In a post on Chesterton and Elfland, John Piper makes a few observation about the common accusation that Calvinists rely on logic more than Scripture. He says:

It is a great irony to me that Calvinists are stereotyped as logic-driven. For forty years my experience has been the opposite. The Calvinists I have known (English Puritans, Edwards, Newton, Spurgeon, Packer, Sproul) are not logic driven, but Bible-driven. It’s the challengers who bring their logic to the Bible and nullify text after text. Branches are lopped off by “logic,” not exegesis.

Who are the great enjoyers of paradox today? Who are the pastors and theologians who grab both horns of every biblical dilemma and swear to the God-Man: I will never let go of either.

Not the Calvinism-critics that I meet. They read of divine love, and say that predestination cannot be. They read of human choice and say the divine rule of all our steps cannot be. They read of human resistance, and say that irresistible grace cannot be. Who is logic-driven?

For forty years Calvinism has been, for me, a vision of life that embraces mystery more than any vision I know. It is not logic-driven. It is driven by a vision of the ineffable, galactic vastness of God’s Word.

Let’s be clear: It does not embrace contradiction. Chesterton and I both agree that true logic is the law of “Elfland.” “If the Ugly Sisters are older than Cinderella, it is (in an iron and awful sense) necessary that Cinderella is younger than the Ugly Sisters.” Neither God nor his word is self-contradictory. But paradoxes? Yes.

We happy Calvinists don’t claim to get the heavens into our heads. We try to get our heads into the heavens. We don’t claim comprehensive answers to revealed paradoxes. We believe. We try to understand. And we break out into song and poetry again and again.

Amen and amen.

Classical Arminians agree with Calvinists about total depravity and man’s natural inability to respond to the gospel. We are born depraved, fallen in sin, with a natural hatred for the things of God. No man will be saved (because no one would want the grace of God) unless God first does something to undo man’s natural inability.

The Calvinist response is irresistible grace, by which God regenerates sinners, taking away their dead hearts and giving them hearts of faith. The Arminian response is prevenient grace, by which God lifts all people out of their totally depraved state, bringing the conviction of sin and desire for holiness that makes it possible for individuals to respond to the gospel.

A recent post at the Evangelical Arminians (originally posted at The Arminian) blog explains the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace. While the post does a good job of explaining the what and why of prevenient grace, it is weak in one area. After saying that “the Calvinistic claim is contrary to Scripture”, the writer nonetheless fails to show that prevenient grace is a biblical doctrine. It has been my contention that prevenient grace, while a useful theory that would reconcile the problem of total depravity, is not found in Scripture and as such is not an option available to us.

In fact, throughout the entry, the only verse cited to demonstrate prevenient grace is John 16:8:

John 16:8

8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: (ESV)

This verse is used to show that prevenient grace “is performed by the ministry and work of the Holy Spirit, who was sent by the Father and the Son to ‘prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment’.”

The main problem with using this verse to show the Spirit’s work in prevenient grace is a question of timing. In the above quote, a rather important part of John 16:8 is left out: “…when he comes, he will…” Jesus was telling the believers about an event yet to take place. The Spirit had not yet come, his special convincing work had not yet begun.

Human depravity did not begin after the time of Christ. Men were totally depraved from the time of Adam onward. Despite this depravity, we find people from the time of Adam onward, through Jesus, and on to our day, who have had faith in God and sought to walk in obedience. If John 16:8 demonstrates the Spirit’s work in prevenient grace, how did anyone follow God prior to the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2?

The Old Testament does not tell us what God did to change the hearts of the saints, but this is not altogether unusual. Many details are missing from the Old Testament which are later given in the New. One demonstration is with the Old Testament practice of sacrifice. The OT faithful were not told that the sacrificial system was not salvific in itself, that it pointed instead to a coming Messiah. Hebrews 8:5 says these practices were a “copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” Later in the Old Testament we receive a clearer revelation about the coming Messiah, but even with the prophecies of Isaiah 53 and some other passages, there is still a mystery which is only revealed after the revelation of Christ.

The problem with prevenient grace is not that it cannot be found in the Old Testament, but that it also cannot be found in the New Testament, and the only verse used as an example of the Spirit’s work in prevenient grace points clearly to the work the Spirit does only after Jesus has returned to Heaven. It does not and cannot be used to explain something that happens prior to the Spirit’s coming in Acts 2.

I continue to wait for a clear demonstration of prevenient grace from the pages of Scripture.

In a recent post at SBC Today, Steve Lemke has once again repeated the claim that R. C. Sproul rejects the possibility of infant salvation or an age of accountability. (I have previously responded to Lemke on the age of accountability) Here is what Lemke says about Sproul:

Some contemporary Presbyterians such as R. C. Sproul, Jr. reject the notion that children below the age of accountability who die go to heaven.

The major problem with this claim is that Sproul didn’t say that, or anything like it, and yet people keep referencing Sproul’s article as proof that he rejects the possibility of infant salvation. But here is what Sproul actually said:

Compassion tells us not to sugarcoat, but not to supply a poison pill either. We cannot say for sure what happens to small children who die.

In other words, Sproul says that the Bible does not say enough to allow us to be dogmatic, it is an area of mystery. Sproul did not say he believes infants go to Hell. Nor did he say he believes infants go to Heaven. He says Scripture offers a few hints, but leaves the rest unspoken.

His criticism of Graham is warranted. Graham offered dogmatic assurances in an area that the Bible is largely silent. Views about original sin are almost irrelevant: the Bible does not make a case for an age of accountability nor does it guarantee the salvation of people under a certain age or mental condition.

Just a few days ago I listened to Sproul (from a July recording) address the question of infant salvation:

It’s the first question, so listen through the opening ad and you’ll reach it. Sproul says:

I don’t know any way to give an answer to this definitively. There are passages that could give a hint at an answer… but [they do not] specifically answer the question, so… I really don’t know… I leave this question up to the grace of God.

That matches perfectly with what he said in response to Graham. It does not match Lemke’s assertion. Sproul does not reject the possibility of infant salvation.

My take is similar to Sproul’s. The Bible simply does not say enough to be dogmatic. There are tantalizing hints (and I think Sproul missed the best one, Deuteronomy 1:39), but those hints are only hints. Ultimately, we must leave the matter in God’s hands and trust that his way is best.

A unique way of explaining limited atonement. Perhaps I should do my next post in this format?

This post belongs to a brief series sparked by a discussion at SBC Today. The posts in this series are modified snippets of some comments I made in that discussion.

Repeatedly in Scripture we find instances of God commanding people to seek him and do good. Would God really command us to do something if we were not able to obey? Also, in Matthew 23:37, Jesus laments the disobedience of Jerusalem, saying to them, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” Would he grieve like that over their choice if he knew they could not choose an alternative?

I often wonder why non-Calvinists think Matthew 23:37 is a challenge to Calvinists. My response to this is the same as it is to any other place where God calls for human response, or where God is grieved over human choices. God hates sin. God is grieved by sin. There is no doubt about that. Also, God calls for people to choose him, to pursue him, to seek him, to follow him, to obey him. God is grieved when people reject his universal call. But God’s call does not imply man’s ability to respond – or to desire obedience. In Matthew 6:33 Jesus says to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, but then in Romans 3:11 we are told no one seeks God. The instruction, the call is there, but the obedience is not.

Some say (and this was a big point in Whosoever Will) that God does not make a fair offer if he instructs mankind to do something he knows we are unable to do. But we see this exact thing spelled out for us when it comes to the law. What does Paul say about the law in Romans 7:7-12? We know it is impossible to be righteous through the law, because the law is not given to make men righteous but to reveal man’s sin. But what is the law except a description of God’s will for his people? In the law, we receive the commands of God and we would assume that God expects us to walk by them and live according to them and be perfect in our obedience. But Paul says that such obedience is impossible. Is the law then unfair? Is it an unjust offer? Is the law sin, when our obedience is not only impossible, but the law itself is given to rouse and reveal our sin? Absolutely not! Paul says (7:12), on the contrary, that the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

So when Jesus laments the disobedience of Jerusalem, he is grieved by the sin and disobedience of a fallen people who, apart from the regenerating grace of the Spirit, will ever only reject the Son of God.

This post belongs to a brief series sparked by a discussion at SBC Today. The posts in this series are modified snippets of some comments I made in that discussion.

When Calvinists say no one can do good, isn’t that an exaggeration? Isn’t “good” just a value statement so we can speak of people doing “good”, “better”, “best”, etc?

That is not the way I mean the word good. It is bad of my neighbor to knock over my trash can. It is good of my neighbor to leave my trash can alone. It is better of my neighbor to move my trash can to the road for me if he sees I forgot to put it out. Those are value conditions, but that is not what we speak of if we are talking about moral goodness. Then there are only two categories: good or evil. A person does good, or they do evil. They commit acts of sin or acts of righteousness. There is no middle ground.

When a lost person pursues actions that promote the good of society, we can commend them and praise God for his common grace to mankind, but that does not make their actions pleasing in the sight of the Lord. For then again Isaiah 64:6 comes into play – however righteous their deeds may appear to us, to him they are as filthy rags. Or again Romans 14:23, if it is not of faith, then it is sin. If they are not seeking God’s glory, if they are not serving God, if they are not motivated by a heart for God, then their actions – however glad we may be that they do those things – are still sin in the sight of God. If we are not doing what we do out of service to Christ, then what we do is sin. There is no middle ground.

This post belongs to a brief series sparked by a discussion at SBC Today. The posts in this series are modified snippets of some comments I made in that discussion.

I believe there have been/are four stages to human will and corruption:

1. Original innocence in which Adam and Eve had uncorrupt free will, the freedom to do good or evil and the ability to desire good or evil.
2. Mankind after the fall, when the will has been corrupted so that while mankind still has the freedom to do good, we no longer ever have the desire to do good.
3. Mankind in Christ in which we have the freedom to both do good and desire good, but with additional factors: the flesh to draw us toward sin and the Spirit to grow us in righteousness.
4. Glorified humanity, when we will have the freedom to do good or evil but will only ever desire good. We will continue sinless, perfect, without the flesh, without the stain of sin.

I don’t see in Scripture anything proposing a kind of mediate state between #2 and #3 in which we are elevated out of deadness but not fully raised to life.

This post belongs to a brief series sparked by a discussion at SBC Today. The posts in this series are modified snippets of some comments I made in that discussion.

Calvinists believe that the will of man is so corrupt, no one will ever choose God, no one will ever seek God, no one will ever desire God, unless God first does a work of grace in the life of the individual, removing his dead heart and corrupt will and giving him a new heart and faith. But what caused people to have dead hearts? Does God himself impose limits on our freedom, or have we done something that has caused our lack of ability to respond to God?

Furthermore, if we are unable to respond to God, does a real option even exist? Can we speak of people having the option to receive Christ if they do not have the ability to receive Christ?

Because of our depraved will, we would never respond to the offer of the gospel. But that does not mean the option does not exist. Our ability to respond to the offer is removed due to something we have done to ourselves. I once saw a picture of a little girl from Nigeria who as a toddler was caught in ethnic conflict and had both of her arms cut off. I thought how heartbreaking for someone so young, someone who had nothing to do with the conflict, someone with no ability to defend herself, but be injured so terribly. There are many real options now eliminated because of the loss of her arms. Some try to present the Calvinistic view of the will as though humanity were like that little girl, hindered through no fault of our own. But we are more like the guy who ignores the warning labels on his power tools and cuts off his own arms. Tragic, absolutely, but also his responsibility. We, in Adam, made the free will choice to ignore the warnings and play with the power tools and the consequences are lasting.

This began life as a comment on SBC Today. Thought I’d modify and repost it here.

What is the nature of human free will? Are we completely free to choose to do anything we want to do? If so, who grants us that freedom? If we say we are not free, who restricts that freedom? At SBC Today, L. Manning Garrett contrasts his understanding of two views of free will found within the SBC. I believe his contrast is not altogether accurate, so below I clarify my view with some arguments about the nature of human freedom after the fall of man into sin.

“Most Calvinists who hold to compatibilistic free will maintain that determinism eliminates real options but determinism does coexist with a free will.”

It is not determinism that limits real options, it is sin that limits real options. Sin keeps sinners from desiring a savior. Mankind has the freedom to accept or reject Christ. All are free to make that choice. But because of sin, none will accept him unless God first does a work of grace, turning a dead heart into a heart of faith.

Every human being on the planet has the real option of choosing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. But left to themselves, no human being on the planet would ever choose Christ because every human being is a sinner with hearts and minds and wills corrupted by sin, void of faith, and desiring only fallen things.

Obviously, God’s choice then becomes crucial for if God does not choose to impose his will on human fallen will, then no one would be saved.

Garrett’s article goes on to describe the Calvinist view as essentially defined by determinism – that Calvinists believe in “the determining force of a totally depraved will”. The problem with this explanation is it implies that the determining force something external, as though sin were something beyond me now acting on me. But this does not hold.

First, with Adam as federal head, what happened in Adam happens in us. His fall was not something external to us, it is something very much part of what we as humans have done – in Adam – to ourselves. Thus the effects of original sin are not imposed upon us from some external force absolutely beyond are control but were imposed upon ourselves through Adam.

Second, beyond Adam, we have our own sinfulness. Even if we were not corrupt in Adam, we have nonetheless done a good job of corrupting ourselves. Whether the source of our corruption is in Adam or in our own committed sins, we are corrupt, depraved, fallen, sinful, wicked, desiring evil, turning from good, acting from selfishness rather than faith, etc etc.

Third, Scripture itself tells us, several times, that our every desire is sinful, our every thought wicked, our every action rebellion. As has been noted again and again, Romans 3:9-20 should settle this issue. No one seeks for God. No one will call out to him. No one does good. Any argument from libertarian freedom will have to explain how we get from Romans 3:11 to saying anyone can seek God if he so chooses.

Fourth, we have brought this condition on ourselves, through Adam’s sin and through our own. Because of our condition, our every desire is sin and the words of Genesis 6:5 – pre-flood words repeated after the flood in Genesis 8:21 as a universal indictment – continue to be true of us today: every intention of the heart is only evil continually. A heart which only ever has intentions of evil will never choose good (which we saw in Romans 3:12). We are free to choose good in that God does not prevent anyone from doing good, but we hinder ourselves by the wickedness of our hearts. The only remedy is a work of God’s grace, a work that we see him carry out in individuals but not for humanity as a whole. Thus our only hope to ever be able to make a free will choice for God is if God first changes our wills, removing hearts of stone and giving us hearts that beat for him.

One of the claims of Calvinism is that regeneration must precede faith. That is, no one can trust in Christ, no one will desire salvation and forgiveness, until God first removes the dead heart of stone and puts in a heart desiring God. Left to ourselves, we will always, always reject God. Only when God breathes life into us by the Spirit will we turn to him.

One image of this is found in Zechariah 13:8-9:

It starts with God speaking of a division among the people. Two-thirds are set aside for destruction while one-third will be saved from the coming invaders. This one-third, this remnant of the people, is not set aside because of their own merit but because of the mercy of God. In Romans 11:5 Paul compares us with the faithful few of Elijah’s day and describes us as a remnant chosen by grace.

So God designates a remnant of the people. And what does he do with this remnant? He refines them, he tries them, he purifies them in the fire that burns away every impurity. He takes that which is impure and makes it pure. Only after he has done this work will the people call on his name. They must call on him, they must pursue him by faith, but because of his work, they will call on him. And when they call on him, he will declare them to be his people.

Thanks be to God for his mercy to us, to take that which was foul with sin and completely in rebellion against God, to cleanse us, to purify us, to give us hearts of love for him, and to make us his children. Some people say this theology is heresy. I call it grace, mercy, and life.