understood, contested philosophical judgments are sometimes passed off as simple biblical truth. But the less aware we are of our philosophical assumptions, the more they control our thinking. We need to be aware of the philosophical issues as well as the biblical issues, and sorting them out from each other requires our careful effort.9

I have personally learned much from the different theological systems of my friends. I have been humbled to learn that my views of a particular passage or word were inaccurate or incomplete. I have experienced an openness to God and His Word in a way that my chosen system was unable to lead me. And, after thirty eight years of active, professional ministry, I am much less ready to say my system has all the truth. Hopefully, I am growing and learning more from

13 God the Holy Spirit daily as I search the Scriptures and continually revise my theological musings. No one system has all the truth. There is no one ultimate system.

Systems are not ends Theological systems are not ends in and of themselves. This follows from what has been said above, but needs to be emphasized here. I retreated from one denominational affiliation in my career because the important discussions centered around the theological systems of belief, not the Scriptures. It is very easy to become so enamored with a theological system that it becomes the standard around which all statements about a Bible truth are analyzed or tried. This is not unnatural or evil, however. Men and women have labored long and hard over making their theology right and proper. They have invested years, sometimes centuries in their denominations, seeking to reach what the whole Bible has to say about this or that. They have given honest effort, hours and hours of prayer, and countless days of discussions with colleagues over theological assertions. These are not tempests in a teacup, but rather very serious debates about eternal truths. The problem is when the system becomes all encompassing and all important.

Systems provide theological coherence Our theological musings and inspections are at best partial and incomplete. Theological systems seek to give a systemic view of Scriptural truth and a systematized, coherent view of truth. They attempt to piece together biblical truths in a carefully organized way. As Grudem points out about his systematic theology,

This organization also provides one sort of check against inaccurate analysis of individual topics, for it means that all other doctrines that are treated can be compared with each topic for consistency in methodology and absence of contradictions in the relationships between the doctrines.10

Thus, balanced consideration of complementary teachings are given

14 by good theological systems, such as Christ’s deity with his humanity or man’s responsibility with God’s sovereignty. Coherence also provides more detailed analysis, a more complete picture of a biblical subject and hopefully gives a more accurate picture of truth. Coherence should give more clarity to a subject. While many Bible believers feel the Bible is clear to them on this or that subject, this is internal, subjective clarity. The problem is that internal clarity is not necessarily external clarity. What is obvious to one believer may not be so obvious or clear to another believer. Thus, for example, the “days” of Genesis 1 are “clearly” 24-hour periods of time for one believer, while another Christian sees them as geological ages or spans of time. A good systematic theology addresses these “clarity” issues in a more complete way than most individual believers can.

Systems help fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19, 20) I am indebted to Wayne Grudem again for this salient point on which I will elaborate a bit.11 One of the emphases of the early Anabaptists was their adherence to “following Jesus.”12 They felt that their Reformation brethren were confusing the words and actions of Jesus and those who wished to follow him with theological trappings which had little to do with New Testament revelation. They wanted a New Testament church made up of mature, tested and tried, born again believers. Many of them gave their lives to the flames because of this belief system. Jesus commanded us to “make disciples” of all nations “teaching them to observe all I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). “All I have commanded you” includes, as Grudem points out, the interpretation and application of Jesus’ life and teaching as well as the Letters or Epistles of the Apostles, since they were given by the “command of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37; John 14:26; 16:13; 1 Thess. 4:15; 2 Peter 3:2; Rev. 1:1-3).13 But the Anabaptists failed to recognize that “all I have commanded you” must include the writings since Jesus and the Apostles freely used and referred to them as God’s Word (cf. 2 Tim.

15 3:16). The Great Commission, rather than just a call to evangelize people so they make a decision for Christ, is a call to disciple and teach people the whole Bible. A good theological system helps accomplish this task.

Systems deliver us from Christian “babyitis” Theological systems help Christians committed to the Bible as God’s sufficient and clear Word eradicate wrong ideas about a myriad of subjects as well as grow in decision making and maturity. Theological systems challenge both our preconceived ideas about God and his truth as well as learned errors from others. With all the available Bible-tainted media in today’s information rich age, we need good theological systems to help us distinguish truth from error. Old heresies continually pop up in new forms. An understanding of systematic theology, with its grounding in biblical and historical theology, helps us see these teachings for what they are–heretical formulations. In a very practical way, this question about “what does the whole Bible say about a subject,” or systematic theology, guides us in finding out about husband-wife relationships, raising children, living for Christ at work and school, and even spending money. Grudem well says, “In every area of inquiry certain theological principles will come to bear, and those who have learned well the theological teachings of the Bible will be much better able to make decisions that are pleasing to God.”14

Systems prevent rashness in theological declarations A recent book by Rob Bell, a sought after speaker, pastor and writer for the postmodern generation, called Love Wins, illustrates this particular point well.15 Bell has stirred up a firestorm in conservative evangelical theological circles by proposing that the traditional orthodox views of heaven, hell and the nature of God’s love and judgment are incorrect. While this is not the place to thoroughly critique Rob Bell’s viewpoints,16 several overall comments from a theological systems point of view can be made.

16 First, while Bell claims to avoid the theological pitfalls of universalism he fails to distinguish himself sufficiently from that point of view. The God of love “wins” in the end by loving all without exception or discrimination. All will finally end up being reconciled by a loving God. The only caveat is that people can choose their own “hell” by consistently rejecting this love. There is no final condemnation to an actual place and state called hell. Claiming that one is not a universalist does not mean it is actually so. And maintaining that one falls within the perspectives of orthodoxy does not make one orthodox. In the second place, Bell selectively uses, and many say misuses, historical theology to buttress a point of view denied by the majority of orthodox writers through the centuries. He claims the likes of Origen, Basil, Augustine and even Martin Luther, yet miserably fails to place their comments within their own historical and theological milieu. This is careless theology. In the third place, Bell breaks all the canons of systematic theology by using word studies to somehow “prove” his viewpoints, as if selective word studies can win the day. He fails contextually and theologically, though he professes the opposite. He bypasses the holiness and justice of God in favor of the love of God and does not give a thorough rendering of what this love is and how it fits in the other characteristics or attributes of God. Additionally, his soteriology proves flawed at numerous points. I would call Rob Bell’s Love Wins “rash” and “selective” theology, falling outside the center of historical Christian orthodoxy. A good system of theology would protect writers like Rob Bell from making such daring and misguided pronouncements. Good, sound theological systems should elucidate the Scriptures, not make them more dense. They should truly educate and build believers up in the faith “once delivered to the saints.” They should challenge wrong-headed thinking and living and provoke a Bible- centered, God-honoring world and life viewpoint.

17 Footnotes CHAPTER ONE

1Technically, “theology” comes from the Greek words for “God” (theos) and “word” (logos). It is thus the “science or study of God.” Augustine said theology was the “rational discussion respecting the deity.” Later theologians like Louis Berkhof noted that theology was the “systematized knowledge of God in his various relations to the universe . . . Theology is the effect upon which the divine revelation, embodied in Scripture, produces in the sphere of systematic theology. Theology is the fruit of the reflection of the church on the truth revealed in the Word of God.” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1996). 2Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, 1994, p. 21. Grudem uses what I call a “dynamic” definition of systematic theology, citing Professor ’s definition from his (and my) days at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. 3Wesleyan-Arminianism is a theological movement fusing together the teachings of John Wesley (1703-1791) and Arminianism from the Remonstrance movement which was rejected at the Synod of Dort (1618- 19). Essentially, Arminianism sees God’s election and judgment as conditioned upon the faith response given by the supposed free will of humans, Christ’s atonement as sufficient for all but efficacious only for those who choose to believe, God’s grace can be resisted and according to Wesley, without perfect holiness, and Christians can walk away from God and “fall” from grace. 4The Reformed or Calvinistic system heralds what are called the “five points” of Calvinism, codified at the Synod of Dort (1618-19), which include , unconditional election, limited or definite atonement, , and perseverance (as well as preservation) of the saints. The acronym TULIP has been used to describe this system. Many conservative Presbyterians have adopted this theological system along with “covenantal theology,” another system that sees the Bible in terms of God’s covenants with mankind. 5Dispensationalism is a theological system introduced by J.N. Darby (1800- 1882) and popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible. Lewis Sperry Chafer in his Systematic Theology says that biblical history is divided up into seven “dispensations” of God’s ways of relating to his people. The church age is a parenthesis in God’s plan for the ages. While many Dispensationalists today would qualify or even reject many of these distinctives, classic Dispensationalism has a great hold on many evangelicals. 6The Pentecostal/Charismatic system holds to a classic understanding of the essentials of the faith but adds the teaching that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is an event subsequent to conversion made evident by the sign of speaking in tongues and that all spiritual gifts outlined in the New Testament are not only available but to be exercised in today’s world and 18 church. Charismatics, as distinguished from their historic Pentecostal counterparts, will allow differing viewpoints on whether baptism in the Spirit is subsequent to conversion and whether tongue speaking is a necessary mark of being baptized in the Spirit. Often Charismatics view themselves as a force of renewal within numerous denominational groups rather than being a denomination themselves. 7The Hebrew term hbjr pictures the extensive and inexhaustible nature of Scripture, with an expanse that nothing else can even approach. Allen translates v. 96 this way: “Every aspiration I have seen fall short of realization: Your command is so wide in its scope” (Leslie Allen, Psalms 101–150 of the Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 21, Waco: Word Books, 1983). 8The Westminster Standards are the collection of documents which include the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms used by orthodox Presbyterians since the documents’ creation in 1643-7. 9Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not A Calvinist, InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 19. 10Grudem, p. 24. 11Grudem, pp. 26–30. 12The German word would be Nachfolge, which the early Anabaptists used to identify their commitment to obedience to Jesus Christ as His example and teachings are set forth in the Gospels. They were so fixed on obedience to Christ that the Pauline Epistles, as well as the Old Testament, were often overlooked in their theological writings and convictions. 13Grudem, p. 27. 14Grudem, p. 29. 15Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Harper Collins, 2011. 16Of the many critiques of Bell’s book and theology, a comprehensive review can be found by Kevin DeYoung at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/ kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/ .

19 20 TWO Calvinism Today

alvinism is staging quite a comeback today. Rejecting much of American evangelicalism as having become “theologically Cthin, spiritually superficial and morally confused,”1 Calvinistic theology has become the system of choice among many evangelicals including a number of Southern Baptists, popular speakers and writers, and even Christian songwriters.2 The growing recognition and popularity of pastor from Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and author of The Reason for God: Belief In An Age of Skepticism has placed Calvinism in a more modern favorable light.3 Keller, a Calvinist, can speak forcefully and convincingly to our generation today. Indeed, many, if not most, of the major modern orthodox Bible commentators have Calvinistic training, background and points of view. So, this is not just your “father’s” older theology. What makes Calvinism the theology of choice for so many? Several reasons stand out. First, Calvinism takes God and his glory seriously. As non-Calvinists Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell confess, “Calvinism is, if it is anything, serious about doctrine, passionate about the Bible and zealous for the glory of God. As such, it appears to be the perfect antidote to the trivialities prevalent in the contemporary church.”4

Calvinism has for centuries represented a vital tradition of piety that is intellectually and morally serious. Calvinists have set a standard for scholarship and cultural engagement that evangelicals of other traditions can readily admire and emulate. Scholars in the broadly

21 Reformed tradition have developed distinct approaches to matters ranging from epistemology (the theory of knowledge) to political theory and cultural criticism . . . Christians from other theological backgrounds can profit greatly from this rich body of work and even adapt it to their perspectives.5

This serious God-centered perspective has influenced the home, the classroom, the political arena, and the legal system. Whether one agrees or not with Calvinism, it begins and ends decidely with God and his glory. A second point is the cogency of the theological system. While some are enamored by the mystical in their faith, many are looking for convincing clarity. In the famous five points of Calvinism, nicknamed TULIP, one point logically flows into the next and the next. Thus, out of the mass of hell-bent, self-seeking and depraved humanity (total depravity), God in his sovereign mercy chose some to eternal life (unconditional election). It is precisely for these people Christ savingly died (limited or definite atonement), and it is these people who will be effectually called by God the Holy Spirit in an irresistible way (irresistible grace) so that they willingly and freely choose Christ as their Savior and Lord, and they will most definitely persevere to the end (perseverance of the saints). It is clear, precise, and flows logically and seamlessly. For the thinking person, this is most attractive and compelling. Third, a younger post-postmodern generation finds Calvinism enticing. Local churches and colleges are hosting debates on Calvinism with thousands of high school, college and seminary students attending.6 Back in the 1960s, when I attended college, the local InterVarsity chapter hosted a debate on Calvinism versus Arminianism, with two local, well-respected pastors taking the various stands. The turnout was paltry, to say the best. There was little interest and buzz about the historic debate. Those of us on the organizing committee saw the debate as a chance to revitalize interest in doctrine among the Christians on campus. Those hopes were not

22 realized, especially in an age of unrest over institutionalized systems and any systems at all! Much has changed since then. Fourth, and this reveals my bias, Calvinism is the theological system that most adequately represents the Scriptures. Instead of a few selected verses for this or that point, there are a multitude of Bible verses and textual considerations demonstrating Calvinistic theology. The few “problem” texts for the Calvinist are really few, and I believe can be adequately explained within the system. Even those thinkers and writers who oppose Calvinism do not debunk or throw out the entire system.

Calvinism and freedom of the will Ever since Martin Luther’s famous debate on the bondage of the will,7 there have been those who have said that Calvinism denies the full right of humans to choose. It is offered by non-Calvinists that without freedom of the will, humankind is reduced to robot-like status living out their lives under the daunting oversight of a menacing God. The interesting thing to me in this debate is that it is assumed that no freedom of the will makes God a tyrant or despot, while full freedom of the will makes God loving, kind and just! So, our understanding of the character of God depends on our perceived rights or freedoms! I don’t think so. First, God is God. We are not God. We don’t dictate to God. We don’t demand God to do this or that. We are created beings, finite, limited, frail and will eventually die. While it seems to some that God has a desperate need for our love and devotion, He is quite sufficient in and of himself. No one knows how long the Trinity existed before creation, but that it existed and planned both the creation and rescue of mankind is highly evident in the Scriptures. God is glorified, will be glorified and seeks his glory above all things. Whatever our system might say, it has to keep God and his glory supreme, foremost, evident and clear. Calvinism seriously attempts to do this. Second, no one has unlimited freedom. Why is this point so often missed and overlooked in the debate over free will? I am limited by

23 my finitude. I cannot think God’s thoughts, only after Him, as the early orthodox writers and others have said.8 I discover only those things that have first been created by God and then in his pleasure revealed to me. I “create” on a creaturely basis and with a creaturely mind, heart and will. My freedom is further limited by my context. I may not be healthy enough or strong enough or skilled enough to climb Mount Everest, though I want to or even decide to do so. I play tennis but will never beat the number one player in the world no matter how hard I practice, plan, try or hope to do so. I am limited by my creaturely characteristics. I do not have the freedom to do whatever I want, whenever I want and however I want. Grudem helps us understand human freedom:

But we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free–we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make willing choices . . . An absolute “freedom,” totally free of God’s control, is simply not possible in a world providentially sustained and directed by God himself.9

This stricture applies to my relationship with God as well. The problem with freedom in the non-Calvinist system sense is that I can, either apart from God’s influence ()10 or in cooperation with it (SemiPelagianism and Arminianism),11 choose to be able to do what is right and pleasing to God. Most admit we need God’s help, as if we are the sovereigns and God is the adjutant or assistant. Calvinists have cogently argued that responsiblity does not demand freedom, only free agency.12 In other words, human free will is not essential to the idea of being human. God in the Bible tells us He ordains all things that come to pass. But He also tells us that “our choices and actions are significant in his sight, and that we are responsible before him for our actions. We need simply to believe these things and to

24 take comfort in them.”13

It is sometimes reasoned that “love, by its very nature, is freedom. For there to be love, there has to be the option, both now and then, to not love. To turn the other way. To reject the love extended. To say no. Although God is powerful and mighty, when it comes to the human heart God has to play by the same rules we do. God has to respect our freedom to choose to the very end, even at the risk of the relationship itself. If at any point God overrides, co-opts, or hijacks the human heart, robbing us of our freedom to choose, then God has violated the fundamental essence of what love even is.14

This is a very humanistic, man-centered point of view, however. It projects an understanding or definition of “love” upon God and forces God to conform to a “higher” neutral standard. Love is not ultimate– God is. A universal ideal of love can never replace a biblically revealed definition of love. So, human freedom is not ultimate either or neutrally defined. Calvinism says plainly that our will is constrained by our fallen nature, and that nature is totally depraved. The effects of the fall of humankind into sin and Satan’s service have so scarred us that every motive, every desire, every thought, every act, every emotion rebels against the ultimate and perfect will of God. Clearly this does not mean we choose evil and wrong all of the time, or that we cannot make choices that benefit others, or that we are moral monsters. But it profoundly means we default to that of a rebel seeking to evade or deny the sovereign Caretaker. We are not content to do His will, or try to add to it our own interpretation and outcomes. Even in redeemed humankind, the remnants of this base nature act up and come out in stark contrast to God’s love and grace. Our so-called freedom to choose has not remainded neutral but has been infected and affected by this kind of depravity. We cannot do right without God. We cannot and will not, apart from His power, choose Him. Wise writers have noted that prayer, for instance, is not demanding God do certain things for us but our sweet submission to resting in his

25 perfect will for us. True prayer is utter dependence upon God, not telling him that my will or my way has to be satisfied or encouraged. Interestingly, some non-Calvinists concede that “to believe in prayer is thus to believe in some kind of limitation of human freedom, and in some kind of incomprehensible influence upon the wills of men.” 15 But instead of this kind of logical gymnastic, we should say that God has ordained that prayer has definite results and can change the course of events (cf. James 4:2; John 16:24). Do our human choices count? Yes, definitely. God holds us responsible and accountable for our actions, which have real and eternally significant results. “God has created us with the characteristic of being responsible for our actions, and so we are!”16 Responsibility does not demand freedom of the will, and to say that it does goes beyond Scriptural guidelines and boundaries, says the Calvinist. So much of the argumentation for freedom of the will revolves around human experience and intuition, not on a thorough study and application of Scripture. Grudem once again helps us by asking, “Where does Scripture say that a choice ordained by God is not a real choice?”17 The above discussion certainly does not exhaust the ongoing debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the matter of freedom of the human will. And, it will not satisfy many who say that for people to come to Christ, free will is necessary for the ability to respond to the free offer of the gospel. After all, it seems intuitively “right.” However, we must always be careful not to extrapolate from our human experience when talking about God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.

Calvinism and the “five points” Finally, a word about the “five points” of Calvinism, or TULIP, as they are called. Calvin did not come up with the “five points.” In fact, there are those who claim that Calvin would not be a Calvinist in today’s world!18 I truly dispute that, and a thorough reading of his Institutes of the Christian Religion would debunk that conclusion.19

26 The “five points” come from a historical-theological debate that took place in the seventeenth century, called the Synod of Dort. The followers of Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch-Reformed minister of the period, issued a statement called the Remonstrance in which the classically taught orthodoxy, Calvinism, was attacked in five statements: (1) Everyone possesses a free will, not enslaved to his sinful nature. While God must help people to repent and believe,20 He does not interfere with this free will; (2) God saves those whom He foresees responding to His call, those who freely respond to the gospel invitation; (3) Christ’s death on the cross was sufficient for everyone without exception, but only those who actually trust in Him are saved; (4) Even though God’s Holy Spirit is at work, people can successfully resist this internal work. Faith precedes regeneration; and, (5) It is possible to lose one’s salvation by failing to continue to believe.21 Against these declarations the Synod rejected the Remonstrant’s theses and declared their own five points, which have come to be known as the five points of Calvinism. One of the more famous summaries of these points, along with Scriptural evidence, comes from David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented. Essentially, they said that (1) humankind’s will is in bondage to his evil nature and therefore not free or neutral to choose good over evil. This is called total depravity which includes total inability; (2) God freely and sovereignly chose certain individuals to salvation, not based upon what they would or would not do. This is unconditional election; (3) Christ’s redeeming work actually secured salvation only for the elect. This is termed limited or definite atonement; (4) The internal, special call of the Holy Spirit in the elect irresistibly and inevitably brings them to salvation. Regeneration must precede faith. This is called irresistible grace; and, (5) All those chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Holy Spirit are eternally saved. Those so preserved by God persevere to the end by His Almighty power. This is called perseverance of the saints. Does one need to believe in “TULIP” to be a Calvinist? A number of writers and speakers would say not.22 Some prefer to say they are

27 “three point” or “four point” Calvinists, usually excluding the “L = limited atonement” position in their theology. Others maintain that five points is not nearly enough to claim that one is a Calvinist.23 Biblically and theologically, however, the TULIP description has proven itself over the years to be an accurate and true description of Calvinism. It summarizes well, if not exhaustively, the major points of disagreement and controversy with a non-Calvinist. It will therefore provide the outline for this book.

Footnotes CALVINISM TODAY

1Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not A Calvinist, InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 15. 2Pointed out in Walls and Dongell, pp. 13ff. 3Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief In An Age of Skepticism, Riverhead Trade Reprint, 2009. 4Walls and Dongell, p. 17. 5Walls and Dongell, p. 9. 6Walls and Dongell, p. 14. 7On the Bondage of the Will (Latin: De Servo Arbitrio, literally, “Concerning Bound Choice”), by Martin Luther, was published in December 1525. It was his reply to Desiderius Erasmus’s De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio or On Free Will, which had appeared in September 1524 as Erasmus’s first public attack on Luther. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_ Bondage_of_the_Will. 8While historically attributed to Johannes Kepler, the phrase “think God’s thoughts after Him” acquired its truest meaning via the fully Reformational doctrines of God and of man. The Reformational ideal was best carried into the twentieth century by , who made liberal use of this phrase. He explains, for example: “The system that Christians seek to obtain may be said to be analogical. By this is meant that God is the original and that man is the derivative. God has absolute self-contained system within himself. What comes to pass in history happens in accord with that system or plan by which he orders the universe. But man, as God’s creature, cannot have a replica of that system of God. He cannot have a reproduction of that system. He must, to be sure, think God’s thoughts after him; but this means that he must, in seeking to form his own system, constantly be subject to the authority of God’s system to the extent that this is revealed to him.” [Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Presbyterian

28 and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969, p. 16] 9Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, 2000, p. 331. 10Pelagianism is a theological belief named after Pelagius (A.D. 354 – A.D. 420/440) that did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Pelagianism was attacked in the Council of Diospolis and condemned in 418 at the Council of Carthage. These condemnations were ratified at the in 431. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism. 11SemiPelagianism in its original form was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teaching of Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine, who taught that man cannot come to God without the grace of God. In SemiPelagian thought, therefore, a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. SemiPelagian thought teaches that the latter half – growing in faith – is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later. It too was labeled heresy by the Western Church in the Second Council of Orange in 529. To the extent that Arminianism talks about man and God cooperating or God aiding man in coming to faith, the charge of semiPelagianism has been leveled at it. Such a charge is labelled as historically inaccurate by David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, B&H Publishing Group, 2010, p. 5. Also refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism. 12See J.I. Packer’s discussion in Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, InterVarsity Press (IVP), 2008 reprint. 13Grudem, p. 344. 14Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Harper Collins, 2011, pp. 103-104. While Bell essentially agrees with this understanding of love and human freedom, he goes on to say this is not enough for the vastness of the love of God which will envelope most everybody at some point so that most will be saved. Love will “win” in the end conquering the most stubborn of hearts. 15Quoted by Grudem, p. 340. 16Grudem, p. 333. 17Grudem, p. 343. 18An excellent paper by Richard A. Muller researches this question. It is available as a PDF download at http://www.calvin.edu/meeter/lectures/ Richard%20Muller%20-%20Was%20Calvin%20a%20Calvinist.pdf. 19John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols, 1559 translation edition, John Knox Press, 1960. 20“The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth.” Noted in David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1963, pp. 5-6.

29 21Many Arminians would dispute this last point claiming that once God saves a person they can never lose their salvation, a position called “eternal security.” It is important to note that Calvinists do not hold to this position even though it might seem that way. The perseverance of the saints (“P” in TULIP) maintains that God keeps those who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ and given faith by the Holy Spirit. They will thus persevere to the end, a position many Wesleyan-Arminians dispute. 22David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, B&H Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 2f point to many Southern Baptist examples of people claiming to be Calvinists but not five-point Calvinists or “Dortians.” 23An example would be Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points Enough?: The Ten Points of Calvinism, Reformation Educational Foundation, 1980.

30 THREE As Bad As It Gets

er name is Hana Brady. Hana was a thirteen year old Jewish girl from Czechoslovakia who died in a gas chamber at the HAuschwitz concentration camp in World War II on October 23, 1944. Her parents were never seen again after they had been previously deported by the Nazis. Her brother, George, survived by working as a laborer at the camp.1 Horrific. Gruesome. Awful. Terrible. Yes, all of that. Abnormal, unrepeatable, unexpected, no, not really. While most shrink back from the Holocaust and its atrocities and horrors, many see this degradation of humanity as something which “normal” people would and could not do. Yet, I would argue that “normal” people committed such horrific acts. “Normal” people who lived right outside the camps denied that such horror ever existed. And I would further argue that this is normal behavior for a humanity steeped in what Calvinists have called “total depravity,” the “T” in the mneumonic TULIP.

The myth of goodness Ever since Aristotle’s theory of natural goodness,2 philosophers and social scientists have widely adopted the viewpoint that at our core, we are morally good. Some have said we are good only “to our own kind,” thus, creating a place for Nazism, for instance, so that Nazis could be bad to the Jews and other selected non-Aryans. Others have argued that moral goodness is merely what is “rational” to the human race. Thus, “moral action is rational action.”3 When a human being

31 acts according to his rational nature, he is doing what is good. More importantly, when we act according to our natures truly, we will do the good. The point is, according to this belief, humankind is essentially morally good. Yes, we can act out of our given nature and thus commit bad acts, but they are against who we really are. Obviously, a number of both Christians and non-Christians have found this viewpoint wanting. It does not answer the deeper issues of societal indifference and human cruelty. It fails to adequately explain a corrupt world. Additionally, “goodness” is inextricably linked to God’s goodness by Jesus himself – “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18; cf. Matt. 19:17; Luke 18:19). Consequently, what is “good” must match or be in compliance with the nature and character of God himself. It’s not merely that we are not “good enough” in God’s sight, but rather we lack the fundamental qualitative character trait.4 The judgment of Moses and the Old Testament writers and prophets is that at its core, humankind is intensively and extensively evil – “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood” (Genesis 8:21; cf. Jeremiah 13:23). And this statement from God comes after the universal flood judgment! It’s the very same declaration of the nature of mankind that God gave before the flood (Genesis 6:5). Humankind has not changed even with the devastating flood. We see this today in peoples’s attitudes and lifestyles even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. Many flocked to churches and synagogues right after those attacks, only to drift away from churches and religion and God in a few weeks. The New Testament writers and Jesus Himself confirm this diagnosis.

“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19; cf. Luke 6:45).

“They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity” (Romans 1:29; cf. Rom. 1:18ff).

32 “As it stands written, There is no one righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10f from the Psalms).

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins... All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath” (Ephesians 2:1-3).

At our very core, our nature is not goodness and light. Who we really are is not very complimentary or pretty.

The pervasiveness of depravity Depravity has infected and affected every part of our nature, including our thoughts, desires, actions, emotions and wills. Yes, even our human will has been tainted and scarred with evil. This is why the Reformers and other orthodox writers have talked about total depravity. Total depravity includes what is called total inability. The evil within is not selectively applied to our core natures. We don’t get to decide how “bad” we can be. Some theological systems seek to get around this problem of inability by positing a “prevenient” kind of grace that God has given to every person as a result of the atonement of Christ.5 “Christ died for everyone” means, therefore, that God has given to everyone in the world that has or ever will exist enough of undeserved favor that the will is made able to choose right from wrong and eternal good from evil. Such a position cannot be directly proven from the Bible. It has to be “inferred” from a theory that says the lack of human freedom means and is equivalent to lack of human responsibility. Responsibility, however, does not need freedom to be valid biblically. If this is so, the objection comes as something like this, “Well, then, if we are really that bad or evil why don’t we all act it out? Why do we do “good” things? Why don’t we just murder at will?” The answer has often come back, “Because we choose not to so act. We decide it would be better for us and society if we didn’t act so wickedly.” Really?

33 If the will is affected so radically by sin, this is not an adequate or even a biblical answer. We choose not to act so wickedly because of God! Whether we call it “common grace”6 or “restraining grace” or something else theologically, God acts in us and in society to suspend and counteract the evil within us.

Common grace curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men.7

So, God works in the providential care of creation (cf. Matthew 5:45; 7:9, 10; Gen. 8:21, 22; Colossians 1:17), the restraint of sinful behavior (cf. Gen. 20:6; 1 Samuel 25:26; Esther; 1 Timothy 2:1-3) and the ordering of society for his glory and man’s welfare.

The “good news” of depravity Total depravity can be “good news!” Not, the Good News, but good news in the sense that God alone must deliver us from ourselves. We cannot do anything that He would call “good.” We do not have the predisposition or power to change ourselves or those around us. We must go to God for the ultimate solution to human depravity. The problem with Gospel “Good News” in our church climate today is that many people don’t see the desperate need for it. Their sins or sinfulness are “mistakes,” or missteps or the failure to realize their potential. There is little conviction that I am as bad as it gets! Very few in the modern world want or need deliverance if we can choose not to misstep. Free will has come full circle to mean I can choose on my own to need or want God or not. Moderns look at this and say they don’t need or want “hellfire and brimstone” sermons or messages to drive them to Jesus Christ and his salvation. While, indeed, some of these old fashioned messages were harmful and overdone, they spoke to a society and world that

34 were desperate for deliverance and relief. That world, due to the lack of teaching and application of this truth of total depravity, is gone. Convictional Christianity has been replaced by comfortable Christianity. Restoration of this theological anchor will help restore the reality of the Good News of the gospel.

Footnotes AS BAD AS IT GETS

1Hana Brady was the subject of the 2002 nonfiction children’s book, Hana’s Suitcase, written by Karen Levin. A recent update to the book includes a Foreward by Desmond Tutu. It is available through Amazon.com. 2Delineated in his Nicomachean Ethics, trans. by Terence Irwin, Hackett, 1999. 3This is neo-Aristotelian naturalism seen in Philippa Foot, Natural Goodness, Oxford Univ. Press, 2001, p. 24. Thus, like a “good” tree has “good” roots, so human beings are “good” in the sense that goodness belongs to them in virtue of their natural kind. Moral goodness by Foot is seen as a specific form or subset of this natural goodness. If this seems vague, it is so to others who have written critiques of Foot’s work. 4Thayer’s comment is particularly interesting in this regard: “It is to be regarded as a peculiarity in the usage of the Septuagint that b/f good is predominantly (?) rendered by kaloß.... The translator of Genesis uses aÓgaqo»ß only in the neuter, good, goods, and this has been to a degree the model for the other translators. ... In the Greek O.T., where oi˚ dikaioi is the technical designation of the pious, oi˚ a˙gaqoi or o§ aÓgaqo»ß does not occur in so general a sense. The aner aÓgaqo»ß is peculiar only to the Proverbs (Prov. 13:22,24; 15:3); cf. besides the solitary instance in 1 Kings 2:32. Thus, even in the usage of the O.T. we are reminded of Christ’s words, Mark 10:18, ouÓdei«ß aÓgaqo»ß ei˙ mh» ei∞ß o˚ Qeo¿ß. In the O.T. the term ‘righteous’ makes reference rather to a and to one’s relation to a positive standard; aÓgaqo»ß would express the absolute idea of moral goodness” (Zezschwitz, Profangraec. u. Biblical Sprachgeist, Leipz. 1859, p. 60). Cf. Tittm., p. 19. On the comparison of aÓgaqo»ß see B. 27 (24).) See Joseph Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Hendriksen, 1996 reprint. 5This is the historical-theological tenet of Wesleyan-Arminianism. For a complete read, see John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, 3rd edition, 7 vols, Baker Books, 1996. 6The concept of “common grace” is a particularly Reformed or Calvinistic theological concept. The definition is given in the text. It is “common” because its benefits are experienced by all humans, and it is “grace” because

35 it is sovereignly and undeservedly bestowed by God. 7Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996 reprint of 1932 work, p. 434.

36 FOUR Sovereign Rescue

“ he doctrine of this high mystery of is to be handled with special prudence and care . . .” form the concluding word in the chapter entitled “Of God’s Eternal Decree” in the T 1 Westminster Confession of Faith. This is a reminder to those who would attempt to comment on the “U” of TULIP – unconditional election–that we must proceed with biblical caution and critical reserve. We are reminded by the Apostle Paul that God’s judgments are “unsearchable” and “his paths beyond tracing out. Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33, 34 and Isaiah 40:13) Many non-Calvinists hear in their minds Calvinists say God is a “tyrant” when they hear them speak about unconditional election. Or, that God doesn’t care about the general mass of humankind, only a “chosen few.” Or, that God has damned most of humanity and so what’s the use giving them the Good News of the gospel. Because of humanity’s sinful, fallen and irrevocable state (total depravity), God out of his own mercy, grace and sovereignty decided to save a “multitude no one can number” (cf. Revelation 7:9). This was due solely to his astounding and transformational love and power. This is called “election” or “predestination.” Note especially it was not a “few,” but a “multitude.” That’s the first mistake made in this discussion. According to the general discussion, God chooses “some” but not “all,” and consequently it must be a relatively minuscule number of people. No, it is a multitude from “every nation, tribe,

37 people, and language” according to John’s account in Revelation. Second, this election is according to grace. It is not the picture of a high and mighty God snatching some hell-bent sinners with a scowl on his face saying to himself, “Well, I guess I’ll choose you!” There is no pomp, no automaton-like, non-caring divine Being casually choosing some while condemning others. We have to get rid of these charactures of God in talking about unconditional election.

The historical debate While most Bible students agree that “election” is taught in the Scriptures, there are a number of differences in theological interpretation. The Remonstrants disputed the commonly accepted viewpoint of the Reformers, positing that divine election or predestination to saving grace is conditional upon the free will decision of any man or woman. God foresees this faith response and on that basis “chooses” such people to salvation. This faith response of the sinner is not generated by God, but freely given by the person’s “unconstrained” will or choice. In more popular terms, God gets a vote, Satan gets a vote, but we cast the deciding ballot! The historical Synod of Dort in 1619 turned back this viewpoint with the declaration that God’s election to salvation is totally “unconditional.” God’s predestinating grace is given to people not on the basis of any foreseen faith in them or by them, but solely on the basis of God’s self-determined choice and pleasure. God gives faith and repentance to each individual He selects. Thus, God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of God, is the deciding factor and ultimate cause of salvation. The Calvinistic scholar, Loraine Boettner puts it this way: “It [unconditional election] was taught not only by Calvin, but by Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon (although Melancthon later retreated toward the Semi-Pelagian position), by Bullinger, Bucer, and all of the outstanding leaders in the Reformation. While differing on some other points they agreed on this doctrine of predestination and taught it with emphasis.”2 Such is the strength of the biblical evidence for “election” that

38 non-Calvinists usually maintain that the passages cited in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, such as in Romans 9–11, refer to Jewish national election by God, not to God’s choice of anyone to saving faith, inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles. Thus, these interpreters believe they can hold to the Scriptural teaching yet maintain an Arminian-based theology and not interfere with the “free will” of humankind. It is exegetically questionable whether their arguments can stand in the context or weight of the whole Bible on this topic.

The biblical basis The Scriptural basis for the doctrine of unconditional election can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. It is obvious in the Old Testament Scriptures that God literally chose a certain people to salvation, as seen in Deuteronomy 10:14, 15 – “the Lord set his heart in love upon your fathers and chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as at this day.” Israel is often noted as God’s chosen people (Psalm 33:12; 106:5; Haggai 2:23, etc). Jesus affirmed the Father’s sovereign choice in such places as Matthew 11:27 – “no one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37). Jesus himself notes that there are “sheep” and “non- sheep” – “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me–just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay my life down for the sheep.” “He [the good shepherd] calls his own sheep by name and leads them out” (John 10:3). The classic passage is found in Romans 8:28-30, called the Golden Chain of Redemption – “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son. . . and those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” God’s choice was made before the creation of the earth – “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world. . .” (Ephesians 1:4). Rather than “foreseen faith,” faith is the result of

39 God’s choice and power – “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

What this DOESN’T mean Unconditional election, as we have said, does not mean that God, like a divine Robot, mechanically selects a few people to be with him eternally. A high view of God does not mean a severe view of God! That is a distortion on a number of fronts. First, divine election always flows from God’s amazing love and compassion for sinful humankind. Second, it is sheer mercy that any of us are saved, or are chosen by God to be with him. We deserve eternal death and separation from God (SEE the last chapter on “Total Depravity”). If we “get” total depravity, and really see its implications in humanity, then divine election becomes an amazingly wonderful rescue rather than a cold, calculating choice. Unconditional election does not mean that God sovereignly and positively or actively chooses many others to be damned to hell. This is “hyper-Calvinism,” a seemingly logical, but unbiblical, extension of the teaching of election.3 The non-elect themselves choose their fate by continuing in their rebellion and hatred of God. Paul talks about “those who are perishing” at the end time in this way – “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). They are “left to themselves” in other words. Unconditional election does not save anyone. It is crucial to salvation, but it is by faith and resultant evidences that a person confirms his calling and election by God (1 Peter 1:5-11; Acts 13:48; 2 Timothy 2:10). Election is part of the divine process but it is not the end-all of salvation.

What this DOES mean The teaching of unconditional election is a precious and wonderful doctrine to the Christian. It gives the believer great hope and security

40 and peace in knowing that God the Father and Jesus the Son have loved us with an everlasting love (cf. John 10; Romans 8). Jesus died for us and through the Holy Spirit gives us that wonderful promise of eternal life. Unconditional election never allows us to “pre-judge” anyone. No one knows the elect except God. This is the “high mystery” of election or predestination. Unconditional election actually propels the believer to share his or her faith since we know God has definitely chosen many to enjoy and experience his saving power. They will respond favorably to the gospel presentation and message. No, this is not a “cruel” doctrine or teaching. It is God’s gift to humanity.

Footnotes SOVEREIGN RESCUE

1Chapter III, Section VIII of The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, The Free Presbyterian Church of , 1967. 2Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, "Introduction," Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1991 reprint, p. 1. 3This is called “double predestination” by its detractors. R. C. Sproul debunks this view of predestination: "The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin. . . Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers." (R. C. Sproul, "Double Predestination,"http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_

41 Sproul.html). Notice the wisdom in the Westminster Confession of Faith on this topic: “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice” (Chapter III, Section VII) (Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:17ff; 2 Tim. 2:19, 20; Jude 4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note the carefulness of the Confession here. God “withholdeth” mercy and “passes them by” yet still retaining sovereign control of all things. God does not “pass us by” because we sin, then we would all be “passed by.” Rather, sin is the only reason for the damnation of unbelievers (cf. Isa. 6:10f). Some comments may be in order on this chapter in the Confession. First, the chapter may give the impression that God creates some in order to condemn them. This may be an honest misreading. Chapter 3 comes before the chapter on “Creation” and seems to have little relationship to the Gospel. Notice how the Scottish Confession of 1560, the Belgic Confession of 1561, and the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 handle this doctrine. Some also say this language is decidedly “rationalistic.” This may also be an honest objection. The doctrine of predestination in the Bible is used in life-contexts of comfort and assurance. Third, some say this chapter has been unwisely used or misused in preaching the gospel to unbelievers. The words of the Second Helvetic Confession may be of some help: “Let Christ be the looking-glass, in whom we may contemplate our predestination.” (Chapter X) Finally, this teaching may too soon be thrust upon young Christians. This teaching is for mature and seasoned believers according to the New Testament (cf. 2 Pet. 1:10ff; 1 Pet. 1:10ff). “Handled with special prudence and care” in the Confession means just what it says!

42 FIVE Redemption That Matters

he Cross really saves! If, in fact, all evangelical Christians truly agreed with this statement, this chapter would be very short Tand maybe not even necessary in the discussion. The truth is that most Christians do not really agree with this statement. Indeed, it is only the Calvinist who can affirm the statement. The most that the non-Calvinist can say is that Christ's death on the cross made salvation possible for everyone. Depending upon your point of view, the efficacy of salvation lies in either the human response or God's eternal decree.

The “funnel” of the atonement If we think of the atoning work of Christ as a “funnel,” at the larger end we begin with the biblical truth that Christ's death has cosmic proportions. Colossians 1:19, 20 states this well: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” “The universe has been reconciled in that heaven and earth have been brought back into their divinely created and determined order . . . the universe is again under its head and . . . cosmic peace has returned.”1 The destructive forces of humankind's sin upon creation (cf. Genesis 3:14ff) and the cosmos have been conquered by the death of Christ. That general truth does not imply everyone will be saved, but it sets the stage for the redemption of God's people.

43 The funnel narrows with the Scriptural truth that Christ's death is sufficient for the redemption of the human race (Philippians 2:6–11; Ephesians 2:11ff; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6). Nothing more for redemption was needed or required by God. We can totally depend on the death and resurrection of Christ for salvation. As the funnel narrows further, Christ's sacrificial death provides justification for all who believe (Romans 3:21–26; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:22; Titus 3:4-7; Hebrews 9:15, 26; 1 Peter 2:24). It was not merely a good example, not merely a way for God to show us how much He loved us, and not merely a general penalty paid to the Lawgiver of the universe.2 Four needs we have as sinners are covered in the death of Christ. We deserve to die as the penalty of sin. We deserve to bear God's wrath against sin. We are separated from God by our sins. We are in bondage to sin and the kingdom of Satan. Christ's sacrifice pays the penalty of sin (Heb. 9:26). Christ's propitiation removes from us the just anger of God against us (1 John 4:10). Christ reconciled us to God (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). And Christ redeemed us from the bondage to sin and corruption (Mark 10:45). This is called penal substitution.3 In all of this, most evangelicals agree. At the narrow neck of the funnel comes the final truth about Christ's work on the cross for us. It is that his sacrificial death becomes effective only for those who God in his great mercy has ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48; John 6:35–40; John 10:11, 14–18). For the Calvinist, this final declaration ties together deliverance from the hellishness of total depravity and the wonder of unconditional election. The undisputed polemic for this position of limited or definite atonement (the “L” in TULIP) can be found in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by the seventeenth century Puritan, .4 He convincingly and exegetically shows either Christ's death was sufficient and efficient for all humankind so that all will be saved (universalism), or that it had to be effectual only for those who were called and ordained by God to eternal life. According to many, this treatise has yet to be refuted by non-Calvinists. Of course, many non-Calvinists are not universalists either. Many

44 would say the sacrificial death of Christ was for all humanity, but made salvation possible for only those who, by the exercise of their free will, choose to believe on Him for eternal life. This is why they cannot fully affirm the opening statement of this chapter. Christ's cross made salvation possible, not actually saved anyone.

The place of faith in salvation What about the role and place of individual faith or belief in salvation? The obvious and oft quoted verse somehow “proving” the necessity and freedom of faith is John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” The sacrifice of Christ is personally received by faith – “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Romans 3:22). “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31) “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” (Rom. 10:10). It seems like a slam-dunk. Believe (and repent5) and you are saved. The operative word and act is “believe.” And belief is something we do, not God. So, therefore, I must have the freedom and will to actually believe. Thanks, Jesus, for what you have done to provide salvation. Now, I must make it mine. And so the reasoning goes. But what about those verses referencing Jesus dying “for many,” not all (Isaiah 53:11; Mark 10:45)? What about Jesus' own words concerning “sheep” and laying down his life “for the sheep?” (John 10:14, 15) Or that combination where Jesus says, “He who believes in me shall never go thirsty” with “All that the Father gives me will come to me?” (John 6:35, 37) And that is sometimes how the discussion goes, with one side pitting verses against verses from the other side. Too bad and not necessary! The real issue is the understanding of the place of faith in the salvation process. Most every evangelical would agree that passively and just mentally “believing” saves no one. James 2:19 says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–

45 and shudder.” Reformed writers and others have called this “historical” faith, which is far from saving faith. Most would agree that we cannot, on our own intelligence, strength and insight, simply choose to go to heaven by our own actions and strength of will. We need God to go before us and work in us. Traditional Calvinistic writers and commentators have affirmed faith is integral and necessary for salvation, but not creatively determinative for that salvation to occur. Thus, in Romans 3:22f, God's righteousness through Christ comes “through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” Faith is what has been called the “instrumental” cause of salvation, distinguishing it from the primary cause, which is still the unconditional, free grace of God – “and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that cames by Jesus Christ” (Rom. 3:24). Human faith does not save us; Christ does! The glory and honor go to God in Christ, not to our decision for Christ. (See chapter Appendix for another understanding of faith and obedience.) This necessary theological understanding of faith and what faith does and does not do should inform the Bible-based preaching and teaching of salvation. Instead of “forcing” or prodding people toward making a “decision for Christ,” it would be more biblical (and effective, I believe) to preach the worthiness of Christ to save and invite hearers to reflect on and respond to Him. This does not mean we downplay the seriousness or urgency for a faith-commitment. It does mean we direct that faith commitment to its proper and only power source, namely Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

The “hard” passages of Scripture Non-Calvinists will undoubtedly point to choice passages of Scripture to refute limited or definite atonement. Forget the argument of human freedom of the will for the moment. Forget the theological structure or place of faith and repentance in the order of salvation. What about those Bible passages that indicate or imply Christ died for all people everywhere?

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,

46 that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

“This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men . . .” (1 Timothy 2:3–6)

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

“ . . . Jesus Christ, The Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1, 2).

What seems obvious to most Bible-believing Christians is not so obvious. “The whole world” from the New Testament biblical writers' point of view refers to Gentiles as well as Jews. What Jesus and the New Testament writers wanted to convey against the exclusivism of Judaism is that Christ's atoning sacrifice paid for the sins of all peoples everywhere, not merely for God's covenant people, the Jews. This is especially the contextual point of the Timothy passage. Paul has been writing against sectarian Judaism in Ephesus, against people who believed and taught that God has saving interest in only some select group of Jews. “The heresy appears to be sectarian and exclusive, or anti-Gentile (1 Tim. 2:1–7), warranting Paul's emphasis on the universal offer of salvation to all people (1 Tim. 2:6; 4:10; cf. 1:15), including Gentiles (1 Tim 2:7; cf. Foerster, TDNT7:1016–17).”6 The New Testament commentator William Mounce goes on to say:

. . . but the text [1 Tim. 2:1–7] does not move into universalism. In the PE [Pastoral Epistles], salvation is by grace only for those who believe (cf. Introduction, 'Themes in the PE'). Roloff stresses the

47 universal emphasis relates only to the scope of God's plan; salvation is only for those who have come to the knowledge of truth, heard the gospel, and received it (119–20). . . . The force of the statement is directed toward the opponents' sectarian theology.7

Calvinists have interpreted the “all men” reference to “all groups or all kinds, including rulers and authorities (1 Tim. 2:1) and Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7).”8 The point stands that Paul is talking about scope of saving grace, namely “all without distinction,” not a literal “all without exception.” To apply the latter interpretation moves Paul into universalism, which is not the point of the context. While it may seem “forced” to insist upon “all without distinction” versus “all without exception,” the point that Owen and others have made is that the sacrificial, atoning death of Christ is the thing that secures salvation, not the response of the recipient. To hold to the latter almost seems inimical to God and his glory. To try to have it “both ways,” where God does “all He can” and we do “all we can” places too much ability, power and resolve on human responsibility or freedom. In other words, people are not so totally depraved as the Scripture writers have thought! The “eschatological delay” passage in 2 Peter 3:8–10 does not refer to giving sinners another chance, or that in the end all will be saved. Richard Bauckham puts it this way:

Does the author mean that lack of repentance on humanity's part can defer the Parousia (3:9), while repentance and good works can hasten its coming (3:12), so that it is really not God, but humanity, that determines the date of the Parousia? He certainly does admit that, from the human point of view, there is a deferment, for the sake of human repentance, so that the Parousia comes later than was originally expected. . . . But this does not necessarily detract from the divine sovereignty. Not human sin, but divine forbearance, which cannot be constrained, determines the delay. It is the sovereign God who graciously grants an interval for repentance.9

48 We are once again led back to God and his glory, God and his timing, God and his eternal plans. And that is exactly where we want to rest. All in all, the “all men” or “the world” passages in Scripture do not give credence to Christ effectually dying for all people without exception unless we affirm two caveats–Christ's sacrificial death does not really save anyone, and my belief generated from my free will is what really effects salvation. I believe Calvinists have rightly drawn back from these conclusions in advancing limited or definite atonement.

Objections to limited atonement Writing from an “outsider's” viewpoint on this aspect of “Dortian” Calvinism10 has enabled me to hear the practical objections to this teaching. Here they are, as fairly as I can present them.

What's the use of evangelism if there is a determinate amount of people for whom Christ died who will be saved? What's the point? The answer comes from the “why” of evangelism. Why do Christians witness and evangelize? Why all the effort to reach different people and cultures? Why all the studies and attempts to decipher the “seeker” in today's world? If the answer is “response-oriented,” that the point is to try to produce as much “fruit” in terms of conversions as possible, then that is a humanly daunting and biblically insufficient reason for evangelism. The biblical rationale for evangelism is three-fold. First, I obey my Lord and Savior in actively seeking to witness to my neighbors. As I “go along” in my daily life, I seek to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). I give obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ in evangelistic endeavors. Second, I witness to glorify God and fulfill his plan in this world. God has chosen human witnessing to accomplish his intended goal of redemption. Third, I witness with the full knowledge that if Christ has indeed died for an “uncountable” number of people (cf. Rev. 7:9), then my witnessing efforts will never be in vain. They will accomplish all that God has intended and wanted (cf. Isaiah 55:11). I can never really be frustrated at the human

49 outcomes of my evangelism. This gives me hope and the passion to witness aggressively and widely.

You still have not convinced me that “all” does not really mean “everybody” in the Bible. Employing a technical “all without distinction” rather than “all without exception” is foreign to what Jesus and the New Testament writers meant. This, to me, may be a valid objection, as far as it goes. If I have to base textually the teaching of limited atonement on “all without distinction” rather than “all without exception,” I may have sketchy textual support.11 It may be an imposition of my theological assumptions on the text of Scripture rather than what it says. The real issue is the point of the atonement. If indeed Jesus died for me, for my sins, for my guilt, for my eternal life, then my hope and welfare are tied up with the sufficiency and power of that sacrifice. My faith-stance may waver from day to day. My commitment may falter or even fail in terms of “all for Jesus.” My repentance my be sketchy and insufficient and neglect so many failures and sins. But my hope, as the gospel song says, is “built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness.”

Humans still have the freedom to choose or reject God. Jesus cannot– and does not–”force” people into the kingdom. Limited atonement and its consequences make people “puppets” with no real choices. I have attempted to deal with this objection in Chapter Two. More will be said in the next chapter, “Grace That Captures,” on the Calvinistic point of “irresistible grace.” Suffice it to say that I believe we put too much stock in nebulous human “freedom.” Even in experience we have to admit that very often things don't work out the way we choose. While we chalk such things up to “chance” or “fate” or “coincidence” (What kind of Christian response is that anyway??) or whatever, our exercise of so-called freedom is frightfully narrow and limited. We must admit that whatever theological positions we hold, God will get what He wants in very practical, day-to-day situations. The Calvinist, at least, has a theology that understands and backs these kind of

50 “inexplicable circumstances” up, especially when it comes to matters of faith and changed or unchanged lives.

Appendix – Another Look at Faith and Obedience

The classic Reformed or Calvinistic viewpoint of faith or belief in Christ has been aggressively challenged by theologians such as Scott Hafemann.12 Hafemann rejects the classic “double imputation” stance of most Reformed theologians and writers which holds that believers’ sins have been imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to those for whom Christ died. In other words, God accepts us as righteous on the basis of Christ’s work on the cross “reckoned” to our account or standing before God. Romans 3 and 4 are often used as the Scriptural proof for this position. We are declared righteous, or justified, by grace alone and stand acquitted before the Judge of the universe due to the perfect obedience of Christ on our behalf. As the “instrumental” cause of our salvation, faith receives (passively) Christ’s work on our behalf. We “do” nothing to or earn God’s righteousness. Our resulting obedience is the evidence of true saving faith, but separate from the receptive faith act. Hafemann disputes that understanding of justifying faith. He maintains that believers following Abraham’s faith are justified because of their trusting in God and his promises. “Abraham trusted God so that his act of trusting was reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3 and Gen. 15:6).13 No, this does not mean that faith is a self-justifying “work” in the negative sense. The object of one’s faith-and-obedience (note the connecting) is God alone, and we must understand the pre-conversion condition of the one trusting. We must maintain the Scriptural order–we are saved by grace through faith. God must grant us forgiveness so we can live a life of faith. Faith is a trusting in God’s redeeming work, not a trusting in our own pre-conversion works. We are, therefore, not saved by “works-righteousness.” Consequently, faith is not mere mental assent to data from the past, nor the “implict cognitive acceptance of the truthfulness of its supporting reality or

51 object.”14 Faith is active, willing trust and a life lived in obedience to God. However, this is of no comfort to an Arminian understanding of faith and salvation. Hafemann is a Calvinist so there is no idea of freedom of the human will making the difference here in one’s stance toward God. God must first regenerate, must first grant forgiveness, must first work in us so we can live in faith. So, in any case, whether in the classic Reformed understanding or Hafemann’s understanding of saving faith, God gets the glory and Christ is praised.

Footnotes REDEMPTION THAT MATTERS

1Quoted in Peter T. O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, in Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 44, Word Books, 1982, p.56. 2Called in historical and systematic theology the Good Example Theory, the Moral Influence Theory, and the Governmental Theory of the atonement. 3An excellent resource covering the substitutionary theology of atonement comes from Leon Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1956. 4John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise in Which the Whole Controversy about Universal Redemption is Fully Discussed with an Introduction by J.I. Packer, Banner of Truth, 1959. 5Charles Spurgeon noted that “repentance” is but the reverse side of “faith,"”so that both go together in a person's coming to Christ for salvation. Most evangelicals would agree. 6William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 46, Thomas Nelson, 2000, p. lxx. TDNT refers to Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 7Mounce, p. 85. 8From Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, 1994, pp. 594–603 and Mounce's comment, Pastoral Epistles, p. 85. 9Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 50, Word Books, 1983, p. 313. 10This is the rather negative term used by David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke in their “Introduction” to Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, B&H Publishing, 2010. They maintain a person can be a Calvinist without endorsing all five points (TULIP) of the Synod of Dort, 52 to which “Dortian” refers. 11Mounce makes this point in when he says, “ . . . although textually (i.e., not theologically) it is extremely difficult to read “all groups” into 1 Tim. 4:11 and Titus 2:11” in Pastoral Epistles, p. 85. 12Scott Hafemann has been the Mary French Rockefeller Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, MA. He is moving to St. Andrews School of Divinity in Scotland in the fall of 2011. His writings include The God of Promise and the Life of Faith: Understanding the Heart of the Bible, Crossway Books, 2001 and Central Themes in : Mapping Unity in Diversity, eds. Hafemann and Paul House, Baker Academic, 2007. He teaches yearly a “Spurgeon Sabbatical” at Gordon-Conwell for a select group of pastors seeking spiritual and academic refreshment. 13This would be Hafemann’s understanding of the Greek text and thought of Romans 4:3 – “For the Scripture says that, ‘But Abraham trusted God so that [his act of trusting] was reckoned as righteousness (cf. Gen 15:6).’” But Abraham’s faith is not a self-justifying work in the negative sense because of the object of faith and the pre-conversion condition of the one trusting. 14From Hafemann’s commentary on “faith” in 2 Peter 1:1. Class Notes, Spurgeon Sabbatical 2011, Gordon-Conwell Seminary.

53 54 SIX Grace That Captures

t happened at an old-fashioned Wesleyan revival meeting in my hometown of Indiana, PA. The invitation to come to the altar of the Ichurch to receive Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and Lord had been given. I was determined, since after all I was a “good” kid, not to respond, but to bear through the incessant singing of “Just As I Am.” Then, a power I cannot describe except that God spoke, not audibly, but definitely, came to me to move out of my seat and go to the altar. My life has never been the same. That night, I was “captured” by God's grace. Resistance was futile. And as much as I wanted to not come to Christ, I was drawn by a supernatural magnet to a transformed life. No regrets and all praise to God! Calvinists call this “irresistible grace,” the “I” in TULIP.

The Call of God The Bible talks about the “call” of God – “And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Romans 8:30). Not only is there a definite order to the process of salvation,1 but there are definite markers to salvation. One of those markers is “calling.” 1 Peter 2:9 tells us God “calls” people “out of darkness into his wonderful light.” People are called of God to be “saints” (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2), to “belong to Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:6). Peace (Colossians 3:15), freedom (Galatians 5:13), hope (Ephesians 1:18), holiness (1 Thessalonians 4:7) and eternal life (1 Timothy 6:12) are resultant evidences of this calling from God.

55 This calling then is much more than a letter, or a human invitation, or phone call, or a Facebook note or a Tweet. It is, in fact, a sovereign, intimate summons from God the Father that moves people in such a way that they respond to the gospel in repentance and faith. It is obvious from these verses that this “call” from God results in life change and transformation. This call has been termed by theologians “effective” or “effectual” calling. Something spiritually amazing really happens. It is also obvious this is all God's doing.2 It is not engineered by, planned by, motivated by or coerced by human thought, action, intuition or effort. That does not mean that human experience and action are not involved. People so “called” respond in repentance and faith. They move from spiritual darkness to spiritual light. They experience change. But they don't generate such change. Not everyone is called in this distinct, divine and effective sense. This call is particular (Galatians 1:15, 16; Ephesians 4:4; Hebrews 9:15; Jude 1; 1 Peter 2:9). The “irresistible” part of this truth flows from Jesus’ own words that “all that the Father gives me will come to me . . . No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . .“ (John 6:37ff). God's Word and work in a person's life cannot falter or fail. An illustration is often given of Jesus “calling” (or summoning) Lazarus from death to life. Just as Jesus spoke life to his body, so Jesus through the Spirit speaks life to our spiritual bodies, with the immediate and effective result that we “come forth” from death to life (cf. John 11:43). But aren't people given what is called an “external” call? Yes, this gospel call is crucial and important to the salvation process. It happens when the gospel message is presented and people are urged, encouraged, and often pleaded with to turn to God from their sinful lives and ways. “How, then can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” (Romans 10:14) The systematic theologian, Wayne Grudem, puts it this way:

The gospel call is general and external and often rejected, while the

56 effective call is particular, internal and always effective [emphasis his]. However, this is not to diminish the importance of the gospel call–it is the means God has appointed through which effective calling will come. Without the gospel call, no one could respond and be saved!3

The place of faith and regeneration We have already seen that faith is necessary to salvation. Yet with our understanding of the hardness and deadness of the heart of human beings steeped in total depravity, faith cannot come apart from a work of God in the depths of their being. This instantaneous work of God the Holy Spirit is called “regeneration.” It is that “born again” or “from above” shaft of light from God that gives a person the desire and the ability to repent and believe the gospel. Jesus told Nicodemus that to “enter the kingdom of God” one has to be “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). “But, because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved” (Ephesians 2:4, 5). It is by God's grace we who are hopeless and helpless are brought to spiritual life. That is regeneration. Faith is closely related to this act of God inside of us. While some say that the step of faith has to come before God saves us, it is biblically obvious that God has to come to us in effective calling and regeneration before that faith-act can ever take place. Usually a person cannot, and should not, separate them into distinct, timed and well-oiled theological entities. In our experience, something happens inside of us; a light goes on, so to speak, and we respond to God in repentance and faith. This combination of calling with regeneration can be subsumed under the “I” in TULIP–irresistible grace.

Solving the problems Many have problems with such a teaching. The first is its “discriminatory” nature. If not everyone is given a chance to accept or reject Jesus Christ, then people say we are but puppets. Our so-called free will is violated. This objection has been dealt with in previous

57 chapters. And, everyone has been given a “chance” through our progenitor, Adam, and is given an opportunity to respond through the call of the gospel to “all who will believe.” The “catch” is that only those given the ability or power to believe from God actually believe! I once challenged a non-Christian who wanted to “debate” the free will issue. I challenged him to genuinely commit his life to Jesus, giving some of the biblical marks of such a commitment, based only on his free choice, and discounting any inner work of grace. If his choice “took,” then I would accept the premise of free will. After thinking this through for a weekend, he refused the challenge. He found he could not just willy-nilly come to Jesus on his humanistic terms and in his own strength. He found out he needed “help” to do so. The second objection has to do with the “irresistibility” of the work of the Holy Spirit to come to faith. Can't we, in fact, “resist” the Spirit (cf. Acts 7:51)? The Westminster Confession says that all those effectively drawn by the Spirit of Christ “come most freely, being made willing by his grace.”4 We still responsibly choose to come to Christ for eternal life, yet the “drawing force” is God the Holy Spirit enlightening, changing, transforming and moving us to Christ. The other way to look at this is to ask one who has been born again if he or she did not finally want to come to Christ for faith and life. Yes, for some this was a struggle with internal and external forces and temptations, but in spite of all of that, once they came to Christ, they were overjoyed and celebrated their new life. No regrets, and certainly no “blaming” God for his drawing them to Himself.

Footnotes GRACE THAT CAPTURES

1Called by theologians the ordo salutis, or order of salvation. Some call it the Golden Chain of Redemption.. 2God the Father is primarily in view in these verses. 3Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 694. 4The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X, “Of Effectual Calling,“ Section 1. 58 SEVEN Perseverance and Preservation

he Westminster Confession of Faith puts the final category in TULIP this way: “They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, Teffectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.”1 Not only are the elect of God redeemed by Christ and renewed by the Spirit, but they are also kept to the end by the power of God. Nothing can or will separate them from the unchangeable love of God. They are assured of heaven as their eternal home.

Not Wesleyan holiness nor “eternal security” My ministry assignments in the last twenty years have certainly challenged these statements. John Wesley and his followers were adamant about the possibility of losing one's salvation or abandoning the faith:

The general rule on which his gracious dispensations invariably proceed is this: “Unto him that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not,” – that does not improve the grace already given, -- “shall be taken away what he assuredly hath.” (So the words ought to be rendered.) Even St. Augustine, who is generally supposed to favor the contrary doctrine, makes that just remark, Qui fecit nos sine nobis, non salvabit nos sine nobis – “He that made us without ourselves, will not save us without ourselves.” He will not save us unless we “save ourselves from this untoward generation;” unless we

59 ourselves “fight the good fight of faith, and lay hold on eternal life; “unless we “agonize to enter in at the strait gate,” deny ourselves, and take up our cross daily,” and labor by every possible means to “make our own calling and election sure.”2

Consequently, in these faith traditions, a lot of sermon and teaching work is done on the subjects of holiness living, entire sanctification,3 and the obedience of the believer. Many verses from the Bible talk about the need of and demand for active, vital discipleship (cf. Matthew 10:22, 33; John 15:4–6; Galatians 6:8, 9; Acts 11:23; 13:43; 2 Timothy 2:11–13; 2 Peter 1:10, 11; Revelation 2:7, 10, 11, etc). No serious student of Scripture questions the need for perseverance in the faith or holiness before God. This is not, therefore, a Calvinistic or non- Calvinistic issue. True disciples are those who abide in Christ (John 8:31). We are commanded to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” joined with the assurance, “for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Philippians 2:12, 13). Wesley went beyond the need for perseverance, however, and stressed that a person may “fall away” from God and eventually perish eternally. Failure to “improve upon the grace already given” meant that God would not intervene and secure the believer in the grace given. “Conditional security” thus attempted to both honor the God who keeps us by His power and love, yet respects the free will of the professed believer who chooses to reject that work of God. The interesting note here is that in this theological tradition, as I have seen it worked out, no one is ever sure of his or her standing with God or of heaven itself when they die. It is “hoped” that they have lived enough of a Christ-honoring and obedient life to be accepted into heaven, but there is always that seed of doubt. I have seen this doubt fester in dear saints of God, clearly walking in obedience to Christ and his Word, so that they end up dishonoring the God who saved them! Unfortunately, this holiness tradition has misread the “P” in TULIP. Perseverance of the saints does NOT mean what many refer

60 to as “eternal security.” This must be stressed at the forefront of this discussion. Eternal security is based on the premise of “once saved, always saved,” and “saved” means “I have made a decision for Jesus at some point in my life.” This “decisionist” Christianity is not the Christianity of the New Testament. Many in the holiness tradition have seen and spoken with people living in open sin with their comeback, “Oh, I am going to heaven no matter what since I accepted Jesus in vacation Bible school as a child” or whatever place and time they mention. This is an outright desecration of the security of the believer. It is certainly not what the Synod of Dort had in mind when they affirmed the orthodox understanding of perseverance and preservation. The understanding of the Synod of Dort by Steele and Thomas is that “all who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.”4 Scriptures that point this out include John 6:37–40; 10:28, 29; Romans 8:28–39; 2 Corinthians 1:21, 22; 1 John 4:13–17; Ephesians 1:13, 14; 2 Timothy 2: 17– 19 and 4:18. Failure to persevere in this theological construct means that the supposed conversion experience was either a deception or spurious (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2 and 1 John 2:19).

Judging a “credible” profession of faith “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matthew 7:1) has been a verse often quoted in this kind of discussion. It is reasoned, since we do not know the heart of a person, we cannot tell and have no right to tell if that person knows Christ really or not. Consequently, when a person who has made a public decision for salvation in Christ “falls away” or departs from the faith, this is cited as evidence that people can and do lose their salvation. And, it still is maintained in theological traditions that advance this kind of thinking that we must accept a decision for Christ without question. This is not, however, what Jesus had in mind. Actually, in the context of the verse, Jesus Himself is making all kinds of eternal

61 judgments. He talks about the “broad road” leading to “destruction,” and the “narrow road” leading to “life” in this section (Matt. 7:13, 14). He cautions us to watch out for false prophets, telling us we can know them “by their fruit” (Matt. 7:15ff). And, “not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (v. 21). Plenty of judgments are being made that matter for eternity here. Objectors may respond by saying, “This is Jesus, not us, making such judgments. We are not Jesus.” True, but aren’t believers to have the “mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16)? Aren’t Christian people, in the process of church discipline, supposed to exercise spiritual judgment when the offensive party refuses to listen to the church? Jesus said, “treat him as you would a pagan” – a nonbeliever (Matt. 18:17)! The point is we can and should discern what is and what is not a “credible” profession of faith. Yes, care must be exercised, but if the evidences of following Christ are consistently not there (cf. 1 John 3:6, 7), we can and should ask if his or her profession of faith is believable and credible. I actually witnessed a number of people throughout my ministry career who had made some sort of decision for Christ but had no real credible profession of faith. They lacked the necessary evidences for true faith. This was brought home starkly to me when a teenage girl of a Presbyterian church elder, who had made quite a deal of his children being in a covenantal-faith relationship with Christ, confessed to me that she wanted nothing to do with the Christ of her father or her church. Saying all the right things, memorizing the catechism, going through baptismal and membership classes meant nothing to her. She had “faked” them all, rather well, unfortunately, and came out an unbeliever. Her so-called profession of faith was not credible. She did not “fall away.” She did not forsake the faith. She simply had never really trusted Christ as her Savior and Lord. Again, in the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition what is sacrosanct is the point of decision. Rather than questioning the decision or experience of the person professing Christ, it is simply assumed that conversion has occurred and we cannot and must not question that act. What power the supposed human free will has in this system!

62 It can even “dictate” to God what is or what is not there! Reformed people have always spoken about a “credible” profession of faith, assuming that there can be lack of credibility in such professions. Non-Calvinists have always charged Calvinists with being blinded by their logic and not the Bible. A similar charge, however, can be lodged against the non-Calvinist who follows through logically with their emphasis on freedom of the will. Everything hangs on such freedom without question.

The process of sanctification “It is God's will that you should be sanctified . . .” (1 Thessalonians 4:3). Biblical sanctification can be defined as a definite, personal, growing and progressive experience where the Spirit of God renews our wills, minds, emotions and desires to be more and more conformed to Christ (cf. Ephesians 4:23, 24; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Romans 6). Biblical sanctification results in being “glorified” when Jesus comes again (Romans 8:17, 23; Philippians 3:21). The Reformed writer, B.B. Warfield, said, “Sanctification is but the execution of the justifying decree.”5 Sanctification is both definitive and progressive. Positionally, every Christian has been sanctified by Christ’s sacrifice (Hebrews 9:13, 14; 10:10; 13:12). A definitive “breach” with sin and its dominion and power has been made in the justified believer’s life (cf. Romans 6). This doesn’t mean a Christian never sins or can be free from all sin this side of glorification. This is why most evangelicals have rightly believed and taught that sanctification is progressive. The “whole person” is being sanctified (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 24) in two complementary ways. Negatively, he or she grows more aware of their sinfulness and unworthiness and seeks to flee from it. Positively, he or she increasingly reflects the life of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). Within the process of sanctification, three Holy Spirit-led things happen at different times and in diferent places in a Christian’s walk of faith. First, they evidence “good works” in their life (Ephesians 2:10; 1 Timothy 5:25; 6:18; Titus 2:14). These good deeds are not their

63 entrance ticket to heaven or the root of their salvation. Christ alone and his righteousness alone are the foundation. Yet, good works are an integral part of the salvation experience as the Christian grows closer to Christ. Second, the blessing of assurance of salvation comes with the progression of sanctification (Romans 5:5; 8:15, 16; 1 John 2:3; 3:14). The believer becomes internally convinced he or she is a child of God with all the rights and privileges of such a relationship. The Holy Spirit grants such assurance either immediately (Romans 5:5) or inferentially through the fruit of good deeds done in Christ’s Name and for his glory. While the feeling of assurance may wane and fade or increase, the status of the believer with God as a beloved child, a royal son or daughter, never fades or diminishes. Third, progressive sanctification results in perseverance in the faith (2 Timothy 2:19; Jeremiah 31:3; Hebrews 13:20, 21; Romans 8:33– 39; Philippians 2:12; Revelation 2:7, etc.). True believers will continue to follow Christ as God preserves them for eternity. Reformed writers and theologians have always recognized that even though true believers cannot finally or totally fall from grace, they can fall into great sins for a time. Yet, they will certainly persevere since their eternal destiny is tied up with the reality and certainty of the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Dealing with objections If such a teaching is true, then why all the warnings in Scripture in the case of carelessness and sin, such as Hebrews 6:4–6 and the like? While the Hebrews text has been difficult to decipher,6 the writer gives a definite warning against apostasy in these verses. In no uncertain terms, he warns these wayward Christians (cf. Hebrews 5:11–14) of the dangers of the deliberate abandoning of their faith in Christ. He uses irony and sarcasm to address their signs of spiritual regression. But in the context of warning, the writer remains optimistic about this group of believers – “we are confident of better things in your case–things that accompany salvation” (Heb. 6:9). God will not in the end forsake

64 his own work:

When the redeeming blood of Christ is applied by the Holy Spirit to the very heart of a man’s being, it is a work of God that cannot fail. This means that those who are genuinely Christ’s do not fall away into apostasy. Where there is a work of God, whether in creation or in re-creation, whether in judgment or in grace, that work, simply because it is God’s work, cannot fail to achieve its purpose in accordance with the divine will.7

While the warnings are not hypothetical, and are very serious, they do not automatically translate into definitive propositions of believers abandoning their faith. That conclusion goes beyond the text in Hebrews. Biblical warnings are given not to frighten us but to stir us up to live as God commands. Mere outward identification with Christ’s Church is never enough.

What about the Scripture texts that speak of “falling away” or “falling from grace?” (Galatians 5:4; cf. 2 Corinthians 6:1) Again, study these verses in context. The issue in Galatians 5 is the understanding of the doctrine of justification. Paul is teaching that any kind of justification by law-works, the kind being taught by Judaizers of his day, would, in effect, be a “fall from grace” (cf. Gal. 2:20, 21; 3:11, 13, 23–25; 4:4–7). In other words, you cannot have Christ as the foundation for your righteousness and the observance of the law code as well: “Commitment to Christ and commitment to legal prescriptions for righteousness, whether that righteousness is understood in forensic terms (i.e., “justification”) or ethical terms (i.e., “lifestyle” and expression), are mutually exclusive; experientially, the one destroys the other.”8 In adopting a law-centered lifestyle as defined by the Judaizers the Galatians would give up their freedom in Christ (5:1ff). Such a discussion is far from the popular thinking that “falling from grace” means losing one’s personal salvation. Indeed, no one who holds this position would ever intimate that we can be justified by observing the works of the law. But that is the contextual

65 issue. To forsake justification through Christ means accepting justification by obedience to a law code. In 2 Corinthians 6:1, Paul is contextually thinking of the judgment seat of Christ (5:10) before which the works of the Corinthians will be examined. To receive the grace of God “in vain,” rather than losing one’s salvation or rejecting that salvation, means that one’s practice needs to measure up to one’s profession of faith.9 Indeed, as heirs of Abraham, Christians are to exercise faith. “An alleged ‘faith’ that does not express itself in obedience is, by definition, not a true faith (Jas 2:21–26; Heb. 11:17; Gal. 5:6).”10 The practice of self-examination of one’s faith in this case will not lead to failure but assurance (cf. 13:5).

Experience tells me that such a doctrine will lead to a misuse of God’s grace and a license to sin. Ray C. Stedman wisely addresses this objection in his Appendix in the IVP New Testament Commentary Series on further thoughts on Hebrews 6:

The situation seems to be that borrowed faith, though real enough at the time to produce many signs of spiritual vitality, can be lost. Others, observing this, draw the conclusion that eternal life, once held, can be lost again. Theologians call that Arminianism . . . But once faith truly becomes personal, it can never be lost, though it may waver and grow very weak at times. That is the conclusion of Calvinists. But who can really tell the difference? Only the Lord can! We must leave the matter then at that point, as Paul does in his letter to Timothy: “God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: ‘The Lord knows those who are his,’ and ‘Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness’” (2 Tim. 2:19). God reads the hearts and knows whether the faith being exhibited is borrowed faith or genuine; it is only when that inward faith affects the outward life and the believer “turns away from wickedness” that we can tell it is genuine faith.11

Calvinists must not use God’s sovereign grace as a crutch or an excuse

66 for sinful living. To do so not merely presumes upon such grace but forsakes the fruit of such grace. But to reject the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints based upon the fickle waywardness of some Christians shows theological immaturity.

Footnotes PERSEVERANCE AND PRESERVATION

1The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIX, Section 1. 2John Wesley, “On Working Out Our Own Salvation,” Wesley’s Sermons, Sermon 85, www.godrules.net/library/wsermons/wsermons85.htm. This position has been historically called “conditional security”–the Arminian belief that believers are kept safe by God in their saving relationship with Him upon the condition of a persevering faith in Christ. 3“Entire sanctification” is the Wesleyan belief that a Christian may attain a state of Christian life where mind, heart and body are so totally committed or surrendered to Christ that one does not consciously sin anymore. Wesley did not, as some suppose, teach “sinless perfection” where all sin is eradicated in the Christian, but rather a state of “total love” where love for God overcomes sinful tendencies and desires. This teaching is often based on 1 Thessalonians 5:23 – “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Such a state has been variously interpreted as a “second work of grace” or a “baptism in the Spirit,” received subsequent to conversion. 4David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended and Documented, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963, reprinted 2004, p. 7. 5Benjamin B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, reprint, 2010. 6For a survey of the various interpretations, see J.K. Solari, “The Problem of Metanoia in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1970, as noted in William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A, Word Books, 1991. 7Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Eerdmans, 1977, p. 221. 8Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 41, Word Books, 1990, p. 228. 9The New Testament commentator and writer on what is called the “new perspective” of Pauline studies has a very different point of view here. He maintains that in 2 Corinthians 2:14–6:13, Paul is defending his apostleship.

67 “In 6:2 he appeals to the Corinthians not to ‘receive God’s grace in vain.’ in other words, not to sit there as receipients of the grace of God in the gospel while denying its real power to turn the world the right way up through Jesus’ death and resurrection.” (N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, InterVarsity Press, 2009, pp. 166-7.) In any case, there is no reference to the Corinthian believers losing their salvation status in Christ. 10Scott J. Hafemann, “The Covenant Relationship,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity, ed. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House, InterVarsity Press, 2007, p. 44. 11Ray C. Stedman, Hebrews, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, ed. Grant R. Osborne, InterVarsity Press, 1992, p. 163.

68 EIGHT Let God Be God!

od saves sinners! This statement no evangelical would deny or attempt to refute. It is held in highest esteem and deepest Gconviction among conservative Christians of whatever theological persuasion. And yet it is precisely this statement that fuels the Calvinist fire for the “five points.” Rather than being a polemic against other Christians, the five points of Calvinism simply seek to state the foundations of the gospel as it applies to the salvation of God’s people. Perhaps the most precise and penetrating summary of this salient point has been made by J.I. Packer:

For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners. God–the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves–does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves, and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners–men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners–and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity,

69 or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedalling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour.1

This is a formidable exposition of the meaning of the gospel. Those with another theological viewpoint are limited to defending what I would say is a “lower” view of God or, to put it another way, a “higher” view of humankind than the Bible paints. Some see Packer’s statement as “boxing” God in, making men and women mere “puppets,” mere playthings in a universe already conceived, planned and whose end is already set. There is no room for human creativity, human accomplishment, human ingenuity, human will. Men and women are players on the stage of life pre-ordained and merely serving out their God-defined destinies. And many would say how limiting, how negative, how futile it all seems to be if the Calvinistic description of God and salvation are true.

Why does God save people anyway? So then, why does God save anybody? To me, this is the “continental divide” in Christianity. For the non-Calvinist, God saves people primarily because of his love. It is his vast, unbounded, great and gracious love that men and women see, especially in the sacrifice of Christ, and many therefore choose to follow Him. A catalog of sermons in the evangelical world would show a preponderance of the “love of God” in them. There is little doubt this is the defining theology of salvation in their conceptions, sermons, writings, blogs, emails and social networks. On the other hand, if Calvinists are true to their theology, God saves people primarily for Himself! God transforms lives for his own glory, honor, praise and worship. To be sure, He obviously loves people He chooses to save. He draws them with cords of love; out of love, He has given them his own Son as a sacrifice of atonement and life. He loves them, not because He must, but because He wants to in an unconditional way. But He does all of this for Himself. And this is

70 what God as God must do, since there is no other or higher motive or power or force. Non-Calvinists would pay lip service to the glory of God, but it is not the defining force of salvation for them. This is a problem not merely of theological insight but of perception. All Christians perceive God to be who they think He is. So, God cannot condemn infants and children dying before a certain age, not because of any Scripture verse that definitively says so, but because of our perception of God. I am not suggesting or even hinting at making a theological point here about infants or children dying young,2 but rather to say that our view of God is “bottom up” in many cases rather than “top down.” Instead of submitting to God as He defines or describes himself, we gravitate to what we think is fair, or just, or loving, or holy, or great, or good. The early church certainly did not view God this way. As the early believers were praying about the news recently shared by Peter and John about Jewish threats against preaching the resurrected Jesus, they began with “Sovereign Lord” (Acts 4:24). The term used here means “despot” or absolute ruler.3 They began their prayer not with their situation, not with Peter and John’s safety, not with their desire for gospel success, but with the name, the glory, the power and the pre-eminence of God Himself. They were God-centered in their attitudes, desires and plans. In Acts 16 Paul and Silas are in prison, not bemoaning their state of captivity, but “praying and signing hymns to God” (Acts 16:25). They were more interested in pleasing God, in serving God, in honoring God and spreading the gospel than in their own personal safety and deliverance. They had a God-centered point of view and approach to ministry. God wonderfully saved the jailor and his family (Acts 16:31– 34). They let God be God in their situations. What has changed through the ages is not God. What has changed has been our view of God, our approach to God and our declaration of God to our world. We have succumbed to man-centered views of God and his gospel. We have attempted to make God more “palatable” to seekers and in the process have stripped God of his glory, power and

71 ability to reach into cultures and situations.

The character of God In their book, Why I Am Not A Calvinist, Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell maintain that who God is stands at the heart of the division between Calvinists and non-Calvinists:

Although we would agree that a portion of the dispute swirls around the topic of sovereignty and human freedom, we contend that the truly fundamental dispute is not over power but rather over God’s character. Our motivation for writing this book is not our desire to present a case for human liberty. . . . The fundamental issue here is which theological paradigm does a better job of representing the biblical picture of God’s character: which theological system gives a more adequate account of the biblical God whose nature is holy love?4

They go on to say the issue is not the power of God but rather “what it means to say he is perfectly loving and good.”5 Because God is perfect love, and genuine love demands true freedom, what God could have done with human beings is not what He would do given his character. Because his nature is love, “he genuinely loves all persons and genuinely invites them to share his love (Jn. 3:16; 14:19–21, 23; 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:7–12).”6 God’s love is the supreme attribute, in other words, and must never be subjugated to God’s will, as he believes Calvinists have done.

The breathtaking vision of God’s trinitarian love is obscured by the Calvinist claim that God passes over persons he could just as easily save and thereby consigns them to eternal misery. The exhilarating message of the gospel that should be good news to all sinners is muted by the Calvinist claim that only the elect are truly able to join the dance. . . . When love is subordinated to will, then the fatherhood of God, which is emphasized in the Trinity (Mk 1:11; Jn 1:18; 5:19–20; 17:20–26; 20:17; 1 Cor 15:20–28), takes a back seat to the image of God as King or Ruler. God’s essential relational nature as a

72 being who exists in three persons becomes secondary to the notion that God is a sovereign monarch whose will cannot be thwarted.7

So, instead of the question “How does a sovereign God love?” the real question, according to these authors is, “How would a God of perfect love express his sovereignty?”8 The problem, however, with these authors and others who write in the same vein is that they do not really biblically prove their point! Their philosophical problems with limitation of human freedom taint their view of God and his sovereignty. Biblical declarations of who God is are not only too narrowly defined by “God is love” (1 John 4:8), but also by a complete biblical-theological misunderstanding of the compassionate, yet sovereign, God who is “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love” (Psalm 103:8). Let’s unpack this further. First, the “God is” statements in the Bible. In the New Testament, “God is” not only love, but also “light” (1 John 1:5), “consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29 quoting Deuteronomy 4:24), “just” (2 Thessalonians 1:6; Hebrews 6:10), “faithful” (1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Corinthians 1:18), “spirit” (John 4:24), and “truthful” (John 3:33). In the Old Testament, God’s nature as “love” is fused with His character as “truthfulness” (Numbers 23:19), holy “jealousy” (Deut. 4:24), the “faithful, covenant God” (Deut. 7:9), “mighty” and “awesome” (Deut. 10:17; cf. Job 36:5), a “righteous judge” (Psalm 7:11), the “king of all the earth” (Psalm 47:7; cf. Daniel 5:21), and “holy” (Psalm 99:9). Sovereign, creative strength and justice aligned with mercy, grace and faithfulness to His people characterize the God of the Bible. To claim “love” as the predominant character trait of God is to do injustice to His other attributes. Then there is the biblical-theological problem with Walls and Dongell and others who exalt God’s love as primary. God’s primary relationship to His creation and His people is that of a “covenant Lord” – “Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. But those who hate

73 him he will repay to their face by destruction . . .” (Deuteronomy 7:9, 10; 32; cf. Exodus 34; Jeremiah 31:31). God acts as covenant Lord over His people, not just over Israel of old, but over His people everywhere and in every time and culture. That covenant-kingship includes judgment as well as love, discipline and rebuke as well as mercy and encouragement. This overriding and unifying biblical theme is often missed in discussions on the character of God.9 To re-use Walls and Dongell’s own words, God is a “sovereign monarch whose will cannot be thwarted!” His covenantal character demands such a primary description. God is relational, but relational as my Creator-Lord, over me, ruling me, guiding me, and doing what is best for me, even if that means rebuke, discipline and re-direction. And, those who are not His people, not walking in covenantal obedience, He will ultimately judge and condemn.

Tracing our problem Why are we so subjectively oriented in such a discussion of God and His character? How did we go from an objective, absolute standard of God to a “personal” view of God? Why do we think about God so differently than our biblical forefathers? To answer these questions we must trace the history of thought and discussions about God. To discuss this subject in any depth is beyond the purpose of this booklet, but a summary can be helpful. Our Reformation forefathers of the faith thought of God in sovereign, Creatorship terms and actions. Creatures, such as we are, must “think God’s thoughts after him.”10 He alone defines the standards and sets the truth in order. He is the Potter; we are the clay. We have no right to question Him, or to put his attributes to the test or pit them against each other. God is a just, holy, powerful, loving, merciful Being whose sovereign will is something we submit to gladly. As the Westminster Confession summarized it,

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible,

74 almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving inquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.11

God is totally independent of his creation, but humankind is totally dependent upon God. Matter is not eternal but created by an all- wise, all-powerful Creator God. Time is not meaningless chance occurrences but directed by God. Reasoning moved from God-the- Creator to God-the-Controller to God-the-Consummator (cf. Romans 11:36; See Diagram 1).

God the Creator “of Him”

The Christian’s Circular Reasoning God the (Romans 11:33-36) God the Consummation Controller “to Him” “through Him”

Diagram 1 Thus, the majority orthodox understanding of the nature of God held Him to be revelatory, knowable and absolute. To be sure, there were variations in theological understanding among orthodox writers, but most agreed as to the high view of God described in this booklet. Theological Germany, however, became more and more “liberalized” by Enlightenment rationalistic thinking. Gladdened by the availability of the Bible in the common language and availability of ancient Greek texts of the New Testament, theological scholarship began to dispute the orthodox understanding of the text of the Bible. “Higher criticism” replaced biblically defined categories and standards.12 Major thinkers in the steps of Immanuel Kant, Friedrich

75 Schleiermacher and Søren Kierkegaard moved God out of the realm of the definable, knowable, objective categories of thought and belief to an anthropocentric projection or encounter.13 The supernatural was either denied or relegated to an unreachable and unknowable realm of thought and life (See Diagram 2). In America, the social gospel replaced the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).14

My projection (of “God”) “of me” The nonChristian’s Circular Reasoning I ultimately (”I think, I determine benefit therefore I am.”) my destiny “to me” “through me”

Diagram 2

Pietistic reactions to this rejection of God-revealed truth emphasized holy living and devotional warmth toward God. C.I. Scofield, J. Gresham Machen and others sought to defend the biblical faith and absolute truth.15 As the evangelical world moved toward separatism from mainline denominationalism and from their anti- supernatural rationalism, others sought to either defend the Bible or eclipse the whole argument by focusing on spiritual gifts and intimacy with God. The charismatic movement erupted onto the scene in many churches and denominational settings. Devotional writers talked about closeness to God, experiencing God, sensing God and subjective spiritual renewal. Many Christians consequently went from a highly objectifiable, definable view of God and his character to a subjective, highly emotional viewpoint. Discussions as to the knowability of God degenerated into “how to’s” – how to live for God, how to experience God, how to get close to God, how to connect with God. Thus the shift from “how does a sovereignly defined and described God love human beings” to “how does a loving God express his sovereignty over human 76 beings.” The focus had shifted. Modernism had done its nasty work. God had become de-throned. Postmodernism added to the mix a rejection of absolute, objective truth about God to “my” truth about God, what God means to me, not what He means over me. Spirituality was no longer a biblically defined category but a “human” category in which I define what it means to be spiritual. God was not only de- throned but stripped of his revelatory status. And the beat goes on. Today, fundamentalist Christians have retreated into their safe cocoons of separatism shielded from the discussions and debates on the nature of God. Many other evangelicals are no longer interested in defending and delineating the character of God. Congregations and individual Christians end up seeing God vastly differently than their forefathers of the faith did. Rather than declaring a sovereign God, we end up seeking to make Him subjectively palatable to the modern mind. Our problem, consequently, in discussing God is us! Instead of “thinking God’s thoughts after Him,” we think His thoughts for Him! I am reminded of where we began this brief overview of the “five points,” namely at the pervasive, me-centered, sinful nature of the human heart. It’s still the same sin-soaked heart at work when we discuss the nature of God. We have much to learn of what the legendary John Bunyan once said, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

Footnotes LET GOD BE GOD

1J.I. Packer, Introductory Essay to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Monograph reprint, Essay found in the “Introduction” to John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise in Which the Whole Controversy about Universal Redemption is Fully Discussed, Banner of Truth, 1959, p. 6. 2True to their consistency, The Westminster Confession of Faith writers deal with this issue in the following way: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when,

77 and where, and how He pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word (cf. Luke 18:15, 16; Acts 2:38, 39; John 3:3, 5; 1 John 5:12; Romans 8:9; John 3:8; 1 John 5:12; Acts 4:12),” The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X, “Of Effectual Calling,” Section III, The Free Presbyterian edition, 1967. 3The Greek word is de¿spota, from despo¿thß, meaning master, ruler, slave owner – “one who owns and/or controls the activities of slaves, servants, or subjects, with the implication of absolute, and in some instances, arbitrary jurisdiction,” Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1988, 1989. 4Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not A Calvinist, InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 8. 5Walls and Dongell, p. 217. 6Walls and Dongell, p. 219. 7Walls and Dongell, pp. 220 and 219. 8Walls and Dongell, p. 219. 9Such an understanding contradicts a simplistic division of Old Testament versus New Testament and a more or less Dispensational understanding of segmented periods or dispensations of God’s dealings with his people. For a thorough understanding of the unity of the Bible and how we understand God as the covenant-keeping sovereign of his people, see , Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, Banner of Truth, 1975 reprint; , The Structure of Biblical Authority, Wipf & Stock, 1997 reprint; Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House, eds, Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity, InterVarsity Press, 2007. 10While historically attributed to Johannes Kepler, the phrase “think God’s thoughts after Him” acquired its truest meaning via the fully Reformational doctrines of God and of man. The Reformational ideal was best carried into the twentieth century by Cornelius Van Til, who made liberal use of this phrase. He explains, for example: “The system that Christians seek to obtain may be said to be analogical. By this is meant that God is the original and that man is the derivative. God has absolute self-contained system within himself. What comes to pass in history happens in accord with that system or plan by which he orders the universe. But man, as God’s creature, cannot have a replica of that system of God. He cannot have a reproduction of that system. He must, to be sure, think God’s thoughts after him; but this means that he must, in seeking to form his own system, constantly be subject to the authority of God’s system to the extent that this is revealed to him.” (Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969, p. 16) 11The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 2, “Of God and of the Holy Trinity,” Section 1, The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland edition, 1967. 12“Higher criticism” refers to the “work of German biblical scholars of the Tübingen School. After the path-breaking work on the New Testament

78 by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the next generation – which included scholars such as David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72) – in the mid-19th century analyzed the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times in search of independent confirmation of events related in the Bible. These latter scholars built on the tradition of Enlightenment and Rationalist thinkers such as John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, G. W. F. Hegel and the French rationalists.” Such criticism often has repudiated the supernaturally inspired view of the Scriptures to which most evangelicals adhere. Higher criticism is to be distinguished from “lower criticism,” or textual criticism, in which the biblical manuscripts are examined according to ancient documents to seek to obtain the reading closest to the original Greek or Hebrew. Thus, the variant readings in the footnotes of many New Testament Greek are there to seek to establish the text without prejudice or theological position. (See “Higher Criticism,” Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Higher_criticism.) 13These three thinkers negatively affected conservative, or orthodox, theological scolarship in the nineteenth century. Schleiermacher (1768– 1834) “was a German theologian and philosopher known for his attempt to reconcile the criticisms of the Enlightenment with traditional Protestant orthodoxy. He also became influential in the evolution of Higher Criticism. His work also forms part of the foundation of the modern field of hermeneutics. Because of his profound impact on subsequent Christian thought, he is often called the ‘Father of Modern Liberal Theology.’” (See article in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schleiermacher) Kierkegaard (1813–1855) “primarily discussed subjectivity with regard to religious matters. He argues that doubt is an element of faith and that it is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.” (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Søren_Kierkegaard) Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), a German philosopher, postulated that “because of the limitations of argumentation in the absence of irrefutable evidence, no one could really know whether there is a God and an afterlife or not. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not.” (See http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Immanuel_Kant) Kant proposed a “noumenal” world where God might exist if He exists at all, and a “phenomenal” world of sense and experience. The problem is that there is an uncrossable “line” between the worlds. Consequently, “God” cannot objectively influence or speak into the

79 world of sense and experience. No one can really know for sure if there is a God and an eternity. “With regard to morality, Kant argued that the source of the good lies not in anything outside the human subject, either in nature or given by God, but rather is only the good will itself. A good will is one that acts from duty in accordance with the universal moral law that the autonomous human being freely gives itself. This law obliges one to treat humanity – understood as rational agency, and represented through oneself as well as others – as an end in itself rather than (merely) as means to other ends the individual might hold. These ideas have largely framed or influenced all subsequent philosophical discussion and analysis.” (ibid) 14An overview of the social gospel and its ethics can be found in Gary L. Dorrien, Social Ethics in the Making: Interpreting an American Tradition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010 and Charles Hopkins, The Rise of the Social Gospel in American , 1865-1915 (Yale Studies in Religious Education), 1967. A modern evangelical interpretation has been offered by Tim Suttle, An Evangelical Social Gospel? Finding God’s Story in the Midst of Extremes, Cascade Books, 2011. 15These two conservative evangelical leaders, at opposite poles theologically, sought to stem the rising tide of liberalism in America. J. Gresham Machen repudiated the growing liberalism of Princeton Seminary and founded Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). He wrote an important work at the time, Christianity and Liberalism, Eerdmans, 2009 (revised edition, originally published in 1923). C.I. Scofield, author of the Scofield Study Bible, in which he outlined the major points of fundamentalist dispensationalism, vigorously defended the orthodox faith against liberalism in the Congregational churches of New England and others.

80 POSTSCRIPT Personal Reflections

ourney. It’s a term used in my present denominational experience to indicate change, transformation and fluidity as we follow Jesus Christ. Such fluctuations seemingly go against the certainty of theJ theological statements made in the preceding pages. The so-called Dortian “five points” have been around a long time in theological inquiry. They have provided a safe foundational rock for those who claim the name “Calvinist.” In a theological and philosophical world fraught with changing formulations, these points have provided stability, relief and answers to folks looking for clarity and surety.

Affirmation It is interesting and powerful to note the residual pull and influence these five points of Calvinism have had on my life and my journey. While some may write this book and its premises off as a harkening back to my past and my seminary training, the truth is these points of faith have deepened and have taken hold of my theological and ecclesiological life in profound ways. Rather than feeling any need to “defend” these points in my present ministry and life, I have had the utter joy of living them out while sharing them with those who would listen. The story is told of Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones being invited to debate an atheist on the existence of God. The good doctor refused by simply pointing out that truth doesn’t need to be defended, just declared. God is quite capable of defending Himself! I feel that way about these five points.

81 These truths have aided both my personal journey into holiness as well as my pastoral ministry to those doubting their salvation and eternal destiny. That part of my current ministry affiliation of Wesleyan-Holiness can only be helped by the application of these points of truth. Rather than making me careless and less concerned about personal holiness, application of these points has made me more deeply concerned about my sanctification. Wesleyans talk about “entire sanctification,” but it has been the thoroughly Reformed Puritan saints of the past that have challenged and goaded me onto a closer walk with my Lord and Savior. My holiness factor has increased, not decreased, with the belief and application of the five points of Calvinism. Pastorally, these points have enhanced and emboldened my personal witnessing efforts as well as my pastoral care. Knowing that God has a redeemed people for which His Son died and rose again, and who eternally cares and comforts them, has given me more zeal, not less, in declaring the gospel. The fact of perseverance of the saints has enabled me to help struggling Christians near the end of their journey here seize the keeping grace of God in ways their theological traditions did not allow. Yes, I have met and work with those who would decry these points as rationalistic, bombastic and insensitive to the choices human beings need to make. I have found, however, that those who really think and believe this have been exposed to hyper-Calvinism,1 not true, heartfelt Reformed theology and life.

A cord of three strands My journey has taken me from the Reformed Baptists in the Spurgeon tradition to the Orthodox Presbyterians to the Brethren in Christ. From Calvinistic Baptist to covenantal Presbyterianism to Wesleyan and Anabaptist thought and practice. While many in the Calvinistic camp would look at this theological journey and question my commitment to the Reformed faith, the preceding pages would deny that conclusion.

82 On the other hand, while many in my present denominational camp would be chagrinned to find a “closet Calvinist” in their midst, none could ever point to an attempt to plot a Calvinistic “take over” of the group. And if influence of pastoral leadership was an issue, I had plenty of opportunities to exert a more Reformed influence on a number of pastors and leaders in the Brethren in Christ. Nothing of that sort ever happened on my watch, even as an Associate for Field Services covering over one hundred Brethren in Christ churches and ministries in the late 1990s to early 2000s. So my conscience is clear before God on both accounts. What happened to me was of God. I say that sincerely and humbly. In every case, and in every transition, God opened and closed doors of service and influence. In every transition, I had an inner peace of mind and spirit. And, in every transition, I believe I was able to affirm and keep “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). So I gave up nothing and instead gained more understanding, compassion, conviction and sensibility. My three strands of faith made me stronger, not weaker or more shallow. They gave me insights that helped me be and become a bold and fervent witness for the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. My preaching and teaching grew richer, wiser, and more compassionate, especially in situations with audiences of mixed Christian beliefs and practices. God actually bound together these three seemingly diverse strands of faith and theological persuasion. I have also been able in my church consulting to work with very diverse churches and denominations in a way that demonstrated very deep understanding of their theological and practical tenets. From more Reformed congregational dynamics to severe Baptistic tendencies to holiness tradition people, I have been able to help churches and groups grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. My cord of three strands gave me strength and wisdom in dealing with them all.

83 Calvinistic pitfalls Since this booklet has been directed at elucidating and supporting a Calvinistic soteriology, a few observations are in order for my Reformed friends and companions. I have been helped in the following observations by J.I. Packer’s analysis of Reformed and other theological positions in his book, Keep in Step With The Spirit.2 While maintaining a distinctly Calvinistic theology of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, Packer wisely and perceptively points to practical problems within the Reformed camp.3 I agree with Packer that I have found some Reformed churches and ministries full of language and actions that “sound ethically negative and pessimistic to the last degree.”4 While these churches preach and teach the Reformed truth and tenets, they do so in a way that is negative and laced with condemnation and fear. People in these contexts are not only not “happy”– a condition condemned by these ministries–but labor under the constant burden that no one can ever do anything really right in God’s sight. Instead of joy, the Sabbath day (Sunday) is filled with so many strictures that only rest (sleep) and necessary deeds of mercy can be conducted. After all, God’s law of sabbath-keeping trumps our creature comforts and desires. Lest anyone think I am overstating the case, I have personally witnessed and been in the homes of people like this. I have preached in churches like this. I have emotionally wrestled with people under so much conviction of sin and human inability that depression is a constant in their lives. A Reformed pastor I still greatly respect said to me after many years of ministry in his church, “I wish my people had more joy!” It was felt through his years of ministry there that “joyful” Christians were somehow less-than-serious Christians. They were missing the ravages of the truth of total depravity. And, total depravity, rightly understood, keeps us seeking God and his forgiveness all of the time. We never quite make it to rejoicing since that would be prideful, and another sin of which to repent. Packer and I, however, believe that such ministries and people

84 have clearly missed the delivering power of the gospel of God’s grace. Instead of ministering the best the historic Reformed writers like Calvin, Owen and others have to offer, they offer what Packer calls “second rate Augustinianism.”5 The best proponents of Calvinism would decry the negativity and self-loathingness of these ministries and people. However, such ministries and people do exist and, I believe, weaken the cause of positive holiness of life and thought among believers. And, they have a tendency to “chase” Christians away from the Reformed faith into something else, much less theologically sound. A second problem in the Reformed camp is theological pride, almost a looking down upon non-Reformed people and positions with “Oh, you poor, misguided, weak believer and church! Would that you could see the light and come up to our level.” I have seen it, felt it, experienced it and been accused of leaving the faith for something “less.” It is not so much that these folks are consciously exerting a prideful position against other people and ministries as they are so convinced of the invincibility of their own positions that they cannot begin to see any merit in any other position. This theological pride comes out in different ways: “Oh, you attend that church. Well, I guess there are some well-meaning Christian people there, but . . .” or, “I will pray for you to see ‘the light’ as you read your Bible,” or “Why don’t you attend a good Bible study once in a while, like some of the ones we offer at our church?” A third problem I have experienced is what I call an “ungracious determinism.” This is the stance that “we are so small as a church because of our stance for the truth of God’s Word. Those other churches around us do not teach the ‘whole counsel of God,’ thus, they attract people who continue to live in their sins.” The failure to grow as a church is laid at the root of what they call “liberal” teaching by other churches. Instead of really examining their own weak presentations and out-of-date methodologies, they blame others. Spiritual and theological pride kick in, thus excusing themselves of rigorous self- examination, saying, “At least, we have the truth!”

85 A fourth concern would be a misguided focus by some Reformed churches. My exit out of a Reformed denomination came largely due to a group of people and churches more interested in worship service order, in whether a “ruling elder could publicly read the Scriptures in a stated worship service” as opposed to the teaching elder doing it. While maybe an appropriate question in the stratosphere of acceptable Reformed worship, it misses the focus of the Great Commandment and the Great Commission of the New Testament. Spending undue amounts of time discussing such matters deflects from the major call of the Scriptures to “make disciples of all nations.” Such discussions sap the strength and vitality of Christians and churches seeking to make an eternal difference for Christ in a desperately needy world. These pitfalls, however, are no reason for rejoicing by those who are not Reformed in their theology. Many of them are very unintentional failures and misreads of Scripture. Every denominational group and every ministry association have warts and scars. There are plenty of them in the denomination in which I currently serve. No one is exempt, and no one can claim Christlike thoroughness.

What I really want As a closing to this postscript, perhaps it is necessary for me to clarify for everyone who reads this book what I really want. I really want God to be glorified, not in word only but in deed and truth. I want Jesus Christ in all of his glory and power to be the center of our endeavors and theological aspirations. I want the Scriptures to be the real basis of our declarations, not just a reference point along with other “spiritual” or “Spirit-guided” points of reference. I want all people everywhere to be genuinely loved, genuinely respected, genuinely sought after for God, and genuinely discipled. I want people to matter to us, as they do to God.6 I want Christians to live Spirit-filled, grace inspired, holiness driven lives so that their nonChristian neighbors, family members and friends can see the massive work of God in them and be drawn to Jesus Christ as their only hope.

86 I want to see and experience worship in churches where God is manifestly present.7 Whatever the format of that worship, people need to be drawn into the transforming presence and power of the Living God as the Word of God is read, studied, preached and taught. I want to see an end to sentimental mush in our singing, prayers and liturgy. I want to see worship “in spirit and in truth,” worship where the end product is God glorified in lives transformed for eternity. I want to see cultures transformed by the deep, intelligent, thorough exegesis and teaching of the Word of God. I want to see the culture properly exegeted and then challenged and taught the eternal Word of the Living God applied to every thought and habit. This is what I want. May God grant it for his glory.

Footnotes PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

1Hyper-Calvinism, as systematic theologian and pastor writes, is “an exaggerated or imbalanced type of Reformed theology associated with Strict and Particular Baptists of English origin and with Dutch-American Reformed groups. Originating in the 18th century, it has always been the theology of a minority, which today is extremely small. It is a system of theology framed to exalt the honor and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners... It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect.” (David Wright, Sinclair Ferguson, and J.I. Packer, eds., The New Dictionary of Theology, IVP Academic, 1988.) 2J.I. Packer, Keep In Step With The Spirit: Finding Fullness in our Walk WIth God, Baker Books, 1984 and 2005. 3Found especially in Packer, Keep In Step With The Spirit, Chapter 4, “Mapping the Spirit’s Path: Versions of Holiness,” pp. 101ff. 4Packer, Keep In Step, p. 109. 5In critiquing the sometimes negative way of speaking in Reformed theology, Packer raises some serious questions, like, “Does it not oblige serious seekers after holiness to go elsewhere to learn about deliverance from sin’s power? The answer is, no, not in its best exponents (Calvin, John Owen, and J.C. Ryle, for instance); but yes, in the case of some second- rank Augustinians who really do leave the impression that their interest is limited to orthodoxy and antiperfectionism and does not extend to holiness 87 in any positive way.” (Keep In Step, p. 109) 6Borrowing a thought or mandate from Bill Hybels and the Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago, IL. 7To use a phrase by A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God, Tribeca Books, 2011 reprint.

88 SUBJECT INDEX

ability, 26, 48, 57-58, 72 atheist, 81 Abraham, 51, 53, 66 atonement, 18, 22, 27-28, 33, 43-44, absence, 14, 79 46, 49-50, 52, 70 acquitted, 51 atoning, 43, 47-48 Adam, 58 atrocities, 31 adultery, 32 attitudes, 32, 71 affiliation, 14, 82 Augustinianism, 85 afterlife, 79 Augustinians, 87 altar, 55 Auschwitz, 31 Anabaptist, 82 authoritative, 11 anabaptists, 15, 19 analogical, 28, 78 baptism, 11, 18-19, 67 anthropocentric, 76 baptismal, 62 antiperfectionism, 87 baptist, 7-9, 11, 21, 30, 82, 87 antisupernatural, 76 baptized, 19 apostasy, 64-65 Barna, 8-9 apostle, 13, 37 Basil, 17 apostles, 13, 15 Bauckham, 48, 52 apostleship, 67 behalf, 51 apostolic, 52 Belgic, 42 arbitrio, 28 believer, 15, 40-41, 60-61, 63-64, 66, Aristotelian, 35 85 Aristotle, 31 believers, 15, 17, 42, 51, 62, 64-65, 67, Arminian, 7-8, 12, 13, 30, 39, 52, 62, 71, 85 67 Benjamin, 67 Arminianism, 13, 18, 22, 24, 29, 35, Berkhof, 18, 36 66 Bible, 2-3, 5, 7-8, 11-16, 18, 21, 23-24, Arminius, 27 33, 38-39, 42, 46-47, 50, 53, 55, 60- Aryans, 31 61, 63, 70, 73, 75-76, 78-80, 85 assumptions, 13, 50 Bible-centered, 17 assurance, 42, 60, 64, 66 Bibles, 79

89 biblical, 9, 11-16, 18-19, 29-30, 34-35, congregational, 80, 83 37-39, 43, 46-47, 49, 52-53, 58, 63, consummation, 75 65, 67-68, 72-74, 76, 78-79 Consummator, 75 biblical-worldview, 9 controversial, 13 Blackwell, 80 controversy, 7, 28, 52, 77 Boettner, 38, 41 conversion, 18-19, 51, 53, 61-62, 67 bondage, 23, 27-28, 44 conversions, 49 Brady, 31, 35 Conwell, 53 brethren, 3, 15, 82-83 cooperation, 24 Bucer, 38 Coppes, 30 Bullinger, 38 Corinthians, 13, 55, 61-63, 65-68, 73 Bunyan, 77 Cornelius, 28, 78 corruption, 44 called, 12, 52, 58 cosmic, 43 Calvin, 26, 29, 38, 85, 87 cosmos, 43 Calvinism, 1-2, 5, 7-9, 13, 18, 21-23, covenant, 35, 47, 68, 73-74, 78 25-30, 40, 49, 52, 67, 69, 81-82, 85, covenantal, 12, 18, 62, 74, 82 87 covenants, 18 Calvinist, 7, 9, 13, 19, 21, 23-24, 26- creation, 19, 23, 34, 39, 42-43, 65, 29, 43-44, 50, 52, 63, 69-70, 72, 78, 73, 75 81, 83 Creator, 74-75 Calvinists, 13, 21, 23-24, 26, 28, creed, 13 30-31, 37, 39, 44, 46, 48-49, 55, culture, 74, 87 63, 66, 70-72 cultures, 49, 72, 87 Calvinistic, 7-8, 12, 18, 21, 23, 35, Curtis, 27, 29, 67 38, 46, 50-51, 60, 70, 82-84 canons, 17 damnation, 41-42 Carthage, 29 Daniel, 73 catechism, 8, 62 Darby, 18 catechisms, 19, 41 darkness, 55-56 Chafer, 18 David, 9, 27, 29-30, 52, 67, 79, 87 Chalcedonian, 13 decisionist, 61 Charismatic, 12, 18, 76 decreed, 41 Charismatics, 19 degenerated, 76 Charles, 52 degeneration, 41 Christianity, 8, 35, 61, 70, 80 deity, 15, 18 Christlike, 86 demons, 45 Colossians, 34, 43-44, 52, 55 denomination, 9, 19, 86 commitment, 19, 46, 50, 58, 65, 79, denominational, 7, 14, 19, 76, 81, 83, 82 86 compassion, 40, 83 denominationalism, 76 condemnation, 17, 29, 84 denominations, 14, 83 conditional, 38, 60, 67 depraved, 22, 25, 48 confession, 9, 19, 37, 41-42, 58-59, depravity, 18, 22, 25, 27, 31-35, 37, 40, 67, 69, 74, 77-78 44, 57, 84

90 desiderius, 28 74-75, 82, 86-87 despot, 23, 71 eternally, 26-27, 40, 59-61, 82 Deuteronomy, 39, 73-74 eternity, 41, 62, 64, 80, 87 Deyoung, 19 evangelical, 16, 43, 45, 69-70, 76, 80 disciple, 16 evangelicalism, 21 discipled, 86 evangelicals, 18, 21, 44, 52, 63, 77, 79 disciples, 15, 49, 60, 86 evangelism, 29, 49-50 discipleship, 60 evangelistic, 49 Dispensational, 12, 78 evangelize, 16, 49, 87 Dispensationalism, 18, 80 everlasting, 41 Dispensationalists, 18 evolution, 79 dispensations, 18, 59, 78 exalt, 73, 87 divine, 18, 29, 38, 40-41, 48, 56, 65 Exodus, 74 divinely, 43 expansiveness, 12 divinity, 53 experientially, 65 doctrine, 18, 21-22, 29, 37-42, 52, 59, 65-67 faith, 3, 8-9, 11, 13, 17-19, 22, 27, 29- doctrines, 14, 28, 78-79 30, 37-42, 45-46, 50-53, 56-67, 74, dominion, 63 76-83, 85 Dongell, 9, 13, 19, 21, 28, 72-74, 78 faithful, 73 Dorrien, 80 faithfulness, 73 Dort, 18, 27, 38, 52, 61 fallible, 13 Dortian, 49, 53, 81 fatherhood, 72 Dortians, 30 Ferguson, 87 double predestination, 41 Feuerbach, 79 forbearance, 48 eclipse, 76 foreknew, 39 Edgcumbe, 67 forensic, 65 educational, 2, 30 foreordination, 41 Eerdmans, 18, 36, 52, 67, 80 forgiveness, 51-52, 84 effectual, 44, 56, 58, 78 freedom, 23-26, 29, 33, 45-46, 48, efficacious, 18 50, 52, 55, 63, 65, 72-73 efficacy, 43 Friedrich, 75, 79 effort, 13-14, 49, 56 fundamentalist, 77, 80 efforts, 49, 82 election, 18, 22, 27, 37-41, 44, 60 Galatians, 13, 55-56, 60, 65, 67 Ephesians, 33, 39, 44, 55-57, 61, 63 Geerhardus, 78 Ephesus, 29, 47 generation, 7, 16, 21-22, 59, 79 epistemology, 22 generations, 73 epistles, 15, 19, 47, 52-53, 67 Genesis, 15, 32, 35, 43 Erasmus, 28 Gentile, 47 eschatological, 48 Gentiles, 39, 47-48 Esther, 34 glorification, 63 eternal, 14, 22, 30, 33, 37, 40-41, 43- glorified, 23, 39, 55, 63, 86-87 45, 47, 49-50, 55, 58-61, 64, 66, 72, glorifies, 69

91 glorify, 49 Intervarsity, 3, 9, 19, 22, 28-29, 68, glorious, 42 78 glory, 21-23, 34, 42, 46, 48-49, 52, 64, invincibility, 85 69-71, 75, 86-87 invitation, 27, 55-56 gospel, 26-27, 34-35, 37, 41-42, 48, irresistibility, 58 50, 56-58, 68-72, 76, 80, 82-83, 85 irresistible, 18, 22, 27, 50, 55-57, 87 Gotthold, 79 Isaiah, 37, 45, 49 Gottlieb, 79 IVP, 29, 66, 68, 87 gracious, 59, 70, 73, 75 Gresham, 76, 80 Jacobus, 27 Grudem, 12, 14-16, 18-19, 24, 26, 29, James, 26, 45 52, 56, 58 jealousy, 73 Jehovah, 69 Hackett, 35 Jeremiah, 32, 64, 74 Hafemann, 51-53, 68, 78 Jews, 31, 39, 47 Haggai, 39 John, 15, 18, 26, 29, 35, 38-39, 41, 44- Hana, 31, 35 45, 47, 52, 56-57, 59-62, 64, 67, 71, hardness, 57 73, 77-79, 87 heaven, 16, 19, 29, 43, 46, 59-62, 64 joy, 3, 81, 84 hebrews, 44, 56, 63-68, 73 joyful, 84 Hegel, 79 Judaism, 47 Heidi, 3 Judaizers, 65 Helvetic, 42 Jude, 42, 52, 56, 76, 83 Hendriksen, 35 judgment, 9, 16, 18, 32, 62, 65-66, 74 heresy, 13, 16, 29, 47 judgments, 13, 37, 62, 75 hermeneutics, 79 justice, 17, 42, 73 holiness, 17-18, 55, 59-61, 82-83, justification, 44, 65-66, 68 85-87 holocaust, 31 Kant, 75, 79-80 humanistic, 25, 58 Keller, 21, 28 Hume, 79 Kepler, 28, 78 Hybels, 88 Kessinger, 67 Kevin Deyoung, 19 Immanuel, 75, 79 Kierkegaard, 76, 79 immorality, 32 kingdom, 44, 50, 57, 62 immutable, 74-75 Kline, 78 imputation, 51 knowability, 76 imputed, 51 knowable, 75-76 inability, 27, 33, 70, 84 incomprehensible, 26, 74 lawgiver, 44 infants, 71, 77 Lazarus, 56 infinite, 74 leaders, 3, 38, 80, 83 inquity, 75 leadership, 3, 83 instantaneous, 57 Leipz, 35 instrumental, 46, 51 Lemke, 9, 29-30, 52

92 Leonard, 30 nachfolge, 19 Lessing, 79 naturalism, 35 liberalism, 80 Nazis, 31 liturgy, 87 Nicene, 13 Locke, 79 Nicodemus, 57 logos, 18 Nicomachean, 35 Longenecker, 67 noumenal, 79 Loraine, 38, 41 Louis, 36 obedience, 19, 46, 49, 51-52, 60, 66, Luke, 32, 78 74 Luther, 17, 23, 28, 38 Origen, 17 orthodox, 7-9, 16-17, 19, 21, 24, 33, 61, Machen, 76, 80 75, 79-80, 82 Mack, 3 orthodoxy, 17, 27, 79, 87 mainline, 76 mankind, 18, 23, 32, 42 Packer, 29, 52, 69-70, 77, 84-85, 87 manuscripts, 79 paradigm, 72 Martyn, 81 Parousia, 48 Matthew, 15, 32, 34, 39, 49, 60-61 Paul, 13, 37, 40, 47-48, 53, 65-68, 71, maturity, 16 78 mediator, 47 Pauline, 19, 67 meeter, 29 peccatum, 41 megachurch, 8 Pelagian, 38 Melancthon, 38 Pelagianism, 24, 29 membership, 62 Pelagius, 29 merciful, 74-75 penal, 44 mercy, 22, 37, 40, 42, 44, 57, 73-74, Pentecostal, 12, 18-19 84 perfection, 12, 67, 74 Meredith, 78 perseverance, 5, 18, 22, 27, 30, 59-61, merit, 51, 85 64, 67, 82 metanoia, 67 persevere, 22, 27, 30, 59, 61, 64 methodologies, 85 Peter, 15, 40, 44, 47-48, 52-53, 55-56, methodology, 14 60, 71 mighty, 25, 38, 73 phenomenal, 79 misery, 72 Philemon, 52 mneumonic, 31 Philip, 67 modernism, 77 Philippa, 35 monergistic, 41 Philippians, 44, 60, 63-64 monograph, 77 pietistic, 76 Moses, 32 postmodern, 16, 22 Mounce, 47, 52-53 postmodernism, 77 Muller, 29 prayer, 14, 25-26, 71 mystery, 37, 41 preaching, 7, 42, 46, 52, 56, 71, 83 mystical, 22 predestinating, 38 myth, 31 predestination, 37-38, 41-42

93 predestined, 39, 55 Romans, 32, 37, 39, 41, 44-46, 51, 53, Presbyterian, 7-9, 12, 21, 28-29, 41, 55-56, 61, 63-64, 75, 78 62, 67, 78 Ryle, 87 Presbyterianism, 82 Presbyterians, 11, 18-19, 82 Sabbath, 84 prevenient, 33 sacrificial, 44-45, 48-49 profession, 61-63, 66 salutis, 58 propitiation, 44 salvation, 8, 27, 30, 34, 38-41, 43-49, Protestant, 79 51-52, 55-61, 64-71, 82 Protestantism, 80 Samuel, 34 Proverbs, 35 sanctification, 60, 63-64, 67, 82 providential, 34 sanctified, 59, 63 Puritan, 44, 82 sanctifies, 69 sanctify, 67 Qoheleth, 3 Satan, 25, 38, 44 Savior, 22, 47, 49, 55, 62, 70, 82 rationalism, 76 Schleiermacher, 76, 79 rationalist, 79 Scofield, 18, 76, 80 realm, 76 Scott, 53, 68 reconcile, 43, 79 scripture, 2, 11-13, 18-19, 26, 46, 48- reconciled, 17, 43-44 50, 53, 60, 64-65, 71, 86 redeemed, 25, 27, 30, 44, 59, 61, 82 scriptures, 12, 14, 17, 23, 38-39, Redeemer, 21 61, 79, 86 redeeming, 27, 51, 65, 69 sealed, 66 redemption, 5, 39, 43-44, 46, 49, 52, Semipelagian, 29 58, 69, 77 Semipelagianism, 24, 29 Reformation, 15, 30, 38, 74 separatism, 76-77 Reformed, 7-9, 12, 18, 22, 27, 29, 35, sinful, 27, 33-34, 37, 40, 56, 67, 77 41, 46, 51-52, 63-64, 67, 78, 82-87 sinfulness, 34, 63 Reformers, 33, 38 sinless, 67 regeneration, 27, 41, 57 Solari, 67 Remonstrance, 18, 27 soteriology, 17, 69, 84 Remonstrant, 27 soul, 67 Remonstrants, 38 sovereign, 5, 22, 25, 37, 39, 41-42, 48, repent, 27, 45, 57, 84 56, 66, 69, 71, 73-74, 77-78 repentance, 38, 46-48, 50, 52, 56-57 sovereignty, 15, 26, 29, 37, 48, 72-73, reprobation, 41 76 restraining, 34 spiritual, 18, 53, 56-57, 62, 64, 66, resurrection, 44, 68 69, 76-77, 85-87 Revelation, 15, 18, 37-38, 60, 64 spirituality, 77 righteous, 33, 35, 47, 51, 73, 75 Sprachgeist, 35 righteousness, 45-46, 50-51, 53, Sproul, 41-42 64-65 Spurgeon, 9, 52-53, 82 Rockefeller, 53 Stedman, 66, 68 Roloff, 47 Strauss, 79

94 substitution, 44 substitutionary, 52 surety, 81 Synod, 18, 27, 38, 52, 61

Thayer, 35 theology, 8, 11-19, 21, 23, 28-29, 36, 39, 48, 50, 52-53, 58, 68, 70, 78-79, 82, 84, 86-87 theos, 18 Thessalonians, 40, 55, 63, 67, 73 Timothy, 28, 34, 40, 44, 47, 55, 60- 61, 63-64, 66 Tozer, 88 transgression, 75 transgressions, 33, 57 Trinitarian, 72 Triune, 69 TULIP, 18, 22, 26-28, 30-31, 37, 44, 52, 55, 57, 59-60 Tübingen, 78 unchangeable, 59 unconditional, 18, 22, 27, 37-41, 44, 46, 70 unconstrained, 38 Universalism, 17, 44, 47-48 universalist, 17 universalists, 44

Waco, 19 Warfield, 63, 67 Wesley, 18, 35, 59-60, 67 Wesleyan, 7, 12, 18, 30, 35, 55, 59, 62, 67, 82 Westminster, 3, 7-8, 12, 18-19, 37, 41- 42, 58-59, 67, 74, 77-78, 80 Wiley, 80

Zondervan, 2, 18, 29, 52 Zwingli, 38

95 96