Doctrines of Grace: Particular Redemption and Irresistible Grace
Ephesians 3:14-21
From my visit to Amsterdam, 2007 |
World means world?
“Absolute sovereignty,” wrote Jonathan Edwards ,
“is what I love to ascribe to God. But my first conviction was not so.”
Let’s be honest. Our first
conviction is more accurately to hate absolute sovereignty. And if we hate and
cavil at absolute sovereignty in predestination, we really get our back up and
gnash our teeth at Jesus dying only for the elect.
A young man, however, who cares
more about what the Bible means than how it at first makes him feel will search
and know what it teaches about particular redemption. Called “The Calvin of
England,” John Owen offered three options for the Bible’s teaching on the
atonement: Christ died for all the sins of all men, or for some of the sins of
all men, or for all of the sins of some men. There are no other rational
options. So which is it?
Many insist that it is the first:
Christ died for all the sins of all men. For them, when the Bible uses the word
“all” and “world” it means every man, woman, and child that has existed or that
ever will exist. The locus classicus
of this position is I John 2:2 where it says that Jesus is “the propitiation
for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole
world.”
Honest Arminians recognize the
problems with this conclusion. For example, an Arminian does not think that
“propitiate” in I John 2:2 means that Jesus actually satisfied the wrath of God
for every man, woman, and child. Scrupulous as they are about “world” meaning
“world,” here they insist that “propitiation” doesn’t mean “propitiation”; here
it means “potential propitiation.” Obviously, if Jesus’ atonement satisfied the
wrath of God for all without exception, there’s no more wrath; he sends no one
to hell. Since propitiation is a legal term meaning complete satisfaction, the
reader who wants to know precisely what the Bible means, closely examines the various
ways the Bible uses the word “world.”
A. W. Pink points out that in the
New Testament “world” or kosmos, “has
at least seven clearly defined different meanings.” So when Jesus prays in John
17:9, “I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have
given me,” clearly by “world” he means unbelievers, and by “them” and “those
you have given me,” he means believers, his sheep, the elect. Here, even
Arminians must agree that “world” does not mean all men throughout all time.
Similarly, when Moses records that
“all mankind” perished in the flood (Genesis 7:21), no Arminian insists that
“all” means “all” and “mankind” means “mankind.” Clearly not every man, woman,
and child that ever lived or would live died in the flood. “All mankind” didn’t
include any of us, nor did it include the eight humans who survived the
flood--including Noah.
But what about “For God so loved
the world” in John 3:16? Did Jesus
mean that his Father sent him to actually ransom, redeem, pardon, atone for,
and propitiate—to actually pay the sin debt of every man, woman, and child in
the universe? Return to the context. Jesus was speaking to a Jewish scholar who
believed the Messiah was coming just for Jews. Here Jesus was declaring to
Jewish Nicodemus that the Messiah has come not just to save ethnic Jews, but
the elect from all nations—the world.
Given the varying use of “world” in
Scripture, careful readers will interpret passages that, on the surface, sound
universal in light of passages that speak more specifically. Comparing John
3:16 and related passages with Revelation 5:9 helps bring clarity: “You are
worthy… because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nations.” Notice how particular
and specific the language is. Jesus actually “purchased men for God,” and he
did so without ethnic or racial distinction, pitching his love on men from the
whole world.
Sheep means sheep
John Owen’s second option, that
Christ died for all the sins of all men, except the sin of unbelief, is favored
by other non-Calvinists. This interpretation relieves God of being charged with
unfairness, and the only condition of salvation that man contributes is belief.
Believe and you have set yourself apart from the rest. But there are serious
problems with this view. For starters, the Bible in many places says plainly
that the wrath of God is coming for a laundry list of sins, not just for
unbelief.
Calvinists believe that Christ
actually atoned for all the sins of some men—the elect--that he actually did as
he claimed in John 10:11, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down
his life for the sheep.” The language Jesus uses has no hint that he meant he
was only potentiality or conditionally laying down his life. The words indicate
an actual, definite act, accomplished for and applied to specific
individuals—the sheep. Sparkling clarity follows when Jesus says to unbelievers
a few verses later, “you do not believe because you are not my sheep” (10:26).
The sheep believe because they were ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48), and
because Jesus actually—not just potentially--laid down his life for their sins.
In a variety of ways, the Bible
answers the question, “What must I do to be saved?” It clearly states: “Believe,
seek, come, call.” But it answers a second critical question about salvation, “Why
did I believe?” It answers with equal clarity--we just don’t like the answer.
Jealous to protect God’s fairness,
many nonsensically answer the second question with a variant of the answer to
the first. “Why did I believe? Because I just believed.” And then they plug
their ears. Real men don’t read their Bibles this way. The Bible relentlessly
answers the question why a sinner believes, so we must hear it: Sinners believe
because God chose them, Christ redeemed them, and the Spirit called them.
There’s not a lack of clarity here.
We proud sinners simply don’t like the debasement required by the answer. We
don’t like hearing that we’re dead in trespasses and sins, that God predestined
some to life and others to damnation; that the elect are redeemed by Christ,
their debt paid in full, their guilt and punishment borne on the cross by their
good shepherd. Nor do we much like hearing that what makes us differ from a
lost sinner is the Holy Spirit effectually calling us out of darkness into the
splendid light of the new birth. Believing all that is high-demand. It costs us
our pride.
Dead made alive
“Born, as all of us are, an
Arminian,” wrote C. H. Spurgeon, “when I was coming to Christ, I thought I was
doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the
Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of
this.”
Arminianism, like the flat-earth
theory, draws ultimate conclusions based on immediately observable evidence
only. Thus, someone who believes in a flat earth does so because what he sees
from his observable vantage point looks flat. As Spurgeon suggests, many
mistakenly conclude that when a sinner hears the gospel and chooses to believe,
his choice is the cause of forgiveness and salvation.
But what makes one man hear, repent
and believe in Christ, while another hears the same sermon but snorts in
derision and persists in unbelief? After one such sermon, Luke records that,
“All who were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). All heard the
same sermon, but not everyone believed. This text and many others explain why:
God mercifully predestined some to eternal life. That alone is why they
believed.
Jesus used the metaphor of the wind
blowing where it wishes to explain the mystery of the Holy Spirit’s work in
salvation, and he used the metaphor of new birth. Just as no one has anything
to do with his first birth, so the sinner is born again by the mysterious working
of the Spirit, not by anything the dead sinner can will or do. Correspondingly,
Paul tells us that we are “dead in trespasses and sins,” but that it is God who
makes us alive in Christ by his Spirit.
“Dead men tell no tales,” so say
pirates, nor can dead men will or do anything pertaining to their salvation. We
must be born again, made alive, given the gift of faith by “the Spirit
penetrate[ing] into our hearts,” as Calvin termed it. Anything short of this
gives man credit for the divine work of regeneration in our hearts.
We call or he calls?
Though C. S. Lewis was an
extraordinary Christian apologist, there were some holes, shall we say, in his
theology. One of these reoccurs in the form of philosophical arguments favoring
freedom of the will over against divine sovereignty. Put simply, Lewis was probably
more of an Arminian than he was a Calvinist.
Nevertheless, writers are sometimes
at their best when writing poetry or imaginative fiction, so in the Narnia books
Lewis wonderfully illustrates the sovereignty of grace and the effectual
calling of God’s Spirit. In The Silver
Chair when Aslan tells Jill that he called her out of her world, Jill
disagrees. “Nobody called me and Scrubb, you know. It was we who asked to come
here. Scrubb said we were to call… And we did, and then we found the door
open.” Jill, like most, mistakenly thought her calling was what opened the
door. Lewis’s Lion wisely replied, “You would not have called to me unless I
had been calling to you.”
Similarly, in The Magician’s Nephew, Lewis has Aslan utter “a long single note;
not very loud, but full of power. Polly’s heart jumped in her body when she
heard it. She felt sure that it was a call, and that anyone who heard that call
would want to obey it and (what’s more) would be able to obey it, however many
worlds and ages lay between.”
As it did Jill, the power of this
call ought to fill us with the deepest wonder at the grace of our God, who
alone elects, redeems, calls, and keeps all his sheep so that not one of them
is lost.
Flat earth
Arians in the early church had
trouble figuring out how God could be three and one at the same time, so they
rejected the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, and, thus, the deity of Jesus
Christ. When we frail mortals have trouble grasping high and grand doctrines
concerning God, our inclination is to reduce things down to the puny level of
human understanding. Error always follows.
From our flat-earth vantage point,
predestination makes God not behave as nicely toward all sinners as we think fairness
requires of him. Call these systems what you will, adherents insist that it
wouldn’t be fair of God to do anything more for those who will believe than he
has done for those who won’t. Thus, they insist that Calvinism can’t be right
because it violates God’s fairness by making him act with favoritism toward
some. Consequently, modern evangelism has created several extra-biblical
jingles that have become inviolable.
Love and voting
The first well-intentioned jingle
goes like this: “God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.” I wonder. After all,
it’s not the sin that gets thrown in hell. It’s the sinner. Nobody wants to be
“loved” like that. If God loves in the same way and to the same degree both the
man who is saved and the man who will be damned, then “love” and “hate” have no
meaning, and we’ve made a mingle-mangle again.
The Bible, however, uses these
terms in precise ways. “Jacob have I loved. Esau have I hated.” So in Psalm
5:6, God declares that he “hates all those who do wrong.” Though “all” means
“all” to Arminians, “hate” here just can’t mean “hate.” They insist that God,
Christ, and the Holy Spirit are obligated to love all sinners exactly alike and
leave the rest up to the sinner. Though heaps of biblical evidence suggest
otherwise, the measure of God’s love, for them, is its extent not its effect; it
must extend to everyone who ever lives or it’s not real love because love is
fair.
But is this an accurate
understanding of love? No wife would measure the worth of her husband’s love by
how widely it extends to all women; does her confidence in his love for her
come from her knowledge that he loves all women without exception? Of course
not! On the contrary, she measures his love by how exclusive, individual, and
particular it is, by how he lavishes it on her alone. So Christ’s love for his
bride is particular, individual, and definite, and is savingly lavished on his
bride, the church. Nevertheless, Arminians insist that Christ’s love isn’t real
unless it is the same for all—even the already damned.
The other jingle often used in
modern evangelism goes like this, “God cast a vote; Satan cast a vote, and the
sinner casts the final vote.” Anyone with his Bible open ought to see through
this like a ladder. Aside from the obvious problem of placing God and Satan on
equal terms in their hand-wringing passivity, nowhere does the Bible give man
such ultimate self-determination. In all the evangelism recorded in the New
Testament, I recall no such nonsense. Though zealous, well-meaning Christians
say things like this, we do well to stick with the evangelism of Jesus and the
apostles.
Cavils at Calvin
A frequent cavil at Calvinism
insists that men who believe it will not care about evangelism and missions.
But what of Paul, the quintessential world missionary, who taught these
doctrines systematically throughout his epistles? Oft-maligned Calvin had a
ministry marked by deep concern for the lost, wherein he established an academy
precisely for training preachers and missionaries. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were all established by Calvinists as
theological training grounds for Christian preachers and missionaries. What’s
more, nineteenth-century missions were largely pioneered by a long list of
Calvinists.
Another favorite cavil goes like
this. If predestination is true, then why pray for the lost? Perhaps no one has
more succinctly turned this cavil back on the detractors who raise it than J.
I. Packer when he asks how you pray for the lost:
Do you limit
yourself to asking that God will bring them to a point where they can save
themselves? I think that what you do is to pray in categorical terms that God
will, quite simply and decisively, save them. You would not dream of making it
a point in your prayer that you are not asking God actually to bring them to
faith. You entreat him to do that very thing. Thus, you acknowledge and confess
the sovereignty of God’s grace. And so do all Christian people everywhere.
Something
about the kneeling posture helps us proud sinners get things right. Perhaps there’d be less mingle-mangle about
predestination and sovereign grace if we spent more time on those knees, humbly
appealing to God on behalf of dead sinners whom he alone can save.
Does it matter?
Then comes the final cavil at
Calvinism: Calvinism is merely theological wrangling that has no relevance to a
Christian’s life and calling. But if we truly believe that all Scripture is
God-breathed and so profitable for doctrinal belief and for training in
righteousness, then the Bible’s teaching on the sovereignty of God must be
important for us to understand.
So how ought believing the
doctrines of grace, in the sovereignty of God, in total depravity,
predestination, definite and particular atonement, and the effectual calling of
the Spirit, how ought all this to affect a young man’s faith, devotion, and
worship of Christ?
John Bunyan, perhaps said it best
when he at last saw his sin as a “most barbarous and a filthy crime,” and that
in his depravity he “had horribly abused the holy Son of God.” Seeing the depth
of your sin and the corresponding depth of electing love and of Christ’s
substitutionary atonement applied to your miserable life by God’s Spirit, ought
to prompt in you a burning love for the Lord Jesus. Bunyan put it this way,
“Had I a thousand gallons of blood within my veins, I could freely have spilled
it all at the command and feet of this my Lord and Savior.”
Stand fast on these high truths, and
feel the force of them. Hold fast to truth, and walk humbly with your God,
working out your salvation with fear and trembling. And so make your calling
and election sure by gratefully pursuing holiness, without which no young man
will see the Lord.
Douglas Bond, author, speaker, tour leader, hymn writer, publicist. Listen to Bond's podcast at bondbooks.net/the-scriptorium-podcast
Hello! Thanks for these articles on the doctrines of TULIP. I've enjoyed reading them.
ReplyDeleteI am a former Calvinist who converted to Catholicism a few years ago. I have always loved the doctrines of grace, and that love has not diminished with my conversion. I think that Calvinists and Catholics often misunderstand each other when it comes to these doctrines, and I have a strong interest in trying to build a bridge and promote good dialogue between the two groups.
In another place, I've written up a kind of summary of Catholic teaching on these subjects. I'll paste it in another comment. If you have time and are interested, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it. (I've written more on this subject in other places as well, such as here - http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2017/03/catholicism-and-tulip.html)
Sarah and Suzie are both human and descendants of Adam and Eve, and so both are inheritors of original sin. Both would therefore be doomed to hell apart from God's grace. However, God has sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world to redeem it, and Christ has given the world grace through his sacrifice and merits, redeeming men from the curse of sin. This salvation is made available and offered to all the world through the preaching of the gospel by the Church. Thus, God has provided sufficient grace to both Sarah and Suzie, and both can freely avail themselves of it if they will. There is no hindrance to the salvation of either of them outside the potential refusal of their own free will. From all eternity, God has ordained everything that has come or will come to pass in time, including all events both good and evil. Good (like light) is a positive thing, produced by God's positive power and working, while evil (like darkness) is a negative thing. God positively brings about all good but permits or allows evil, as he has determined to use both to fulfill his glorious purposes in history. Therefore, nothing happens which defeats his ultimate goals or purposes for the creation. Evil is a thing displeasing to God in its own nature, but its presence in history is not a defeat of his sovereignty, for it only exists at his sufferance to the extent and in the form that he has wisely and freely determined to permit in every detail. God's free ordination of all things includes who will and who will not be saved, as it includes every other detail of history. From all eternity, God freely decided that, in addition to making sufficient grace available to both Sarah and Suzie, he would give Sarah a special efficacious grace that would move her will to accept the gospel and persevere in that acceptance to the end of her life and so arrive at ultimate salvation, while he determined not to give that particular gift to Suzie. In other words, God chose to give Sarah a good will but not to give that gift to Suzie. He predestined Sarah to salvation by his grace. He did not predestine Suzie to damnation, in the sense of forcing her to reject the gospel or infusing into her evil that caused her to reject the gospel. He simply refrained, of his own free and wise will, for his good purposes, from moving Suzie's will to accept the gospel, allowing her to continue to reject it of her own free will until her death.
ReplyDeleteTo be continued in the next comment . . .
Why would God do this? He did not elect Sarah to salvation because she was any better than Suzie, for both were equally in need of grace due to original and actual sin. He did not refrain from moving Suzie's will to salvation out of any malice or hatred or lack of compassion, but rather because he saw that it would be better, all things considered, to give a grace to Sarah that he did not give to Suzie. (This issue, then, is simply part of the larger question of why God allows evil and suffering to exist in his creation. He does not do so because he loves or approves of evil, or because he is incapable of keeping evil out of his creation, but because he sees, in his infinite wisdom, that it is ultimately better overall to allow certain evils to happen than to stop them from happening or to arrange things so they don't happen. As Pope Leo XIII put it in his encyclical Libertas, "God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue.") God did not do any injustice to Suzie in not granting her the same efficacious grace that he gave to Sarah, for he granted her sufficient grace for salvation which she could have availed herself of if she had wished to do so. Nothing outside of her will was impeding her acceptance of salvation. In rejecting it, she acted with full freedom of will--as did Sarah, who was moved and inspired but not forced to accept the gospel by God's efficacious grace. Nor did Suzie (or Sarah) do anything to deserve or merit God's efficacious grace. All human beings since the Fall deserve God's damnation rather than his grace, and any grace received is an unmerited gift rather than something owed to us.
ReplyDeleteThanks! Have a good day!