Home » Posts tagged 'Calvinism'
Tag Archives: Calvinism
Reformed Systematic Theology v. 1, Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley
I recently finished reading Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019). I had purchased it on Logos Bible Software and, because I thought it had lots of good features, also purchased a physical copy with Reformation Heritage Books (which may be cheaper than getting it on Amazon, which I linked to above with an affiliate link. They currently have the entire four volume set at a heavily discounted price. I have not read volumes 2-4 (yet!) so I cannot comment on their quality.) I read almost all of the 1158 pages of the book on my phone in small snippets of time, such as when going up and down in an elevator, or standing in a line, and so on. I am about 60 pages into volume two, reading it in the same way. Let me commend to you being purposeful with the time God gives you; there are many time-suckers on a typical cell phone and on the Internet, but you can choose to avoid them and do something useful when you have a minute or two or five here and there.)
Positive features of Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).
There are many positive features of volume one of Reformed Systematic Theology. These include:
1.) The book consistently seeks to make doctrine practical. While it seeks–and achieves–theological precision, it consistently applies doctrine to life. The book does not just seek to increase one’s mental comprehension of Biblical teaching, but seeks to be the instrument of the Holy Spirit in applying the truth of Scripture to transform the whole man. As Dr. Beeke is the president of the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, we should not be surprised that, as an heir of the Puritans, he seeks to apply doctrine practically to life. The authors explain their purpose in writing as follows:
This systematic theology explores the classic teachings of the Reformed Christian faith from a perspective that is biblical, doctrinal, experiential, and practical. Today’s churches need theology that engages the head, heart, and hands. Too often, we have compartmentalized these aspects of life (as if we could cut ourselves into pieces). The result has been academics for the sake of academics, spiritual experience without roots deep in God’s Word, and superficial pragmatism that chases after the will-o’-the-wisp of short-term results. The church has suffered from this fragmented approach to the Christian faith. However, we have learned from the Reformers, the British Puritans, and the Dutch Further Reformation divines an approach to Christianity that combines thoughtful exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, rich exploration of classic Augustinian and Reformed theology, an experiential tone that brings truth into the heart, and practical applications for life.
Joel R. Beeke, “Preface,” in Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 17–18.
This practical emphasis is commendable, and it makes the book an edifying read.
2.) Reformed Systematic Theology is consistently conservative, evangelical, and Reformed in its theology. While Scripture does not teach Calvinist soteriology, if one is aware of the standard imbalances in Reformed doctrine, there is not much else in terms of “bones” to spit out while one eats the meat. There are no unexpected strange doctrines, but a solid presentation of the doctrines of revelation and of the infallible, inerrant Bible and of the God of Scripture, with the only things that are off being the standard errors of Reformed theology (in terms of theology proper, getting too close to making God the author of sin by saying that He decrees sin and justifying the horrifying Calvinist doctrine of reprobation). While I would not just hand this book to a new Christian and tell him to believe everything it says, I would not be concerned about giving it to someone training for the ministry who knows the problems with Reformed doctrine and is inoculated against them from Scripture. I believe people in the latter class could be greatly blessed by much good Biblical explanation and practical application in this book.
3.) Reformed Systematic Theology uses the King James Version as its base Bible version. I believe that Dr. Beeke preaches from the KJV, so this is not surprising, but it is still refreshing to not have to read lots of quotations from inferior modern Bible versions. On occasion the ESV is quoted, but the large majority of the time it is the KJV, which is a blessing for King James Only Christians.
4.) Interestingly, Paul Smalley is a Reformed Baptist, while Joel Beeke is a Reformed paedobaptist. I cannot agree with the paedobaptism, but I am thankful that at least one of the two authors is a minister in a Baptist church, even if it is a Reformed Baptist congregation.
5.) When it is appropriate Beeke and Smalley make warnings such as: “Worldliness diminishes a man’s soul and makes him petty; knowing God ennobles a human being.” (Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019], 509). It is great to read a systematic theology that warns against worldliness and points one, instead, to knowing God as the cure for it!
6.) The book discusses doctrines, such as Divine simplicity, that I am afraid that graduates from many Baptist Bible colleges and institutes will give you a blank stare if you ask about them. (Do you know what Scripture teaches about Divine simplicity? If not, maybe you should read the part of Reformed Systematic Theology about that doctrine and find out what it is.)
7.) My physical copy of Reformed Systematic Theology is a quality hardcover book that is well-made and easy to read. It is also written in well-written and engaging English. It is scholarly and excellently done.
Concerns with Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).
1.) My major concern is, naturally, that the Bible does not teach unconditional election and reprobation, limited atonement, or irresistible grace in salvation (and, depending on how one defines things, total depravity and the perseverance of the saints could also have problems). Reformed Systematic Theology is unabashedly Reformed. One who has not already read independent Baptist systematic theological works such as Robert Sargent’s Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine from Bible Baptist Church Publications would be well-advised to start there before reading a Reformed systematic theology, even one that has the commendable features mentioned above.
2.) While I am thankful that Reformed Systematic Theology uses the Authorized, King James Version, it does not have a section on the preservation of Scripture. The book’s outline on the doctrine of revelation is as follows:
IX. Theological Fundamentals of Divine Revelation
A. Biblical Terminology of Divine Revelation
1. Old Testament Terminology
2. New Testament Terminology
B. Basic Biblical Perspective on Divine Revelation (Genesis 1–3; Psalm 19)
1. The Revelation of the Sovereign God to His Image Bearers
2. The Revelation of God by His Creation (General Revelation)
3. The Revelation of God by His Word (Special Revelation)
4. The Response of God’s Servants to His Word (Applied Revelation)
C. Summary Statement on the Biblical Doctrine of Divine Revelation
X. General Revelation
A. General Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. Revelation around Man in Creation
a. General Revelation of the Divine Nature
i. It Reveals God to a Limited Degree
ii. It Reveals God in an Open and Plain Manner
iii. It Reveals God according to His Will
iv. It Reveals the Invisible God
v. It Reveals God’s Divine Nature
vi. It Reveals God throughout History
vii. It Reveals God through His Created World
b. General Revelation of Divine Wrath in a Fallen World
2. Revelation within Man
a. General Revelation according to the Image of God
b. General Revelation via the Human Conscience
3. The Use and Efficacy of General Revelation
a. The Universal Knowledge Granted through General Revelation
i. God Exists, and Created All Things
ii. Atheism Is Folly
iii. God Has a Unique Nature as God
iv. Idolatry Is Wicked
v. God Holds Man Accountable to His Moral Law
vi. Sinners Are under God’s Wrath and without Excuse
b. The Universal Response of Mankind to General Revelation
c. The Proper Christian Use of General Revelation
i. The Church’s Missiological Use of General Revelation
ii. The Church’s Doxological Use of General Revelation
B. General Revelation: Philosophy and Science
1. Christianity and Rational Philosophy
a. Not Necessary in Order to Know and Glorify God
b. Teaches Some Valid and Useful Truths
c. Proposes Systems of Thought Antithetical to the Gospel
d. May Be Used Only with Radical, Biblical Critique
e. Recognizes Legitimate Methods of Reasoning
2. Christianity and Empirical Science
a. Operates with Delegated Authority
b. Can Investigate Nature with Confident Rationality
c. Must Work from a Posture of Intellectual Humility
d. Must Realize That Its Conclusions Possess Only Human Certainty
e. Should Pursue Knowledge with Prayerful Dependency
f. Limited by Its Ultimate Insufficiency to Make Us Wise
g. Must Work with God-Fearing Integrity
h. Should Make Use of Its Findings to Promote Grateful Doxology
C. General Revelation: Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
1. Various Rejections of Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
a. Karl Barth
b. Cornelius Van Til
2. Toward a Biblical, Reformed Approach to Theistic Arguments
a. God Testifies to Himself through the Natural World
b. Belief in God Is a Valid Presupposition of Human Thought
c. The Proper Posture of Human Reason Is to Fear God as His Servant
d. The Sinner’s Mind Is Alienated from God, and Cannot Reason to Its Creator
e. The Philosophy of Non-Christians Is Distorted by Satan
f. A Right Use of Reason Depends upon the Spirit-Illuminated Word
g. Christians May Make Rational Arguments from Creation to God
h. Christians May Use Arguments to Show the Foolishness of Those Who Deny God
i. The Wise Use of Theistic Arguments Varies with Culture and Education
j. Christians Should Beware of Glorying in Human Wisdom
k. Theistic Arguments Are Appeals to Divine Witness in Creation
l. Theistic Arguments Are at Best Like the Law That Convicts but Cannot Save
D. Some Historical Perspective on Natural Theology and Theistic Proofs
1. Ancient Roots of Natural Theology
a. Pagan Literature: Varro, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno
b. Early Christian Apologists: Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian
c. Early Greek Fathers: Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and John of Damascus
d. Latin Christianity: Augustine
e. Assessment of Ancient and Early Christian Natural Theology
2. Medieval Development of Natural Theology
a. Muslim and Jewish Scholarship: Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides
b. Christian Medieval Scholasticism: Anselm and Thomas Aquinas
c. Assessment of Thomist Natural Theology
3. The Reformation’s Critical Interaction with Natural Theology
a. Critique of Natural Theology: Luther and Calvin
b. Critical Appropriation of Theistic Arguments: Vermigli, Junius, and Turretin
c. Assessment of Early Reformed Views of Natural Theology
XI. Special Revelation: Theological Introduction
A. Special Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. The Trinitarian, Mediatorial Work of Special Revelation
a. The Son Is the Only Mediator of Divine Revelation
b. The Father Is the Sovereign Author of Divine Revelation in the Son
c. The Spirit Is the Effective Agent of Divine Revelation in the Son
2. The Finite Human Character of Special Revelation
3. The Manifold Historical Modes of Special Revelation
a. Supernatural Verbal Revelation
b. Supernatural Visual Revelation
c. Supernatural Providential Revelation
d. Supernatural Incarnational Revelation
4. The Personal, Propositional Content of Special Revelation
B. Errors Regarding Special Revelation
1. Special Revelation Extended to Hierarchical Tradition
2. Special Revelation Subordinated to Human Reason
3. Special Revelation Diffused to Harmonize All Religions
4. Special Revelation Redefined as Holy Encounter
5. Special Revelation Confined to Historical Events
XII. The Bible as the Word of God
A. The Word of the Prophets and Apostles Is the Word of God
1. The Word of God Preached through the Prophets and Apostles
2. The Written Word of God: The Old Testament
3. The Written Word of God: The New Testament
B. The Spirit’s Inspiration of the Written Word of God
1. The Reality of Verbal Inspiration
2. The Extent, Meaning, and Implications of Inspiration
a. Extent: Plenary Inspiration
b. Meaning: God-Breathed Word
c. Implications
i. Authority
ii. Veracity
iii. Sufficiency
iv. Clarity
v. Necessity
vi. Unity in Christ
vii. Efficacy
XIII. The Properties of the Written Word
A. The Authority of the Bible
1. The Source of the Bible’s Authority
2. Biblical Authority and the Church
3. The Authentication of the Bible
4. Biblical Authority versus Personal Autonomy
5. Practical Implications of Biblical Authority
B. The Clarity of the Bible
1. The Perspicuity Controversy
2. Practical Implications of Biblical Clarity
C. The Necessity of the Bible
1. The Necessity of the Gospel for All Mankind
2. The Publishing of the Gospel in Written Form
3. The Preservation of the Gospel to the End of the Age
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Necessity
D. The Unity of the Bible in Christ
1. The Great Theme of the Bible
2. The Manifold Forms of Christ’s Revelation
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Unity in Christ
E. The Efficacy of the Bible by the Spirit
1. The Word and the Spirit of Conviction
2. The Word and the Spirit of Life
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Efficacy by the Spirit
F. The Inerrant Veracity of the Bible
1. Inerrant Veracity Defined
2. Inerrant Veracity Clarified
3. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Inerrant Veracity
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Veracity
5. Objections to Inerrancy
a. Human Fallibility
b. History Is Not Essential to Religion
c. Contradictions with Modern History and Science
d. Contradictions in the Bible
e. Theological Novelty
H. The Sufficiency of the Bible
1. Biblical Sufficiency Defined
2. Biblical Sufficiency Clarified
2. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Sufficiency
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Sufficiency
XIV. The Cessation of Special Revelation
A. Arguments for Charismatic Continuationism
1. God’s Ancient Promise
2. The Eschatological Last Days
3. Cessation at Christ’s Second Coming
4. The Spirit’s Ministry to the Body
5. Edification of the Saints
6. God’s Command
7. Historical Movements
8. Personal Experiences
9. The Reality of the Supernatural
10. The Silence of Scripture
B. The Uniqueness of the Apostolic Age
1. The Apostles of Jesus Christ
2. A Biblical Pattern of Miraculous Ministry in History
3. Apostles in Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches Today
C. Practical Implications of the Apostles’ Ministry
1. We Must Receive the New Testament as the Word of God
2. We Should Distinguish between Modern Teachers and the Apostles of Jesus Christ
3. We Must Beware of False Apostles and Prophets Working Wonders
4. We Must Seek the Power of the Holy Spirit
D. The Cessation of Revelatory Gifts Such as Prophecy
1. The Finality of Christ
2. The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets
3. The Fallibility of Modern “Prophets”
E. Pastoral Concerns about Evangelical Prophecy
1. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Individual Leaders
2. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Presumptuous Beliefs
3. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Human Thoughts, Impressions, and Feelings
XV. Applied Revelation for Practical Fruit
A. Personal Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Personal Faith in the Scriptures
2. Personal Study of the Scriptures
3. Personal Experience through the Scriptures
B. Familial Fruit of Applied Revelation
C. Ecclesiastical Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Transformation in Corporate Life
2. Balance in Pastoral Ministry
3. Zeal in Evangelism
4. Dependency in Leadership
5. Priority in Education
6. Saturation in Worship
D. Societal Fruit of Applied Revelation
E. International Fruit of Applied Revelation
F. Doxological Fruit of Applied Revelation
Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 29–35.
You can see that there is a lot of good stuff in there. However, there is nothing either supporting or denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. One who recognizes that he has all of God’s Words in the Old and New Testament Textus Receptus will not have his faith attacked, but neither will he have it confirmed.
3.) I also do not want people who read this book and are encouraged by its good English, its many edifying and encouraging practical applications, and its solid theology in many areas to become improperly enamored with Reformed paedobaptist theology. I do not doubt that Dr. Beeke is a sincere and converted man whom I expect to see in heaven, but the special presence of Christ is not in his Reformed paedobaptist organization. If you can explain and defend why Reformed soteriology is wrong and why, in the doctrine of God, Scripture does not teach that God ordains sin or unconditionally reprobates people for His glory (!!), you may get many blessings from this book. Maybe you will even find it engaging enough to read the whole thing on your phone while waiting in lines and going up and down in elevators and the like.
–TDR
Calvinism, Unconditional Election and Baptismal Regeneration
Did you know that there is a connection between the heresy of the baptismal regeneration of infants and unconditional election and reprobation in Calvinism? In the chapter “Calvinism is Augstinianism,” by Kenneth Wilson, in the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), Wilson notes:
The major influence on Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to his prior deterministic Manichaean interpretations of Scripture was the arrival of Pelagius and Caelestius near his North African home in late AD 411. Augustine previously admitted (AD 405) he did not know why infant baptism was practiced (Quant.80). But the conflict with Caelestius and Pelagius forced him to rethink the church’s infant baptismal tradition and precipitated his reversion to his pagan DUPED [Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies, that is, unconditional election].26 Caelestius had argued that infants did not receive baptism for salvation from sin but only for inheritance of the kingdom. Augustine’s polemical response to Caelestius in AD 412 was logical: (1) Infants are baptized by church tradition; (2) water baptism is for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit; (3) some dying infants are rushed by their Christian parents to the bishop for baptism but die before baptism occurs, while other infants born of prostitutes are found abandoned on the streets by a church virgin who rushes them to the baptismal font where the bishop baptizes them; (4) these infants have no “will” and no control over whether or not they are baptized to receive the Holy Spirit to become Christians. Therefore, God must unilaterally and unconditionally predetermine which infants are saved by baptism and which are eternally damned without baptism (unconditional election).27 God’s election must be unconditional since infants have no personal sin, no merit, no good works, no functioning free will (incognizant due to the inability to understand at their age), and therefore, no choice.
In his next work that same year, Augustine concluded if this is true for infants, then unbaptized adults also have no choice or free will (Sp. et litt.54–56). The Holy Spirit was received in water baptism, transforming the person into a Christian with a free will. Since humans have no free will before baptism, God must unilaterally choose who will be saved and infuse faith into those persons. Augustine taught even when “ministers prepared for giving baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose [those infants for salvation]” (persev.31). Infant baptism became the impetus for Augustine’s novel theology when he reinterpreted that church tradition and reached a logical conclusion. By doing this he abandoned over three hundred years of church teaching on free will. According to the famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, Augustine departed from traditional Christian theology by incorporating his prior pagan teachings and thereby developed inconsistencies in his new anthropology and theology of grace, especially his “idiosyncratic theory of predestination.”28[1]
So the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation is connected to Augustine’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration of infants and the damnation of all infants who are not regenerated in baptism. Since the infants cannot choose whether or not they will be baptized and receive forgiveness through baptism, their eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s will alone; they have no free will to receive Christ or reject Him, as in the large majority of modern Calvinists who follow Jonathan Edwards in his work against the freedom of the will. The infants that are tormented forever because they never were baptized are unconditionally reprobated, and the infants in paradise because they were baptized are the unconditionally elect. Since this is (allegedly) true for infants, it must be true for everyone else as well—eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s unconditional choice alone—an Augustinian innovation in Christendom which was reproduced by John Calvin and the Reformed tradition. (Of course, John Calvin also believed in baptismal regeneration.)
Let me add that the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke is valuable for mature Christians and church leaders, and it contains many valuable and Biblically sound criticisms of Calvinism. However, there are a diversity of viewpoints represented in the book, including not just non-Calvinist Baptists who still believe in eternal security, for example, but full-blown actual Arminians such as Wesleyans who affirm the terrible false teaching that true believers can be eternally lost. Because some chapters in the book are written by actual Arminians, I would not recommend the book for new Christians who might over-react against Calvinism and adopt Arminian heresies. Pastors or other mature Christians who are simply not going to become Arminian can gain a good deal of profit from the book.
–TDR
26 Wilson, 285. See also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 110–11.
27 Augustine, Pecc.mer.1.29–30. In contrast, ca. AD 200, Tertullian had rejected infant baptism, stating one should wait until personal faith was possible (De bapt.18).
28 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 278–327, quotation at 325.
[1] Kenneth Wilson, “Calvinism Is Augustinianism,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 222–223.
Links to Amazon.com are affiliate links.
God Does NOT Love Everyone? An Error of Hyper-Calvinism, part 3 of 3
Is it true that God does NOT love everyone? Hyper-Calvinism says “yes,” but Scripture says “no!” In part 1 and part 2 of this series, I summarized the first portions of my study God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error. This final part will summarize the final portion of God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error, to which readers are encouraged to refer for more information.
Hyper-Calvinism Employs Exegetical and Logical Fallacies
When Arguing God Does Not Love the Non-Elect:
Texts on God’s Hatred
Hyper-Calvinism may contend that some passages of Scripture prove that God does not love the non-elect. For example, the Bible states:
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13)
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. (Psalm 5:5)
5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. 6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup. 7 For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.” (Psalm 11:5-7)
These passages clearly teach that God hates the wicked. But they do not say that God does NOT love them at the same time. Jehovah is perfectly capable of having love in one sense for a wicked person while hating him in a different sense. Indeed, Psalm 5:5 states that God hates “all” workers of iniquity, so even the elect, before they believe, are hated by God in one sense while being eternally loved by Him in a different sense. If God can love and hate the elect at the same time in different senses, He is perfectly capable of doing the same for the non-elect.
Furthermore, Romans 9:13 is not even about the individuals Jacob and Esau. Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3, which speaks of God’s special blessings on the nation of Israel, blessings withheld from the nation of Edom. Consider Malachi 1:1-5:
1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. 2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, 3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. 4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. 5 And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel. (Malachi 1:1-5)
Romans 9:13 never denies that God loved Esau—God is able to love sinners in one sense while hating them in another. More fundamentally, Romans 9:13 is not even about the individual people Jacob and Esau at all, except insofar as they are the progenitors of the nations of Israel and Edom.
These passages of Scripture are simply taken out of context by hyper-Calvinism.
Hyper-Calvinism Employs Exegetical and Logical Fallacies
When Arguing God Does Not Love the Non-Elect:
Texts on God’s Special Love
Advocates of hyper-Calvinism can also argue that Scripture speaks of God’s love in passages that limit His love to the elect. There are indeed passages of Scripture that show that Jehovah has a special love for His believing people. However, this no more denies that God loves the non-elect than does the fact that a Christian husband has a special love for his wife proves that the husband hates everyone else. Hyper-Calvinism needs texts of Scripture that affirm that God does not love some people, not passages that say God does love some people. There simply are no such texts in God’s Word.
Hyper-Calvinism Makes Further Exegetical
and Historical Fallacies
Hyper-Calvinism also makes other fallacious exegetical arguments. Indeed, hyper-Calvinism does not even accurately represent the teaching of John Calvin. Calvin, speaking about the rich young ruler in Mark 10:21, wrote: “Jesus beholding him, loved him [Mark 10:21]. … [A]ll the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. … God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify … Christ … love[d] a man [like the rich young ruler] who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices[.] (John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010], 398–399.)
Thus, the teaching of hyper-Calvinism that God does not love every individual grossly misinterprets Scripture while also misinterpreting history. Even John Calvin did not teach the hyper-Calvinist notion that God loves only the elect. Since neither the Bible, nor even John Calvin, taught this false idea, you should not teach or believe it either. Reject such a slander on the character of God and recognize that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Please read God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error for more information.
–TDR
God does NOT love everyone? A Hyper-Calvinist Error, part 2 of 3
Is it true that God does NOT love everyone? Hyper-Calvinism says “yes!” Scripture says “no!” In part 1 of 3 in this series, I summarized the first portion of my recent composition God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error. John 3:16, Mark 10:21, and 1 John 2:2 refute the hyper-Calvinist idea that God loves only the elect. Scripture is plain that God loves the entire world-every single person.
If Hyper-Calvinists Were Right,
Then Christians Should Not Love Their Enemies
Christians should be like God. If God loves every person, then they should love all men. If God has nothing but an everlasting hatred for the non-elect, then they should strive with all their might to purge out any love that they have for lost sinners from their bosoms and have nothing but an eternal and everlasting hatred for them, (allegedly) like God. However, the Lord Jesus taught:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)
Christians must love their enemies because God loves His enemies. When they love their wicked, unregenerate, Christ-and-Christian hating enemies, they are being like their Father in heaven. The Sermon on the Mount does not say, “Love your elect enemies and bless the elect when they curse and hate you. If the non-elect do it, though, show eternal hatred to them.” Believers must “increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men” (1 Thessalonians 3:12-13) because God loves all men, not the elect alone.
The Quran Agrees with Hyper-Calvinism,
but the Bible does Not
Hyper-Calvinists need specific passages that teach God does NOT love the majority of the world that rejects Christ and is eternally lost. It would not have been hard for God to include such statements in the Bible. After all, the Quran is filled with them. For example:
Q 2:276 Allah hath blighted usury and made almsgiving fruitful. Allah loveth not the impious and guilty.
Q 3:32 Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).
Q 3:57 And as for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their wages in full. Allah loveth not wrong-doers.
The Quran is full of such statements-when I went through the Quran from cover to cover as part of my preparation for my debate with the Muslim apologist Shabir Ally I found the seemingly constant drum-beat of Allah’s lack of love for this group and that group a sharp contrast with the teaching of God’s Word, the Bible.
While the idea that God does not love unbelievers is all over the Quran, the number of statements in holy Scripture such as “God does not love person X” or “God does not love people like Y” are equal in number to the statements such as “Christ did not die for person X” or “Christ did not die for group Y”–namely, zero. Both limited atonement and the hyper-Calvinist doctrine of God’s lack of love for the vast majority of mankind are completely absent from Scripture.
Please read God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error for more information.
–TDR
God does NOT love everyone? A Hyper-Calvinist Error, part 1 of 3
Is it true that God does NOT love everyone? That is the teaching of hyper-Calvinism. I recently put together a study entitled God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error where I examine that question. I will be summarizing the argument from that larger study in three blog posts. Please read the larger work using the link above for more information.
God Loves The Entire World,
So the Idea that God Does Not Love the Non-Elect is False
John 3:16 reads: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” This passage plainly teaches that God loves everyone in the world, and the word “world” does not mean “the world of the elect” as hyper-Calvinists and many Calvinists allege. None of the 187 uses of the Greek word kosmos (“world”) in the New Testament use the word “world” of the “world of the elect.” This Calvinist idea is simply reading into Scripture what it does not say. 1 John 2:2 specifically distinguishes between the elect and the world while positing that Christ died for not the elect alone, but also for the whole world:
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
John 3:16 is conclusive proof that God loves the entire world—including those who never believe and consequently perish in their sins.
Jesus Christ Loved Individual Non-Elect
And Eternally Lost Sinners: God Does Not Love Only the Elect
The Lord Jesus’ love for the unconverted rich young ruler proves that God’s love is not limited to the elect alone:
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. 23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. (Mark 10:17-27)
The Son of God loved this unconverted hypocrite whom Scripture presents as a paradigm of large groups of lost men who trust in their riches. The Lord Jesus Christ clearly does not love the elect alone. His love for the rich young ruler is an instance of the eternal love manifested by the Father, Son, and Spirit towards the fallen and lost world spoken of in John 3:16.
Please read God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error to learn more. The What is Truth? blog also has a variety of articles on Calvinism.
–TDR
James White and His Troublesome Deterministic View of God
One of the features of the White and Ross debate was an attack afterwards on Thomas Ross by White followers, because he would not “answer” questions of White. I disagree. Ross answered all of White’s questions. He just didn’t like Ross’s answers. When I watched the White and Van Kleeck debate, White wouldn’t answer Van Kleeck’s questions, really not answer them.
A recent episode of Soteriology 101 with Leighton Flowers popped up on my phone. I’m not a subscriber. The title was “Popular Calvinist Makes a Stunning Admission,” and I could see the Calvinist was James White on the cover. So, as click bait, that worked for me. I had to see what the “stunning admission” from White was.
The Determination by God of All Moral Evil?
The main theme of Flowers’s podcast was the determination by God of all moral evil. Flowers doesn’t believe it, but he quoted Calvin as believing it. He explained the effect of this belief. If this is God, people reject Him because they don’t think He’s good. The Calvinist answers that God is right, these things are just beyond our full comprehension. Here’s the quote by Calvin that says this exact thing:
But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being the author and approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.
Flowers says that Calvin is saying, “I don’t know how God is good with my view of determinism, just that I know that He is.” Something like that. He’s accepting God decrees moral evil, yet He’s still good, because God is good.
People like myself say, “God does not decree or determine moral evil.” If someone says that God does that, we say, “No, He doesn’t.” We might quote James 1:13:
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
Guillaume Bignon
White has endorsed the book by French Calvinist, Guillaume Bignon, Excusing Sinners and Blaming God: A Calvinist Assessment of Determinism, Moral Responsibility, and Divine Involvement in Evil. In a recent interview, Bignon says:
Determinism is not the thesis that some things are determined. It’s the view that all things are determined.
Bignon is asked, Did God determine then for other theologians, like Muller, to disagree with you? He answers, “Yes,” because God determined everything. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3), Calvin said:
Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he knowingly and willingly decreed.
Did God Decree a Rape?
Calvin taught that God destined the will of every man to do whatever man did and does. In his debate with George Bryson, Bryson asks White this:
When a child is raped, is God responsible? Did he decree that rape?
Based on the understanding White and his fans hold for answering a question, White would not answer Bryson’s question. He did answer it, but he would not say, yes or no, until pinned down by the moderator. When White asks a “yes or no” question, he and his followers expect a yes or a no. They don’t hold that standard for White, as seen in the Van Kleeck debate, but also in his answer to Bryson. White answered:
If he didn’t, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.
Hank Hanegraaff is the moderator and he asks White, “So what is your answer then?” In other words, White wouldn’t answer the question. No problem for White fans. This is James White. Whatever he says will count as an answer.
White then says to Hanegraaff, “I’m trying to go to scripture,” to which Hanegraaff replies, “What is the answer to the question that he just asked?” And so finally White does answer the question. To the question of, “When a child is raped, is God responsible? Did he decree that rape?” James White answers:
Yes, because, if not, then it is meaningless and purposeless. And though God knew it was going to happen, he created without a purpose. That means God brought the evil into existence, knowing it was going to exist, but for no purpose, no redemption, nothing positive, nothing good.
God Does Not Decree or Determine Moral Evil or the Rape of a Child
White, Hanegraaff, and Bryson say much more in this debate (which was in 2003), but White point blank says that God determined evil, even the determination of a rape of a child. This was the stunning admission by the Calvinist, James White.
Is this true about God? No. It perverts a scriptural view of the sovereignty of God. God is sovereign, but sovereignty means He is also sovereign over His sovereignty. The word sovereignty isn’t in the Bible, but the doctrine is there. However, we should allow God to define what His sovereignty is. God allows or causes everything that happens. I don’t agree with Calvin’s, Bignon’s, or White’s view of God’s sovereignty. It doesn’t match up with what God says about Himself in scripture.
Someone asked Flowers, if God determines all moral evil, can God still be a good God? I don’t want to answer that question. I think, it isn’t God though. This is just a hypothetical that could quote me as saying that God isn’t a good God. God is a good God though. If that was God, which it isn’t, then He would not be good. I don’t see a God, who would determine or decree moral evil, as being good. God allows evil. He doesn’t determine or decree it.
If you say, like White, that God determines or decrees everything, then you also, like White does, must say that God determines or decrees evil, including the rape of a child. Scripture does not teach this kind of determinism. God determines things, it’s true, but not moral evil.
The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will (Part Three)
Part of the confidence and tone of certainty about predetermination and free will seems to come from ambiguity that conflicts and perplexes. A Calvinist will talk to you with a look of absolute conviction. It’s as if he’s bluffing. He knows something you don’t know and you can’t see. You’re looking, you want to know like he does, but you just don’t see it.
Some people talk about a kind of faith not anchored in scripture, which is mere fideism. I’ve had that charge made against me on the doctrine of preservation. Calvinism takes fideistic leaps in the dark.
A fairly recent article by Tom Hicks in the Foundation Journal (Fall 2016, Issue 106) he explicates Robert Shaw in his 1845 The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (p. 81) in writing:
The doctrine that God eternally and unconditionally decreed all future things necessarily follows from the fact that God is independent, all knowing, and unchangeable, which is what chapter 2 of the confession (WCF) teaches. Since God is independent, it follows that His decree cannot depend upon anything in the future or anything outside of Himself. Since God knows all things, it follows that God must have first decreed all things. And since God is unchangeable, it follows that God must have an unchangeable decree at the foundation of all that He does.
They say that God decrees all future things. So what do you want to know? Does God decree sin? Does man choose to sin? These are good questions, the answers of which seem contradictory. It is at the very root of Calvinism. You take away these foundational doctrines and you’ve got a different system. What matters, wouldn’t we ask, is what does the Bible say? The right position takes into consideration all of scripture according to the plain meaning of the text.
Listening to the late Calvinist R. C. Sproul explain the Arminian view of free will, he said Arminians came to their position to save or rescue God from a reputation of unloving and harsh, an uncaring manipulator. He didn’t provide any basis for this contention. It is a typical kind of argument that I hear in discussions.
What if Calvinism was a pendulum swing from Roman Catholicism, the latter teaching man can work his way? Could Calvinism have swung too far toward an unscriptural view of free will to ensure a position of salvation by grace with all for the glory of God?
In another clip by Sproul, he compares someone who believes in free will to an atheist. He explains that this is because if God is not sovereign, then God is not God. There is an informal logical fallacy here, called equivocation, because it’s a matter of a definition of the term, sovereignty. Is sovereignty the understanding of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), chapter three, paragraph one?
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Ephesians 1:11 and Free Will
The London Baptist Confession says almost identical words. The authors said “God . . . ordain(s) whatsoever comes to pass.” This echoes an interpretation of Ephesians 1:11 to which I’ve referred already in this series:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.
“Ordain whatsoever comes to pass” seems to match “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” Do those mean the same thing? I don’t think so. “Worketh” in Ephesians 1:11 is energeo. BDAG takes into consideration all its usage and says it means: “to bring something about through use of capability.” Does that compare to “ordain”? The Universal World Dictionary in 1706 says ordain means “to command or enjoin, to appoint or design.”
When I look at the meaning of words, I’m considering the history of the doctrine. What were they saying, when they said “ordain” in the WCF and LBC? I’m looking at old dictionaries around the same time to have a better sense of what they meant. However, a modern dictionary says that “ordain” in the religious sense means “to destine or predestine, to order or command” in the context that its being used.
Working all things according to the counsel of his will in Ephesians 1:11 is very similar to working all things together for good in Romans 8:28. God is not working all things period. He is working in a way or manner that all things fulfill God’s purpose, which is the understanding of “counsel.” Working in that sense is not the same as ordaining all things. What I’m describing fits much better with the rest of scripture also.
A. A. Hodge was the principal of Princeton Seminary from 1878 to 1886 and wrote A Commentary on the Westminster Confession. He amazes the convoluted ends he goes to reason that God controls or determines every single event that occurs in the entire universe at every moment. He writes:
The plan of God comprehends and determines all things and events of every kind that come to pass. (1) This is rendered certain from the fact that all God’s works of creation and providence constitute one system. No event is isolated, either in the physical or moral world, either in heaven or on earth. All of God’s supernatural revelations and every advance of human science conspire to make this truth conspicuously luminous. Hence the original intention which determines one event must also determine every other event related to it, as cause, condition, or consequent, direct and indirect, immediate and remote. Hence, the plan which determines general ends must also determine even the minutest element comprehended in the system of which those ends are parts. The free actions of free agents constitute an eminently important and effective element in the system of things. If the plan of God did not determine events of this class, he could make nothing certain, and his government of the world would be made contingent and dependent, and all his purposes fallible and mutable.
With the extent that Hodge goes with his explanation of God determining “all things and events of every kind that come to pass” and the comprehensiveness of it, he still writes:
It must be remembered, however, that the purpose of God with respect to the sinful acts of men and wicked angels is in no degree to cause the evil, nor to approve it, but only to permit the wicked agent to perform it, and then to overrule it for his own most wise and holy ends.
Herein lies a contradiction. God does not contradict Himself. Either they are both true or they are both false. I understand that God does not ordain anyone to sin. I fully comprehend Hodge’s unwillingness to say that God determines evil. The WCF and LBC say the same. However, the comprehensive determinism of the first general statement clashes with the following statements.
James 1:13 and Free Will
James (1:13) writes:
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
Why would someone say God tempted him to sin? From where would that thought or conception arise? If the sovereignty of God is deterministic, then someone could blame God for his sin. God determines things, yes, but not all things. That should be in the general statement.
James 1:13 sounds like, man has choices. Man cannot blame God for sin because man chooses to sin. God determines His will, His purpose, but not everything, but it’s also His will that man has a choice, a free will.
Thomas Boston (1676-1732) wrote a commentary on the Shorter Catechism, which is a shorter catechism of the Westminster Confession. He writes:
I am to explain the nature of a decree. The text calls it a purpose, a will. For God to decree is to purpose and fore-ordain, to will and appoint that a thing shall be or not be. And such decrees must needs be granted, seeing God is absolutely perfect, and therefore nothing can come to pass without his will; seeing there is an absolute and necessary dependence of all things and persons on God as the first cause. . . . He worketh all things, says the text. God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass; and nothing comes to pass but what he has decreed to come to pass.
Later in the same commentary, however, Boston writes:
God decreed the permission of sin for great and glorious ends. It is true, sin in its own nature has no tendency to any good end. If it end in any good, it is from the overruling providence of God, and that infinite divine skill that can bring good out of evil, as well as light out of darkness. . . . God decrees the permission of sin, as above explained, yet is not the author of sin.
The decree of God seems to allow for permission even in its definition. If God permits anything and does not determine everything, what is the basis for that exception in the decree? Again Calvinism conflicts and perplexes. Nothing comes to pass but what God has decreed to come to pass, but regarding sin, God merely permits it, not determines it.
Back to Genesis 50:20 and Free Will
Conflict and perplexity revolves around the compatibility of comprehensive or total determinism and permission only to do evil. If God decrees or ordains all things, which means predetermine all of them, why did God not also ordain the thoughts or intentions of Joseph’s brothers in Genesis 50:20?
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
Either God used their evil thoughts against Joseph or He ordained them. If He didn’t ordain them, only permitted them, and then used them, God doesn’t determine all things. If God doesn’t determine all things, then why believe that He determines or ordains who goes to Hell or who goes to Heaven?
God is sovereign. He determines what He wills. In His sovereignty, however, scripture reads that God willed or wanted free will for man. Genesis 50:20 offers a good example of this, since Joseph’s brothers chose their evil thinking or intentions, but there are many others.
(To Be Continued)
The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will (Part Two)
Calvinists say that other systems limit God’s sovereignty or control. Apparently when those systems assign to man free will, they limit God’s sovereignty. Instead of God being in total charge, man is partly in charge. Calvinists would also say this means that in salvation, ostensibly man is getting involved to the degree that it’s not salvation by grace anymore, but salvation by works.
When I listen to Calvinists, trying to believe them, and they refer to all the passages they use to prove their point, saying them in very earnest, serious tones, getting hearty “Amens” from their adherents, I am not convinced. They are stretching and reading into the passages, sometimes changing the meaning of the words to get their conclusions.
For most of my adult life, I’ve said that “God is sovereign over His own sovereignty” (here and here). Sovereignty isn’t more or less than what God says it is. What we believe about sovereignty must come from all of scripture and not proof texts. The word sovereignty itself is part of the system, because it’s not a word in the Bible. Our understanding of sovereignty should arise from the Bible.
Because God is in control, possesses all power, He can accomplish what He wants in any way that He wants. Very often in scripture is the word, “will,” and for this doctrine, significantly, “the will of God.” God uses His power to accomplish His will. That doesn’t mean God determines everything. The Bible doesn’t read that way.
I’m not saying that God couldn’t determine everything. He has the power to do anything He wants to do. Everything can be in His control without His controlling everything. If God is not controlling everything, that doesn’t mean He isn’t in control. God is in total charge. Many verses teach this. However, it’s also easy to see that He exercises that sovereignty, that charge or control, by also allowing man free will.
Calvinists divide between natural will and free will, free will only possessed by believers, true Christians, or truly converted people. They say the unbeliever does not enjoy free will. There are verses they use to surmise this point, and I see how they get the point if those were the only verses that applied to their view, but there is much more.
I think that I believe on sovereignty as much as it can be believed. I am attempting to believe exactly what the Bible says, no matter what the cost. Salvation is of the Lord. I believe that faith is a gift. God alone keeps me saved. I can list other beliefs I have that relate to the sovereignty of God.
Many Calvinist debates or heated discussions, I ‘ve witnessed, see the Calvinist accusing the non-Calvinist of not believing his verses of scripture. He also alleges that his foe does not believe in grace. This person doesn’t believe in the sovereignty of God. He limits God. Somehow then too, God isn’t getting the glory.
One avenue, strategy, or technique — I don’t know which of those it is — is expressing the peace, the joy, and the strength one derives from a true understanding of the Calvinist’s view of sovereignty. During hard times, just think this particular view of God and it will make you feel good. I think this during those expressions: “It doesn’t make me feel better if it’s not true.” I get as much peace as I can get from the truth.
In the extreme, the Calvinist says this person does not have faith. He does not believe in the grace of God. He is not giving God the glory. In essence, he also rejects scripture.
A browbeaten person might, usually a professing Christian, because the Calvinist will not do this with an unbeliever, someone who does profess faith in Christ might finally relent. He recruits Christians to his position of Calvinism. When they finally become a Calvinist, they finally have the key that opens the scripture, as if it is inculcating a hermeneutic.
Passages Used to Deny Free Will
Crucial in a right interpretation and even application of scripture is going as far as the text and also not going further than the text. The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 1:11 says that God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” To prove that God determines everything, a Calvinist points to the words, “all things.” Indeed, God determines or controls every single happening of all time. That’s what the verse is telling us. This is an example of a Calvinist going further than the text to conform to the system.
I think you could look at that verse and say that God has His will and He works all things to accomplish His purpose and will. That isn’t determining everything. He is in charge and in control, but that isn’t controlling everything. This important verse to Calvinists doesn’t say as much as they read into it.
To elaborate on what I see it saying in light of everything else the Bible says, I say that God’s will is His end or His purpose. He makes sure occurs what He wants to occur. He must have power over everything in every moment to accomplish that. God must have vast wisdom. He must be able to be every place at once. He must know the past, present, and future like it is a kind of eternal present.
God in His sovereignty and power gives free will to man. He allows men to make choices. He still works everything to the end that pleases Him, that He wants. God either allows or causes every single thing that happens, so He is involved with everything.
I am not going to deal with every single verse a Calvinist might use. He may say there are better ones than what I’m listing. Another one is Genesis 50:20:
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
Passages that Present a Problem with the Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will
As I started to write this post, I thought about whether I decided to write it or whether God predetermined my writing it. After the smoke exited and cleared my ears, I started writing again. Are my fingers typing on their own?
The Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will
Does Calvinism Square With Scripture?
John 1:9-13 Say That Faith Precedes Regeneration
Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), meaning that it is not by works (Titus 3:5-6) It is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is a gift of God (Romans 6:23).
Faith is not a work. The following are my two favorite places that teach that:
Philippians 1:29, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.”
2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
First, it is given unto you to believe on Christ. Second, people obtain like precious faith. Salvation is by faith, not by works. If faith was a work, that wouldn’t make any sense.
How does someone obtain faith from God? It starts with revelation. What is to be known of God is manifest in people (Romans 1:19) and then clearly seen in creation (Romans 1:20), which is general revelation (Psalm 19:1-6). Next comes special revelation, the Word of God (Psalm 19:7-11). As Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” This fulfills the message of Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” What I’m describing in this paragraph is what precedes faith. Much more could be said on this. The revelation of God is the grace that appears to everyone that gives faith that people obtain to be saved.
With all that said, here is John 1:9-13:
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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.
Becoming a child of God and regeneration are essentially the same thing. Look at verse 12. Which comes first? Receiving Jesus Christ or becoming a son of God? It’s plain. What comes before receiving Him? Look at verse 9. “The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” I know that Calvinists or the Reformed, not all of them, but many, say that regeneration precedes faith.
The idea that regeneration precedes faith does not come from scripture. Why is that doctrine taught and believed then? In my opinion, it is a man-centered reaction to salvation by works. A metaphor for this is a pendulum swing. We’re not saved by works like Roman Catholicism and other religion teaches. The light coming, revelation producing faith, that isn’t good enough. They’ve got to go one step further to show how salvation does not depend on man. They are men and they have invented this doctrine though. The doctrine depends on them.
I’m writing on this because I read the article by Andy Naselli, published in the Master’s Seminary Journal, entitled, “Chosen, Born Again, and Believing: How Election, Regeneration, and Faith Relate to Each Other in the Gospel According to John.” Long title. Does Naselli get his position from the passages or does he come to the passages with his presupposition? You can read his section on John 1:9-13, the first one. He comes to the text with assumptions and forces the text into them. Naselli says that this text does not say that faith causes the new birth. He says “being born of God [is] logically prior to receiving Jesus.” Is that what you read?
If faith comes from the light, that means it comes from God. If faith comes from the Word of God, then it comes from God. If faith comes after the knowledge that manifests in people, then it comes from God. Faith does not require or need regeneration in order to be from or of God. Faith does not come by blood, by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man, because faith is given by God and obtained from God. It is not a work.
Naselli doesn’t say it, but I’ve read enough elsewhere to know. Many Calvinists cannot say that faith precedes regeneration, because they see faith as a decision or a choice. You can read that in his article. He says, “The basis of the new birth is not . . . what you desired.” He is equating faith with the “act of a human.” He is saying that faith is our will and since the new birth or regeneration does not come “by the will of man,” then it also cannot come by faith. The problem is that isn’t what the passage point-blank says.
Is the teaching of Naselli and others like him enough to mess up the doctrine of salvation? It is perverting what the passage says. What kind of damage is this teaching doing? It can lead to an extreme where someone does not want to receive Christ, delays receiving Christ, because he is waiting for regeneration. I’ve seen that many times through the years. I’m saying I’ve seen it personally over twenty times with individuals with whom I’ve talked.
I agree with some that this doctrine from Naselli affects what people think of the love of God. God must regenerate to believe. If someone does not believe, then God did not regenerate. This person did not apparently receive irresistible grace, Christ did not atone for him. God foreordained him to Hell. If scripture taught this was the love of God, I would happily believe it. It isn’t what the Bible says is the love of God. It also isn’t what grace is. The grace that saves appears to all men.
Yes, there is a mystery as to why some are saved and some are not. The mystery for the Calvinist is why God chooses some and He rejects others before they were ever born. The mystery for others, like myself, is why some receive Christ and others don’t. The latter at least has some teaching about that. Jesus says that it’s the condition of the soil in Matthew 13. Paul says that the god of this world blinds men’s minds (2 Corinthians 4:4).
Naselli teaches at Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minnesota, John Piper’s school. I’ve read John Piper’s explanation of the five points of Calvin. The word “decisive” is a very important word to him. What I’m saying, Piper would say is the sinner, assisted by God, providing the decisive impulse. He would say, I’m saying, that “the decisive cause of faith is self-determination.” Scripture says nothing about “decisive cause.”
As I’ve written about this subject in the past, I’ve said that God is sovereign about His own sovereignty. We can’t make God more sovereign than what He says He is. John 1:9-13 as it reads in its plain meaning does not contradict a scriptural understanding of the sovereignty of God. It does not make salvation by works. Piper adds this layer of “decisive cause,” and in that sense is adding to the teaching of scripture. He speaks where scripture is silent. He reads into the text. This is also what Naselli is doing. Naselli fills in the blank by quoting Calvin, writing:
Faith is not produced by us but is the fruit of spiritual new birth.
Then Naselli fills in this silence even more by quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones:
The act of regeneration, being God’s act, is something that is outside consciousness.
Do you understand what he’s saying? He’s saying that a person becomes a child of God outside of his own consciousness. Is that what John 1:9-13 say? Of course not.
*********************************
I was fine with the ending of this post, especially time-wise. However, since I wrote it, other thoughts came, especially as it related to regeneration outside consciousness. You go evangelizing in obedience to the command of Jesus Christ. You do your best. No one is saved. Why? None of the preaching audience was regenerated outside of their consciousness. Obviously, if God had regenerated any of them outside of their consciousness, they would have believed.
I read a book about evangelizing Mormons, entitled I Love Mormons, and the PhD evangelical who wrote it gives a lot of strategy related to success with Mormons, understanding their culture, knowing their doctrine, taking a proper approach, etc. I’m not saying I even agree with him on all of it, but isn’t the key for success that God arbitrarily regenerates outside of their consciousness? If God does, your Mormon evangelism can’t but succeed. Automatic success. How does loving Mormons affect unconscious regeneration? Not at all, because that would make man a decisive cause of faith. I’m sure many passages come to your mind that do not fit this thinking.
Recent Comments