Like many, I’ve been digging through material from the John 3:16 conference as well as reading Lemke’s article and the various responses in the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry. In each of these one thing has continually surprised and perplexed me: the notion that Calvinists believe eternal security is dependent on human works. 

In brief, what is eternal security, or perseverance of the saints? It is the belief that those who truly belong to Christ will not fall away from the faith. One cannot be a Christian one day and no longer a Christian the next. The Scriptural basis for this belief comes from several places. In Philippians 1:6 Paul expresses confidence that God will complete the work begun in believers; Romans 8:29-30 presents several aspects of the Christian life as a definite, continuous chain: those foreknown are predestined then called then justified then glorified; John 6:39 tells us that the will of the Father is that the Son would lose none of those given to him. Security of the believer is a definite notion in Scripture.

Up to this point there is no real disagreement among those who believe in eternal security. The argument seems to be with the idea that those who are secure will persevere in the faith – continue living faithful lives in faith to God. Somehow we are accused of believing in salvation by works. Here is a broader look at eternal security as I – and many other Calvinists and, perhaps, some non-Calvinists – understand it.

Being born again, regenerated, has to mean something. When a person is born again an actual change has taken place in that person’s life. God has done something to that person so that he is no longer dead in his sins but is made alive with Christ. He is no longer a slave to sin. He will sin but he will not “go on sinning” – his life will no longer be a life characterized by sinfulness. Biblical support for this can be found throughout but nowhere is it clearer than in 1 John.

James and Paul also tell us that those who are born again will have the things of God coming from their lives. There will be fruits of the Spirit. Saving faith will produce good works. The Christian life is not just one that avoids doing bad things, it also does good things. A born again person resists sin and is active in obedience to Christ. Not perfectly so, this is why we must be sanctified. Becoming more like Christ is an ongoing process that is never complete this side of Heaven.

If a person is active in his rebellion against God while claiming to be a Christian, where is the evidence for his claim? If his life is characterized by his sin, where is he meeting the expectation of 1 John?

If a person is saved it will be evident in his life and he will persevere in obedience. If he does not persevere, he will not experience the “salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:5). This does not mean he has lost his salvation, this means he was never saved. He had no true change. He was not born again.

A person does not remain born again on the basis of their works, but their works demonstrate that they have been born again. Many can claim to be saved and might live moral lives for a time. If they turn from that claim or turn away from obedience they show their claim was false.

What is the basis of a person’s ability to persevere? A transformed heart and life, filled with strength by the Spirit of God. This is all God’s work. No one can persevere, no one can obey, unless God is at work through him. Without God a man’s every act is sin. Only with God can a person do anything good. Any resisting of sin, any obedience, comes from the grace of God. Any perseverance comes only as a gift of God’s grace.

How can someone claim Calvinists really believe persevering salvation is by human works when Calvinists believe even good works come only by the grace and power of God? If I persevere in obedience and faith it is only because God has transformed me, has regenerated me, has made me be born again (1 Peter 1:3: According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again…).

Thanks be to God who has accomplished everything needed for our salvation.

This post follows my announcement Calvinism: Planting My Flag.

Throughout history many Christians have contributed a great deal of time, energy, and even blood to promote and defend the cause of Christ. I don’t want to downplay the important work that has been carried out by many non-Calvinists throughout history but I want to mention a few individuals specifically and some general trends that make me more appreciative of Calvinism.

We often hear people say that Christianity is under attack today. In many ways this is a false statement in that it implies Christianity is facing challenges today that it has not faced in the past. The truth is Christianity – more specifically, Christ – has always been under attack. In our generation some of the attacks of Satan have just become a little more evident than in the previous generation.

Among the attacks Satan has leveled against Christ and his church have been many attempts to undermine Christian trust in the word of God. We are rightly described as people of the book for it is this one Book that guides our faith and practice. Scripture is the God-given revelation of himself which tells us who we are, who he is, and how he wants us to live. In a way it is wrong to speak of the Bible as being our authority since God is our authority, but the Bible is the authoritative word that God has given and preserved for us. If trust in the Bible were undermined then Christianity itself would be undermined. Knowing this, Satan has leveled many attacks against the Bible over the centuries. Today’s attacks generally come from the liberal branches of Christianity and liberal attempts to dismantle the Bible and rebuild it more to their liking.

Against these attacks have stood many faithful Christians but I see Calvinists more than others standing in firm, faithful, and reasonable defense of Scripture. Calvinists and non-Calvinists on the conservative end of the spectrum would agree about the value, importance, and trustworthiness of Scripture but I really appreciate Calvinist attention to Scripture. Calvinist churches tend to be churches that want to teach their people doctrine. They want their people to know the word of God and how God’s word gives one coherent message of God’s work with humanity. I am very sad to say that most of the non-Calvinist churches I am familiar with do not go very deep with the Bible. They have firm commitments to the Word of God as the Word of God but they often do not take their people deep into the Word.

I am grateful especially to John Piper. It was his teaching and preaching that helped me finally understand parts of the Bible that had previously seemed irreconcilable. How in the world can Romans 9 and 2 Peter 3 be in the same Bible and how in the world can we see the consistent message in both? Piper helped me to understand how. Piper’s preaching is thoroughly biblical and if I sometimes disagree with Piper’s interpretation of Scripture I cannot fault his commitment to Scripture. I recently remarked to my wife how different it is to read John Piper versus some of the non-Calvinist writers I have appreciated. Their writings might contain biblical insights but they do not contain much of the Bible itself. With Piper and many other Calvinist writers one cannot go more than a few sentences before coming across direct appeals to Scripture. That is the kind of teaching I pray we see more of.

I am grateful to John MacArthur, even though I disagree with him a bit more often than with Piper. He shares Piper’s commitment with Scripture and has a desire to see Christians apply biblical truth to all of life.

I have a growing appreciation of the Calvinist saints of old. Men like Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards and John Owen. I look forward to reading more of their works and discovering even more saints that time has tried to obscure. These men all share a firm commitment to Scripture and a desire to teach doctrine that comes not from human wit or wisdom but from the word of God. They use human wit and wisdom to help others understand what God has revealed in his word but the Bible remains their foundation. I pray we follow in their example.

I pray that God would continue to raise up saints – Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike – to firmly, faithfully, and lovingly promote and proclaim the Word of God to their churches and to the world. And with my flag now in the Calvinist camp, I pray that God would help my non-Calvinist brothers and sisters understand that Calvinism is not just acceptable, it is biblical. It comes not from the mind of man but from the mind of God. May God find us faithful as we seek to rightly divide the Word of Truth and to rightly apply it to our lives.

This post follows my announcement Calvinism: Planting My Flag.

There is really just one thing to mention here and I’ve mentioned it already. I am still wrestling with the question of how God receives more glory when some are saved and the rest damned than if all were saved. If we take 2 Peter 3:9 at face value (which I think we should) and we believe that God has complete control over his creation and could save everyone if he wanted to (which he does and could) and yet we recognize that not everyone is saved, we face the question of why he does not save everyone. I discussed this some in my post Why I Am A Calvinist so I won’t rehash it here. I am completely satisfied to say there are two wills in God and that his will that all be saved stands under his will to magnify his own glory. But why is it more glorious that some be saved and others lost rather than all be saved? And as I discussed in my post on Calvinism, I am somewhat – though not completely – satisfied with Jonathan Edwards’ answer that for God’s glory to shine fully he must make manifest all of his character and nature, his wrath and justice as well as his mercy and love. Thus some are saved and demonstrate his mercy and love while others are damned and demonstrate his wrath and justice. The saved are saved only by his grace and the damned are damned justly because of their own sins.

This post follows my announcement Calvinism: Planting My Flag.

In ways the controversy surrounding Calvinism is somewhat surprising. While on the one hand Southern Baptists (specifically, Lifeway) hosted the Building Bridges conference on Calvinism which encouraged people on all sides of the issue to come together, on the other hand Jerry Vines put together the John 3:16 conference as a response to Building Bridges and as an attempt to show people the problems with Calvinism. It is reported that the number of Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention is growing, but at the same time the number of churches refusing to hire Calvinist pastors also seems to be growing. Many of the concerns seem to be more about misunderstandings than actual differences. People have many assumptions about Calvinism and have heard a number of nasty rumors that leave them suspicious of anyone calling himself a Calvinist. But most of those assumptions and rumors are false. What I want to address in this section is what it means to live as a Calvinist. There shouldn’t be anything surprising here – I will simply be discussing what the Bible says about the Christian life. Some, though, might be surprised to find out that Calvinists believe and practice some of these things.

Continuing my love of sections, I will discuss Christian living under the headings of evangelism, church life and personal holiness.

Evangelism

Most of the misconceptions about Calvinism fall into this group. Many people believe that since Calvinism teaches that only the chosen will be saved, evangelism is not something Calvinists feel is important. If God chooses the people that will respond to the gospel and their response is guaranteed, why evangelize?

Despite this misconception, most Calvinists are right there with most non-Calvinists in recognizing the need for evangelism. But why would Calvinists feel the need to evangelize? Several years ago I heard R. C. Sproul respond to this question by saying we feel the need to evangelize because God told us to evangelize. One cannot escape the gospel imperative to go out into all the world and spread the good news. And our preaching, teaching, proclaiming and evangelizing is not in vain. God uses the work of his servants to bring people to himself. This is the meaning of Paul’s words in Romans 10:14-17:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

For his own reasons God has chosen to work through his creation in bringing salvation to the world. We did not hear the gospel through angelic proclamation. You heard it through a father or mother, Sunday school teacher, pastor, friend, or perhaps a random tract left by a stranger. Even Saint Augustine heard the voice of a child telling him to take up and read. However it happened for you, God used people to bring you to himself. Ultimately the work was his own. No human had the power to move you to Christ. But God used humans to be his agents on earth.

Evangelism, then, is essential because it is through evangelism that God saves sinners. Relentless evangelism – that is, indiscriminate evangelism is also essential. Calvinists do not believe you can pick and choose who you will share the gospel with. Christians have no special discernment that tells us who will respond and who will not. We must spread the gospel to all people. God will bring in the harvest. In the parable of the seeds sown on different types of soil, we normally focus on the soils themselves. But don’t miss the fact that the sower in this parable did not try to discriminate good soil from bad. In this sense he was a poor farmer, but it made him a great evangelist. Spread the word of God wherever you have opportunity and trust God to be at work in the soil.

No one is ever convinced to turn to Christ because of evangelism. But through evangelism God reveals who it is that he has turned to himself. The evangelist has no cause for boasting when people respond to his proclamation. Their response was not due to his skill or his clever ability to elicit a response. This is one thing that should give all people confidence to go out and witness. It does not matter how skilled a talker or debater you are. In the end whether or not the person responds has nothing to do with your ability anyway. God has promised to guide you by the Holy Spirit, and we are told that he is the one that gives growth to our labor. Trust him with the growth and do not worry if you feel inadequate to the task. We are all inadequate but God is glorified all the more through our weakness.

(Note: As you’ve noticed, this section does not contain a comprehensive picture of evangelism – there is a lot I’ve left out – but it is intended to focus on those issues that tend to make non-Calvinists suspicious of Calvinists.)

Church life

There is no such thing as a solo saint. Christians are called to be a part of a vibrant community of believers, spurring one another on toward holiness for the glory of God. Similarly, those communities are to be vibrant beacons of God’s truth to cast off the darkness of the world. Calvinists have sometimes received the label frozen chosen due to the tendency of some (usually referred to as hyperCalvinists) to remain holed up in their churches, leaving other Christians and the world to make it on their own. But the life of Christ teaches us that the will of the Father is for a people who abide with one another, that are made one through the bond of Christ himself. And as a unified community we are not here to look inward but to look upward, seeking to glorify God. One way he has called for us to glorify him is by being a community that spreads his glory into the world. This relates to the previous section on evangelism. When Christians gather together the purpose of our gatherings should not be to entertain nor to talk about Christian facts. Our gathering together should be for the purpose of building up one another to carry out the ministry of Christ. In this I am getting a little more controversial. The gathering of believers is not the place for evangelism, but it is the place to prepare believers to go out and evangelize. It is not the place to try and draw in the lost. It is the place to teach the found how to live out and proclaim the gospel so that all the lost will see and hear. The community of believers should also be active in seeking ways to carry that message to the lost. Throughout the book of Acts we read of missionary endeavors planned and carried out from within a local group of believers. Churches need to be intentional about equipping and organizing believers to share the gospel with a lost world. Churches need to instill in members a passion for Christ, such a love for him that they cannot help but overflow to the world so that all will see their love for Christ. Our gatherings should never be about entertainment (contrary to too many modern church fads) nor should they be about the accumulation of facts (contrary to a rare number of over-intellectualized churches). Our gatherings should equip the saints to glorify God with their lives as they proclaim the gospel to the world.

Personal holiness

Sometimes those who believe salvation can be lost wonder how those who teach perseverance can also teach holiness. If we cannot lose our salvation, if forgiveness means all our sins, past and present and future, are taken care of, why should anyone live a holy life? If I know that accepting Christ ten years ago secures me for the rest of my life, why not party down and enjoy the lusts of the flesh until I die and go to paradise?

There are a few ways to respond to this. The first is that no one who has been born of God will go on sinning. That is the message John delivers over and over again in 1 John. This doesn’t mean the believer never sins. It means the pattern of his life is no longer characterized by a striving for sin but by a striving for holiness. It is very strong evidence that a person’s faith is not genuine if Christianity for them is no more than a kind of cosmic fire insurance. They walked the aisle, their name is now on the church role, so they are safe to live however they want. To this Scripture says No! If a person is born again, regenerate, transformed from life in the flesh to life in the Spirit, he will not go on living in a pattern of sin. Some periods of struggle and straying will be greater than others but his life will show a definite pattern of striving for holiness. The Bible does not present any other option.

Another way to respond is by noting that ultimately Christianity is not about salvation from Hell nor the attainment of Heaven but is about the attainment of God himself. John Piper writes about this in some length in his book God is the Gospel. We have not been saved so that we can escape Hell. We have not been saved so that we can go to Heaven. We have not been saved so that we can enjoy blessings now and throughout eternity. We have been saved so that we can live in a loving relationship with God. True love will always seek to do that which is best, the greatest good. If you love God as you claim then you will seek to live before God in the best way possible. The only way to do this is by living in obedience to him. If someone claims to love God and yet lives in opposition to the commands of God, his claim of love is nothing but a sham, a lie.

Holiness is not an option for the believer. It is something we must always strive for. It is a striving that never ends this side of Heaven but when we stand before the Lord and the perishable becomes the imperishable we will finally experience the true fruit and joy of absolute holiness. This is the promise of Ezekiel 36:25-27.

This post follows my announcement Calvinism: Planting My Flag.

In my days as a non-Calvinist I heard and saw many things by Calvinists seeking to promote Calvinism. Some of what I saw was good, some was not so good. In this section I want to write about Calvinist arguments (one in particular) and practices that do not do a good job of explaining how Calvinist theology properly represents Scripture. We will look first at arguments then at practices

Arguments

I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard a Calvinist say something like, “God is sovereign, so people have no say in their salvation.” It is argued that because God has absolute control over the universe, individuals are not free to choose or reject God on their own. It is my feeling that arguments of this sort serve to limit rather than promote God’s sovereignty. I agree with non-Calvinists that a sovereign God could work salvation however he chooses. If God had wanted to enable all people to freely choose or reject him, I believe he could have done so. Sovereignty means he is free to do as he pleases. Calvinist arguments about God’s sovereignty essentially limit what he could do, making sovereignty something other than sovereignty. Out of his character God limits some of the things that he will do, but that does not limit the things that he can do. In a similar way, out of his own design and intention for his creation God limits some of the things that he will do, but that does not change what he can do. He could save all people, or he could enable all people to accept or reject him. He does neither of these things because neither of these things fits within his purpose for creating man.

Practices

There are several things I want to mention under this heading. First is the attitude of too many Calvinists. I do not know why it is, but for some reason Calvinists have the tendency to display a tremendous amount of theological arrogance and hostility. These are not good qualities. Calvinists have no monopoly on these qualities and non-Calvinists have some problems that Calvinists don’t tend to have, but the arrogance and rudeness I see in many Calvinists is inexcusable. Having a proper understanding of the nature of God, man, and salvation should drive a person to greater humility, greater service, greater love. If the character of many of today’s Calvinists were used to try and determine whether or not Calvinism were true, Calvinism would not fare well. We need to demonstrate the peace and love of God with all that we do, whether we are discussing Calvinism with a non-Calvinist or feeding the hungry in a downtown shelter or talking with a liberal theologian about the Bible. Are you glorifying God with your words, attitudes, and actions? If not, seek change.

Calvinists, you need to realize that the world is not split between Calvinists and Arminians. There are a lot of Christians out there who fall somewhere between the two headings (and some extremists who go beyond each position). It drives me crazy when I hear Calvinists refer to all people as either one or the other. You cannot make those who disagree with you be something they are not. Deal with people honestly and carefully. Take them on their own terms, not the terms you want to impose on them. It will gain you more credibility and make your own message easier to hear. If you argue with a non-Calvinist and you insist on calling them Arminian when they know they are not, why would they want to listen to anything you say? You cannot even understand where they are coming from, why should they trust that you can understand the Bible?

Finally, can we stop referring to Calvinist theology as the doctrines of grace? I understand the term, but it strikes me as an example of Calvinist hubris. Non-Calvinists fully believe in and affirm the grace of God. Non-Calvinist soteriology is built on the notion that salvation is fully a work of God’s grace. What they mean by that and what we mean by that may differ at times but Calvinists have no monopoly on teaching and affirming God’s grace. It is disingenuous to say we hold to the doctrines of grace as if implying that other Christians do not.

This post follows my announcement Calvinism: Planting My Flag.

Why I Am A Calvinist

I call myself a Calvinist not because I have been convinced by arguments or reasoning of Calvinist thinkers but because I have become convinced that the Calvinist understanding of the Bible is correct. That is to say, I am a Bible believing Christian and what I believe the Bible teaches about God, man, and salvation is roughly in line with the theology of Calvinism.

My Calvinism, then, is best expressed by appeals to Scripture. It is in the Bible that we learn that all people are thoroughly sinful, enslaved to sin, unable and unwilling to do anything but go their own way, living in rebellion to God. It is in the Bible that we learn the only way a person could desire salvation is if God first frees them from their enslavement to sin. In the Bible we learn that God only frees (transforms, regenerates – more on this in a moment) certain individuals and that not everyone will be saved or can be saved. Calvinism does not come from the mind of man, it comes from the Word of God.

I want to discuss Calvinism using roughly the categories contained above: the nature of man; the process of salvation; and the will of God.

The Nature of Man

The book of Romans gives us the starkest and most compelling picture of man as a completely sinful being, living openly and actively in rebellion against God. Listen to how Paul describes mankind in Romans 3:11-18 (in this passage he is bringing together several Old Testament passages):

“No one is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

This is not a pleasant picture of humanity. Some have argued that such views of people are overly harsh. Especially today we find many people who believe in the essential goodness of mankind. But we cannot escape the fact that once we get past Genesis 2 the biblical picture of humanity is very bleak. There is no rosy picture, no optimistic outlook of people who are simply misguided at times. We are sinful from conception on. How can this be? We see people perform acts that seem to be good. How can anyone claim that even the most praiseworthy acts of unbelievers are sin? The simplest answer is that their acts are performed for the wrong reason and to the wrong end. Saint Augustine said that God has made us for himself. Everything people do should be done with God in view and for the purpose of bringing him glory. In Romans 14:23 Paul tells us that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. The unbeliever does not act out of faith in God or for the glory of God. At best they might possibly act on behalf of another person (if their good acts are not simply to assuage their own consciences) but that is not good enough. We are to do good works on behalf of and for the benefit of others but we were created to do everything through faith in and for the glory of God. Anything not done in this way is sin.

Salvation is something made available through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. All people are called to repent and have faith in Christ. Because of his atoning death for us, all who repent and believe will be saved. The call to repent is issued to all people. The non-Calvinist believes the field is essentially level – that all people are equally able to respond to the gospel. Fallen man, though fallen, has been enabled to turn in faith to Jesus Christ for salvation. The problem with this view is it cannot be found in Scripture. As already mentioned, the biblical picture of man is bleak. In addition, we find passages like Ephesians 2:1-2: And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world… All people are dead in their sins. Nothing in the Bible indicates that all have been slightly revived so that they can respond to the call of the gospel; everyone is dead. In the coffin, in the ground, dead in our sins. Unable to move toward Christ to accept the free gift of his grace.

In John 6:44 Jesus himself tells us that people are unable to respond to Christ on their own. We will look at it again in more detail later but it fits in well here: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…” On their own no one can accept Christ, no one can be saved. As we have seen, it is not just that people are unable, they are also unwilling. There are no people who want to be saved but cannot. Left to themselves, no one desires salvation. People are satisfied living life in their own way. They want nothing to do with God. No one wants to go to Hell but left to themselves people will rely on a million other ways to avoid Hell, never turning to God for salvation.

The Process of Salvation

If no one is able to receive salvation, responding to Christ by faith, how then could anyone be saved? The disciples of Jesus asked a similar question when told how hard it is for a rich man to be saved, Matthew 19:23-26:

And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

From beginning to end salvation is of God. From the work of Christ on the cross to our ability to receive salvation to our final glorification in Heaven everything about our salvation is worked out by God.

Let’s back up to Ephesians 2 where we earlier learned that everyone is dead in their sin. Just a few verses later we find the following, Ephesians 2:4-5:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved…

First we read that we are all dead then we find that it is God who makes us alive. Now, before you think that this shows God reviving all to be able to respond to the gospel, be sure to note the continuity in this passage: those who are made alive are joined with Christ, are saved, and – later in the passage – are joined with him in Heaven. In other words, those who are made alive will be saved. They are not revived and given the choice whether or not to respond. If they are made alive, they are made alive to salvation and are saved.

This is where the irresistible grace part of Calvinism comes in. Those who are changed by God will be changed. There is no question about it – they are not enabled to respond and they might or might not, they will receive the gift of salvation offered in Jesus Christ. It is not so much that these people will want to resist but cannot do so; rather, they will not want to resist. Once a person has been made alive – born again, regenerated, transformed – their new desire will be for Christ. When their bodies finally die they will go to be with God in Heaven, and they will be delighted and will give glory to God for the salvation he has given to them.

The Will of God

No one can be saved unless God makes them alive. Those who are made alive will be saved. Not everyone is saved, so God must not make everyone alive. Thus we see that God wants some to be saved but not others. (We could perhaps conclude that God is only able to save some and is unable to save others but responding to this notion is too big a rabbit to chase in this entry.) This is perhaps the most controversial aspect of Calvinism. Particularly in the modern world we believe that fairness and justice means treating everyone the exact same way. When we try to apply this to God, however, we begin to run into problems. God is not guided by popular ethics.

The first thing we must do is remember that we are all sinners who deserve punishment for our sins. We have all made ourselves guilty by living in rebellion to God. Such rebellion is part of our very nature as creatures who are dead in our sins. That God would send anyone to Hell is not an evil act of a spiteful deity, it is the just act of a righteous and holy God who cannot ignore sin. That God would save anyone is simply an act of divine mercy and grace. No one deserves salvation. If anyone is saved, it is an act of mercy.

Earlier I brought up John 6 and said we would return to it. It is time to return. Note the words of Jesus in John 6:35-40:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

And John 6:44:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

The message in these is uniform and only supports what we have already said, though we see a few more of the inner workings. Only those who are drawn by the Father will be saved. All those drawn by the Father are given to Jesus. All those given to Jesus will be held firm, never cast out, held secure to the end. All those given to Jesus will be raised with him on the last day. In other words, all those given to Jesus will be saved. Those not given to Jesus will not be saved. Those not given to Jesus were not chosen by the Father, the Father chose not to draw them.

I believe that God has the power to save all people. I also believe that God does not delight when anyone perishes. He desires the salvation of all people. I believe that God loves all those whom he has made. But God does not choose to save all people. Why not? The universalist escapes the question by saying that God does, in fact, save everyone. The open theist escapes by saying that God is unable to save everyone. But all others, Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike, must answer the question. Both the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist have the dilemma of a God who could save everyone but chooses not to do so. If God can save everyone but does not do so, God must desire something more than the salvation of the individual.

The non-Calvinist would generally answer that God values free human choice and response. Only love which is freely given is of value to God. He would not want to receive love and devotion that came about only because of a work he himself did in the individual. So God is willing to allow people to go to Hell in order to preserve their free will.

The Calvinist, on the other hand, responds by saying that no one is able to love God. There is no free will response to God because there is no free will ability to love God. Humans have free will but their will is so bent and corrupt that the only desire of humans is to sin. Thus, left to ourselves, we would only exercise free will to sin against God.

The person who has been transformed by God, however, still acts on the basis of free will but of a free will that has been made new. That individual will desire God and will freely respond to Jesus Christ. There is no doubt that he will respond, but there is also no doubt that the person who has not been transformed will not respond to God.

That still leaves the question of why God does not save everyone. The Calvinist answer comes from Romans 9. In my opinion Romans 9 and John 6 present the most compelling, overwhelming case for Calvinism. They are not the only passages to support Calvinism, not by far, but they are the clearest and I have yet to hear a non-Calvinist interpretation that sounds at all convincing.

In Romans 9 God is addressing the question of why all Jews are not saved. His answer to that could be expanded out to the question of why God would allow anyone, Jew or Gentile, to perish in his sins. The central argument is found in Romans 9:19-24:

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory– even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

What Paul suggests is that God chooses to save some but not all so that his glory would be magnified all the more. This is one of the places where I still struggle some with Calvinism. How is God glorified when many people go to Hell? The answer given by Jonathan Edwards is probably correct but I am still wrestling with it. (I do not know the original source of this. I have heard John Piper and others refer to this from Edwards but I forget where he discusses it.) Essentially, Edwards argues that for God to be fully glorified he must be fully revealed. God is love and mercy but God is also wrath and justice. God does show love and extend mercy but he also has wrath and carries out justice. If everyone were saved then God’s characteristics of wrath and justice would not be revealed. We would not see them at work. In order for us to see God’s wrath and justice there must be “vessels of wrath” (as Paul put it) that will be subjected to punishment. God would not be just if those vessels of wrath were punished without cause. Their punishment is in fact just. Everyone who goes to Hell goes there because of his own sins. And we all deserve Hell. None of us is righteous. Those who are saved from Hell are saved only because of the mercy of God.

The last part of this discussion – why God desires the salvation of all but does not save all – is explained well by John Piper in his essay Are There Two Wills In God?

That is about enough for this post. I had intended for this to be shorter. I had also intended to post it earlier in the day. Failing in my first intention led to failing in my second.

This post is not so much intended to stir up debate as it is to simply declare what I believe and why I believe it. If it helps you make better sense of the Bible, praise God! If you wish to debate it,  feel free. But be civil.

The time for the major announcement has come. Cue the dramatic music; flash the lights; fill the stage with ominous smoke: I am planting my flag about Calvinism and it is firmly in the Calvinist camp. This post should come as no  surprise to those who have been reading my series Blogging Calvinism.

I have had some reluctance about firmly positioning myself on this issue. Over the past year or so my thinking has been challenged in a number of areas, making me a little skittish about any more theological shifting. In addition, I have changed issues on Calvinism once before. I was raised in a church that firmly and fully taught Reformed doctrine and I could argue Calvinism with the best of them. The move away from Calvinism came about six years ago, due in large part to the writings of George MacDonald. The transition back to Calvinism began several months ago. Thanks or blame for this (depending on your preferred side) can be given to John Piper. But since I have changed my mind on this once before, I want to be sure that any change now is definite and sure. It is not a bad thing when we change our minds. It could, perhaps, indicate good things about us. But it is a bad thing when we change our minds again and again and again. So may this be my last time to change sides on this issue. I think it will be.

I want to spend the next few days talking about my shift back to Calvinism. This entry is simply to introduce and index the series of posts. Tomorrow I will focus on why I am a Calvinist, what it is about my understanding of the Bible that makes my theology line up with Calvinism. Thursday I will respond to bad arguments people use to try to promote and defend Calvinism, also looking at some of the bad practices of Calvinists. In Friday’s post I will talk about what Calvinism means for the Christian life, primarily focusing on things that tend to concern people about Calvinism. Saturday I will raise some of my lingering questions. And Sunday I will write about what I have appreciated from many Calvinists.

This post is part of my series Blogging Calvinism in which I blog my thoughts and reaction to Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election by Sam Storms.

I have finally finished working through Storms’ book on Calvinism. The last few chapters and the appendices basically just wrap everything up so I’ve decided not to blog on them each individually but I will discuss a few things from those chapters in this concluding post.

First, here are the remaining chapters in the book:

• 12. The Order of Salvation
• 13. Crucial Questions Concerning Election: Hyper-Calvinism and the Nature of God
• 14. Crucial Questions Concerning Election: Love, Preaching, and Prayer
• 15. A Defense of a Defense of Divine Election
• Conclusion
• Appendix A: Three Problem Passages (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9; John 3:16)
• Appendix B: Who Can and Who Cannot Pray for God to Save the Lost? (Mostly a response to open theism)
• Appendix C: The Divine Decrees

This book has been a good read. On the whole Storms has been very helpful in my thinking about Calvinism. There is not much (well, any) new material here but Storms does a good job of putting pieces together and presenting Calvinism as a unified whole. There are places where Storms should have done a little more work or clarified things a bit and some places where I felt he did not really address the issues he raised so I’m left with about as many questions as I started with.

To wrap things up I want to bring up a few odds and ends from the chapters I have not covered. This will not be comprehensive, not even close. The concluding chapters are helpful but one, I’m ready to be done with this series and two, though helpful the chapters don’t add much new material to a consideration of Calvinism itself. Storms clarifies a few things, responds to some specific objections, and hits on a few theological matters that are related to Calvinism.

In his first chapter on crucial questions Storms deals some with the nature of God. The questions are how can God be just, impartial, and loving if salvation is a matter of divine, sovereign election? For all of these the basic response is to remind the reader that none of us deserves salvation, all of us deserve only Hell. That God saves anyone at all is a miracle, no one can accuse God of injustice if what they get from God is what they deserve. No one has any grounds to complain when God shows mercy to someone who deserves only wrath. Modern notions of what it means to be fair do not apply to a sovereign God. God is truly impartial, his mercy is shown on the basis of his will alone and not on the basis of any human merit. Race, gender, socioeconomic status, political influence, physical power – none of these influence God’s choice of who he will save. We can say that God is partial toward the elect, but he is not partial in how he chooses the elect.

All of this gets rehashed in his chapter A Defense of a Defense of Divine Election. In that chapter he raises one other issue that has been a biggie for me – “why didn’t God choose all?” (183) There are a few possible responses but here again is a place where Storms does a good job of putting together and presenting arguments I had picked up from other places but had not yet seen in a more organized fashion.

The basic question starts with the recognition that if Calvinism be true then God could have chosen to save every person. He could have elected every individual and then we would live in a world where all people are saved. If he could have saved every individual, why didn’t he? This becomes particularly confusing in light of texts that speak of God’s love for the world (a brief aside – I disagree slightly with Storms’ treatment of John 3:16; he is right that we often emphasize the wrong thing. The point of John 3:16 is not so much God’s love for lots of people but his love for sinful people. Nonetheless, we have to reckon with the fact that John 3:16 does refer to his love for the world.) and his desire for all people to be saved. I am on Piper’s side here (and Storms is as well) that this is understood when we recognize that there are two wills in God. God does desire the salvation of all but there is something he desires even more. As I have said again and again, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists must agree on this point. Even the non-Calvinist has this dilemma – why does God not enforce what he desires in salvation? It is because he desires something even more than that we be saved. Storms and Piper argues that God is most greatly motivated by a desire to proclaim his glory. Not all people are saved because God wants all of his character and attributes to be on display. The only way to show mercy is to have someone that deserves only wrath. The only way to show just wrath and judgment is to have sinners who die in their sin.

This does not take away from human responsibility. That which leads a person to Hell comes from the person himself. We commit our own sins, we carry out our own rebellion. God is not unjust to inflict on us that which we bring on ourselves.

Here I must admit that I am still wrestling with this some. Storms does not adequately deal with the question of how humans are still responsible for sin when that sin is the will of God. This next might sound shocking, though by now it shouldn’t be surprising to any reader: I do believe there are places in the Bible that makes it clear that God has ordained some sins. The clearest example is found in Jesus himself, everything that took place in his betrayal and crucifixion was done in fulfillment of Scripture. It was done according to the will of God. How can we reconcile God’s will and human responsibility? God is not the author of sin, we say, and yet God does ordain sin. And yet humans are responsible for their sins. How this works is as yet a mystery to me.

Storms’ chapter on praying for the lost is quite good. As I mentioned before it is primarily a response to open theism and those who believe in libertarian free will. Libertarian free will is basically defined as “an agent is free with respect to a given action at a given time if at that time it is within the agent’s power to perform the action and also in the agent’s power to refrain from the action.” (204, Storms quoting William Hasker) Those who believe God gives individuals this kind of freedom would have a hard time praying for the salvation of anyone. How would God answer such a prayer? When we pray for someone’s salvation are we simply asking for God to try even harder to talk the person into being saved? That is the most God could do if libertarian free will is true.

One might ask how the Calvinist could pray. Storms deals with this in his chapter on crucial questions. Essentially, we pray because God has told us to pray and we pray because God works through our prayers. God has chosen to use humans as his instruments to bring salvation to people and prayer is one of the things we must do as we work to bring salvation to others. Prayer does not influence God to act one way or another but prayer is an obedient act God uses to bring about his will.

There is plenty more in these chapters and plenty more in this book that I have not touched on. It has been a good read and I recommend it to anyone wanting to dig into Calvinism. I plan to continue my thinking about this, though it is time to approach the subject from the other side. I have Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free and Roger Olson’s Arminian Theology. Someday I will read Geisler’s book but for now I will read Olson’s. I’ve seen favorable reviews on it from several sources and one of my non-Calvinist seminary professors has a recommendation on the back cover. I don’t plan to work through it as I did Storms’ book but I am sure reading it will inspire a few blog posts.

Ligon Duncan has a (short) great post on using narrative theology as an excuse for, well, bad theology. I’d post a snippit but then there wouldn’t be much left for you to read! At any rate, it’s a great reminder for those who seek to re-interpret (re-write) the Bible for today’s culture.

This post is part of my series Blogging Calvinism in which I blog my thoughts and reaction to Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election by Sam Storms.

It has been almost three weeks since I posted my comments on chapter six. In that time I have worked through five chapters of Storms’ book. As I had mentioned previously I have decided to work through these chapters together since they all deal with biblical evidences for sovereign election. In the end I found the chapters both helpful and puzzling. As with other chapters there were some places that were helpful but there were other places that posed questions without adequately answering them. In this case those questions are very important so I was a bit disappointed that they did not receive more adequate treatment. But more on that when we get to those places.

I will not be quite so thorough as I have with other chapters. I will mention all of the passages Storms addressed and I will make some comments on each but I will reserve more detailed comments for just a few of the passages.

The first two chapters are divided in roughly canonical order. The first looks at passages found in the gospels and Acts. The second looks at passages in the epistles and one in Revelation. And if one has any doubt as to where Calvinists gain quite a bit of theological support they need only look at the fact that the last three of these five chapters are dedicated to Romans 9:1-23.

Matthew 11:25-27

On this passage Storms notes that “when the Father finally makes sense to us, when we come to know him truly, to the degree that we grasp something of his nature and will and ways, it is because the Son has graciously stooped to reveal him to us.” (89) Our knowledge of the Father does not come because we finally grasp some information out there. It is not when we finally piece together in our minds the message of the gospel. It is only when Jesus himself shines the light of truth to us.

Matthew 13:10-17

For many this is one of the more troubling passages in the Bible. What can it mean that God wants to hide the truth about Christ from some people? As Storms says, “Mark’s version [Mark 4:10-13] has bothered a lot of people. They think it is intolerable to suggest that Jesus taught in parables in order to prevent outsiders from understanding, repenting, and receiving forgiveness of sins.” (90) But this misunderstands both the natural state of man and what Jesus is saying. “It is not as if these multitudes are crying out for salvation from Jesus but he hardens their hearts and refuses to receive them.” (90) Some mischaracterize Calvinists as teaching that God rejects people who are longing for him, seeking salvation. But left to themselves no one will seek after God. Left to themselves none of Jesus’ hearers would ever desire him. What Jesus is doing is keeping those spiritually blind people, those dead and rebellious people, from seeing the light that would awaken them and bring them to salvation. That has been reserved for the elect only, not for all who hear the gospel. Without this kind of work in their lives they will continue to despise and rebel against God. The question which to some degree continues to remain in my mind is why doesn’t God show this light to all? Why doesn’t God ensure that all are saved? This is addressed and answered in later passages, particularly Romans 9, but I am still wrestling a bit with the answer.

John 6:37-40, 44, 65

In my opinion this is one of the best, if not the best, demonstrations of Calvinism in the Bible. Romans 9 is certainly compelling as well, but I find John 6 even stronger. Here a few things are stated rather strongly. Storms addresses these as three impossibilities given in the text: (1) “it is morally and spiritually impossible for a person to come to Christ apart from the ‘drawing’ of that person by God the Father.” (92) (2) “…it is impossible for someone whom the Father ‘draws’ not to come to him.” (92) (3) “…when a person does come through the drawing of the Father it is impossible for him or her to be cast out.” (93)

People only come when they are drawn. Everyone who is drawn will come. Everyone who comes will be accepted. The drawing cannot be seen as a general drawing of all mankind or everyone would be saved. I address this in a bit more detail in another post.

John 10:14-16, 24-30

A few quotes by Storms on this passage: “Jesus reckons as his sheep many who have not yet come to faith. Their identity as sheep is not dependent on their faith. Rather, their faith will be the result of their having been made Christ’s sheep by divine election.” (95) “Jesus grounds his confidence in the safety of his sheep in the incomparable omnipotence of his Father.” (96) “If so much as one true child of God can ever perish, Jesus has deceived us… Some may attempt to snatch them. But they cannot succeed because the Son and the Father are united in purpose and power to keep them secure.” (96) “In the final analysis, the security of our salvation is ultimately dependent on God’s character, not ours.” (97)

John 17:1-2

Jesus has authority over all people but only gives eternal life to some of them. This is in part similar to what we find in John 6. Though the Son has authority over all, a particular group has been given to the Son for the specific purpose that he would give them eternal life. These will be his people. The choice of these specific people is not based on anything the people are or have done. Quoting Jonathan Edwards, Storms says: “God, says Edwards, doesn’t choose certain people because he foresees excellence in them, but ‘he makes them excellent because he has chosen them.’” (98)

Acts 13:44-48

Storms: “How many believed? Neither more nor less than the number of those whom God had appointed to life.” (99)