The last objection I’ll interact with in this series is the one which tries to show that a universal atonement is really an impotent atonement. In the words of Scobie Smith, people such as myself

clearly cannot say that the satisfaction of Christ secures the salvation of all those for whom it was made [...] The atonement itself does not guarantee the salvation of those for whom it was made [...] All the satisfaction can do is make it possible for God then to choose whom to save and then to secure their salvation by some other means. Moreover, since there is no other satisfaction made to his justice, this other means (eg, irresistible grace) is simply an exercise of God’s sovereign will, not an act stemming from the justice of God (eg, to fulfill the obligation arising from the satisfaction of his justice).1

At first glance, this seems like a good objection. It certainly gave me pause for thought. But upon reflection, it begins to appear rather confused. I think there are at least three obvious difficulties with it:

I. Huh? And, so what?

Firstly, what does it mean to say that the atonement does not guarantee or secure the salvation of all those for whom it was made? These terms are ambiguous. I can, for instance, go to SkyCity Chartwell and secure tickets for myself to see a movie. This guarantees that I will have a seat if I show up and present my ticket. But it doesn’t guarantee that I will show up and present my ticket. So, with that analogy in mind (even if it is a rather pecuniary one), it doesn’t appear that the objection—as stated at least—gains much traction against the universal view, under which Christ purchased movie tickets for everyone, but only the elect bother to show up at the cinema.

In light of this, I think the objection needs to be rephrased. What actually seems to be at issue is whether or not the atonement is a sufficient cause of justification. Under the universal view, of course, it is only a necessary cause—it had to happen in order for anyone to be justified, because it provides the grounds for justification by providing satisfaction to God’s justice. But it does not itself effect that justification, since although the satisfaction was made on the cross, there are still other conditions which must be fulfilled in order for it to be applied to anyone. This seems to be what the particularist is objecting to—yet it’s hard to see why he considers it a problem. It looks rather like he is just begging the question again. There aren’t any clear reasons for rejecting the view that the atonement is a necessary-but-not-sufficient cause of justification—except that it it doesn’t fit into the framework of particular atonement.

II. The alternative is unscriptural…

Secondly, as I’ve covered already in this series, the view that the atonement is, in and of itself, the sufficient cause of justification is highly problematic. If it were the case that the atonement “secured” salvation for the elect in the sense which is apparently intended by this objection—namely, that it satisfied the demands of God’s justice against all the elect, and this satisfaction itself guarantees their salvation—then it follows inevitably that the elect are justified from the cross. Since God’s wrath toward all the elect was appeased in about 29 AD, no elect person after that time could be under his wrath. But we know from Scripture and from experience that, in fact, we are all “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3) until we are made a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17) by the rebirth in the Spirit. If the particularist is right in his objection, then he has some hard questions to answer regarding the purpose of the rebirth and the ordo salutis.

III. …while the view being objected to is scriptural

Thirdly, on the other side of that coin, the view which the particularist is objecting to is manifestly biblical. Indeed, it is the Reformed view—so he seems to be contradicting himself. Notice how the objection is that, under the universal view, the satisfaction of Christ only makes it possible for God to choose whom to save, and that he then has to secure their salvation by some other means. Well, maybe this is stating the obvious, but…“other means” such as faith? If, in fact, we are “justified by faith” (Romans 5:1), then plainly it is impossible that we are justified by the atonement as the particularist seems to want to say—that is, that the atonement itself is the sufficient cause of our justification. This is why we aren’t justified from the cross—because justification is by faith. (Unless the particularist is suggesting that we are justified twice—and it’s very hard to see what that even means.) Certainly, the atonement is a necessary cause of justification, since it provides the very grounds for satisfying the demands of God’s justice against us. And certainly, even, the work of Christ (whether in the atonement or not) is a necessary cause of our faith also, since Jesus is both its founder and perfecter (Hebrews 12:2). But just as certainly, the particularist cannot turn around and say that what he means is that the atonement must be the sufficient cause of faith, and by this relationship is then also the sufficient cause of justification. Clearly it is not. The atonement does not, in and of itself, bring about faith. Once more, without emotion: the atonement is the grounds for faith and for justification. It is what makes them possible—but it isn’t what makes them actual. It is the indwelling of the Spirit which makes faith actual; and it is faith which makes justification actual.

So this final objection once again highlights why it is so unreasonable to treat the atonement as a simple pecuniary transaction, as the particularist view is wont to do. Rather than gaining any real traction against universal atonement, it tends rather to discredit itself—as has been the case with all the rest of the objections I’ve handled.

To conclude, then, I can find no good reason to believe that the atonement is limited in the sense which most Calvinists today seem to mean. Rather, it is the historical alternative which is both reasonable and scriptural: namely, that Christ, in his death, represented all mankind, satisfying the demands of the law before God, and so made salvation possible for everyone without distinction who might appeal to that atonement—though it is apprehended only by the elect, through faith.

1. ↑ Quoted from an email to the Reformed Baptist Discussion List; for those with member access, see http://rblist.org/archive/msg56767.html.

Following on from the recent exchange with Ben at Arminian Perspectives, it appears that some people are confused about the distinction I have drawn between saving faith and non-saving belief in Christian doctrines. For example, Ben writes in his latest post, ‘Responding To Dominic’s Second Rebuttal on Regeneration Preceding Faith’,

Well, I am confused again. I guess Dominic is saying that God can turn ones will to believe certain facts about Christianity (the basic truths of the gospel) and yet that belief does not constitute saving faith. So one can believe the gospel message but not have saving faith? Is that correct? Or is Dominic saying one can have knowledge of certain Christian teachings without believing them? To have knowledge of something is not the same as believing it, so I am not sure how this can be what Dominic is saying. And faith is just the noun form of believe (the verb form), so again, I am having trouble grasping the distinction here.

It is true that God can turn one’s will to believe any facts which one is capable of believing. God could turn my will, for example, to believe that cats hate milk. That is a proposition which can be believed. On the other hand, God could not turn my will to believe that cats have both three legs and four legs at the same time and in the same relationship, or that cats indish mero louha. Believing a proposition doesn’t require that the proposition be true; but it does require that it be intelligible.

In this vein, God can certainly turn the will of the natural man to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. This is a proposition which is intelligible to most people, irrespective of their having the Spirit; it may therefore be apprehended and affirmed by anyone without distinction. However, Scripture teaches that there is a qualitative difference between this belief in the unregenerate sinner and the regenerate believer. The difference is therefore not in what they believe, but perhaps in how they believe it, or why.

This is a fact which can be deduced not only from my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 2, but from the mere existence of professing believers who are “deceiving themselves” (James 1:22ff). This is something Ben himself must acknowledge, even under his own errant theological scheme—it’s therefore unclear to me why he finds it so confusing. Even under his own view, there are people who genuinely believe, yet who are deceiving themselves about their salvation—as I mentioned in my previous article. Unless Ben denies sola gratia and adopts some kind of works-based salvation (which would be at odds with Arminianism), he must agree that the reason for this self-deception is not that these professing believers aren’t doing something they should, but rather because there is something lacking in their belief itself. There is a qualitative distinction between their belief of Christian propositions, and the belief of those propositions held by saved Christians.

Now, the Bible isn’t specific to the nth degree (that I know of) regarding the precise nature of this difference, except inasmuch as it tells us the cause. That cause is the indwelling Spirit, as I’ve explained in the last two posts. Since the Spirit communicates the truth of Christian propositions directly to the mind of the saved believer, the believer’s apprehension and understanding of these truths is grounded in the Spirit’s immutable, objective knowledge of them—and not in the believer’s subjective perceptions. The converse is obviously true for unregenerate believers who ultimately will not be saved. Thus, I would say (without wishing to get more specific) that the distinction between unregenerate belief and regenerate belief is a distinction not in epistemic content (that which is believed), but in epistemic justification (that which grounds the belief and makes it possible). I’d be unwilling to speculate further without good scriptural backing—but that is the conclusion we are inevitably led to by God’s word. It doesn’t seem confusing to me.

In reply to my exposition of the purpose of regeneration in Calvinism—which in turn was a reply to a general question from Ben at Arminian Perspectives—Ben has written ‘Addressing Dominic’s Response to the Purpose of Regeneration in Calvinism’. I encourage you to read it in full to understand the larger context, as I will only quote enough here to provide a platform for response. I also apologize for the brevity of this reply; I am not blessed with as much free time as I used to be.

Ben:

I admit to being confused by this and I certainly disagree with his “definition” of faith (i.e. the simple faith that receives Christ) as requiring the indwelling Spirit. It seems that he is saying that God can turn the will to belief but that belief doesn’t constitute faith. And I am still left to wonder what these “propositions” entail.

That is exactly what I’m saying; and I defended this claim quite adequately. I was also fairly clear that the propositions in question are the propositions of the Christian faith: namely, to start with, that Christ died for our sins; and all the truths which relate to this.

Faith, as pertains to receiving the truth of the gospel and the gift of salvation, is simple trust in the work of Christ, and does not require intimate knowledge of all of the “things of God” (Rom. 4:4, 5)

This is true, but doesn’t speak to whether or not a person can have faith apart from the indwelling Spirit. Nothing in Romans 4 speaks to this question—what is under consideration there is the means of justification, namely through faith in God’s promise. Of course, I affirm that; but it doesn’t speak to the nature of faith (whether for or against my position). It’s hard to see why you would appeal to Romans 4 here; it doesn’t seem to be relevant at all.

Oh! So God can turn the heart to a false faith but not a real faith.

Again, I explained this in my original response. God can turn the heart to either; but man is not capable, in and of himself, of attaining a genuine apprehension of spiritual truths. Therefore, since faith is a genuine apprehension of spiritual truths, a man can only attain faith when indwelt by the Spirit, who communicates those truths to him. Subsequently, without giving his Spirit, God can only turn the heart of man to false faith. True faith necessitates being born again of the Spirit.

If the unregenerate can muster it on their own, then why the need for God to turn the will towards this false faith? How is false faith any different than unbelief?

Re the first question, this seems to be trading on a view of God’s sovereignty which is alien to Calvinism, wherein man’s actions are implicitly autonomous, and God merely directs them. Naturally, reading an Arminian view of action theory into a Calvinist exposition will result in the appearance of incongruity. I need merely point out that, under the Calvinist view, the fact of the unregenerate sinner mustering a false faith is not distinct from the fact of God turning the will of the unregenerate sinner to a false faith. Whatever occurs in reality is instantiated by God; refer to my recent post on this matter: ‘A simple argument for divine determinism’.

Re the second question, its answer should be readily apparent given a moment’s reflection. False faith is a kind of unbelief; but it is an unbelief disguised as belief. Presumably you accept that false faith does exist; it is certainly referred to many times in Scripture. Warnings against false teachers, who are wolves in sheep’s clothing (ie, unbelievers pretending to be believers) are common. And James refers to those who are “hearers only, deceiving themselves” (1:22). Plainly, it is possible to believe—not merely making the pretence of belief—and yet to not be saved.

And is he suggesting that one needs to be “good” before he can believe? So the message of salvation is not for sinners but for those that God has made good enough to receive it by faith? Only the good can receive Christ by faith?

I’m having trouble seeing where I could be even remotely construed as saying this. You will need to explain your reasoning further; suffice to say this representation bears no resemblance to the position I explicated.

Paul is not speaking of understanding the gospel and accepting it (since they are infants in Christ), but the deeper revelations of the Spirit that can be received only by the mature (vss. 6, 7; cf. “solid food” of 3:2).

This isn’t so; you’re relying on a simplistic bifurcation of the passage to come to this conclusion. 1 Corinthians 2 begins with Paul’s recollection of his evangelizing the Corinthian Christians: namely, that he “decided to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (v 2). The faith of the Corinthians rested not “in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (v 5). Now, Paul does go on to speak of wisdom imparted to the mature; but this does not exclude the previous comments regarding the cross itself; rather, it builds on them. Consider verse 12: “we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.” What is the foremost of the things freely given to us by God—indeed, the very foundation of those things? Surely it is “redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight” (Ephesians 1:7–8). Note also how that passage continues: “making known to us the mystery of his will”. In chapter 2 of Ephesians, during his reiteration of what God has done, Paul refers to this event as how God “made us alive together with Christ” (v 5). All of this describes quite plainly the action taken by God, and excludes human action as the cause of our apprehension of spiritual truth.

In fact, as you yourself note, the structure of Ephesians 1 corresponds well to 1 Corinthians 2: Paul reminds his audience of how they received Christ by the power of the Spirit, and then goes on to speak of the greater wisdom imparted by the Spirit to those mature in the faith. But as you failed to note, in both cases this is not a separate gift to faith, which requires the Spirit where faith does not. It is the same gift, extended: a knowledge which builds upon the initial faith of the believer: the “wisdom of the cross” which can only be understood via the indwelling of the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 1:18 intimates, and 2:14 explicitly says, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” Now, unless you are going to argue that the message of the cross is not a spiritual truth, a “thing of the Spirit of God”, your objection is baseless—relying as it does on an unnatural bifurcation of the first half of the chapter from the second. Furthermore, I am of course not appealing solely to 1 Corinthians 2 to make my case. This is the passage I chose as best to make my point, because it is lengthy and clear; but as I noted, it’s merely a verbose explanation of John 3:3. Or of 1 Corinthians 12:3—“no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit”. What does faith entail if not the statement that Jesus is Lord? Yet no one can say this except in the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus himself said to Peter upon his profession of faith: “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17); and Peter himself acknowledged, saying “he has caused us to be born again” (1 Peter 1:3).

The interpretation Dominic suggests also runs contrary to what Paul says in Galatians 3:3, 5,

I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law or by believing what you heard? (emphasis mine)

Does God give you His Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?“(emphasis mine)

You continue to appeal to verses which are not actually dealing with the issue at hand. I think this is telling. Just as with Romans 4, Galatians 3 is concerned with the means of justification—not with the nature of faith, or the ordo salutis. Nothing in Galatians 3 contradicts my position on the nature and prerequisites of faith; nothing in Galatians 3 speaks to the nature and prerequisites of faith. The same is true of your appeal to Ephesians 3:16 and 17.

To summarize, that spiritual rebirth must precede faith is amply evidenced in Scripture. It has always been necessary for faith, as Jesus expected Nicodemus to know (John 3:10)—though under the Old Covenant the Spirit was not given in such measure. The opposite view, that regeneration is the consequence of faith, simply isn’t evidenced at all—you have had to appeal to passages which don’t pertain to regeneration in order to make your case, while ignoring the numerous passages which do. This seems quite decisive to me, and stands in isolation to the other biblical arguments against libertarian action theory—which are themselves equally decisive.

Continued in ‘On the distinction between saving and non-saving faith’ ⇒

The answer to your question isn’t so difficult if you consider what faith is. Faith is not merely an abstract awareness of some or other facts about God and Christ. It is an intimate knowledge about these things, communicated directly by the Spirit. That is Paul’s main point in 1 Corinthians 2, where he ends with that remarkable statement, “But we have the mind of Christ” (v 16b). What does that mean? Why is it that we have—that we need—the mind of Christ? Because “who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him?” (v 11) And what is it that we know? “A secret and hidden wisdom of God” (v 7) which “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined” (v 9). If the heart of man has not imagined these things, then how can we know about them? Because “these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit” (v 10). We have knowledge of them precisely because we have “the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.”

This is the mind of Christ; and this is why the natural person, the person who has not received the Spirit of God, “does not accept the things of the Spirit of God”—why they are “folly” to him, and why “he is not able to understand them”: because “they are spiritually discerned” (v 14). If one does not have the Spirit, one cannot understand the things of God, because these things require direct communication by the Spirit to the believer. They are things of God’s own mind, which (whether by his decree or by their very nature) cannot be grasped by anyone not availed of that mind. Thus we must be indwelled by the Spirit, having “the mind of Christ”, in order to understand the spiritual truths which comprise Christianity. Without the mind of Christ, according to Paul, faith is impossible.

Now, certainly God may incline a spiritually dead person to believe certain Christian propositions for a time—but since faith entails a knowledge which can only be communicated by the indwelling Spirit, and can only be understood by someone with that Spirit, it remains that if a person believes Christian propositions like “Christ died for the sins of the world”, yet does not have the Spirit of Christ, then he does not have faith. Since faith, by definition, requires the indwelling of the Spirit, not even God can direct a man to faith without first giving him that Spirit. He can incline an unregenerate heart to believe the propositions which are also believed in faith, certainly—but that belief does not constitute faith. It’s merely an imitation of faith, having no real substance; no real apprehension. It cannot be any more than what that unregenerate heart can muster from its own depths—and there is nothing good, nothing like the intimate knowledge of God required for salvation, down there.

It really goes without saying that this renders Arminianism untenable. In your previous post, ‘The Arminian and Calvinist Ordo Salutis: A Brief Comparative Study’, you listed prevenient grace as the only item prior to faith. In your view, prevenient grace is required for totally depraved man to be able to libertarianly choose to have faith—but only prevenient grace. Then, following logically on from that faith, you would say that the person is then joined with Christ, justified, and only then regenerated. But according to 1 Corinthians 2, prevenient grace would have to entail nothing less than the full indwelling of the Spirit of God in order to make faith possible. Nothing less than that suffices to convince the “natural man” of spiritual truths. Nothing less than the mind of Christ is needed for a person to understand Christianity so as to have faith at all. As John puts it, a man must be reborn of the Spirit before he can “see” the kingdom of God (John 3:3,8).

But this being the case, it is evident that once a man has the mind of Christ, he will be convinced of and understand the truths of Christianity (not in a flash, of course; not all at once—but inevitably). Once a man is reborn of the Spirit, he will see the kingdom of God. So if the Arminian wishes to go so far as to say that prevenient grace does indeed entail the indwelling of the Spirit in some sense, then he goes too far because either prevenient grace is not given to everyone (in which case, it’s hard to see the distinction between Arminianism and Calvinism here); or everyone is a Christian and is saved (which is plainly false on both scriptural and merely empirical grounds). Furthermore, the question remains: what, in your ordo salutus, is regeneration, if prevenient grace is a sufficient condition of saving faith?

The only theological system which accommodates Paul’s teachings regarding the nature and requirements of spiritual belief is Calvinism. Those teachings are accurately reflected in the monogerstic view which Calvinism takes of regeneration, wherein God must sovereingly work by giving his Spirit to those whom he has elected to salvation. He knows who will believe because he knows to whom he will give his Spirit. By contrast, the Arminian scheme renders 1 Corinthians 2 incoherent, since God’s knowledge of whom he will save is based on those people’s own choosing—yet they cannot choose without God first having given them his Spirit.

Continued in ‘The purpose of regeneration revisited’ ⇒

I. The nature and extent of the atonement

But the greatest objection to Arminianism is a logical one. If, as Arminians say, Jesus died for the sin of everyone, then surely one of those sins was unbelief [...] If Jesus did pay the price for every sin of every man, including unbelief, why does God still choose to punish those who do not accept him by excluding them from his presence for eternity? [...] The logical flow of Arminianism then, seems to be towards Universalism.

A robust response to this, albeit one I’d make from a Reformed rather than an Arminian perspective, would be either (i) that Jesus’ atonement was not pecuniary, so it was not like a financial transaction with a 1-1 correspondence of sins committed to sins atoned for; or (ii) that it was only representatively pecuniary, so that although it was like a financial transaction, it was a representative transaction which can be applied to anyone without an actual 1-1 correspondence of sins. I myself hold to one of these positions (I’m still working out which one). My basic reasoning is as follows:

If the atonement was fully pecuniary, then a universal atonement would either entail universal salvation, or a double payment for sin (Jesus paid for the sins of those who go to hell, and they themselves pay for those sins). Universal salvation is flagrantly heretical and mitigates the whole point of the gospel, and double payment is fragrantly unjust and historically has been rejected because “shall not the judge of all the earth do what is right?” So I conclude either that the atonement was made specifically for the elect alone, or it was not pecuniary; and I think the biblical data favors a universal intent in the atonement, even though the elect are specifically in view. That is, I hold to the historical Reformed view that the atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect. I think this is the more reasonable view, as opposed to a totally limited atonement, because:

If the atonement was not even sufficient for everyone, then God’s contingent intention that everyone should be saved is not reflected in the sacrifice he made in Jesus. That is, God the Father desires all people to be saved, but particularly the elect (because his desire for all is contingent on his larger desire to glorify his wrath and justice through the reprobation of some); God the Holy Spirit convicts all people of sin, but particularly calls the elect; therefore, it is incongruent that God the Son would not die for all, though particularly for the elect.

Further, if the atonement was not sufficient for all, then the grounds for preaching the gospel to everyone without exception, either as a command or as an invitation, are removed. That is, the gospel call has no ontological referent for the non-elect. It is inviting and commanding them to believe in something which does not exist for them. This makes God both insincere (in regards to the invitation) and unjust (in regards to holding the non-elect responsible for their rejection of the gospel as a command).

Lastly, this being the case, a totally limited atonement would also remove the objective grounds for Christian faith (epistemically speaking; not ontologically). That is, if the atonement was sufficient only to save the elect, I would need assurance that I am elect in order to appropriate the promise of salvation. Obviously, any such assurance will be subjective and fickle, and so I will have no sure grounds believing that the atonement was sufficient to save me. However, if it was sufficient for all, then I have objective grounds for laying hold of the promise, because I know that it is sufficient to save everyone without exception.

The atonement is one of the most difficult and complicated doctrines in Christianity, and I think it’s badly neglected by most Christians. A careful dissection of the logic behind it really takes apart a lot of popular but ill-conceived Christian positions. But it bears a lot of thinking about—my own thinking is still jejune, and I expect I will develop these ideas much further—and possibly change them—as I spend more time in study. In that vein, I’ll soon be posting a fairly lengthy series examining limited atonement in some detail.

II. Total depravity and the nature of faith

But does that depravity extend to not being able to simply say “Yes, thank you”, to God. I know you will say it does; and this is the point I’m struggling with. I’m not sure that it does. I’m open to being convinced though (so bring on the John Piper), because I’m not convinced that prevenient grace is a satisfactory answer [...] That’s why I realate God’ election closely to his foreknowledge. If he knows who will say “yes”, perhaps that is why they are the Elect?

Let me offer one passage which I think speaks to this question in a way which is fairly clear—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.” For a detailed examination of this passage, I recommend Brian Bosse, ‘A Logical Analysis – John 6:44′ (PDF); but notice briefly that:

1. No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws that person.
2. The person drawn by the Father will be raised up by Christ on the last day.

From this we can infer:

3. Everyone drawn by the Father will come to Christ and be raised up on the last day.

Let’s formulate an argument based on this to test the idea that God elects people based on foreseen faith in response to prevenient grace:

3. Everyone drawn by the Father will come to Christ and be raised up on the last day.
4. Prevenient grace is the means by which the Father draws people to Christ, ex hypothesi.
5. Prevenient grace, by definition, is extended to everyone without exception.
6. Therefore, everyone without exception is drawn to Christ and raised up on the last day.
7. But this is universalism, which is false.
8. Therefore, prevenient grace is not the means by which the Father draws people to Christ.

Now, in response to this you could argue that God foresees who will accept prevenient grace and who will not, and then only extends it to those who will. But then I would ask:

a. Where in Scripture is this taught? It seems highly speculative, and an unnecessary convolution around the simpler doctrine that God elects based on his own will rather than ours (see for example John 1:13 or James 1:18 or 1 Peter 1:3—notice who is active in all these; and compare with John 6:63).

Moreover, is it not evident in 1 Corinthians 2 that the very reason we believe in Christ is because we have the Spirit of God? “For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God”, whereas “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (vv 11-12,14). Is Paul’s argument not as follows:

9. The gospel is one of the things of God.
10. No one understands the things of God except the Spirit of God.
11. Christians have received the Spirit of God.
12. Therefore, Christians can understand the gospel.
13. Conversely, the natural man has not received the Spirit of God.
14. Therefore, the natural man cannot understand the gospel, and thinks it is folly.

Believing in Christ, having faith, appropriating God’s promise and receiving the gift of salvation—these are only possible once we already have the Spirit of God in us because they entail knowing and understanding the things of God. Paul’s argument is precisely that our faith is after and because of the Spirit already indwelling us. By necessary consequence, then, the Spirit cannot indwell us after and because of our faith. Put in more succinct theological terms, 1 Corinthians 2 teaches plainly that regeneration, of necessity, precedes faith. I imagine you’ll agree that we can’t regenerate ourselves; we could not take the Spirit even if we wanted to; which as sinners we don’t. Thus, God is necessarily the one who is active in first bringing about faith; it could not happen if it were up to us. And, therefore, God must of necessity be the one who chooses the elect, solely based on his own will; not anything within them. And is this not what Jesus tells Nicodemus when he says, “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God”? Not that one can’t get into the kingdom of God without being born again—but that one can’t even see it.

b. How is it possible to reconcile God’s passive response to our own choosing with the definition of the word “elect”? As a verb, it means “to select by vote for an office, position, or membership” (Merriam-Webster). What does it mean for God to “elect” us if, in fact, we are the ones doing the “voting”? Why would the Bible refer to God’s act of election if, in fact, the vote was not his?

c. Based on what actual reality is God foreseeing who will accept prevenient grace, and who will not? Knowledge must have an ontological referent. But if God does not actually (ie, in reality) offer prevenient grace to all people, how does he know who will and will not receive it? There are probably various answers to this question; but the only unproblematic ones I can see would remove libertarian free will from the equation. For example, if God knows who will receive prevenient grace because he knows of some inherent difference between those who do, and those who don’t, then that inherent difference was itself placed there by God, since he created all people. But if that is so, then libertarian free will is obviated, since those who choose to reject grace do so because of something within them over which they have no control.

You might say God “just knows” because he is God; but then you have the problem of having no ontological referent—which I think is significant. But even if you can overcome that, there still seems to be the issue of God’s foreknowledge declaring an inevitable outcome, which appears to violate libertarian freedom anyway, since by definition such libertarianism precludes inevitability.

III. God’s sovereignty and relationship to sin

Does the idea that God is the agent which causes EVERYTHING to happen common in most Calvinist thought? It wasn’t in Erickson’s. Does this imply that God causes sin to happen too?

I take a very high view of God’s sovereignty, based on the (I think very severe) philosophical problems which result from a lower one. This view is not shared by all Calvinists, and certainly there is a spectrum of thought in Reformed theology over the precise nature of God’s causative agency. My position is fairly mainstream except for the fact that I’m not reduced to a shriveled shell of my former reasoning self when someone says, “Your view makes God the author of sin!” Provided that by “author” he means “ultimate cause” or something similar, I feel compelled by Scripture and sound reason to agree. I think Christians are phobic about this very, very ambiguous phrase, and go to great lengths to deny some patently biblical truths so as to “get God off the hook” for something that he himself claims responsibility for in his word.

My view is that God does not cause all things in the sense that we tend to think of cause and effect. That is, he is not the immediate or physical cause of things in the way that I am the immediate or physical cause of a door moving when I push it, or the keys on my keyboard depressing when I hit them. But he is the cause of those causes—the cause behind the causes. If he really does uphold the universe by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3), and if he really is before all things, and if in him all things really do hold together (Colossians 1:17), then he must be the remote cause of all things inasmuch as nothing can happen without him actively bringing it about. Since all of creation is directly contingent upon him, every action or event or change in creation must also be contingent upon him, and so nothing could occur without his actively willing it and causing it. In my view, denying this collapses immediately into a kind of deism, which is both philosophically and biblically problematic.

Does this mean that God causes sin to happen? Is God the “author” of sin? What does Scripture say?

• “Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them.” (Exodus 10:1)
• “But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day.” (Deuteronomy 2:30)
• “For it was the LORD’s doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses.” (Joshua 11:20)
• “And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem, and the leaders of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.” (Judges 9:23)
• “Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’” (2 Samuel 12:11-12)
• “Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” (2 Samuel 24:1)
• “And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’” (1 Kings 22:22)
• “With him are strength and sound wisdom; the deceived and the deceiver are his.” (Job 12:16)
• “The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.” (Proverbs 16:1) “But no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” (James 3:8)
• “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.” (Proverbs 21:1)
• “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create evil, I am the LORD, who does all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)
• “O LORD, why do you make us wander from your ways and harden our heart, so that we fear you not? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes of your heritage.” (Isaiah 63:17)
• “I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.” (Jeremiah 10:23)
• “And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.” (Ezekiel 14:9)
• “Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?” (Lamentations 3:37-38)
• “Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?” (Amos 3:6)
• “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” (John 12:40)
• “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2:23)
• “But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.” (Acts 3:18)
• “For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” (Acts 4:27-28)
• “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” (Romans 9:18)
• “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11)
• “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13)
• “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
• For God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.” (Revelation 17:17)

As you can see, God is indeed sovereign over sin, and brings about whatsoever comes to pass. If this makes him the author of sin, then it is God himself who has taken that title upon himself by declaring as much in Scripture. I personally think that “author” is a valid way of describing God’s relationship to sin, since just as a human author may have his characters commit evil without himself being evil, so God, the author of all creation, may have his creatures commit evil without himself being evil. However, if by “author” one intends to mean “enactor”, as if God himself sins, then obviously that must be denied as blasphemy and nonsense.

Hopefully I’ve addressed all your major questions here. I imagine in doing so I will have raised a number more, and I’m very happy to continue this dialog.

Regards,
Bnonn

Now, it must be acknowledged that faith, in and of itself, is a very simple thing. It requires very little knowledge. For Paul says,

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:1-4).

Two things must first be noted: that is, the importance both of the word, and of believing the word. It is true that Christ died for our sins and that he was raised again, in accordance with the Scriptures. However, it is by standing firm in this gospel and holding fast to it that we are being saved. If we do not hold fast, if we do not continue to stand in the gospel, then whatever we once believed, we believed in vain. We will not be saved.

Put another way, there are two separate aspects to faith which must be considered. First is the propositional content of the gospel, to which we assent. Second is the assent itself, by which we are saved; and particularly the way in which the permanence of salvation necessitates the continuance of assent. We ought to examine both of these carefully, as they are equally vital to our question. However, it is helpful to work our way backward in so doing; therefore, we will start with salvation itself.

The Permanence Of Salvation

People are sometimes confused by the way in which Scripture exhorts us to continue in faith, lest we find that we have run in vain. Paul, for example, urges the Philippians: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (2:12). We can consider also 1 Corinthians 9:26-27, and Hebrews 2:1-3 and 10:29. These all seem to state quite clearly that our salvation is something which we must continually work out, lest we lose it. People therefore assume that this means our salvation is effected by our own willpower, and that justification is an ongoing affair. It seems as if, since we are being saved by our continued belief, and since if we do not continue in that belief we will not be saved, then justification must be a state into which we can enter, and then out of which we can again fall. Thus, many Christians think that the Bible is saying that our salvation is not something achieved by an instantaneous act of God, but rather by a continuous act of man.

But it is not saying this. Such an interpretation seems reasonable only if we are confused about the way in which Scripture speaks of salvation. We tend to use the words belief and salvation as synonyms for faith and justification. But Scripture does not use them so unambiguously. For example, it reports that many people believed in Jesus in John 8:42-47; yet shortly afterward

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

It is perfectly evident that the belief of these people was not a saving faith. To place this in the context of our topic, we would not call these people Christians. Jesus understood very well that one can believe certain things about him, yet not believe unto salvation. Surely his brother James recalled this to mind as he wrote that even the demons believe—but shudder (James 2:19).

So we should acknowledge that belief is fluid, and not necessarily effectual. But this fact alone does not permit us to suppose that justification is similarly fickle; nor that it is something we must continually work at to achieve by our own willpower. The reason we cannot make such a supposition is that to do so would reverse both the logical and chronological priority of the events which Scripture describes in the process of salvation. Let me explain further—

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

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—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph 1:3-10, 2:4-10).

So as to elucidate the process of salvation more clearly, I am going to itemize the various steps described in the passage from chapter 1, elaborated and informed by the passage from chapter 2:

1. Firstly, before he created the universe, God chose us—that is each and every person he would save—to be holy and blameless in Christ. Having determined absolutely from eternity who he would save,
2. He then predestined every one of us for adoption as his sons, through Christ Jesus, and purposed good works for us to perform. In order to effect this adoption and sanctification,
3. In due time, Christ died for our sins and was raised again. (This is not stated explicitly here, but is implied by verses 9 and 10, as well as step 4 below, and is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.) Having thus paid the penalty for our sins, making possible our redemption,
4. At the aforepurposed time, while we were still spiritually lifeless and completely unable to believe in him of our own accord, God himself gave us spiritual life by making known to us the mystery of his will: that is, the revelation of the gospel stated in steps 1 to 3. Having now received this faith, we are a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17), and so,
5. We now perform good works as a result of our faith; works which God prepared for us to do beforehand, just as he prepared all things.

It is item 5 to which Paul is speaking in Philippians 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 15—the working out of our salvation; the action of which relies, in turn, on our continuing belief in Christ. Given the sequence above, however, we could never suppose that Paul is saying that our salvation relies upon, or is achieved by, our own effort. Clearly, step 5 is the very last in a sequence of events which were decided before the foundation of the world. It remains that we must do the works prepared for us, that we must continue in faith, but to suppose that it is this which ensures our redemption is really to get the entire order of events completely backwards.

No, the fact is that everything about our salvation is established with certainty: it was planned and purposed from eternity, then secured for us in the fullness of time, then given to us through the gift of faith, and finally confirmed by the works that faith produces. For everyone given to Christ by the Father will come to him, and whoever comes to him he will never cast out—he will by no means lose anyone the Father has given to him, but will raise them up on the last day (John 6:37,39-40). Scripture is precise in the scope of these statements. Everyone chosen in God is given to Christ; not a single one of them will be lost. Their salvation is not in their own hands, but in God’s hands. In fact, that is the very point of the gospel: that our salvation is completely out of our hands, and we can only receive it with the empty hands of faith. Conversely, then, no one who is not chosen by God will ever genuinely come to Christ. They may appear to follow him for a while, but because they have not been given to him, he does not receive them, and because he does not receive them, they are already lost. Thus, they will not remain with the elect, but will leave them after a time and return to the world. “If they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

So what, then, does Paul mean when he speaks of “working out our salvation”; of holding fast to the word lest we believed in vain? Given the above, we can see that he cannot mean that we labor for our own justification, ensuring by our own efforts that we remain in a state of grace. Rather, to ever believe in vain implies having always believed in vain—of never having had a saving faith to lose later on through one’s own action or inaction. More precisely, to have believed in vain means to never have truly believed at all. But what of holding fast, and working out our salvation?

The question is similar to the objections I discuss in ‘The Salvation Strawman’ regarding whether it is necessary for us to evangelize and pray, given God’s sovereign causation of all things. In our current example, Paul is not urging his readers to save themselves. He is urging them to work out the salvation they already have been given—that is, unless they have not been given it. If we do not hold fast to the word of the gospel, then it is certain that we were never saved. But if we are saved, then it is equally certain that we will hold fast to the word. Nonetheless, we do not do so, as it were, in a vacuum. As with all of God’s plans, he has determined means by which to bring about his final purposes; and the means by which he ensures we continue in good works is often the Bible’s own commands and exhortations to do so; as well as the encouragement of our brothers. A problem we have as human beings is that we see our current actions leading toward a final salvation, in which we enjoy fellowship with God forever. It is easy to forget that this final salvation is already assured because God has planned and decreed it definitely from eternity. It is so certain that it is as if it had already happened.

Now, only God knows who is finally saved, and who will instead wither like many of the shoots in the parable of the seeds. But we do know that the means by which God effects the final salvation of his elect—that is, their final situation of enjoying fellowship with him forever—after their immediate justification, is through their own faith. Now genuine faith always produces works, for “faith without works is dead” (James 2:14). Therefore, everyone who perseveres in faith till the end will produce works, and so everyone who produces works till the end will be saved. But anyone who does not do so will be lost. So we should hardly be surprised that Paul exhorts and encourages the Corinthians and the Philippians to work out their salvation. It is no more mysterious than if he had urged them to eat, lest they starve. God provides the bread; he makes us alive so that we may eat; and he even causes us to eat at all—but we must still eat if we are not to die (see John 6:35ff).

This diatribe may seem rather tangential to the issue of who are the Christians? But I assure you it is not. As I started writing it, I considered foreclosing the discussion by deferring it to another article. But although it seems like a lengthy detour, it is an essential one, in that it establishes a key doctrine within which we must evaluate our question as we continue to work forward. Christians (that is, people saved by God) persevere to the end. As I have discussed once before in an article titled ‘On “Deconversion”‘, those people who claim to once have been Christians are either lying, or temporarily deceived. They will either never be saved, and so never were saved; or they will ultimately be saved despite their current situation.

This also engages with and refutes the idea that one can become a Christian through a one-time human action, such as being baptized, or saying a prayer. It is typical, for example, for Roman Catholics to regard as a Christian anyone who was baptized as an infant, since they erroneously conflate baptism and the new birth of John 3:5. Or, we may encounter someone who thinks he is now a Christian because he has said the “sinner’s prayer”—as if a one-time recital of a prayer, though immediately followed by a return to his old life and sins, could magically elevate him to salvation. Lastly, there are those who have been taken in by the irrationalism of Søren Kierkegaard and his neo-orthodox, post-modern followers, where doctrine and knowledge give way to emotion and opinion, and salvation need not depend on any specific propositions, but rather on some kind of an “experience” of God.

None of these sorts of people are Christians. They are not Christians because they do not persevere in faith. In fact, they do not have faith at all in which to persevere. However, having said this, there are certainly professing Christians who hold to and persevere in faith; yet their faith differs in some degree to that of others. Indeed, one need only consider the denominational differences between Protestant churches to see that the precise content of faith is a subject of great disagreement. We should therefore proceed on to examine the second aspect of faith mentioned at the beginning of this article: its propositional content, which makes up Christian doctrine.

Continued in part 3 »