T4G Session 3 - John MacArthur

(Photo by Tim Challies)

John MacArthur led the third session of the 2008 Together for the Gospel conference. His message, The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing: The Doctrine of Absolute Inability, was exactly what its title suggested — a defense of the doctrine of human depravity.

MacArthur began by stating flatly that people hate the doctrine of total depravity. In fact, he said, it may be the most despised and attacked doctrine of all, and as a result it is the most distinctively Christian doctrine. All other systems of belief hold that man has some good in them and can work their way towards salvation. In other words, we think we are basically good and can contribute in our own salvation if not outright save ourselves. We can earn salvation by doing good works, attempting to live good lives, etc. We can “bribe” God into letting us into heaven by our actions.

The problem with this is that we are self-deceived. Sinners like you and me are unwilling to see ourselves as we really are. We do not see the evil in our “good” and the evil in our “religion.” We don’t really believe what Romans 3 says: none of us are righteous, none of us seek God, all of us have gone astray and are deserving of nothing but hell. Instead, we have blinded ourselves to the truth by telling ourselves we are “basically good” and that we can do something to merit salvation.

Many evangelicals (maybe even your pastor and you yourself) hate this truth and as such seem to hate the God of Scripture. Instead of telling the biblical truth, they deceive their people by preaching and teaching a God that has been tamed, a God that says you are good and must only act like it. This is a false God that has been made up and must be rejected. In contrast, the doctrine of total depravity is the most God-honoring doctrine because it teaches all of the good, all of the work that is done to merit salvation, belongs to God alone. This is not some newfangled invention of current times or even the Reformation, it was believed and taught from the earliest days of the church.

MacArthur then took us on a short historical survey of the errors that have sought to combat this doctrine. There is Pelagius (whom St. Augustine opposed), who taught the heresy that we are created without original sin. This means we are created good and must simply stop sinning in order to get to heaven. No need for Christ when we can do it ourselves. There is also its child, semi-Pelagianism, which came into force after Augustine and has prevailed up to this day. Semi-Pelagianism affirms that human depravity is real but not total; that is, we are definitely born with original sin, but there is a “core of goodness” within us that has not been touched which can respond to God. Those who hold to forms of this heresy teach that God gives something called “prevenient grace” which allows that core to respond freely without the corruption of sin preventing a response.

As such, most evangelicals preach as if our job is simply to “introduce God and people,” and then get out of the way. One of the most common ways this is done (of which I am guilty) is the “Try Jesus” exhortation. This is a false view! The Bible is clear that people don’t want God. They will reject him every time. Exhortations that invite people to “meet God and give him a chance” are quite simply unbiblical and unfaithful to the true Gospel proclamation.

Instead, we must understand that God not only commands people to believe in him, but he also gives life that people might believe. The command to believe, by itself, does not save; God must give life to those he commands if they are to obey! This is in contrast to semi-Pelagianism which teaches that God merely opens the door and it is up to us to walk through it. God actively brings us through the door. He briefly outlined several Scriptures to underscore this point. I will here address three of them.

John 3:8 tells us clearly that salvation depends on the will of God, not man. Remember, the Holy Spirit is like the wind — he goes wherever he wants, whenever he wants, and is not constrained by human action. Salvation works in this way; that is, God saves whomever he wants, whenever he wants, regardless of human merit. I could not help but think of countless sermons I’ve heard throughout my life that stressed that even the most “Christian” person one could ever meet could end up in hell, while great and evil sinners like Hitler, Jeff Dahmer, and others could be sitting at the right hand of Christ at the heavenly feast. Unwittingly, those speakers clearly preached an aspect of the doctrine of total depravity — there is nothing in us that guarantees salvation nor anything that makes salvation more likely.

John 6:44 also clearly shows that salvation belongs to God alone and nothing man could do can affect his decision to save. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” To be saved, you must be pulled by God; you cannot come to God on your own. This is the only way great sinners could ever be saved.

Romans 8:7-8 gives us the reason why salvation must be from God; and also the foundational concept of the doctrine of total depravity. “The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Lost people have minds that are set on the flesh and as such are enemies with God. Because they are his enemies, they cannot please him, nor do they want to. Do you want to make your enemy happy? No, you want to make your enemy miserable! There is no reason, especially in light of Scripture, to believe a person could ever come to God on his own. All people are at enmity with God and want nothing to do with him. Instead, all people want to find their own way. As such, it is impossible for a lost person, a mind set on the flesh, to please God.

Lastly, MacArthur asked what this doctrine should do for us as believers. His answer is one I have grown to use quite often when talking about salvation: the doctrine of total depravity means that those who preach the Gospel should be the most humble! We should be, first of all, staggered that God reached down and overcame our enmity with him to save us. He could have rightly consigned us to hell and been done with us. Knowing this, we should humble ourselves before him in thanksgiving and praise. Next, this doctrine should remind us that we can’t change people’s hearts, nor can we solve their problems. Only God is powerful enough to do that! I was reminded of a conversation I had with a good friend about secular counseling models — it seems that all psychology is able to do is offer behavior modification; it does not get at the heart change necessary to solve the problem. When we have a God who can save a person in their sins and from their sins, we should humble ourselves and look to him for the necessary change. We can take no credit for successes in our teaching and preaching; we can only take credit for the failures. God alone brings success.

In the final analysis, the doctrine of total depravity requires us to understand that the condition of a lost sinner is so desperate that no amount of manipulation on our part can fix the situation. Each heart is the same as the next one, and as such each heart needs the same message. Therefore, we cannot change the message of the Gospel, because the Gospel is what God uses to change sinners.

In the panel session that followed, MacArthur elaborated on these last two points a bit further. He said that this doctrine gives him great relief in his preaching, counseling, and evangelism; simply because it helps him remember that a person’s salvation is not up to him. His preaching and teaching is powerless to save. If it were his responsibility to save people, he would be so burdened, overwhelmed, and depressed by this that he would leave the ministry! But if it is God who saves and not John MacArthur, he is free to simply proclaim the message that God has commanded him to give. God will take care of the results. This makes evangelism easier, because one does not have to worry about the result of evangelism as much of evangelicalism today worries. Instead, one can get the Gospel to as many people as one can, and if some believe, God is more glorified!

I found this message to be just as freeing to me as MacArthur claimed. I have in the past year had to deal with certain people who have tried to cause trouble for me as a minister, as well as people who have tried to cause discord in the community between my church and other Deaf ministries in town; in fact we are still in the process of unraveling the web that was created. I probably sinned quite a few times during this season as I fought to protect my character and integrity, including a brief time when I was ready to simply pull up the stakes and shake the dust off my feet. Also, we are dealing with a church that is stagnating in many ways (quite like the majority of Southern Baptist churches); my senior pastor and I have become frustrated and disgusted about many things, and we have spent a lot of time in serious prayer over the church that we love. But as MacArthur talked about feeling freed from being responsible for another person’s salvation, I felt a similar burden lift from my own shoulders.

Neither I nor my senior pastor are responsible for the salvation and sanctification of our people. We are responsible instead to faithfully proclaim and live out the message and shepherd the people in that message. The Holy Spirit will do the rest. I am not responsible to defeat those who have borne false witness against me nor those who have acted against my church. Instead I am responsible to live out the Gospel by correcting their errors in love and forgiving them as Christ has forgiven me. God will take care of their hearts, not I. I cannot change a person’s heart; only the God who would take on human flesh and die on a cross for that person’s sins can do that. And knowing that, I can freely proclaim God’s forgiveness and forgive others in turn. It is truly all about God, not all about me!

Young, Restless, and Reformed: Scott Lamb Style

Scott Lamb posts the best review of Collin Hansen’s Young, Restless, and Reformed that currently exists. It’s the best one because instead of being merely a book report, it is applicational. Everyone, no matter your theological leanings, should read this; it is a great caution against the common attitude people get in evangelicalism today.

The “Heresy” of Particular Love

In my previous post on this subject, I noted that Jerry Falwell had declared of Liberty University:

“We are not into partcular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact we consider it heresy.”

I stated that Falwell had taken two distinctively Christian doctrines or concepts and called them heresy. Falwell spoke of particular love and limited atonement. While it seems Falwell is lumping these two concepts together synonymously, they are in fact two distinctive concepts. Today we will briefly examine whether or not “particular love” is a biblical concept.

What is “Particular Love?”

“Particular love” seems, at first glance, to be the idea of loving certain individuals in a special way. Also at first glance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this idea. It is a simple fact of human nature. Each of us practices such love. I love my wife in a way which I do not love other women. I love my family in a way which I do not love other people. And I love my church in a way which I do not love other churches. Every person reading this surely must agree with this assessment.

But Falwell, it seems, has connected this idea with limited atonement. That is to say, Falwell is asserting that “particular love” teaches the idea that God does not love everybody. Since Jesus only died for Christians, then the logical conclusion is that God only loves Christians, right?

Wrong. Such a conclusion, even if one concedes the first part of the syllogism, is so utterly false and unbiblical it boggles the mind. Why?

In my post on John 3:16 (you can read it here), I showed that it was very clear that God does, in fact, love everyone. “God loved the world.” There is no contesting this explicitly clear statement. The entire Bible is filled with statements describing God loving. 1 John 4 makes it explicitly clear that no one is able to love unless God loves first. So it is very clear that God does, in fact, love everyone.

Feeling It Doesn’t Equal Doing It

Unfortunately for Falwell, it seems he has conflated the emotion of love with the act of loving. Just feeling love does not necessarily equate into expressing that love. More specifically, having love for a group of people does not mean that love is expressed in the same way to every member of that group. And so we move right back to the assertion of the first paragraph in the previous section: God does not love every individual in the same way.

How do we know this biblically? Again, return to John 3:16. The Greek of this verse makes it explicitly clear. The Greek word most English versions translate as “so” actually means in this manner, in this way or as I like to say, this is how. Most Christians, when they read “For God so loved the world” will actually think, For God loved the world so much. Such a reading is incorrect. The correct reading is “For God loved the world in this way” or “For this is how God loved the world.” So we see that while God does indeed love the entire world, He has chosen to express that love in a specific way. This is what is really meant by “particular love;” God loving in a certain way rather than generally.

To see the illogic of Falwell’s understanding, let’s look at it this way. I love my sisters in Christ deeply and in an abiding manner. I also love my wife deeply and in an abiding manner. If Falwell is correct, then I must love these women and my wife equally and without distinction. That means I must take these women out to dinner, provide for them, emotionally connect with them, have sex with them on a regular basis, perform all the husbandly duties for them. Do you not see the absurdity? It is just as absurd to insist that God must love Christians and non-Christians just as equally. Jesus does not perform husbandly duties for those who are not His bride. Ephesians 5 makes it clear that He does these things for the Church alone.

It is clear, then, that the love of God for humanity is not expressed generally.

How Does God Love?

Returning to John 3:16, it again becomes obvious just how God loves the world. He sent the only begotten Son. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how God loves you, Christian or non-Christian. That expression of love is so limited, so particular, and so biblical that I have trouble understanding why Falwell is even objecting. 1 John 4:9 makes it clearer by repetition: In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. This passage is nothing more than a restatement of John 3:16 and should be considered exactly synonymous.But the problem, and this is where Falwell totally misunderstands this concept, is that there is a purpose behind expressing God’s love in this way.

Why Does God Love This Way?

Both John 3:16 and 1 John 4:9 lay out the purpose behind God’s expression of love: that those who believe in Jesus will live forever. God wants to give eternal life to humans. In fact, the Bible explicitly says God wants all people to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). But He is not going to pass it out arbitrarily like animal crackers and apple juice in children’s Sunday School. Just like I don’t give the same kind of love I give my wife to other women, God does not give eternal life to just anyone. No, He gives it only to a certain type of person; one who believes. Just as I only share my bed with one woman, God only shares His eternal life with one type of person.

Let’s take the sexual intimacy anology once again. Is it really love to share your bed with a person who does not love you? Do you really want to have sex with a person who is not emotionally invested in you? A person who has no desire for you beyond carnal benefit, a person who does not think highly of you, a person who does not want to share their life with you? If any of us have a shred of integrity and self-respect, the answer must obviouly be a resounding “NO!”

So by the same token, why would God share His eternal life with a person who does not believe in His Son, a person who does not care for Him, a person who only wants worldy gratification from Him, a person who thinks very little of Him, a person who does not want to commit their life to Him? If you can answer that question, you are a much smarter person than I. In fact, you are even smarter than the professors I have been privileged to sit under.

Who Does God Love?

At this point we come to the crux of Falwell’s misunderstanding of particular love. God makes His love manifest only to those who believe in Jesus. What Falwell is failing to comprehend is that while God loves everyone, not everyone experiences God’s love. That experience is left only for believers.

Such a concept is testified to practically everywhere in the Bible. The Psalms, for example, are awash with statements to the effect that God expresses His love to those who obey Him, who do right, who are just and upright in their ways. In fact, the Psalms are explicit that God hates (yes, hates) those who do not. Psalm 5:5 is a glaring example of that. Wicked people do not experience the love of God. Quite the contrary, they experience God’s hatred of sin. Perhaps the most famous and controversial expression of this idea is from Romans 9:13, quoting Malachi 1:2, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

A Right Response

It is fitting for us to conclude this examination with that verse, Romans 9:13. What is really disturbing about that verse is not that God hates Esau. What is disturbing is that God loves Jacob. God hates evil. He absolutely hates sin. He despises it. It makes Him sick! And by all accounts Jacob was one of the worst of sinners. That God loved Jacob at all is mind-boggling. Astounding! Why? Because, as Joseph told his brothers, Jacob’s sons, what was intended for evil, God intended for good. God loves particularly because He intends for evil people to be saved. And He extends that love for the purpose of saving them. And He will only allow those to be saved whom meet the criteria of that love. That is mind-boggling and life-changing to understand.

Jerry Falwell does not understand this. I think that he knows exactly what I have just written, and that he agrees totally. But in his rush to condemn “limited atonement” and all who believe in it, he has trampled a core Christian concept.

“Particular love,” as we have seen, is a totally biblical concept. It is not heresy. God has expressed His love through Christ. This expression of love makes it possible for only those who believe in Him to experience it. That we believers experience such love ought to make us bow down on our faces in humility and awe and praise and worship and glorying in the One who so loved us. Excuse me, in the One who loved us in that way.

The “Heretical” Nature of Limited Atonement

By now, most of you in the SBTS blogosphere already know. Jerry Falwell, in a message to prospective Liberty University students, said,

“We are not into partcular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact we consider it heresy.”

You can read brother Tom Ascol’s initial reporting of this here.

Now, setting aside the (what should be) obvious ridiculousness of such a statement for the moment, let us turn our attention seriously to the word “heresy.” What is the definition of heresy? Dictionary.com defines heresy as:

1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

So, according to Falwell, limited atonement is at variance with orthodox doctrine; in fact he believes it is strongly skewed from “established” beliefs. And as such (definition 2), anyone who maintains this doctrine is a heretic. Furthermore, if we were like Catholics, our Calvinistic brothers are willful and persistent heretics for their rejection of general atonement, and as such we must anathematize them.

Does anyone else feel as vastly uncomfortable as I do about this idea? I am actually in agreement Falwell on the first part of his unfortunate statement. I am not into limited atonement. I think limited atonement is wrong, since I do not believe there is biblical warrant for this position. That is to say that I think, at this point in my studies, that Scripture as a whole does not endorse this view. However, I do not believe that to hold such a position disqualifies one from falling under the term orthodox. It is not “a hill on which to die.”

Falwell actually fires his independent fundamental Baptist shotgun at not one, but two concepts, the other namely particular love. I am of the belief that this is an opinion or doctrine that should be held by every Christian. In fact, it is my belief that John 3:16 explicitly teaches this concept. For an explanation, see a post I wrote on this very subject exactly one year ago today here.

This coming week I would like to examine this claim as part of my ongoing studies in this area of theology. We will examine whether or not particular love and limited atonement are, in fact, heresy. For my previous posts on this doctrine, check the sidebar under The Doctrines of Grace. If you’re too lazy (wink), you can access the particular posts as follows. These four posts sought to define and unpack the doctrine as it is formulated, not to raise objections or show how it is “wrong.” When one understands a doctrine and how it is formulated, one is in a much better position to determine whether it is “heresy.”

Limited Atonement, Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

This coming week, join us and, I’m sure, the many other bloggers who will be unpacking Falwell’s statement with the tools of Scriptural archaeology.

The Doctrines of Grace, Final Meditations

Having completed this lengthy series on the doctrines of grace (see sidebar for all posts on this topic), a few minutes of reflection is in order. This series has been quite possibly the most instructive series of posts I have done here on the Silent Holocron. I have been challenged in my posting, and though there has been little online interaction, there has been a good deal of interaction offline with friends and interested observers.

Throughout this whole series, I made a conscious attempt to present each doctrine as it is formulated, not as I myself perceive it nor as others perceive it. As a result of my studies at Southern Seminary, I have been convinced for the better part of the last decade that it is in the greatest interest of the theologian - and indeed the Christian - to understand unfamiliar viewpoints accurately before attempting to dialogue, criticize, reject or adopt those viewpoints. That has been the singular goal of this series.

It was not, as certain people with whom I have personal interaction with seem to think, to articulate myself as a Calvinist. I’ve written and said quite often that I am not a “full” Calvinist, much like Dr. Bruce Ware at Southern. I would not deign to own a label or position that I do not fully ascribe to. To do otherwise would be dishonest and misrepresentative of myself.

Nor was it an attempt to paint differing viewpoints as unorthodox. While I have, in fact, come to think that Arminianism may well be unscriptural and quite possibly heretical in some of its positions, I agree with Roger Olson that to make such a statement is irresponsible without knowing what exactly is taught by the Arminian position. As such, I believe that (though not immediately) a series exploring the Articles of Remonstrance is in order in the sense of fairness to the opposing view. I did threaten to do such a series, you know!

But all that aside, what conclusions have I reached about the TULIP?

The Doctrines of Grace are thoroughly grounded in Scripture and in principles of hermeneutics. Any doctrine or system of doctrine which is considered normative by its adherents must, unavoidably, be rooted in Scripture; and those Scriptures must be properly interpreted. By and large, these doctrines seek to be utterly faithful to Scripture, and do not seek to go beyond what has been articulated in the Bible. This alone ought to be enough for any Christian, and indeed all Christians, to embrace Reformed Baptists and others of a Reformed stripe as brothers and sisters “in good standing” at the very least and as highly esteemed brethren at the very best.

The doctrines of grace are orthodox doctrines. They teach nothing heretical nor anything that would ultimately lead to heresy. A concern for Scriptural correctness permeates the entire movement. The historical and theological trends of this movement are considered secondary to the revelation of the Bible, and no point in time or theological development is considered exempt from the checking influence of God’s Word. In this respect one can robustly declare that Reformed Christianity are semper reformanda, always reforming. Whereas other movements have sought to introduce logic, philosophy, trends, fads, emotions, and etc. to their theology, orthodoxy for the doctrines of grace is defined solely by the bounds of Scripture. And when we get right down to it, that is exactly what orthodoxy must be - faithfulness to Scripture.

The doctrines of grace are thoroughly evangelistic. The greatest surprise and encouragement I discovered throughout this study was the humongous pillars these doctrines place under evangelism. With the Word as its foundation, the TULIP places a tremendous amount of support for the evangelism of its adherents. Calvinists can witness bodly and with assurance that God will do what He has promised in His word - to seek and to save the lost.

The doctrines of grace are thoroughly discipling. Discipleship is also greatly undergirded by the TULIP. With a thorough understanding of our fallenness and redemption, Christians can truly learn to place their trust totally on Christ. Christians also truly learn that trusting in Christ is indeed a lifelong, daily process of sanctification. Christians can truly learn that Scripture is the normative influence in their lives; it is the rule of faith and practice.

If I were to be convinced fully of limited atonement, I would have no reservations with claiming the label “Calvinist.” As it is, none should balk at this label. To balk at this label is an indicator of serious ignorance and misunderstanding. To denigrate and persecute such a Godly, Scriptural worldview and its adherents is to do a disservice to Christ and His church. No thinking Christian can honestly say they would not entertain a viewpoint with the above four qualifications nor fellowship with their adherents. To do so would very clearly be to bring division into the body of Christ, and as such it is a sinful attitude.

I am proud to call my Calvinist friends “brothers,” and so should you. They have greatly enriched my life and my study. The doctrines of grace have influenced me to be staunchly biblical in all I teach, and I find it difficult to want to be anything other than biblical. And on that note, we reach the conclusion of this year-long series with great joy at having learned much and gained greater maturity, and deeper bonds within our Southern Baptist family.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Perseverance of the Saints, Part 2

Now we have arrived at the second installment of Perseverance of the Saints. You may read Part 1 of this point here.

To recap, I have arrived at a definition of this doctrine as: the active, determined, dogged continuation of the faith and trust of the believer in Christ; keeping that faith and trust safe from any danger including harm, decay, or other negative effects; keeping possession of that faith and trust; bolstering that faith and trust; and the refusal of the believer to give it up no matter what may come to hinder or stop that faith and trust in Christ.

Let us now turn to the biblical support for this doctrine.

Biblical Support
The biblical support for perseverance of the saints rests mainly on the following passages (emphasis in bold added by me):

John 6:37-40: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 10:28-29: “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”

Romans 8:38-39: “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Romans 11:29: “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

Philippians 1:6: Assures the believer that the work of salvation will not end until Christ returns.

There are many other Scriptures which we could consult, but I feel this sampling is sufficient for our purposes.

Implications
What do these Scriptures imply to us about this doctrine?

First, the Scriptural witness implies to us that believers are held fast by none other than God Himself in the person of Jesus. We as believers are planted squarely in the palm of the Father, which in the John 10 passage is equated with the palm of Jesus. If we could truly lose our salvation, then that means there is a power greater than God that can remove us from His hand. Such a possibility is not only unthinkable, but blasphemous. The Romans 8 passage underscores this by making clear there are no powers physical or spiritual that could ever remove us from the hand of God. As such, when we experience doubt about our salvation, we must rest in the sweet refuge of the Lord’s preserving hand. Flee to Him! Cast your cares upon Him! Take up His yoke, and give Him yours!

Second, the Scriptural witness makes clear that those whom God has called to salvation cannot be recalled. “The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” Remember, God’s plans do not change (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 33:11; etc.), nor can they be thwarted (Job 42:2). When God has planned for a person to be saved, that plan does not and cannot change, nor can anything prevent what God has purposed from happening. As such we are given great confidence in evangelism and discipleship, because we are witnessing and discipling with confidence that the Lord will perform in an individual exactly what He has purposed. We can be humbled that He has privileged us to be a part of a person’s salvation and discipleship.

Third, I think it can be safely said that salvation ends with Christ’s return. When Christ returns, there will be no further need for salvation. The sheep will be separated from the goats, to eternal life and eternal death. As long as Christ remains at the right hand of the Father, the sheep will remain His in trust until the Day of Judgment, when they will be given white robes and seated at the marriage supper. They will no longer need to be held in trust, but will be present with Him whom they have trusted. That is why Paul said that to be absent in the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8).

My View
I do not think I can add much more to this discussion today. This doctrine has been a bulwark in doubting times. I have rarely doubted my salvation in the 15 years I have been a believer. When those times have come, they have been niggling and persistent, not depression-inducing like some of the accounts out there would have us believe. I have claimed the Romans 8 passage for my own, and taking full confidence in the promise of that Scripture has all but banished doubt from my mind.

The true test of perseverance has been, in my mind, whether we are trusting Scripture or our own experiences. Our experiences, seeing that we are sinners in this world, will always cause us to doubt. We will always slip and fall. But if we have truly trusted in Christ, the promises of Scripture become a lifeboat to us, calming and assuring. When we stray from the path of working out our salvation, we can take solace in that it is part of Christ’s ongoing work of redemption in our lives which will be complete in the day we stand before Him face to face. He is using these slips and falls to make us more secure.

Conclusion
Now we can conclude the final point of the TULIP having seen that perseverance is Scripturally promised. We have seen that salvation does not end until the believer is reunited with Christ at the Day of Judgment. I have shared that assurance comes from our trust of this promise rather than our sinful experience of life. We can be convinced that nothing can ever separate us from the love of God.

Tomorrow, I will bring us a conclusion to the series. Please pray as I meditate on a year’s worth of posts!

The Doctrines of Grace: Perseverance of the Saints, Part 1

Welcome to the beginning of the end. We have, at long last, reached the final point of the TULIP: Perseverance of the Saints.

This point is one in which the majority of Christians hold. Even those who do not believe the other four points will accept this point. Ever hear of a Whiskey Baptist? This is exactly what I mean. They don’t believe in the other four, but they will accept the “fifth.”

Okay, levity aside, let’s move right along into the definition.

Definition
In perusing the definitions from Dictionary.com, we will not use the theological definitions found therein. We will focus on the meanings of the words themselves. As such, we retrieve several definitions for the word perseverance:

1. steady persistence in a course of action, a purpose, a state, etc., esp. in spite of difficulties, obstacles, or discouragement.
2. persistent determination
3. the act of persisting or persevering; continuing or repeating behavior

There are also several synonyms for perseverance given:

1. Persistence, which may be used in either a favorable or an unfavorable sense, implies unremitting (and sometimes annoying) perseverance.
2. Tenacity, with the original meaning of adhesiveness, as of glue, is a dogged and determined holding on. Whether used literally or figuratively it has favorable implications.
3. Pertinacity, unlike its related word, is used chiefly in an unfavorable sense, that of overinsistent tenacity.

Taking the word to its root, persevere, we find the following definitions:

1. Used without an object: to persist in anything undertaken; maintain a purpose in spite of difficulty, obstacles, or discouragement; continue steadfastly.
2. Used with an object: to bolster, sustain, or uphold.
3. To persist in or remain constant to a purpose, idea, or task in the face of obstacles or discouragement.
4. be persistent, refuse to stop.

So what we have here is a view of perseverance as actively, determinedly continuing in a certain state or purpose; holding on to that state/purpose doggedly, refusing to give it up; and bolstering, sustaining that state/purpose no matter what may come towards that state/purpose to hinder or stop it.

Some of the Reformed persuasion prefer, instead of perseverance, Preservation. To narrow the definitions we will need for this doctrine, let us see what Dictionary.com can give us along the lines of the preceding paragraph for this word:

1. to keep alive or in existence; make lasting.
2. to keep safe from harm or injury; protect or spare.
3. to keep up; maintain.
4. to keep possession of; retain.
5. to prepare (food or any perishable substance) so as to resist decomposition or fermentation.
6. the activity of protecting something from loss or danger.
7. an occurrence of improvement by virtue of preventing loss or injury or other change.

What this gives us, then, is the purpose for perseverance, and a robust definition of perseverance (or preservation) as actively, determinedly, doggedly continuing to keep something alive and lasting; safe from any danger including harm, decay, or other negative change; keeping possession of that something; bolstering and sustaining that something; and refusing to give it up no matter what may come towards that something to hinder or stop it.

Now we turn to the object of perseverance, namely the saints. I will not need to go into much detail here, since the vast majority of dictionary definitions of this word refer to either Catholic saints or “people who have died and gone to heaven.” As I will show when we arrive at the biblical underpinnings for this doctrine, a saint is simply a Christian, one who has placed his or her faith and trust in Christ.

What about the saints, exactly, is being preserved? As we see from the definition of saint above, it is their salvation. The faith and trust in Christ that each believer possesses is what is being preserved and in which the believer is persevering. This realization has far-reaching implications, which we will see throughout the course of this discussion.

Finally, we are left with a definition of this doctrine as: the active, determined, dogged continuation of the faith and trust of the believer in Christ; keeping that faith and trust safe from any danger including harm, decay, or other negative effects; keeping possession of that faith and trust; bolstering that faith and trust; and the refusal of the believer to give it up no matter what may come to hinder or stop that faith and trust in Christ.

There is a world of great things to see within this definition, and we shall begin to unravel them in the next installment, as we examine the biblical evidence. Come back for more!

Irresistible Grace, Final

Now, we can enter our final post on this petal of the TULIP.

To recap, I have defined irresistible (or effectual) grace as the special favor of God, unnecessarily given by His own prerogative, that gives merciful, equitable relief so appealing to those towards whom it is exercised that they in turn want that favor.

My View
My view of this doctrine has grown over the past few years. When I first learned of irresistible grace in college, I saw it in much the same way as most if not all opponents of Calvinism saw it. Irresistible grace meant that we have no choice but to submit to the call of God. Our free will is overridden and we are brought to Christ against our will. What an anathema! No, we must necessarily come to Christ of our own free will.

But now I am convinced that such an understanding of this doctrine is based on a faulty (if not false) understanding of irresistible. I’m going to use an illustration to show what the correct understanding of irresistible is in this doctrine.

How many of us have “held it” when we had to go to the bathroom? “I have got to pee, but I don’t want to go right now/can’t go right now/etc.” The call to relieve oneself (nature’s calling) is there, and it is an attractive proposition. But we can willingly resist it, for whatever reason. However, we cannot resist the need to relieve ourselves to the point that nature’s call is no longer able to induce us to make a potty trip. Sooner or later the desire to pee will become so powerful that we will hurry to the nearest bathroom before we wet our pants! We will submit to nature’s call willingly.

In the same way, God’s call upon the elect sinner can be resisted up to a point. But it cannot be resisted to the very end, to death. When God savingly calls a sinner, that call remains until the sinner cannot respond negatively without great personal and spiritual distress. The call intensifies until the sinner has no other desire but to relieve himself of God’s call by obeying it!

But the objectors to this doctrine do not understand this. They are generally caught up in the preservation of our free will. They do not realize that irresistible grace actually exalts the free will of man more so than a grace that can be effectively resisted. Why? Because the human will, in irresistible grace, freely chooses that which is most attractive to it. God has made His call so attractive to the sinner that the sinner, by the nature of free will, must positively respond.

You see, the human will is only free to the degree that it can choose what it desires most at a given moment. If a choice is arbitrary, there is no opportunity for the will to choose what it desires. Resistible grace involves an arbitrary choice - the sinner could choose for Christ OR the sinner could choose to reject Christ. It is entirely up to the will. No desire or inclination is necessarily involved. But there is a problem: Romans 3. The human will is dead set inclined against God. Therefore our will freely chooses to reject Christ, unless God makes the option of Christ so attractive to us that we prefer to accept Him.

As such, when God so makes Christ attractive to the sinner in this way, the sinner cannot resist. He will constantly be drawn to Christ until his attraction to Christ is so intense upon the soul that the sinner must finally submit or be destroyed. And because the sinner is attracted to Christ, the sinner submits willingly. And that willingness has nothing to do with the sinner - that willingness was put there by God alone as the effect of His call. Yet because the sinner freely chooses Christ, his free will is not overridden!

That, in a nutshell, is how I came to agree with the Calvinistic formulation of irresistible grace. Of course, I now - having studied this doctrine more deeply - understand how regeneration plays a role in this process of calling. But for a basic understanding of the Calvinistic formulation, I think my view should suffice for the novice. God makes Christ so attractive to the elect that they willingly choose Christ.

One more point that must be understood - because obviously not all come to Christ, but die without Him, it must be the case that this irresistible call is not given to all people. It must necessarily be given only to the elect. See the verses of John listed in Part 2 for reference. If all were elect, then all must also be given the irresistible call, and therefore all people would be saved. But this is blatantly untrue, as both Scripture and logic dictate.

Conclusion
And with that, I will conclude this point of the TULIP. We have seen that irresistible grace involves a call from God to sinners that is so attractive to them that they will at some point answer Him. We have seen that this call is not given to all people, but to the elect only. We have seen that while the elect can (and most certainly do) resist this call, they do not (and cannot) resist such an attractive call to the death. Instead they will willingly obey it.

I feel confident in stating that I hold to irresistible grace. It took me many years of misunderstanding and several months of study and discussion before I finally understood what it really meant. But truly understanding it, I can only fall flat on my face and cry, “Why, why, O Lord, did you call me? Me, of all the people you could have savingly called, why did you call me?”

To God be the glory, great things He hath done!

The Doctrines of Grace: Irresistible Grace, Part 2

Now, at long last, we return to the fourth point of the TULIP: Irresistible Grace. To quickly recap, I have defined irresistible grace as the special favor of God, unnecessarily given by His own prerogative, that gives merciful, equitable relief so appealing to those towards whom it is exercised that they in turn want that favor.

As I stated in my initial post on this petal, irresistible grace is akin to the moth and the flame. When God moves savingly in a person’s heart, that person is attracted to Jesus in much the same way as the moth is to the flame. The moth does not necessarily immediately go to the flame; however it is attracted and begins to make movements towards it, halting and cautious movements. It will advance and retreat, and at some point it will fly close enough to the flame that it will be consumed. We see this all the time with our outdoor lights - sometimes bugs will sit close enough to the light or even attach themselves to the light bulb so that they effectively cook themselves to death. They are, of a sort, consumed by the light they are attracted to.

Today, let us examine the biblical support for this position.

Biblical Support
We begin to see the doctrine of calling from the writings of Paul:

…those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified he also glorified… (Romans 8:30)

All throughout the New Testament letters we see references to this idea of calling, which seems to be applied only to the saved. What is this saving call?

We find the Scriptural evidence for such a call in several verses:

John 6:44 - “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

John 6:65 - “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

John 10:3-4, 16, 26-29 - States that Jesus calls only the sheep to him in a saving manner. Furthermore, that call cannot be thwarted, as per verses 28-29.

John 11:1-44 - The raising of Lazarus from the dead. Note here that Jesus calls a dead and rotting man out of the tomb, and he comes out alive. This illustrates that our decision does not precede the calling of God, implying that God must first raise us to life before we can decide for Him.

Romans 11:29 - States that God’s call cannot be thwarted; it is irrevocable. This verse has more to do with the final petal of eternal security, but it strengthens irresistible grace by showing that the saving call to Christ is not withdrawn. If His call cannot be thwarted, then by extension it cannot be resisted unto death nor withdrawn from those who do so resist.

Philippians 2:12-13 - States that it is God who works in us to do His will. This is, essentially, what is meant by irresistible grace or effectual calling. God is working in us (His chosen) to produce the response to Christ that He desires.

Implications
What do these Scriptures imply to us, if in fact God’s call to the elect cannot be resisted unto death?

First, they tell us that God is the one who has secured our salvation. We, like Jesus, have done nothing of ourselves, but only what the Father has purposed to do in us. Every action we make towards salvation was initiated by God alone. J. M. Boice in The Doctrines of Grace writes that “(w)hen we are first saved, we think quite naturally that we have had a great deal to do with it….” But what the Christian fails to realize, says Boice, is that unless God has worked to bring about salvation before our decision, no decision would ever have been possible on our part. Remember Romans 3? “None seek after God!”

Second, irresistible grace contributes towards our assurance as believers. If my coming to Christ was the result of my own actions, then surely I can undo my salvation by my own actions as well. If God is powerless to save me unless I make a decision, He is also powerless to keep me under His saving grace. On the other hand, if my coming to Christ was the result of God’s action in my heart through the power of the Holy Spirit, then nothing I could ever do can undo what He has wrought in my heart. Who can resist God’s will (Romans 9:19)? Who can thwart Him (Isaiah 14:27)? On the contrary, it is I who is powerless to save myself, powerless to remove myself from His hand. Since it is God who has called us, we can be assured that we are truly saved.

Third, irresistible grace gives us confidence of our success in evangelism. Why? Because we are not relying on our own words and wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:17; 2:4, 13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5). If we believe in irresistible grace, we must have confidence that whatever we say, God will use it to save those to whom we witness. This is why it is so important that we rely on sola Scriptura. If we are speaking Scripture (explicitly or implicitly) to those to whom we witness, we are trusting God’s promise that His Word will not return to Him void, but will accomplish its purpose. We are trusting that the purpose of His Word is to draw all people to Christ in some way. We are trusting that when people are drawn to Him by our preaching, that God will do with those people as He has purposed - whether to save them or to condemn them. And as such our success comes not from ourselves, but from God who gets the increase.

Tomorrow, I will share My View and our Conclusion.

The Doctrines of Grace: Irresistible Grace, Part 1

Now, at long last, we return to the Doctrines of Grace! In this installment, we will look at the fourth point of the TULIP, irresistible grace.

Definition

Okay, let’s get started, as usual, with a definition. Dictionary.com defines irresistible as impossible to resist; having an overpowering appeal. This is an excellent definition; in fact, it conveys exactly what is meant by this doctrine. The grace of God is so appealing to the elect that it overpowers their natural inclination towards sin and turns them towards God. Their inclination towards God’s grace naturally causes them to accept God.

However, opponents of the doctrine insist that this appeal to the sinner is compulsory if indeed is is that strong. As such, many adherents to Calvinism feel the term “irresistible” does not quite convey what is meant. The term effectual or efficacious is preferred instead. Both are defined as producing, sufficient to produce, or capable of producing an intended result or desired effect.

I’m not too sure why some prefer this designation; in my mind there is no real difference. The root idea of both adjectives is of something so attractive that those to whom it is offered desire only to accept what is offered. You might say that it is the flame to which a moth is attracted.

What is offered? The thing offered is grace. This is defined as mercy; a favor rendered by one who need not do so; the prerogative of mercy exercised (as by a chief executive) or granted in the form of equitable relief; a special favor. We know these are the definitions we see because the verb is defined as to honor or favor. So then we see that grace is God’s special favor, unnecessarily given by His own prerogative. We see further that grace is merciful, equitable relief. Taken together, grace is God’s special favor of merciful, equitable relief, unnecessarily given to individuals by His own prerogative. Sound familiar? Yep, we’re talking, to some degree, about election (see sidebar for Unconditional Election). And what is that relief from? The punishment of sin–eternal death.

What we have, then, is this definition of irresistible grace: the special favor of God, unnecessarily given by His own prerogative, that gives merciful, equitable relief so appealing to those towards whom it is exercised that they in turn want that favor.

I will close this installment with a confession of confusion. I am somewhat confused as to what, exactly, is objectionable about this definition. When one properly understands even the simplest part of the doctrine–the definition–it is difficult to imagine opposition. But as we shall see in the following posts in this series, there are objections; all based on, in my opinion, a faulty understanding of irresistible.

I will pause here and allow us to digest. Join us later this week for part 2, as we undertake a historical look and biblical support!