(Last updated: 21/Nov/2009)

Over at the blog of my new friend, Duane Proud, [1] I am having an ongoing discussion [2] with a fellow named Adam on what can be characterized as the necessity of salvation. I am publishing the contents of that conversation here at this site because I want to build a library of intelligent discourse on important issues related to salvation and apologetics, two of my favourite subjects, which will be published under Conversations With Christians on the one hand, and Conversations With Atheists on the other. It will be a work in progress for a while so don’t look for these sections yet.

The conversation was sparked generally by the response I had given to the atheist Fluke and his “ropes” analogy of salvation (read Duane’s post for the context). This led to an exploration of particular theological issues between myself and Marc, who is an apparent ‘open theist’, beginning at Comment #34 (after Duane had emailed me privately and asked for my thoughts on Marc’s arguments), which had prompted Adam to ask the following:

Does everyone get a choice? Do the non-elect get a choice to reject or accept God? Does God, knowing those who will not freely choose Him, deny them that choice? … I’m a little hazy on the issue but I thought that there is some sort of free-will choice made for God in the Calvinist view of salvation. God, knowing what that choice will be, acts accordingly by diving in to retrieve those corpses of the bottom of the ocean of those that choose Him.

First, not only is there no biblical support for the popular view of autonomous free will (i.e., libertarianism) but a very clear and resounding scriptural case against such a view, from the nature of man’s sinful condition to the almighty reach of God’s sovereignty over his creation, including countless references to God having power over man’s will in both potentiality (is able to) and actuality (has done so). See for example Sennacherib, king of Assyria, choosing to do as he willed and yet God declared that he maintained sovereign control the whole time, as a woodsman controls the axe, while the king was held morally culpable (Isa. 10:5-19; cf. 2 Kings 19:20-37, 2 Chr. 32:9-22). It is impossible to maintain the popular view of autonomous free will when passages like this directly contradict it.

Second, my illustration of God diving into the ocean to retrieve dead corpses is an illustration of salvation as a whole. Let me repeat that: salvation as a whole. That means the entire scope of salvation, from everlasting (our election) to everlasting (our final glorification) and every step in between (e.g., repentance, justification, sanctification, etc.). Although we participate in our salvation, God is the final author thereof at every point (2 Tim. 2:24-26, Heb. 12:2, Phil. 2:13, Rom. 8:29-30, and so on). In short, if we choose him it is because he dove in and revived us.

Does John 6:37 say, “All who will come to me the Father gives me”? No.

Does John 10:26 say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe”? No.

Does Acts 13:48 say, “All who believed were appointed for eternal life”? No.

Does 1 John 5:1 say, “If you believe Jesus is the Christ, you will be born of God”? No.

Prayerfully consider the powerful teaching found in every single clause of 2 Thes. 2:13-14: “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Third… well, when it comes to describing the sense in which we are corpses on the floor of the ocean and in need of rescuing, I could not state the matter any more succinctly or clearly than did Arthur Pink, John Piper, and Mitch Cervinka, so I will quote them:

Arthur Pink wrote:

By nature [man] possesses natural ability but lacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that he does not possess the latter does not destroy his responsibility, because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he does possess the former.

John Piper wrote:

[It’s a stumbling block for many people] to assert that we are responsible to do what we are morally unable to do. … It may help, however, to consider that the inability we speak of is not owing to a physical handicap, but to moral corruption. Our inability to believe is not the result of a physically damaged brain, but of a morally perverted will. Physical inability would remove accountability. Moral inability does not.

Mitch Cervinka wrote:

It is generally true that in order to be responsible a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God’s commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God’s commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God’s word—they do understand what it says, and they don’t like it!

The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities, nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man’s problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness—and this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God’s law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.

So yes, we are commanded to respond in faith and repentance in Christ, but in obstinate rebellion against God we absolutely refuse to—until God miraculously regenerates our hearts of stone, breathing new life into our spiritual corpses, enabling our moral affections to seek the true and living God, which we absolutely do because what God purposes to do never, ever fails. As the disciple John said, “All that the Father gives me WILL come to me.” Every single one of God’s sheep will be saved, and that without fail.

Updated: 4/Nov/2009

The reason I asked the question is because I have a friend at church who was insisting that all get a choice, and that we are not simply robots who can do no other than what our programming dictates. This is consistent with the Biblical message of Jesus’ sacrifice for all.

So, autonomous free will aside, is there not some sort of, say, ‘limited’ free will going on for everyone during their lives, where they either accept God or reject Him? Would such a choice take the form of following the religion of your country even if Christianity is nowhere to be seen or heard there? Or perhaps the choice is made when we reject natural revelation obvious in the universe around us?

What I really want to know is: what form the “command to respond in faith and repentance in Christ” comes in to everyone?

I’m not trying to be argumentative here or anything. I’m just trying to flesh out orthodoxy and understand how it all works.

Perhaps the simplest response to your friend would take the form of a question: “Where in the Bible does it say that all get a choice?” What this question seeks to find out is whether that belief was brought to the Bible (eisegesis) or acquired from the Bible (exegesis). If the latter, then he should be able to show you where.

I am also curious about his notion that we “can do no other than what our programming dictates,” such that I wonder what he means by “programming.” If it refers to our sinful nature—that outside of Christ our nature is sinful, and choices are not made apart from our nature—then it’s actually true that we can do no other than what our programming dictates.

And finally, I wonder if your friend has thought about what was accomplished by Christ laying down his life—that it was a substitutionary atonement, that it propitiated God’s wrath, that it expiated our guilt, et cetera—and therefore what the result would be if Christ laid down his life for all mankind, the theological and soteriological ramifications.

As for the “command to respond in faith and repentance in Christ,” that is heard through the preaching of the gospel, which means it is heard wherever the gospel is preached—i.e., worldwide.

Updated: 6/Nov/2009

So, in summation, God knows what our choice will be, given a certain set of circumstances. And for those He knew would choose Him, He makes those circumstances a reality which in effect ‘elects’ us. Is that a fair generalization?

No, I would say that is inaccurate. That says God elects (chooses) those who chose him, which turns numerous scriptures on their head. God does not elect people based on their desire or effort; that would make election a product of merit rather than grace. The basis upon which God elects people is his sovereign mercy, which can operate only where the demands of justice have been fully satisfied (the atoning sacrifice of Christ Jesus).

If God knows that we will choose him when given a certain set of circumstances, then he must actualize those circumstances in order for us to choose him; i.e., first God’s choice (election), then the right circumstances (regeneration), then our choice (faith). God does not choose us because we first chose him. We choose God because he first chose us.

Updated: 10/Nov/2009

His response was to cite the door-and-knock passages. Those in the Gospels seem to indicate that we do the knocking, to which Jesus will open the door. And the one in Revelation seems to indicate that Jesus knocks on the door and those that answer will receive Jesus. How do these passages fit in Calvinistic theory?

I’m sorry, the door-and-knock passages in the gospels? Did your friend metaphorically wave his hand in some vague direction or did he cite actual passages? Exegetical evaluation is difficult without specific texts in hand. The question was, “Where in the Bible does it say that all get a choice?”—because it is at once both relevant and important to find out whether this is a foregone conclusion being brought to the Bible, or truth acquired responsibly from the Bible.

Take as our available example the passage in Revelation 3:20. Did your friend notice the verse just before it and what it says? Did he observe what verse 14 says about who is being addressed? Is he aware that the first chapter of this book clearly states that these are letters being written to churches (1:4)? Whether literally or symbolically, the message of 3:20 is addressed to believers who already have a relationship with God, with an allusion to Song of Solomon 5:2 in that Christ is seeking a renewal of relationship with his Bride who are in danger of forgetting their dependence on the providence of God’s grace (q.v. Greg K. Beale, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Book of Revelation, pg. 308). Many Christians tend to use this passage as a message for unbelievers, but in fact it is written for the beloved Bride of Christ, whether literally in Laodicea or symbolically of all those who in their covenant relationship to Christ have turned lukewarm.

Although a basic principle can be inferred from it with respect to unbelievers, one must remember that those who hear his voice and open the door Jesus identified as his sheep given to him by the Father (i.e., the elect): “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27; compare John 10:29, “The Father, who has given them to me…” and John 6:37, “All that the Father gives me will come to me”). Responsible hermeneutics must be committed to exegesis that is conscious of theological themes and the details of the historical, linguistic, and textual context.

Incidentally, something else bothers me about your earlier statement, which I want to share and get your thoughts on. “For those God knew would choose him,” you said, “he makes those circumstances a reality, which in effect ‘elects’ us.” That makes his electing activity temporal and ongoing (i.e., at innumerable points of time throughout the history of mankind—this date for Shalhoub, that date for Smith, et cetera). But the scriptures tell us that God’s electing activity occurred before the foundation of the world, that his choice took place not only before we were alive but prior to creation itself. He elected us in eternity, not in time.

My fault on the door-and-knock point. I was being lazy and didn’t look up the exact verses. He was talking of the one in Rev 3:20—which you clarified, thanks.

But I thought the ones in the Gospels would come up in the future. Matt 7:7-8 and Luke 11:9-10 are the ones I should have spent the time quoting. In Matthew we have those who ask receiving, almost straight after instruction on dealing with aggressive unbelievers. Are these passages interpreted in light of other more specific Calvinistic passages, or can the meaning be determined from the passages themselves?

My fault on that last one, too. Poor choice of words. It’s something I have to work on, getting my point across precisely. I understand and believe that election was before the foundation of the world.

The meaning of the passages can be determined from the passages themselves, of course—as is the case for practically any passage of scriptures. Notice that my response to Marc on 2 Peter 3:9 and to you on Revelation 3:20 both were primarily an internal examination of the texts in themselves. When I do bring other scriptures to bear on the subject, it is to demonstrate the coherence and consistency of the interpretation across the scriptures, sometimes contrasted with how a competing view introduces contradictions or inconsistencies to relevant passages elsewhere.

You said that Matthew 7:7-8 follows on the heels of Christ’s remarks “on dealing with aggressive unbelievers.” Before writing anything on this reference, I should first like to ask how you came to interpret them as unbelievers. With your conclusion on the table before us, can you tell me how you reached it? Then we can look at verses 7 to 8 afterwards.

P.S. Could I succeed in encouraging you to stop injecting the term “Calvinistic” as a description of select exegesis? Not only does it serve as a pejorative in many cases, it is also completely irrelevant because the issue isn’t whether or not an interpretation is Calvinistic but whether or not it’s scriptural truth. We are examining Christ and the word of truth, not Calvin and his works.

Updated: 21/Nov/2009

I see verse 6 referring to unbelievers:

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

I read this verse at face value. That’s how I came to the conclusion that dogs and pigs trampling the truth and then turning on the believer are in fact unbelievers.

All right, thank you for describing how you reached that conclusion. Now, consider a couple of things here.

First, notice that there is nothing in verse 6 by itself which identifies who these dogs and pigs are, that is, whether they are believers or unbelievers. Ergo, reading that verse “at face value” cannot by itself produce the inference you drew, which means it had to come from elsewhere (and therefore should be checked for validity). Moreover, even a casual reading of the New Testament exposes a person to the fact that often those who knew God trampled his pearls and attacked his children, to numerous instances where Christ himself condemns such white-washed hypocrites, and to countless warnings in the apostolic epistles about them. So do pigs and dogs represent unbelievers? Rarely, it seems. From the scope of the evidence it is more often an image representing those who knew God, believers who rejected the ministry of Christ.

Second, I find little reason to tie the seekers of verse 7 with the hypocrites of verses 1-6 preceding it, for doing so needlessly derails synoptic harmony (of when Matthew, Mark, and Luke are found saying the same thing, it is received as them recounting the same circumstance ). Consider that whereas Matthew typically presents the sayings of Jesus in large blocks of teaching material, Mark and Luke tend to place the sayings into specific settings. In this case, we know from Luke that the seek-and-find sayings were in a different setting than the judge-not sayings; i.e., Luke’s gospel offers up reason to think there is a shift in setting and context between Matt. 7:1-6 (see Luke 6:37-42) and Matt. 7:7-12 (see Luke 11:9-13)—especially when in Luke we discover that the context of seek-and-find is the authentic and persistent prayer life of Christ’s followers.

Third, even if we assume for the sake of argument that this refers to unbelievers, it is true that by seeking one will find but it does not follow that therefore everyone seeks. The one who seeks is the one who finds, yes, but who seeks? There is no one who seeks God, Paul reminds us. Those not controlled by the Spirit are hostile to God and refuse to obey him. “They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts” (Eph. 4:18). “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14; see John 6:63).

So who seeks? The one who desires God. But who is that? Without the indwelling Spirit of life, who seeks the true God? Although the glorious message of the gospel is spread throughout all the world, it is only the sheep who believe. “You do not believe,” Jesus said to certain of his detractors, “because you are not my sheep.” Everyone who seeks will find, yes, but who seeks? It is never the goats. Those who seek are the sheep who Christ brings into his fold—not a single one of which will be lost.

Most Commented Posts