Response to the Reformed

Jason and Rich have posted counter-arguments to Salvation Mechanics in defense of the Reformed view that saving faith is not free, but also a gift from God (selection salvation).

Clarification

Before addressing their specific arguments, I’d like to answer a question Rich asked. In discussing depravity, Rich asked what I mean by “believe”. I apologize for the vagueness of the quotation Rich cited (“believe in God”). Within this context, when I say “faith” or “believe in God”, I mean saving faith or trust in Christ’s work for salvation. I do not mean intellectual assent to the existence of a higher being. Such assent may be a major step towards saving faith, but it does not save. As James wrote:

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Freewill

Citing John 1:13, Jason argues that faith is a gift:

I agree with your choice of scripture references. You should remember this one though.

“who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” – John 1:13

Without any specific analysis, Jason’s argument here is neither clear nor explicit, but I believe his argument centers around the phrase: “nor of the will of man, but of God”. To understand exactly what is being referred to here, we must examine the preceding verse. Together:

Joh 1:12-13 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (KJV)

The passage is referring to becoming sons of God. This is related to salvation, but is given as a result, not a requirement of receiving or believing. It is not by our will or power that we become sons of God. Rather, it is His will to make those who receive and believe His sons by His power. Freewill Salvation is consistent with this doctrine. My view does not hold that we are saved by our own power or made sons of God by our own wills. Rather, it is God’s will to use His power to save those who freely believe and His will to make them sons.

Furthermore, a valid interpretation of scripture must consider all related verses. You can’t agree with the references I listed and my interpretation of them and consistently hold the view of Selection Salvation. For example, consider Romans 8:29, which declares that predestination is dependent on God’s foreknowledge. I argued that this foreknowledge must be of a freewill choice. If that is not the case, what is God’s relevant foreknowledge of? It must be consistent with the rest of scripture. Possible alternatives to freewill faith are inconsistent with God’s character or circular. Consider John 1:12, which declares that it is God’s will to make those who receive Jesus and believe on His name the sons of God. What does it mean that sonship is dependent on faith if God also gives faith? That God chose to save them because He knew they would receive Christ because He was choosing them to do so based on His own choice? Such a conclusion is absurdly circular.

Depravity

Following my organization, Rich begins with addressing the role of freewill in faith. However, his argument is based on depravity. Rich essentially argues that prior to salvation people are “servants of sin” (Rom. 6:20). As a servant of sin, one is incapable of doing that which is not sin (totally depraved). Faith, being the key act of righteousness, is not sin. Therefore, no one is capable of faith without God giving them the gift of faith in order to receive the gift of salvation. To put it in theological terms, depravity precludes the will from faith.

As I emphasized in Salvation Mechanics, depravity does indeed preclude the natural man from taking the initiative in a search for God, neither can he understand the things of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). God must take the initiative in seeking us. However, God addresses this inability through general revelation, special revelation (the Bible), believer outreach (missions), and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Given this divine intervention, depravity is not a sufficient barrier to the will to faith. The natural man will not seek God, but God confronts him. The natural man is incapable of fully understanding the spiritual message of the gospel by himself, but the Spirit makes the truth clear. At this point, man is free to choose faith. Seeking is not the same as believing. Depravity requires that God seek us. It does not require that He force us to believe the gospel.

The analogy of one enslaved to sin is apt. Like a slave, the natural man by himself has no choice. He must serve the master (sin). But if another master comes to him and offers to buy him if he wills it, the slave has a choice, not from himself, but granted by the Master’s intervention.

Jason closes his remarks to me with a quotation from Sinclair Ferguson regarding the enslaved nature of man’s will. In my original remarks, I discussed depravity in detail with specific regard for Romans 3:10-11. Rich provided some more related references. In all of those cases, the passages do not say that man can not choose to believe the gospel via freewill. They do not say that man is so depraved he can not freely accept God’s gift. What they do say is that left to himself man sin nature dictates evil. Man will not seek God. We clearly agree on this point. Where we disagree is man’s position after God intervenes. God dramatically intervenes throughout history and directly to every person through the Holy Spirit to push them towards saving faith in Christ. Therefore, the question is not “will man seek God?”, but “can man, confronted by God with truth, accept it freely?” I have yet to see a convincing passage analysis affirming the negative to that question.

Election

As previously discussed, God predestined some to salvation before the beginning of the world “according to the good pleasure of His will”. I identified His will as the will to save those who will (that is, God desires to save those who freely trust in Christ’s work). Rich rejects this conclusion based on four counterarguments:

Alternate Criteria

Rich begins by arguing that there are alternative criteria to faith that God could base election on.

Glorification

First, Rich presents glorification (Rom. 8:30) as a possible criterion. However, this confuses the criterion with the ends and would make God’s reasoning circular. Romans 8:29-30 states:

Rom 8:29-30 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The initial “cause” of this process is God’s foreknowledge. Its end is glorification. If God’s criterion is glorification, then He would be choosing to glorify those He foreknew He would glorify because He foreknew He would glorify them. This is clearly not an acceptable criterion.

Secret Reasons

Alternatively, Rich argues that God’s criterion is secret, citing Romans 9:6-26. I think this primarily a reference to Romans 9:15:

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

However, God does not say here that He has secret reasons for saving some. Rather, He is declaring that He does will to save some and it is not according to merit, but His will. In the context of the citation (Ex. 33:19) the people of Israel have just disobeyed God’s command to take the promised land, choosing instead to accept the negative report of 10 of the spies. God grants Moses’s request to spare them, based on His grace and mercy. God does not spare them because of merit. This is merely indicative of the fact that it is not by works which we do that God chooses to elect us to salvation.

Responsibility

Rich then claims that Election does not preclude human responsibility. While I agree that that principle is found in Romans 9, that does not mean the Calvinist interpretation of Election does not preclude any reasonable sense of human responsibility. Responsibility implies choice. For example, I can not be reasonably held accountable for something that a complete stranger does. If you throw a rock, I can not be reasonable held responsible for gravity pulling it down. Similarly, it is unreasonable to damn someone because of a choice God or Adam made over which that person had no control. Any definition of responsibility that does not lead to this conclusion would seem to be an utterly foreign definition of the word.

God Chooses

Next, Rich argues that scripture declares several times that God is the agent of choosing the elect and their subsequent salvation, sanctification, and glorification. This is true. What is also true is that God’s choice is founded on foreknowledge (Rom. 8:29). That is the real issue here. We agree that God chooses the Elect. Scripture is also clear that it is based on foreknowledge of some event(s). What event(s) are in question is the key to this discussion.

In order for God to hold an individual reasonably responsible, that foreknowledge must be regarding that individual. Because salvation is not according to works, God’s criterion can not be merit for “all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isa 64:6). The only suitable criterion is that which is again and again associated with salvation: faith.

Respecter of Faith

Finally, Rich objects that the faith criterion amounts to some form of conditional respect for certain people. By that interpretation of “respecter of persons” any criterion other than random selection would make God a respecter of persons because any criterion that chooses some and rejects others “respects” them. In the context of Deuteronomy 10:17, from which Peter quotes, God is talking about the fatherless and the widow (Deut. 10:18). In Acts 10:35, Peter makes it clear that he is referring to nations, even emphasizing that God accepts “he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness”. That is, God does not have a special regard for the rich, the powerful, or particular ethnic groups. In a similar way, our Declaration of Independence declares: “all men are created equal.” Everyone has the opportunity to find salvation and it is the good pleasure of God’s sovereign will to save those who believe.

Rich’s closing remarks return to this theme:

A great preacher once noted, “The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works…” If a man chooses to believe in God, how is this not a work? If faith comes from within the person and not from God, who is really doing the saving? Is it God or man who justifies?

One might note on the other hand that the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by a Calvinist, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by accident. But the doctrine of freewill salvation by faith is not a doctrine of works. The concept of salvation by works is the idea that by doing good deeds one earns a place in heaven. One has a right to demand entrance into heaven, of God based on one’s own merit. Saving faith is the completely opposite idea. The concept of salvation by faith is the concept that we can not earn God’s favor in the manner just described. However, God, in His love for us, sent His Son to live the perfect life performing the good works that do merit God’s favor. His Son also died the substitutionary death for all our failings. By Christ’s work, those who exercise faith are justified. Faith is not an action that inherently cancels sin and makes us positional perfect. Faith applies the work of Christ to us. To argue that the concept of salvation by freewill faith is the same as the concept of salvation by works forgets the essential work of Christ that exists in the latter and is lacked in the former. The man of faith demands entrance into heaven not based on his merit, but rather based on Christ’s merit and promise.

On another note, I should be clear here that I am not professing Arminianism, as I accept the doctrine of eternal security.

Scope

Rich and I appear to agree on the question of scope. Rich sums up his position:

…saving grace is freely available to all, but only effectual for some…In other words, Christ died for the whole world, but the atonement provided through His blood sacrifice will only be counted as effectual for those whom God chooses.

Here, Rich, in keeping with His view on the deciding factor of salvation emphasizes the sovereignty of God in election, whereas I would have highlighted personal faith, but we agree on the central premise, that Christ’s death is for all and applied only to the elect, whether their freewill has a part in election or not.

God’s Priorities

Rich also explains that this view is consistent with passages declaring that it is God’s will to save all. Again we agree. Because God is sovereign, it is the stated will of God that no one perish (2 Peter 3:9), and we know that only a few will be saved (Matt. 17:13-14), God has clearly decided to allow some to reject salvation. I would argue that this is because God desires to allow us freewill. In respecting the freewill of man, God allowed Adam and Eve to sin, allows people to sin today, and even allows people to reject salvation. The bottom line is that if it is God’s known will to save everyone and it is also known that not all are saved, God’s priority of saving everyone is superceded by another priority. In my view, this priority is freewill.

However, while the different wills or priorities of God provide an acceptable answer to the question “If God claims He wants to save everyone, why doesn’t He?” It doesn not answer the question “what priority supercedes His priority to save?” Freewill salvation provides a clear answer: freewill. The Reformed view lacks a clear answer that is also consistent with God’s declared fairness (not a respecter of persons, etc.). As such, an appeal to God’s priorities does not fully address the problem presented by passages such as 2 Peter 3:9 to the Reformed view.

Limited Payment

On the other hand, Jason argues that Christ died only for the elect. He cites John 17:1-2,9. However, John 17:1-2,9 does not discuss the scope of the offer. Jesus refers only to the scope of reception. Certainly, not all receive eternal life, nor are all the sons of God. However, those facts do not mean that the offer is not open to all. Nor does it mean Christ only paid for the price of those that do receive Him. The scope is discussed in John 3:16 which states that God loved the world (that is, all people). Because of this universal love God gave His Son, Jesus. The goal is saving the world. Unfortunately, as you point out and as I did state in my previous post (“to anyone that believes”), not all will believe. 2 Peter 3:9 and Ezekiel 33:11 are also clear. God has not divided humanity into two groups of those He will save and those He won’t. Humanity, by it’s choices, good and bad, has divided itself into two camps before Him. One group choosing to accept Him and the other rejecting Him. God’s desire is to save all.

Few there be that find it

Jason also takes issue with the idea that only a few are saved. It may be true that the number of believers throughout history is great. However, the number of those who do not believe is greater. Relative to the multitudes of the lost, the saved are few in number. As Jesus said:

Mat 7:13-14 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Hyper-Calvinism

As a side note, Rich’s remark regarding “Hyper-Calvinism” seems to have sparked a discussion of what “Hyper-Calvinism” consists of. The term itself carries with it the negative connotation of extremism. Therefore, I am not surprised that very few accept the label. Although most would probably consider the denial of the universal offer of salvation as extreme, it seems to be a rather logical conclusion if, as all Calvinist’s profess, salvation is ultimately determined solely by a divine and impenetrable choice of God to save some and damn others. If God has chosen to save only some apart from any choices they might make for some mystical reason, there does not appear to be any reason to even make salvation available for any others. However, it also seems logical to conclude that if no choice of man is involved, but that salvation is brought about solely by the inexorable force of God’s divine will acting on a person, then there is no need to preach the gospel, for those who God has chosen will come to understand it and those who have not been chosen can not be persuaded to receive it.

However, as Jason points out, Jesus was direct and specific when He commanded the disciples and the church to:

Mat 28:19-20 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

To teach anything else is contrary to scripture. Even if God did chose only some, He has not told us who they are and clearly intended that the gospel should reach the elect through outreach to the world. This is the point where the doctrine explicitly dictates different action. It seems that Rich, Jason, and myself all believe that whatever the precise mechanismm of salvation is, the message is to be distributed to the world. Those who take the doctrine of selection election this far propose not only a theological barrier, but an application barrier. For this reason, I would be inclined to agree with Jason and Dr. Lloyd-Jones, that “Hyper-Calinism” probably best describes the group that teaches a different and clearly unbiblical application.

However, due to the seemingly logical progression from selection salvation to the limited offer of salvation to the irrelevance of universal outreach, that is from Calvinism to Hyper-Calvinism, I would be inclined to question the supporting premises as well. The goal and desire of God is clearly for universal salvation. A limited offer seems to contradict this goal. Furthermore, a divine, selective salvation also seems to contradict the stated purpose of God. God wants to save all people and clearly holds them responsible for rejecting Him. This would seem to lead clearly to one conclusion: God makes salvation available to all (universal offer) and we are freely responsible to accept or reject it, not because God is not sovereign, but because His sovereign will is for us to freely choose. It seems absurd that God should hold people accountable for rejecting Him if their rejection is not free, but caused by God’s own choice. If God is the cause, how can man justly receive the condemnation?