An Appeal to Closet Calvinists

By Randy Seiver

This appeal is addressed to those evangelical pastors and Christian teachers who admit to a belief in God's sovereign grace but, for reasons which we shall discuss in this booklet, never preach or teach this truth. For the lack of a better designation, we will refer to such pastors and teachers as 'closet Calvinists.'

A Description of a Closet Calvinist

Like many of his contemporaries in the Lord's work, the closet Calvinist is quite bold when he expounds those truths that he knows his hearers already believe. Notice how courageous he is when he proclaims popular evangelical opinions that are calculated to please the ears of those who have gathered to fulfill their religious obligation for another week. Yet, there are some biblical truths that cause him to cower in the cloistered safety of his 'study' where, if cornered, he might own up to believing some of the 'deeper truths' of Scripture. On these rare occasions, he will quickly explain that the 'meat of the Word' is not for everyone. Meat is only intended for the mature to masticate in the seclusion of their closets. It is surely not good for the sheep.

Devastating Effects

The truth is, the closet Calvinist knows that, to fleshly minds, some biblical truths are more palatable than others. His loud proclamation can be heard for miles when he declares some of these more tasty truths. He is often heard by thousands of people who will marvel at the great work that he is doing. The tragedy is that his ministry is having a devastating effect on the Church. Closet Calvinists are guilty of allowing fleshly hearers to persist in the delusion that they love the truth of God and the God of truth. The reality is that if he were honest in his teaching about God's attributes and His discriminating decrees, many of his hearers would go back and walk no more with him (see John 6: 65-6). A more serious effect of the closet Calvinist's sinful silence is that he is robbing Christ's sheep of the very truths that God intended for their spiritual growth and edification.

In his classic book, Personal Declension and Revival of Religion in the Soul, written over a century and a half ago, Octavius Winslow warned of the devastating effects of holding back God's revealed truth. He wrote,

Is there not in the present day a criminal keeping back by some, and a painful undervaluing by others, of the scriptural and holy doctrines of grace [italics his]?-The doctrines which unfold the eternity of God's love to His people-the sovereignty of his grace in their election-the effectual power of the Spirit in their calling-the free justification of their persons through the imputed righteousness of Christ, and the entire putting away of their sins by his atoning blood-the solemn obligation to 'live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present evil world,' and the certainty of their final glorification in the world to come,-are not these Divinely-revealed truths, at the present moment, and by the great mass of Christian professors and preachers, excluded from our pulpits and exiled from our land" are they not considered mean and unfashionable? and, having lost their savor with many, are they not cast out and trodden under foot of men? We verily and solemnly believe that it is so. By some they are professedly received, but criminally held back; by others they are professedly preached, but with such timidity and obscurity, as to render them of none effect: and by the many they are disbelieved altogether, and therefore openly and boldly denied! And yet, these are the doctrines which shine so luminously in every page of the apostle's writings-these are the doctrines which formed the grand themes of Christ's ministration,-and these are the doctrines, to the preaching of which by the reformers, we owe all the civil and religious liberty which, as a nation, we now possess. We hesitate not, then, to say that, along 'with the denial or the undervaluing of these doctrines of grace, there will go forth an influence that will wither the spirituality and obstruct the prosperity of the churches of our land. It is true, an outward appearance of fruitfulness may follow the exhibition of opposite and conflicting doctrines,-crowds may flock to their standard, and multitudes seem converted by their influence,-but soon these delusive appearances are seen to pass away. The time of trial and sifting comes', and then it is found-when, alas! too late to close the floodgate against the overwhelming evils which the preaching of error has produced-that the truth, and the truth only in the hands of the Eternal Spirit of God, can really enlighten the dark mind, regenerate the lifeless soul, and subdue and sanctify the rebellious heart: it is then discovered, that the true prosperity of a church, its stability, its spirituality, its vigor. and its holy influences, are essentially, and therefore inseparably, connected with a fearless and holy maintenance of the doctrines of grace; that where they are denied, or held back, or in any way obscured, there may indeed exist the form of godliness, but the power-the glorious, Divine, and sanctifying power-is wanting.¹

Knowing Concealment of the Truth

Now, let's be clear that we are not talking about those who are ignorant of these precious truths that God has revealed in His Word, the Bible. They have another reason for which they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead, we are talking about those who profess to know the truth, but willingly conceal it for expedience sake.

For example, there are many pastors who will tell you, behind closed doors, that they believe that, before the world began, God unconditionally chose those whom He intended to save. They will even admit that He determined beforehand to bring these chosen people to faith in His Son. Yet, they will tell you that these truths constitute the 'meat of the Word' and are not intended for everyone. The sad reality is that such preachers seldom, if ever, teach these truths to anyone.

Hard Questions

There are several questions that I would like to ask the closet Calvinist and his companions. I would be very grateful if they would give me a straight and satisfying answer.

First, what criterion do you use to distinguish the "meat of the Word' from the '"Milk of the Word?"

I suggest that the distinction between "milk" and "meat" prevalent in evangelicalism today is one that was foreign to the mind of the Apostle Paul. When he distinguished between the milk and meat of the Word, e.g., Cor 3:2, he referred not to two different classes of teaching but to two different ways of presenting the same teaching.This was the view of Charles Hodge, among others. Commenting on I Cor 3:2, he wrote,

What is the distinction which the apostle here makes between milk and meat? It is evidently not the distinction between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God' Paul did not preach the wisdom of the world to babes in Christ and the wisdom of God to advanced Christians. Neither does he sanction anything of the nature of the Disciplina Arcani, or doctrine of the hidden essence of Christianity, which was introduced in later times. For the sake either of conciliating the heathen, or of preventing believers from forming false notions of the gospel, it became common deliberately to conceal the truth. This is the foundation of the doctrine of reserve, as it is called. which the Romish church has so extensively practiced and taught, inculcating a blind faith, and keeping the people in ignorance [Does this sound familiar?] . . . The import of the figure leads to the conclusion that the difference is rather in the mode of instruction, than in the things taught. The same truth in one form is milk , in another form strong meat. "Christ," says Calvin, "is milk for babes, and strong meat for men." Every doctrine which can be taught to theologians, is taught to children. . . . The important truth is that there are not two sets of doctrine, a higher and a lower form of faith, one for the learned and the other for the unlearned; there is no part of the gospel which we are authorized to keep back from the people [emphases mine].²

God plainly revealed the teaching of free, sovereign and distinguishing grace in the Epistles of the New Testament Scriptures. Are we to assume that there were no new or weak believers in the churches to which the apostles published these truths so clearly. How can we explain the fact that they did not conceal these teachings, if they are only suitable for mature Christians?

Second, what right do you have to conceal the truth that God has revealed?

At times, closet Calvinists resort to Deuteronomy 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God. . . . " in an effort to excuse their lack of faithfulness in proclaiming God's truth. It is true that God has concealed the answers to some of our questions. These matters belong to Him, and we have no right to pry into them.This is a truth that should stand without controversy. Yet, this is not the only truth that is disclosed in Deut 29:29. The verse continues, "but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." Just as we have no ability to reveal or pry into what God has concealed, so we do not have the right to conceal what God has revealed.

Tell me, you who love to quote the well-known Spurgeon, have you not heard Spurgeon? He was no closet Calvinist who exulted in the truth of unconditional election in the solitude of his study. No! He loved to preach on these grand old themes. He said in one of his many sermons on election,

It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage to the past. and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me. Were I a Pelagian, or a believer in free-will, I should have to walk for centuries all alone. Here and there a heretic, of no very honorable character might rise up and call me brother. But taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren. I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church [emphases mine].³

In his farewell address to the Ephesian elders, Paul reminded them of his faithfulness in declaring all the revealed wiII of God. He wrote,

I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable. . . . Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God (Acts 20:20-25).

The reason for such boldness is that Paul unequivocally believed these truths. For him, they were not mere academic propositions with which he might entertain himself in his more private moments. He perceived their value, as God's revealed truth, for abasing the sinner's arrogance and for training believers in practical godliness. Since he valued God's truth, he could not conceal it. In his second epistle to the Corinthians he wrote, "But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, 'I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE' we also believe, therefore also we speak,". . . (2 Cor 4:13). If God's truth is burning in our hearts, ". . .we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard"(Acts 4:20). See also Jeremiah 20:9.

Paul tells us in the second chapter of I Corinthians that God's purpose in revelation is 'that we might know the things freely given to us by God' (I Cor 2:12).

If God has plainly revealed the truth of His sovereign grace, what right do you have to conceal it from those to whom it belongs?

Third, if your hearers remain fleshly after hearing all those teachings that your call 'the milk of the Word,' what do you now plan to do for them to bring them to maturity?

Such a situation existed among the addressees of the Epistle to the Hebrews.The writer of that treatise had many truths to teach his readers about Melchizedek, but they were dull of hearing. He told them that they needed milk and not solid food (meat).

Concerning him [Christ, a priest after the order of Melchizedek] we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness', for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil (Heb. 5:11-14)

What did he propose to do in that situation. Did he plan to leave them in their state of stupor and continue to feed them nothing but the 'milk of the Word?' Did he intend to conceal this important truth from them until they came to maturity? No! He understood that if they continued in this state, they would do so because they had never become Christians at all. It would profit nothing to continue to teach them those doctrines that belonged to the infant state of God's family. Pursuant to that purpose, he pressed on, in Hebrews seven, with the meaty doctrine of Melchizedek.The lesson this teaches is that we can never hope to mature God's people as long as we continue to conceal from them those truths that God has revealed for their growth and development.

Fourth, if it is not yet time to teach your people the truth of God's distinguishing grace, how will you know when that time has come?

What evidence do God's people give that they have become ready to hear the truth of God's distinguishing grace? Will they tell you that they have now become disenchanted with your "free will" approach to preaching and ministry and wish to delve into the"meat of the Word?" How do you expect them to become ready to hear the "deeper truths" of God's Word if you continue to steer them away from such truths? If some of your sheep began to mature through their personal study of the Scriptures, would you continue to starve them in your public teaching and preaching? Would you rob them of God's revealed truth because there might be some weak believers in your audience whom you fear would be offended by a plain description of their Father's character and work? If you do not intend to teach the truth now, when do you plan to start?

Finally, I ask you in all candor, is it not true that you have concealed these truths because you have undervalued them?

Is having a large and "successful" church more valuable to you than being faithful to God's truth? Have you counted the cost of standing up with those who have suffered for the faith and judged it to be to high? Is the approval of your peers more important to you than the smile of God? If so, it is time for you to get your priorities right.

In his excellent, little book, Warnings to the Churches, J. C. Ryle reminds us of an occasion when Bishop Latimer was called on to preach before King Henry VIII. He cites, from memory, the manner in which Latimer began his sermon.

'Latimer! Latimer! dost thou remember that thou art speaking before the high and mighty King Henry VIII. before him who has the power to command thee to be sent to prison; before him who can have thy head struck off if it please him" Wilt thou not take care to say nothing that will offend royal ears'' Then after a pause, he went on: 'Latimer! Latimer! Dost thou not remember that thou art speaking before the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; before Him, at whose bar Henry VIII will stand; before Him, to whom one day thou wilt give an account of thyself' 'Latimer! Latimer! be faithful to thy Master and declare all God's Word.'⁴

I leave you with two words of exhortation from Paul's Epistles. In his closing words to the Corinthians he wrote, "Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong" (I Cor 16:13). Never has there been a time when there was a greater need for pastors and other Christian teachers to act like men and be strong. In his final exhortation to Timothy, Paul identified the area in which lies our greatest need for manly strength when he wrote,

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship. do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Tim 4:1-5).

---

1 Octavius Winslow, Personal Declension and Revival of religion in the Soul, (London: The Banner of Truth Trust reprint ed. 1962), pp. 121-2.

2 Charles Hodge, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprint ed. 1969), pp. 48-9.

3 Charles H. Spurgeon, Spurgeon's Sermons Vol. 2, (Grand Rapid: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.) pp. 69-70.

4 J.C. Ryle, Warnings to the Churches, (London: The Banner of Truth Trust. reprint ed. 1967) pp. 34-5.

Hispanic International Missions, Inc.

We have established a not for profit corporation, Hispanic International Missions, Inc., for any who wish to contribute to the work we intend to do in Costa Rica. Initially, our work will involve translation, printing and distribution of Spanish literature. Ultimately, we hope to establish indigenous churches in Central America. If God lays this need on your heart, please let us hear from you.

Our Beliefs

We believe every word in every part of the sixty-six books of the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

We believe there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are one God, the same in essence and equal in authority and dignity.

We believe God an eternal Spirit who is unchangeable in His being, wisdom, holiness, sovereignty, power, justice, goodness and truth.

We believe Jesus, the Christ, is the eternal Word of God. When everything else that exists began to be, He already existed with God the Father as God. Since He became flesh, He is fully human and fully divine. God's anointed one, acting as the High Priest of His people, secured eternal salvation for believers by the sacrifice for Himself on the cross. He rose from the dead in a body of flesh just as the Scriptures had prophesied He would. He now makes intercession for us in His Father's presence in the heavens.

We believe the Holy Spirit is more than a force but possesses all the elements of personality. It was he who inspired the Scriptures and guided holy men into all the truth as thy wrote. He who is eternal in His existence with the Father and the Son has been sent into the world by the Father and the Son as a unique blessing of the New Covenant. He is the down payment of the full inheritance of God's chosen people. It was He who granted extraordinary gifts (some of which have now ceased) for the establishment of the New Covenant church and continues to give gifts necessary for the maintenance of the church. He sanctifies us, teaches us, controls us, enlivens us and helps us in every aspect of our lives on earth.

We believe we are sinners by nature and by choice. Because we are sinners, we are guilty before God and defiled by sin. By nature, we are so twisted by sin we can neither provide salvation for ourselves nor choose to receive the salvation Jesus has accomplished for His people.

We believe God's choice of some unworthy sinners to become His everlasting heirs was based not on faith or some other virtue he foresaw in them. It was based on His unfathomable wisdom and sovereign good pleasure.

We believe God enables sinners He has chosen for Himself to believe the gospel by calling them internally. By this call, He enables us to turn from our sins and receive Jesus as our Savior. This faith does not form any part of our justification before God but is merely the means through which we receive God's gift.

We believe water baptism is for believers only, by immersion only. It has no saving value but is merely an outward expression of the work of grace God has done in our hearts.

We believe God will enable all those He has chosen, redeemed, called, regenerated, and justified to persevere in faith and obedience until the end.

We believe the Lord Jesus is coming again in power and great glory to execute vengeance on the ungodly and to usher His redeemed into everlasting glory.

The contact e-mail address we will use in Costa Rica is vseiver@hotmail.com. The address of H.I.M. in the U. S. is C/O Randolph Fagen, 850 Ave. Y N.W. Winter Haven, FL 33881

The Saving Work of Christ

By Randy Seiver

The five points [of Calvinism], though separately stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in the sense in which, the Synod meant them. For to Calvinism, there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology [the doctrine of salvation]: the point that God saves sinners. God–the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power, and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of the Father and Son by renewing. Saves–does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves, and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners–men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners–and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedalling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the “five points” are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory forever; amen.

James. I. Packer
Introductory Essay to, The Death of Death
by John Owen.

Introduction

Throughout Christian history there have been issues that have divided the people of God. Some of those issues concerned questions that had little impact on the integrity of the gospel or the practical life of the Church. Others have been issues of such grave importance that even a seemingly insignificant departure from Apostolic instruction has led to a radical departure from the biblical gospel.
One issue about which we cannot afford the slightest error is the design and extent of the redeeming work of Christ. Sadly, in many if not most of our modern, evangelical pulpits the biblical idea of substitution, in the sense that Jesus actually took the place of and bore God’s wrath for certain favored sinners so that he actually “sealed their pardon” on the cross, is never heard. In place of that message, well-meaning but misguided preachers feel constrained to inform their hearers indiscriminately that Jesus died for their sins on the cross. Now, if they will only open their hearts and let Jesus come in, God will save them. The sad tragedy is that such a message is not the biblical gospel. One will search the New Testament Scriptures in vain looking for such language in the proclamations of gospel preachers. Never is a crowd of sinners told “Jesus died for you.” Why should we forsake the biblical pattern for gospel preaching? Additionally, we never find them saying to anyone they need to open their hearts and let Jesus come in. Instead, these biblical evangelists told their hearers Jesus died for sinners. He actually took the place of and bore the penalty that was due to vile, guilty sinners who would believe and repent.
I have often heard the charge that Calvinists would rather fly across the country to debate an Arminian than to walk across the street to witness the gospel to the unconverted. Though I am sure there are some Calvinists, just as there are some Arminians, who are only theoretical and academic in their approach biblical truth, the great majority of Calvinists are, as they have been throughout Christian history, deeply concerned about spreading the gospel. Our overwhelming concern as we engage in this debate is to guard and preserve the purity of the gospel. It makes no difference whether we walk across the street or travel around the world to witness to the lost, the message we give them must be God’s message, not ours. If we should give the impression the sinner’s decision to receive Jesus Christ forms any part of the basis for his right standing before God, we have mutilated the gospel and changed it into another gospel that is not God’s good news at all.

There are several questions I intend to answer in this booklet that are crucial to our understanding of Christ’s redeeming work. It is not my purpose to provide an exhaustive treatment of this subject or of the biblical passages related to it. Instead, I want to focus the debate on the real issues that divide evangelical Christians on this subject. I hope once we have dismissed the “straw man” issue and considered a representative sample of the pertinent biblical texts on the real issue, we will be able to find some agreement on this subject. Ultimately, I believe there is one question that should indicate which view is most in keeping with the biblical message concerning Christ’s redeeming work. Which view, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, or Calvinism, is most accurately reflected in our title, “The Saving Work of Christ?”


The Real Issue

Perhaps you noticed we mentioned the design of the atonement before we mentioned its extent. That order was not unintentional. Too often the issues in this debate have been muddled because those involved asked the wrong questions. If we ask “For whom did Jesus die?” we are asking about the extent of His redemptive work. The problem with that question is that it too often leads to an imagined debate about the sufficiency of His redeeming work, i.e., was it sufficient for all or sufficient only for the elect. How often have we heard well-meaning, but horribly misguided preachers boldly assert they do not believe in “limited atonement;” they believe His death was sufficient for all sinners? Anyone who makes such a statement is either speaking out of profound ignorance or is deliberately twisting the issue for his own purposes. Here we are reminded of C. H. Spurgeon’s quip regarding how some in his day handled the debate over the nature of divine election. He wrote, “What a wonderful deal has been done by some men in burning figures of their own stuffing. . . How earnestly do they set themselves to confute what no one defends.”
The real issue we need to address is whether God intended Jesus’ death merely to provide the possibility of salvation for all sinners or infallibly to secure salvation for every sinner the Father gave to the Son before He created the world. Let me put the question another way. For years the church has sung, “On the cross He sealed my pardon, paid the debt, and set me free.” Were we right or wrong in singing those words? Remember, if He accomplished no more for believers than He accomplished for those who will finally perish in their sins, He did not truly seal our pardon on the cross.


Three Evangelical Views

There are three main evangelical views regarding the nature of Jesus’ death; the Arminian view, the Amyraldian view, and the Calvinistic view. These three groups view the death of Christ in radically different ways. Which of these do you think can most accurately speak of “the saving work of Christ?”

The Arminian View

The first is the Arminian view that Jesus’ death was intended to save all sinners but actually saves no one but believers.

That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

The Amyraldian View

The second is the view of the “hypothetical universalists,”called Amyraldians, that Jesus’ death was universal in its scope in terms of its design which was to give all sinners the potential of salvation. According to this view, Jesus died equally for all sinners, yet ,His death did not, in itself, secure the salvation of anyone. It was not only sufficient for all but was intended for all. God has, however, limited its application to the elect. This view faces a logical problem. Those who hold this view believe God has decreed all that actually occurs. If it happens in time, it must have been planned in eternity. If God the Father has limited Christ’s redeeming work in its application to the elect only, that limited application must have been decreed before time began. That is, God designed it to actually redeem only the elect. Its design cannot be both limited and unlimited at the same time.

The Calvinistic View

The third view is the Calvinistic view that Jesus’ redeeming work is unlimited in its value, but particular in its design. It was designed actually to accomplish the salvation of God’s elect. In all these views there is a limitation. The first two view the work of Christ as limited in its effectiveness; it did not actually and objectively accomplish the salvation of anyone in particular. In regard to the second view, there was no objective accomplishment of propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, or justification. If we were to take either of the first two views, we could not speak of “the saving work of Christ,” since His sacrifice was offered equally for all. If it, in itself, did not accomplish the salvation of all for whom He died, it did not accomplish the salvation of any for whom He died.
In truth, there is no debate over the sufficiency of Jesus’ redeeming work. Both Arminians and Calvinists acknowledge its sufficiency. His death was more than enough to redeem every sinner who has lived, is living, or shall ever live. It possesses such value because of the dignity of the one who was crucified. If he chose to save every sinner who ever existed, He would need to do no more than He has done. If you have never done so, I strongly suggest you read “the Canons of Dort [Dordt]” in their entirety. After all, they are the official formulation of the five points of Calvinism. If you wish to argue against these points, it might be a good idea for you to discover what these points are. Let me quote for you Articles 3-7 of the Second Head of Doctrine, “The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby.”

Article 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

Article 4. This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.

Article 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to all whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6. And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect of insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

Article 7. But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.

Can you imagine a stronger affirmation of the abundant sufficiency of Christ’s redeeming work? Surely, the most committed Arminian could never have stated the truth about the sufficiency of Christ’s death more forcefully.
It has been years since I read John Murray’s discussion of the extent of the atonement Though I have referred to other portions of his excellent book often over the years, I had not reread that particular chapter until now. I cannot recommend his cogent treatment of that subject highly enough. Concerning the issue at hand, he wrote concerning Christ’s redemptive work, "If we universalize the extent we limit the efficacy. If some of those for whom atonement was made and redemption wrought perish eternally, then the atonement is not itself efficacious. It is this alternative that the proponents of universal atonement must face. They have a “limited” atonement and limited in respect of that which impinges upon its essential character".

This was essentially what C. H. Spurgeon was saying in the following paragraph.

We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, ‘No, certainly not.’ We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? The answer ‘No.’ They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say, ‘No, Christ died that any man may be saved if’—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.’ We say that Christ so died that he secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.
Since all sides agree that Christ’s redeeming work is sufficient for all, we need to be more careful in setting the parameters of the debate. If a person should inquire about the extent of Jesus’ redeeming work, we must first ascertain whether he is asking about the extent of its sufficiency or the extent of its design and accomplishment. These are decidedly different questions with markedly differing answers.

Pivotal Questions

The more important question is, What did Jesus accomplish for those for whom He died? There are four crucial issues we need to address that will enable us to answer this question correctly.

Potential or Actual?

The first issue concerns whether Scripture speaks of the accomplishments of Jesus’ death as potential or as actual. Did Jesus make it possible for us to be saved or did He secure our salvation by His redemptive work?
The following are just a few of the many verses that speak about Jesus’ redemptive work on behalf of His people. Notice that these verses all represent His sacrificial death as an actual work of reconciliation, redemption, propitiation etc.

For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (Romans 5:10).
And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight (Colossians 1:20-21).

But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all [for all time], having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:11-12).

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18).
And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world (1 John 2:1b-2).
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).

Notice all these verses indicate it was His work on the cross, not the application of that work, that accomplished the salvation of His people. For example, the reconciliation about which Paul writes in Romans 5:10 is objective, not subjective in nature. That is, it occurred outside our experience, “when we were still enemies.”
Additionally, notice the words “potential” and “possible” are not even implied in any of these verses relative to the work of Christ. His work is represented as an actual accomplishment not a potential provision.

Definition of Terms

The second issue concerns the meanings of those terms that define the saving work of Christ, namely, redemption, propitiation, reconciliation, and justification. The Calvinist understands results of Jesus’ death as an objective accomplishment of these blessings. Consider these definitions and ask if Jesus truly accomplished these blessings for anyone but believers.
Redemption
The word redemption in the New Testament means to set free by the payment of a ransom. Are the non-elect now set free or will they ever be set free from sin, from guilt, from fear of death etc.? If not, in what sense did Jesus die to redeem them? Whether we view God’s decree to elect certain sinners to salvation as based on His foresight of their faith, or on His sovereign good pleasure, it is certain He only intended Christ’s redeeming work for those who would actually be set free.

Propitiation

The word propitiation means an appeasement or satisfaction of divine wrath. Did Jesus satisfy God’s wrath or will it ever be satisfied for those who will perish in their unbelief? If not, in what sense did Jesus make propitiation for them?

Reconciliation

Reconciliation means to restore to friendly relationship those who had been hostile toward one another. Will rebellious sinners who will perish under God’s sentence of death ever be brought into a friendly relationship with Him?

Justification

Justification is God’s declaration that sinners are righteous in His sight. Will He ever declare righteous those who will die in unbelief?

What About “Universal” Terms?
The third issue concerns the New Testament’s usage of such words as “world,” “every” and “all.” Should we continue to insist these terms always refer to everyone without exception, even if it means such a broadening of the scope of Jesus’ work diminishes the force of His accomplishments by that work? Lorraine Boettner wrote, “[For the Calvinist, the atonement] is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that only goes half way across.”
It should be obvious to any careful reader of the New Testament Scriptures that the words, “world,” “every” and “all,” do not always refer to every person without exception. Often they refer to all of a class or to men and women from the Gentile nations in contrast to members of the Nation of Israel. For example, The Apostle, in Romans 11:11-15, uses the word “world” to denote all who are not members of ethnic Israel. It would be difficult to disprove the contention that the word, as it is used in the New Testament Scriptures, never denotes every member of the human race. The faulty assumption that it must mean every member of the race equally has been the cause of a great deal of erroneous thinking about God’s saving activity.
Now suppose we give the word “world” that commonly held meaning in those verses where it occurs in relation to God’s redemptive activity. How will that affect our view of God’s redemptive plan and the redemptive activities of the Triune God in the accomplishment of that plan? For example, John 3:16 tell us “ . . . God loved the world in this way, that He gave His unique Son. . .” If we should understand “world” to mean every sinner without exception, how does that affect our view of God’s love? Are we to believe God not only loves every sinner but loves every sinner equally and in the same way? This becomes a bit difficult when the same Bible tells us God loved Jacob and hated Esau (see–Romans 9:13). Even if we should insist that He only “hated” Esau in comparison to His love for Jacob, we must still admit God did not love them equally. Did God love those who drowned in the great flood as much as he loved Noah and his family? If he did, that was a poor way to demonstrate it. Does he love those who are perishing in hell equally and in the same way as he loves those who are redeemed for eternity? Has he done His absolute best to save them, and have they by their obstinate rebellion frustrated His love and thwarted His purpose? If so, one would be forced to the conclusion that man, not God, is sovereign in the universe.
Consider another example. 1 John 2:1b-2 tells us we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one, and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. If “whole world” means every sinner without exception, what meaning can we assign to the word propitiation? The classic definition of the biblical term propitiation is–a satisfaction or an appeasement of divine wrath. Now if John does not refer to propitiation as potential but as actual, and if that work was actually accomplished for every sinner in the world, then propitiation cannot be a satisfaction of appeasement of God’s wrath. Otherwise, the New Testament writers would present God as a capricious deity who demands satisfaction more than once for the same offenses. The Apostle Paul makes it clear that God’s wrath is coming on unbelievers because of their sins. He writes,
But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 5:3-6).

If Jesus satisfied the Father’s wrath for every sinner, how is it that the Father’s wrath can again fall on those same sinners? Surely Agustus Toplady was on the mark when he wrote,

If Thou hast my discharge procured
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine,
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my bleeding Surety’s hand
And then again at mine.


Can you see how biblical terms can be robbed of their full meaning if we insist on giving unwarranted definitions to terms that seem universal in their scope?


The Results of Jesus’ Death

Finally, what, if anything, does the New Testament teach about the results of Jesus’ death for all for whom He died?

Death to Sin‘s Reign

2 Cor 5:14-15
In 2 Cor 5:14-15, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that all for whom Christ died, died in Him and with Him. He writes,

14For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

The King James Version erroneously translated the second verb “to die” as though it had been an imperfect tense–“were dead“ rather than translating it as an aorist tense–“died.” From this mistranslation one might assume the Apostle was referring to the spiritual condition of all sinners because of their fall in Adam, i.e., “all were dead in trespasses and sins.” The New King James Version has corrected this mistranslation by rendering both verbs “died.” If one died for all, then all died.” The Apostle’s meaning was clearly that all for whom Jesus died, died with him to the reigning power of sin. It is for this reason the “all” for whom He died no longer go on living to please themselves; they now live to please Him who died for them and rose again.
If this interpretation of the passage is correct, it is impossible for us to understand the “all” in these verses to refer to all sinners without exception unless we are prepared to believe all sinners will ultimately die to the reigning power of sin.

Final Glorification
Romans 8:32

In Romans 8:32, the Apostle Paul argues that to all for whom Jesus died, God will grant all the other gifts of His grace. His argument in the larger context (beginning in chapter five of this Epistle) is if God has declared believers righteous in His sight, He is certain to bring them to glory. In the immediately preceding context, he has demonstrated this point based on God’s sovereign purpose that always comes to pass. He has argued that since God has predestined the believer’s final glorification, it is certain to occur.
In verse 32 he argues from the greater to the lesser. If God has given us the greatest gift possible, how can He not give us all the lesser gifts of grace Christ has purchased for us, including our final glorification. He writes, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” Everyone for whom Jesus gave His life will finally be saved.
Again, unless we are prepared to argue that every sinner will ultimately enjoy every spiritual gift Jesus purchased including glorification, we cannot, in light of Paul’s teaching here, reasonably insist Jesus died to redeem every sinner.

Jesus’ Intercession
Romans 8:34

Throughout the passage beginning in Romans 8:28, the Apostle has referred to the God’s work of salvation for believers. He has consistently referred to believers as “us,” “we,” “us all,” etc. In verse 34 he tells us Christ intercedes for us. He writes,“Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.” Notice the words “it is” are in italics and have been supplied by the translators. Another and perhaps better way of understanding this verse is to take it as an interrogative statement. In which case we would supply the word, “shall” in place of “it is..” We would then read the verse as follows: “Who is he who condemns? Shall Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us?” The Apostle is not suggesting that none will wish to condemn us as believers. Certainly the avowed enemies of our souls would delight in doing so. His meaning is that no one will be able successfully to condemn believers in God’s presence. Indeed, the only one who has a right to condemn us is the Lord, Christ. Shall He condemn us; He who died for us, is risen for us, who is at God’s right hand for us, and who is making intercession for us? The answer is obvious. It is unthinkable that He who gave His life for us and now, based on the sacrificial offering, pleads our cause from His honored position at the Father’s right hand would seek to demonstrate our guilt.
The two priestly functions of offering sacrifice and intercession are always taken together in the Scriptures. On the Day of Atonement, the function of the high priest was two-fold; he first offered the sacrifice in the outer court, and then he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat in God’s holy presence. The sacrificial offering in the outer court corresponds to Jesus’ once offering Himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God. The act of blood sprinkling in the most holy place corresponds to His continual intercession for us at the Father’s right hand. It is significant that the high priest presented the blood of the sacrifice in the most holy place for no one other than those for whom he had offered the sacrifice in the outer court. These two acts were co-extensive. If we would learn for whom Jesus offered Himself on the cross, we need only discover for whom He makes intercession at the Father’s right hand. These two acts are also co-extensive. If He offered Himself as a sacrifice for all without exception, then He must intercede for all without exception. But, how do the Scriptures answer the question, “ For whom does Jesus, our Great High Priest, intercede?” In the passage we are examining, the answer is quite clear; all we need to do is discover to whom the word “us” refers in the passage. Only a person with an extreme bias could deny the word consistently refers to those whose glorification God decreed before the world began.
Consider two other verses bearing on this issue. First, in Jesus’ intercessory prayer recorded in John 17, we have irrefutable proof that Jesus only makes intercession for those the Father has given Him. This is what He said, “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours” (John 17:9). At this point, He refers specifically to those who had already come to believe on Him, but later He includes all “those who shall believe on Him through their word” ( v. 20). His intercession is never said to be for anyone other than those who will ultimately come to faith in Him. The second verse refers to Jesus’ intercession as our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Because Jesus is an undying priest, the writer draws the conclusion, “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost [completely] those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them”( Hebrews 7:25). Notice, “for them” does not refer to everyone without exception, but for “those who come to God by Him,” i.e., for believers.

The True Emphasis of This Doctrine

Notice the true emphasis of this doctrine is not on the limitation of Christ’s redeeming work to the elect, but on the effectual accomplishments of that work for the elect. To state the matter another way, our concern is not to focus on those for whom Jesus did not die, but on His saving work for those for whom He died. Perhaps it will prove helpful to illustrate this point by citing the remainder of the original formulation of this doctrine in the Canons of Dort.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 7. But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 8. For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 9. This purpose, proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect, has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished, and will henceforeward still continue to be accomplished, notwithstanding all the ineffectual opposition of the gates of hell; so that the elect in due time may be gathered together into one, and that there never may be wanting a Church composed of believers, the foundation of which is laid in the blood of Christ; which may stedfastly love and faithfully serve Him as its Savior (who, as a bridegroom for his bride, laid down His life for them upon the cross); and which may celebrate His praises here and through all eternity.

Preaching the Saving Work of Christ

If Jesus’ redeeming work was not intended to secure the salvation of every sinner, how can we preach the gospel freely to all without exception. To answer this question, I have paraphrased a passage from Robert Haldane’s commentary on Romans. These were his comments on Romans chapter five.

Many seem to believe if they are going to proclaim the gospel they must tell every sinner Christ died for him. Additionally, they believe that if Jesus did not die to take away the sins of every individual, they cannot preach the gospel. This is very erroneous. The gospel declared that Christ died for the guilty and that the most guilty who believe shall be saved.. ‘It is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,’ even the chief of sinners. The gospel does not tell every individual to whom we addressed it that Christ died for him. Instead, it simply tells him that if he believes, he will be saved. On this basis, we can proclaim the gospel to every sinner. It is only after a person has believed the gospel that he can know Christ died for him individually. Since the Bible reveals that whoever believes shall be saved, it is quite consistent to proclaim the gospel to all sinners and declare that they will be saved if they believe. If the most guilt person in the human race should believe, it is an absolute certainty that he would be saved. If anyone feels he cannot proclaim the gospel freely and has difficulty calling everyone to faith unless he can say, “Jesus died for every member of the human race,” he does not clearly understand what the gospel is. It is the good news that Christ died for the most guilty who believe, not that he died for every individual whether he should believe or not. To the truth that every person who believes shall be saved there is no exception. The only sins that will not find God’s forgiveness are those that belong to sinners who refuse to believe the gospel; if they believe, they will be saved. . . .
Some would have a problem calling sinners to believe in Christ if His redeeming work was not intended for every sinner. This is no different from the difficulty some experience when they feel restrained in calling on sinners indiscriminately to believe the gospel because they know God will never save those he has not chosen for eternal life. Here is where they go wrong. According to the commandment of the everlasting God, we are to make the gospel known to all nations for the obedience of faith. It is certain those whom God has not graciously chosen and for whom Christ did not die will never believe. These are secret things that belong to God alone. They will be made known at the proper time. . . .We are not to inquire first, either for ourselves or others, about the identity of the chosen ones or the redeemed before we determine to whom we should preach the gospel. We must preach it to all, assured that whoever believes it shall receive forgiveness. When we believe the gospel, we come to understand for ourselves that Christ bore our sins in his body on the tree. We learn that, from the beginning, God has chosen us to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
The work of Christ is of unlimited value. The reason all are not saved by it has nothing to do with insufficient value but simply because it was not intended to redeem all. In itself it was valuable enough to take away all the sins of mankind, had that been God’s intention. If Christ’s sacrifice had not been sufficient for all, it would not have been sufficient for anyone. Every sinner who will be saved needed a redemptive act of unlimited value; no more could be required to redeem every individual. We proclaim the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work to all who hear the gospel. We invite all to rely on it for pardon and acceptance. We address them as freely as if we knew God had designed it for them from all eternity. All who rely on it in saving faith shall surely experience its power and unlimited value.

Conclusion

The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from this inquiry is that the death of Christ was intended not merely to provide the possibility of salvation for sinners, but to effectually accomplish salvation for those God has chosen. As should be clear, no true Calvinist questions the abundant sufficiency of Christ’s redeeming work. The only issue dividing evangelicals is whether his death was intended to save all, to make all savable, or effectively to secure the salvation of a multitude no man can number. Since, as I have shown, his death guaranteed freedom from the reigning power of sin, effectual intercession and final glorification for all for whom He died, we can arrive at only one conclusion. God intended Jesus’ death effectively to secure these spiritual blessings for all those, but only for those, who believe the gospel.
It is not faith in the promises of God or faith in Christ that justifies sinners before God, it is Christ who justifies, through faith. Faith does not form any part of the basis of our justification. It is not that Jesus did His part by dying, we do our part by believing, and these acts taken together turn God’s wrath away. No,

Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.

Works Cited

Boettner, Lorraine, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963.

Haldane, Robert, The Epistle to the Romans, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint 1966.

Murray, John, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1961.

Spurgeon, C. H. “How to Meet the Doctrine of Election,” Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 30.
_________Sermons on Sovereignty, Albany, OR. Ages Software, 1998.

The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, Article 2.

The Canons of Dordt, Second Head.

Additional Works For Further Study

Hodge, A.A., Outlines of Theology, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint, 1972.

Long, Gary D, Definite Atonement, Rochester, NY: Backus Book Publishers, 1977.

Owen, John, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint 1973. (Don’t skip J. I. Packer’s Introductory Essay to this classic).

Packer, James I., Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961.
Pink, Arthur W., The Sovereignty of God, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprint 1994.

Seiver, Randy,“Arrows Astray,” unpublished typescript, www.gracedocs.blogspot.com.

__________,“Burning Straw Dummies,” One can find this unpublished work at www.gospeloutreach.net/straw_dummies.html. et al.

Steele, David N., and Thomas, Curtis C., The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1967.

What Makes the Gospel Work?

By Randy Seiver

"I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, 'You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for Myself.' My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will."

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Did you ever wonder why some sinners respond positively to the gospel call while others remain entrenched in their sins? Why is it some hear the gospel for years with no apparent inclination to submit to the claims of Christ, then suddenly they embrace the truth of the gospel as if they were hearing it for the first time? Why do some who have been reared with Christian values and with an understanding of Christian truth reject the gospel while other pure pagans turn from their pursuit of sinful pleasures and become devoted Christians? What makes the gospel work? Such questions have often puzzled people who were not theologically astute and divided theologians all of whom should have known the biblical answers.
My purpose in this booklet is to consider various answers theologians have given to these questions and seek to discover from the biblical record which answers are correct. There is only one favor I would ask of you; examine everything you read here in the light of Scripture. If you do not find the Bible teaches what you read, you must reject it. On the other hand, if the Bible teaches it, you need to bow to biblical authority. Approach every question with a Berean spirit. Concerning the believers at Berea, Luke tells his readers, “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).
Before I proceed, I want to clarify what I mean when I ask, What makes the gospel work? In reality, the gospel is successful every time it is proclaimed. To some, it may be the aroma of death leading to death; to others the aroma of life leading to life (see-2 Cor. 2:16). God may use it to harden the hearts of unbelievers or to convert to Christ the obdurate rebel. That is his business. Either way, the gospel is successful in accomplishing God’s purpose. Our business is to be faithful to witness God’s good news as he gives us opportunities. For our purposes here, when we ask, What makes the gospel work? we mean, What causes sinners to go from recalcitrant unbelief to submissive faith?

The Problem
Who Has Believed Our Report?

The prophet, Isaiah, after faithfully executing the commission God had given him, complains, “Who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” In reality, unless the arm of the Lord should be revealed, every gospel preacher would have to voice the same complaint. Because of the sinner’s fallen nature, his aversion to spiritual truth and his hostility toward God, the gospel message will always be ineffectual in itself. It is not that sinners would seldom receive it; it is that, left to themselves, sinners in a state of fallen, sinful nature would never receive it. There are several verses of Scripture we can cite to demonstrate this truth. They represent only a smattering of the many text that could be used to support it. For example, the psalmist compares the wicked to a deaf cobra that stops its ears and refuses to hear the charmers. He writes,
The wicked are estranged from the womb;
They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Their poison is like the poison of a serpent;
They are like the deaf cobra that stops its ear,
Which will not heed the voice of charmers,
Charming ever so skillfully (Psalms 58:3-5).

I suppose one could argue the psalmist is not referring to every sinner but to the “wicked,” as if some sinners are worse than others. The reality is every sinner is, at heart, the same as every other sinner. The message is that sinners are so entrenched in their sin and rebellion against God they stubbornly refuse to be swayed by preachers of the gospel, however eloquently and skillfully they may proclaim God’s message.
Just as it is contrary to the sinner’s nature to seek after God (see--Psalms 14:2-3; Romans 3:11), so it is contrary to his nature to receive spiritual truth. The Apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthian church, describes the inability of the natural man to welcome and know spiritual truth. He writes, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). This verse does not suggest sinners are incapable of understanding the facts of the gospel. The word translated “receive” is elsewhere translated “welcome.” What the natural person [person without the Holy Spirit] is incapable of doing is loving spiritual truth. One may even love the structure and logical flow of biblical truth without loving the truth itself. The demons themselves believe and tremble, but they will not bow in humble submission to the Christ of the gospel. These truths will continue to be foolishness (cf. 1 Cor 1:18) to a soulish person as long as he remains in a state of nature. He cannot know them with approval because they are discerned by means of the Spirit. The New Testament Scriptures present an extensive list of spiritual duties the unconverted are unable to perform. Sinners in a state of sinful nature cannot:

Be Saved–Mark 10:27
See the kingdom of Heaven–John 3:3
Enter the kingdom of Heaven–John 3:5
Receive anything–John 3:27
Come to Jesus–John 5:44; 65
Hear–John 8:43
Bear spiritual fruit–John 15:4
Be subject to God’s law–Romans 8:7
Welcome and know spiritual truth–1 Corinthians 2:4; Ephesians 4:18a.
Feel right emotions–Ephesians 4:18b-19.

Proposed Solutions
God’s Sovereignty and the Sinner’s Free Will

Perhaps you have heard someone assert that God in His sovereignty has decreed to leave the sinner’s salvation to his free will. This is an interesting way for a person to claim he believes in the sovereignty of God though he denies God has any control over the sinner’s “free will” decision in the matter of salvation.

No Biblical Support

This view faces several insurmountable hurdles. The first and most important is it has no basis in Scripture whatsoever. Where does any biblical writer ever offer the slightest suggestion that God has left the determination of anything in His universe to human decision? The Scripture tells us, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes” (Proverbs 21:1). In fact, “. . .[He] works all things according to the counsel of His will “(Eph. 1:11).

There's not a sparrow or a worm,
But's found in His decrees;
He raises monarchs to their thrones
And sinks them as He please.
Isaac Watts

I am not suggesting human beings do not act freely in the choices we make, nor am I suggesting we do not have the ability to choose what we desire. What I am saying is that even in the circumstances of life that seem most random, helter-skelter, and chaotic, God is in control of the minutest detail. Those human choices that are made most freely are not outside God’s sovereign control.

The Illusion of “Free Will”

The second hurdle those who hold this view must try to get over is their view of free will is nowhere taught in the Scriptures. The whole idea of “free will” is a myth. I am not speaking of the philosophical debate about free will vs. determinism; that is another subject. I am concerned with the biblical teaching about the sinner’s inability to make righteous and God honoring choices as long as he remains in a state of fallen, sinful nature. To imagine that sinners possess the power of free will because they are able to reject the light is as illogical as the conclusion that a prisoner is free because he is able to embrace his shackles.
Not only is the term “free will” never used in the Bible in the sense that sinners are as able to choose good as to choose evil, even the concept is absent from the pages of Scripture. The term “free will” occurs seventeen times in the Old Testament Scriptures. In sixteen of those occurrences it refers to a free will offering. A free will offering is one that is not commanded but offered voluntarily. It also occurs in Ezra 7:13 of those who wished to go back to Jerusalem voluntarily. Apart from these references, the term never occurs in the Bible.
There is no question in anyone’s mind whether sinners who come to Jesus Christ in saving faith do so freely and with purpose of heart. God does not drag any sinner into the kingdom against his will. If you are a Christian today, there was a time when you sought the Lord with your whole heart. You willingly chose to follow him in saving faith. The issue is not whether you chose God or he chose you. The issues are: 1. Who chose whom first? and 2. Whose choice effected the other’s choice. That is, did your choice determine God’s choice of you or did God’s choice of you determine your choice of him? Did he seek you because he foresaw you would seek him, or did you seek him because he first sought you? The hymn writer stated the issue beautifully when he wrote,

I sought the Lord and afterward I knew
He moved my soul to seek him, seeking me;
It was not I that found, O Savior true;
No, I was found of Thee.
Anon.
The issue of the sinner’s “free will” is not whether he acts freely in choosing what he wishes; it is whether he is able, by nature, to make proper choices. If by the use of the term “free will” a person means the sinner chooses what he desires voluntarily and apart from external compulsion, then, of course, we believe in free will, though we would prefer the term free agency. If he means the sinner possesses, by nature, the same ability to choose Christ in the gospel as to reject him, then, of course, we must disagree. Regarding the ill-advised usage of the term “free will” John Calvin wrote,

In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true: but why should so small a matter have been dignified with so proud a title?

The unconverted sinner’s will is not independent of his nature; every facet of personality is governed by nature. The elements of personality in every sinner have been so twisted that he is unwilling and unable either to believe the gospel or to prepare himself for its reception. When I speak of the elements of personality, I am referring to a person’s faculties of thought, feeling and choice. These are sometimes referred to as intellect, emotion, and will. In the natural man, the person without the Holy Spirit, all these faculties are governed by sinful nature. The sinner, left to himself cannot think right thoughts about God, feel right emotions toward God or make right choices in regard to his relationship with God.
Even God’s will is not free. He could only have chosen to do what was in keeping with his nature. Every one of us chooses according to his highest inclination. The will is captive to the nature that governs it. The trouble with the sinner is not that he cannot choose what he wishes, but that he cannot wish what he ought to choose. As long as the sinner’s governing principle is sinful, his thoughts, feelings and choices will always be wrong.
If an Arminian took Article III of The Articles of the Remonstrance, the classic statement of Arminianism, seriously, he could not logically speak of the sinner’s free will. Here is their statement:Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."
The difficulty with this statement is it presents a problem for which the teaching of Arminianism offers no real solution. If a sinner cannot respond in saving faith to the overtures of the gospel apart from being born again, prevenient grace as described by the Arminian will not help him. If such grace is resistible, a sinner in such a state of depravity will surely resist it. In fact, the very verse the Remonstrants cited as proof that prevenient grace is not irresistible (Acts 7:51) shows that sinners in a state of nature ALWAYS RESIST the Holy Spirit. The verse tells us nothing about God’s internal call; it tells us a great deal about the sinner’s recalcitrance.

Is God Unkind?

A third problem with this view is it would make God appear unkind. Some of the very people who hold the view that God has left the matter of the sinner’s salvation to his free will, confess a belief in God’s “omnibenevolence.” By this, they apparently mean God loves all sinners equally and in the same way. Now there is no question God’s common grace and benevolence is showered on all his creatures, whether elect or non-elect. “He opens his hand and satisfies the desire of every living thing” (Psalms 145:16). “He makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). Even though during the Old Covenant period he allowed all the Gentile nations to walk according to their own ways, “he left not himself without a witness, in that he did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). He has flooded us with truth about himself in the creation around us. This revelation declares God’s glory wherever sinners are found. It leaves us without any excuse if we refuse to glorify him (Romans 1:20).
Additionally, in the Scriptures he publishes not only the good news of his mercy and grace toward sinners but also his desire that sinners repent and believe the gospel. In conjunction with this proclamation of God’s good news, he sends his Holy Spirit to press the truth of the gospel on sinner’s hearts. Still, all these expressions of common grace are, by themselves, incapable of bringing sinners to repentance. As the Bible makes clear, sinners left to the incapacity of their sinful wills always resist God’s commands to believe and repent. Not one sinner has been brought to Christ through God’s common grace alone. If God in his sovereignty left the sinner’s salvation to his “free will,” all would perish in sin. The Psalmist tells us what God sees when he looks on our fallen, sinful, race.

The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one (Psalms 14:2-3).

Now, if God could have saved all sinners but has chosen to leave the sinner’s salvation to his free will decision, knowing none would ever understand or seek him, where is his omnibenevolence? Since we know, given the sinner’s propensity to reject the gospel, no one would ever understand spiritual truth or seek God left to sinful nature, would it not be a supreme act of unkindness to leave such a matter in the sinner’s hands?
If God loves all sinners equally and in the same way, but gives no sinner grace sufficient to bring him to salvation, does not his omnibenevolence amount to nothing more than an ineffectual and frustrated desire? Can you imagine a more cruel message than one that tells sinners God loves them but has determined to leave them in their state of sinful rebellion to make a choice he knows they will never make? Frankly, if God’s love accomplishes nothing more for me than it did for those perishing in hell, I don’t care whether he loves me or not.
It is my contention that common grace simply does not make the gospel work. In the following section we will consider the solutions of both the Arminians and the Calvinists to this problem. In the final analysis, the issue is one of control. Is whether a sinner is saved in his control or in God’s control? Though the Arminian may be willing to admit the sinner can never believe the gospel apart from “prevenient grace,” he ultimately believes the deciding vote must be cast by the sinner. Though, in his view, the sinner’s salvation is a cooperative effort between God and the sinner, the matter is truly in the sinner’s control.
For the Calvinist, the sinner’s reception of the gospel is under God’s control alone. Though the sinner is responsible to believe the gospel, he is unable to do so unless God enables him.

Grace: Prevenient but Resistible or Effectual?
The Issue

Calvinists and the Arminians agree it is impossible for sinners to respond positively to the gospel unless God enables them by preceding grace. The issue on which we disagree concerns the nature of that grace. Is it an enablement that is given to all but is not effective for any, apart from the cooperation of their “free will,” or is it an enablement given only to some in whom it is always effective?
Our quest is to discover which of these ideas the biblical writers taught. Does God give sinners just enough grace to raise them to a level of neutrality without actually enabling them to believe the gospel or is his grace effectual in bringing them to faith in Christ?

Grace: Prevenient and Resistible

So that you might read the original formulations of these two teachings, I am including the texts of these documents in full. I think you will find it interesting to see there is nothing in these Articles of the Remonstrance with which the Calvinist can disagree until the final sentence of the Fourth Article. The problem is, unless the Arminians assigned a meaning to regeneration that is totally different from the definition I will offer, this sentence completely contradicts all that precedes it. I want you first to read Articles Three and Four of The Remonstance, then consider the total illogic of the statement as it stands. Of course, our argument rests on our assumption that the Arminians intended the same meaning for regeneration as we.

THE ARTICLES OF THE REMONSTRANCE

THIRD ARTICLE.
Saving Faith.—Man in his fallen state is unable to accomplish any thing really and truly good, and therefore also unable to attain to saving faith, unless he be regenerated and renewed by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit (John xv. 5).
FOURTH ARTICLE.
Resistible Grace.—Grace is the beginning, continuation, and end of our spiritual life, so that man can neither think nor do any good or resist sin without prevening, co-operating, and assisting grace. But as for the manner of co-operation, this grace is not irresistible, for many resist the Holy Ghost (Acts vii. 51).
Notice first, the term “irresistible grace” the Arminian finds so repugnant comes from their own statement. The only reason the Calvinists’ position on the effectual nature of grace has been so labeled was it was written in answer to the Arminians’ assertion that God’s prevenient grace is “resistible.” I suspect the Calvinists’ position on this matter would never have been so badly misrepresented by its opponents had they simply read what the divines at the Synod of Dordt wrote.

Did you notice anything contradictory as you read the Third and Fourth Articles–Saving Faith and Resistible Grace? Does the statement on saving faith imply to you that regeneration produces saving faith? “Man. . .is unable to attain to saving faith, UNLESS HE BE REGENERATED. . . .” Does that not imply if he is regenerated, he will be able to attain to saving faith?” The Arminian’s position is that though the sinner is thus enabled to attain to saving faith, he may of his own free will resist this grace (apparently though he has been regenerated) and refuse to attain to saving faith.
If we can agree that a person’s choices are determined by his nature and regeneration is the implantation of a new governing principle in the soul, then the sinner thus regenerated cannot but attain to saving faith. Refusing to acknowledge this reality has caused even respected Bible commentators to make illogical and bewildering statements. If one is interested in seeing an exercise in exegetical casuistry, he should consider the following comments by the respected commentator, R.C.H. Lenski. Commenting on John 12: 32 he wrote,

This is the same drawing as that mentioned in 6:44 (compare 6:44), there predicated of the Father, here of Jesus; . . . This is the drawing exerted by grace through the means of grace (Word and Sacrament), alike in effectiveness and seriousness for all men, not in any way limited on God’s part. Yet here, as in 6:37; 6:44; 10:16; 11:52, and other connections, Jesus is speaking of this universal and unlimited grace only insofar as it succeeds in actually drawing men from the world to himself. All are alike drawn, but by their perverse obduracy many nullify all the power of grace and harden themselves in unbelief (Matt. 23:37), while others, in equal sin and guilt, are converted by this same power of grace. Why some are thus lost and others won, all being under the same grace, constitutes a mystery insoluble by our minds, about which we know only this, that those who are lost are lost solely by their own guilt, while those who are won are won solely by divine grace. Jesus is speaking only of the latter when he says, “I will draw all unto me.”

He then continues by identifying the “all” as those who will actually come to faith in Christ. Does “all” refer to those who are “won solely by divine grace,” or “some [who are] lost and others won, all being under the power of the same grace.” Is there any reader who cannot see the blatant contradictions inherent in these comments? If so, lets consider a few of them.
First, since he has referred us to John 6:37 and 6:44, we need to see his comments on those verses. There he wrote, But in these expressions, “all that the Father gives,” and, “all that he has given,” Jesus speaks of all believers of all ages as already being present to the eyes of God, he also thus is giving them to Jesus. . . .There, however, is not a fixed number, in some mysterious way chosen by an absolute decree of God to be such a gift to Jesus. Such an exegesis is wholly dogmatic and carries in to what Jesus says a thought that is not contained in his words. On the other hand, equally dogmatic is the view that those who constitute God’s gift to Jesus are those who in the first place are morally better than the rest, or who at least act better than the rest when the gospel is brought to them. These words of Jesus are without a trace of either predestinarianism or synergism. God’s grace is universal. He would give all men to Jesus. The only reason he does not do so is because so many men obdurately refuse to be part of that gift. On the other hand, God’s grace is alone efficacious. Every man who believes does so only and wholly by virtue of this grace.

In the next paragraph he continues,

The Father’s drawing (v.44) is one of grace alone, thus it is efficacious, wholly sufficient, able to change the unwilling into the willing, but not by coercion, not irresistibly. Man can obdurately refuse to come. Yet when he comes he does so only through the blessed power of grace.

If you are confused by these statements, it is undoubtedly because Mr. Lenski was confused when he wrote them. Perhaps I am just dense, but to me, Mr. Lenski’s comments seem absolutely self-contradictory. The following are a few of the more obvious contradictions:

1. He wrote, “This is the drawing exerted by grace through the means of grace (Word and Sacrament) [this would have to assume all men have heard the Word and been partakers of the Sacraments], alike in effectiveness and seriousness for all men, not in any way limited on God’s part.”

Then he wrote, “Jesus is speaking of this universal and unlimited grace only insofar as it succeeds in actually drawing men from the world to himself.” “Jesus is speaking only of the latter (those who are won solely by divine grace) when he says, ‘I will drew all men unto me.’”

Is this grace of which he speaks “alike in effectiveness and seriousness for all men” or is it “universal and unlimited only insofar as it succeeds in actually drawing men from the world to himself?” Unless this grace actually succeeds in drawing all men from the world to himself, it cannot be alike in effectiveness and seriousness for all men.

All are alike drawn, but by their perverse obduracy many nullify all the power of grace and harden themselves in unbelief.”

Are these obdurate sinners truly drawn or is this grace “universal and unlimited only insofar as it succeeds in actually drawing men from the world to himself?”

2. He wrote, “All the Father has given,” . . .Jesus speaks of all believers of all ages as already being present to the eyes of God. . . . There, however, is not a fixed number, in some mysterious way chosen by an absolute decree of God to be such a gift to Jesus.” After calling such exegesis “wholly dogmatic” he writes, “. . .equally dogmatic is the view that those who constitute God’s gift to Jesus are those who in the first place are morally better than the rest, or who at least act better than the rest when the gospel is brought to them [italics mine].

Then he wrote, “He [God] would give all men to Jesus. The only reason he does not do so is because so many men obdurately refuse to be part of that gift.”

It would appear “all believers of all ages” who in believing became God’s gift to Jesus acted better than those who “obdurately refused to be part of that gift.” Why they acted better, Mr. Lenski doesn’t seem to have a clue. We will address that question later.

When he denies the plain biblical teaching that there is a “fixed number, in some mysterious way chosen by an absolute decree of God to be such a gift to Jesus,” he does so based on his conclusion that such is the answer of dogmatic theology drawn, I suppose, out of thin air. Did he truly believe it is wrong to bring the teachings of plain passages of Scripture to bear on other Scriptures to help us understand them? Are we to try to understand verses of Scripture totally apart from the context of the Scriptures as a whole? Such a concept is totally contrary to sound hermeutical principles.

3. He wrote, “The Father’s drawing is one of grace alone, thus it is efficacious, wholly sufficient, able to change the unwilling into the willing. . . .[italics mine].” Then he wrote, “Man can obdurately refuse to come.”

Is God’s grace “efficacious, wholly sufficient, able to change the unwilling into the willing”, or “can man obdurately refuse to come?”These statements are absolutely contradictory. If it is able to change the unwilling into the willing, why doesn’t it change the obdurate into a submissive believer?

Perhaps my problem is I don’t understand some of his vocabulary. He seems to like the word “obdurate,” and its derivatives. For example, he wrote, “All are alike drawn, but by their perverse obduracy many nullify all the power of grace and harden themselves in unbelief (Matt. 23:37), while others, in equal sin and guilt, are converted by this same power of grace” [italics mine]. I had thought the word obdurate meant “Not easily moved to pity or sympathy; hardhearted. Hardened and unrepentant; impenitent. Not giving in readily; stubborn; obstinate; inflexible.” Webster’s unabridged dictionary offers the following synonyms: callous, hardened and distinguishes them as follows--

Callous denotes a deadening of the sensibilities; Hardened implies a general and settled disregard for the claims of interest, duty, and sympathy; Obdurate rises still higher and implies an active resistance against the pleadings of compassion and humanity.

Mr. Lenski would have us believe all sinners are alike in their state of guilt and sin before God. He wrote, “ . . .while others, in equal sin and guilt, are converted by this same power of grace [italics mine].” When he tells us these others are “equal” in sin with the rest, does he include in that “sin” the devastating effects of sin on the sinner’s nature? Are all sinners equally depraved at heart or are some sinners only semi-depraved? Perhaps some sinners are callous, others are hardened, but the really bad ones are obdurate. The last time I read the Bible I had the distinct impression that all sinners, left to themselves in a state of sinful nature, fall into the “obdurate” class. Consider the following verses:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of this heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5).

In addition to this verse, there are the verses we cited above (Psalms 14:2-3; 58: 3-5) to demonstrate the sinner’s stubborn rebellion against God and his refusal to understand God’s truth or seek for him.

Concerning Judah and Jerusalem the prophet wrote,

The whole head is sick, the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; They have not been closed, or bound up, or soothed with ointment (Isaiah 1:5-6).

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, everyone, to his own way. . .(Isaiah 53:6).

But we are all like an unclean thing and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is no one who calls on your name, who stirs himself up to take hold of you. (Isaiah 64:6-7).

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it (Jeremiah 17:9)?

You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you (Acts 7:51).

But the natural [soulish man--person without the Spirit] does not receive [welcome] the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).

And you [he made alive] who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others( Ephesians 2:1-3).

This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness (Ephesians 4:17-21).

Does that not sound obdurate to you? It does to me. Unless we are prepared to argue those described in these verses are more hardened by nature than we are, there is a formidable problem with Mr. Lenski’s view. If we all fit that description, and I believe we do, how is it that any of us become willing to bow the knee to the sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ? That is a question we must answer if we expect to make any progress in understanding God’s saving grace.
Another word I am having trouble with is the word, “efficacious.” I had thought the word meant, “producing the effect intended; having power adequate to the purpose intended; as an efficacious remedy for disease.”

Mr. Lenski wrote, "God’s grace is universal. He would give all men to Jesus. The only reason he does not do so is because so many men obdurately refuse to be part of that gift. On the other hand, God’s grace is alone efficacious."

The Father’s drawing (v.44) is one of grace alone, thus it is efficacious, wholly sufficient, able to change the unwilling into the willing, but not by coercion, not irresistibly. Man can obdurately refuse to come. Yet when he comes he does so only through the blessed power of grace.

There is a question I must ask. Which is more powerful, the efficacious grace of God or the obdurate rebellion of the sinner? How can the grace of God be both efficacious [producing the effect intended; having power adequate to the purpose intended] and resistible at the same time? Is this “grace” able to change the callous and hardened but unable to change the obdurate? Is it not true that if any sinner is obdurate, all sinners are obdurate? If the grace of God is effectual in bringing one sinner to repentance, would it not be efficacious in bringing any sinner to repentance?
If a powerful force encounters two objects of equal size, weight and density, perhaps both exerting an equal resistance in the opposite direction, wouldn’t that force be expected to have an equal effect on both objects? If an equal effect were not achieved, would we not conclude either that the force exerted on the one object was different from the force exerted on the other or that there was some difference in the objects, causing a disparate reaction? Perhaps, the reader can imagine another possibility; I cannot.
Now, if Mr. Lenski and others of his persuasion insist that the only grace God gives in seeking to bring sinners to himself is a grace that can be effectively resisted by the obduracy of the sinner’s will, they can arrive at only one conclusion. Despite their protestations to the contrary, they must conclude there is a difference in the sinners who encounter the force of this so called “efficacious” grace. Some sinners are less obdurate than others. Lenski wrote, “Why some are thus lost and others won, all being under the same grace, constitutes a mystery insoluble by our minds, about which we know only this, that those who are lost are lost solely by their own guilt, while those who are won are won solely by divine grace [italics mine].” Here I am reminded of a wise proverb I once read, “To those who lack the will to know the truth, nothing is as mysterious as the obvious.”
The reason some are lost and others won is no mystery at all to those who believe the plain teaching of Scripture. It is God who makes one sinner differ from another. His grace is indeed efficacious when it is brought to bear on those who have been the objects of his everlasting love and electing grace. If we are called, we are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28). Returning to our analogy, if the objects in question are equal in every way, yet there is an unequal reaction when force is brought to bear, what must we conclude? Must we not reason that the force exerted on one object must have been different from the force applied to the other?
Here we ask the Apostle Paul’s question, “Who makes you differ from another and what do you have that you did not receive? Now, if you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it” (1 Cor. 4:7). We can only answer one of two ways. We will either say, “I, unlike the obdurate sinners around me, responded favorably to the universal but resistible grace of God,” or “By the free, sovereign, distinguishing, and efficacious grace of God, I am what I am.” The hymn writer asked,

Why was I made to hear His voice,
And enter while there’s room,
While thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?

His answer?

Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew me in;
Else I had still refused to taste,
And perished in my sin.”
Isaac Watts 1707

Grace: Effectual

My purpose in this section is to examine some of those biblical verses that concern the subject of the divine call. I intend to show that every time the terms “call,” “called,” “calling” occur in the New Testament Epistles, they refer not to a mere invitation but to God’s call that effectively enables sinners to believe and repent. Jesus used the word “draw” in the same way. Biblical writers used these terms to refer not to moral suasion or a mere invitation but God’s enabling work apart from which sinners would never come to faith in Christ.
I have cited the full text of the Third and Fourth Articles of the Canons of Dordt, at the end of this booklet so you can see for yourself what these wise men wrote. I would encourage you to read and seek to understand every word they wrote. You will notice there is not a trace of the common misconception of the Calvinist’s teaching on this topic, i.e., that some sinners are dragged against their wills into the kingdom of God. There is no evidence these learned men believed God treats sinners like robots who have no wills of their own. God does not coerce sinners into conversion or in any way force them to do something they do not wish to do.
Let me remind you this is a control issue. Either the sinner is ultimately in control of salvation or God is in control. Now, if God is not in control of it, then he cannot do anything about it. We are wasting our time when we pray that he will convert sinners through our preaching of the gospel if he has left the matter to the sinner. For this reason, what we believe on this issue is of extreme practical importance. If we believe we are the ones who must make the gospel work, it will drive us to all sorts of gimmicks and high pressure tactics aimed at getting the sinner across the line for Christ. If only we can get them to walk the aisle and make a decision, then God must do his part and save them. Additionally, our focus will be on sinners “accepting” Jesus rather than on Jesus accepting sinners. It is the latter, not the former, that is the focus of the biblical gospel.

The Call: Mere Invitation or Effectual Enablement?

Two Kinds of Call

The Outward, Universal Call

There were two times Jesus used the words “call” or “called” in the gospels to refer to the gospel invitation. The first, “I did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” occurs in Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32 . The second, “. . .many are called, but few are chosen,” occurs in Matthew 20:16 and 22:14. These refer to the external, sincere, and universal offer of Christ in the gospel. Apart from God’s internal, enabling call, sinners will reject this external call of the gospel every time. The Puritan John Flavel wrote,

The external voice is evermore ineffectual and successless, when it is not animated by that internal spiritual voice. It was marvelous to see the walls of Jericho falling to the ground at the sound of ramshorns; there was certainly more than the force of an external blast to produce such an effect; but more marvelous it is, to see at the sound of the gospel, not only the weapons of iniquity falling out of sinner’s hands, but the very enmity itself out of their hearts. Here you see is a voice in a voice, an internal efficacy in the external sound; without which the gospel makes no saving impression.

The Internal, Effectual Call

Every other time these words occur in the New Testament Scriptures, they refer to God’s internal, enabling call. It is important to notice it is God, the Father, who is the agent who issues this call. In 1 Corinthians 1:9, the Apostle Paul wrote, “God is faithful, through whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” Jesus said, “No man can come to me except the Father who sent me should draw him” (John 6:44).

Regeneration

It is the Holy Spirit who performs the work commonly called “regeneration” by which sinners, having been given a new nature, are enabled to respond to the gospel in saving faith. When we speak of regeneration, we mean God’s work of implanting a new governing principle of life in the soul. It involves a radical change of nature that requires nothing less than divine power. New Testament writers used several different metaphors to represent this work of the Spirit. Consider the following list, and ask yourself whether the subjects of these acts are active or passive in producing this work we call regeneration.

1. Creation–Just as, in the beginning, God spoke light into existence, in regeneration, God causes the light of the gospel to shine into our hearts (2 Corinthians 4:6).

2. Circumcision–Physical circumcision under the Abrahamic Covenant has been replaced by circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:28-29; Colossians 2:11).

3. Resurrection– We have been raised from spiritual death to spiritual life by the same power of God that raised Jesus from the grave (Ephesians 1:19-20; 2:5-6).

4. Birth–Jesus told Nicodemus he needed to be born from above (John 3: 7). He was not telling Nicodemus something he needed to do. He was telling him there was something God would have to do to him before he could see or enter the kingdom.

5. Baptism–Baptism is an outward expression of God’s internal work in which he unites us with Christ in his death burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12).

6. Restoration of sight–Luke 4:18; 2 Corinthians 4:3-6.

7. Liberation from a Dungeon–.Luke 4:18. God has called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. We were called for freedom (Galatians 5:13).

In not one of these acts is the subject active. He is always acted upon. So it is in calling and regeneration. These are God’s acts which he performs without our cooperation. We are not active but are acted upon. Conversion (faith and repentance) is our response to God’s sovereign work in our souls.

Though the Southern Baptist Confession of Faith, “The Baptist Faith and Message,” is a much weaker and more vague confession than Baptists have adhered to historically, it, nonetheless, clearly teaches this order. The following is cited from “The Baptist Faith and Message–2000."

Salvation IV--

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace [emphasis mine].

Notice, according to this statement, repentance and faith are the sinner’s response to regeneration, not the cause of it.

Always Effectual

There are three passages I would like us to consider that demonstrate, beyond question, the effectiveness of God’s internal call, and the work of regeneration. Though in each of these, the speaker or writer uses a different term to refer to the divine activity, they all refer to the internal and enabling work of God in the soul.

Drawing--John 6:44-45

In this passage, Jesus has just revealed himself as “the true bread” that came down from God out of heaven. In response to this revelation, the very people who had desired to take him by force and make him a king were now beginning to manifest their wicked unbelief.
It would appear to the uninformed observer that Jesus’ ministry was about to suffer a significant setback and that the Father’s purpose for sending him into the world was about to be frustrated. Add to this the mass departure of his disciples about which we read at the end of this chapter, and it appears Jesus’ ministry will never get off the ground-- “From that, many of his disciples went back and walked with him no more ”(v. 66). It is to correct this misunderstanding that Jesus speaks the words found in verse thirty seven, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will by no means cast out.” Notice that in this verse he uses a present tense in referring to the Father’s donation of a people to the Son–“All the Father is giving me.” Later, he refers to the same people in the past tense–“has given me.” In the latter, he refers to God’s eternal decree; in the former, he refers to God’s internal drawing in accordance with that decree by which he enables these favored sinners to embrace his Son in saving faith. Notice that all the Father is thus giving to the Son will come to him in saving faith. Far from failing and being frustrated, the purpose of God is being accomplished perfectly. Additionally, the Son promises to keep to the end all the Father is giving him. This is what he means when he says, “I will by no means cast him out.” He will keep all his people until the resurrection at the last day.
In John 6:44, Jesus leaves no doubt about who is in control in the matter of salvation. He says, “No man can come to me unless the Father who has sent me should draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. First, he teaches us no sinner left to himself in a state of fallen, sinful nature is able trust in Jesus. He does not say no sinner may come to me; every sinner has permission to come. God sincerely invites sinners wherever they may be to come to the fountain of life. The word he uses speaks not of permission but of ability–“no man can come.”
Second he declares that all whom the Father thus draws, he will raise up at the last day. His teaching is plain and clear; No one can come unless he is drawn, but every one who is drawn will come and be kept to the end.
In support of his assertion that everyone the Father draws in this way will come and be kept until the final day, Jesus cites a reference from the Old Testament Scriptures, most likely a paraphrase of Isaiah 54:13, “All your sons will be taught by the Lord, and great will be your children’s peace.” The restoration of the city of Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity became a type of God’s gracious blessings on the Messianic community, God’s new covenant people. Jesus’ meaning is that every member of this new covenant community will become so because he has been taught of God not only by the external voice of the gospel but by an internal illumination and implantation of a new governing principle in the soul. Compare this with God’s promise to “write his laws in their hearts” (Jeremiah 31:33). He concludes, “Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” Thus, Jesus teaches the negative and positive side of the same truth. No one is able to come apart from the Father’s drawing, but everyone who is drawn will surely come.
Some have supposed, based on John 12:32, that this drawing is extended to every person on earth without exception. However, a careful consideration of the context of that verse should make it clear Jesus is talking about all people without distinction, not all without exception. The New King James Version translates it, “. . . .I will draw all peoples unto myself.”

Called–Romans 8: 28-30

In the second passage I would ask you to consider, the Apostle Paul is pursuing an argument he began in chapter five of his Epistle to the Romans. He has already offered several arguments to show that all whom God has declared righteous in his sight are certain to be glorified, conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, his incarnate Son. In the immediate context, his argument is based on the certain fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose (cf. passages like Psalms 115:3 and Isaiah 46: 9-11).
In Romans 8:28, he refers to those whose natures have been radically changed by grace as “the called ones.” Earlier in this chapter he has described the unconverted as “hostile toward God” (v. 7). In contrast to such an attitude of hostility that refuses to be subject to God’s law, he now describes believers as “those who love God.” The decisive factor that has made the difference between “those who love God” and “those of a fleshly mind” is God’s call.
In verses twenty-eight through thirty, there is an unbroken chain of divine, saving activity stretching from God’s saving purpose in eternity past to the glorification of all believers in Christ in eternity future. When the Apostle tells us God foreknew his people, he refers to all believers of all time, but only to them. It is important to note they are believers because they were foreknown [foreloved], not foreknown because he knew they would become believers. When he tells us those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, her refers only to believers but to all believers. When he tells us those whom he predestined he also called, he refers only to them but to all of them. When he tells us whom he called he also justified, he refers only to them but to all of them. When he tells us those he justified he also glorified, he refers only to them, but to all of them. In other words, everyone who is foreknown is predestined; everyone predestined is called; everyone called is justified; everyone justified is glorified. There are no breaks in this divine chain of saving activity.
For our purpose here, I want you to focus on one link of this chain–Everyone called is justified. If God’s call is a mere invitation issued to all sinners or some sort of prevenient grace extended to all sinners alike, would we not have to believe, based on this verse, that all who have heard the gospel invitation and all who have received this prevenient grace will be justified?

In truth, the Apostle was not writing about a universal invitation or an ineffectual prevenient grace. Instead, he was writing about a call that invariably produces faith and repentance in the hearts of all who receive it. Thus, everyone who receives this call will be declared righteous in God’s presence.

Born/Begotten of God--1 John 5:1

Finally, consider the term born/begotten of God in John’s first Epistle. It is unclear whether John intended to represent God’s work of grace in the sinner’s heart as begetting this new life or giving birth to it. In either case, it is clear John intended his readers to understand this work of God as initiating all that is righteous and holy in the believer’s life. He uses the term in the following verses; 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. In each case, He uses the perfect tense of the verb, a tense whose action occurred in the past with results continuing into the present. In each case, John represents this act of begetting/birthing as causing present actions or characteristics in the believer’s life. In none of these cases would it be reasonable to conclude the present actions or characteristics in the believer’s life in any way caused this begetting or birthing experience. Consider the following chart that shows these tenses in terms of cause and effect.


CAUSE EFFECT

2:29 Born of God practicing righteousness

3:9 Born of God does not practice sin cannot go on sinning

4:7 Born of God loves

5:4 Born of God overcomes the world

5:18 Born of God keeps himself and the wicked one does not touch him.

There is one verse we did not list in this cause/effect chart. I deliberately omitted it because I want you first to consider this chart carefully. Is there any question in your mind that in all these actions in the “effect” column, being “born of God” was the preceding cause? Now I want you to consider the identical grammatical construction in 1 John 5:1. John wrote, “Everyone who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, has been born of God. . . .” Based on the pattern we observed in the above chart, can anyone reasonably argue that faith is an act that moves God to regenerate a sinner? Is it not clear instead that being born of God is the antecedent cause of a believer’s faith? This was clearly the understanding of the framers of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833). Concerning the grace of God in regeneration they wrote,

We believe that, in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith and newness of life [italics mine].

Though it is probably not advisable to use the term “irresistible grace” when speaking to the theologically uninformed, the grace of God when brought to bear on the obdurate sinner’s heart is nothing less than irresistible. What other kind of grace could save him? John Murray, commenting on Jesus’ instruction about the Spirit’s role in regeneration, wrote,

It has often been said that we are passive in regeneration. This is a true and proper statement. For it is simply the precipitate of what our Lord has taught here. We may not like it. We may recoil against it. It may not fit into our way of thinking and it may not accord with the time worn expressions which are the coin of our evangelism. But if we recoil against it, we do well to remember that this recoil is recoil against Christ. And what shall we answer when we appear before him whose truth we rejected and with whose gospel we tampered? But blessed be God that the gospel of Christ is one of sovereign, efficacious, irresistible regeneration. If it were not the case that in regeneration we are passive, the subjects of an action of which God alone is the agent, there be no gospel at all. For unless God by sovereign, operative grace had turned our enmity to love and our disbelief to faith we would never yield the response of faith and love.

Speaking Biblically

Pay attention to the language of the New Testament Scriptures; compare the way Jesus, the Apostles, and other biblical writers expressed themselves about salvation with the way modern preachers and teachers speak. If you find a difference, whose speech patterns to you think you should emulate? For example, Luke describes the conversion of a woman named Lydia (Acts 16:14). If he had done so in modern, evangelical jargon, he would no doubt have written, “A woman named Lydia heard the gospel and made a decision to open the door of her heart and let Jesus come in.” Here was a woman who worshiped Jehovah as a proselyte Jew. When Paul spoke the gospel, a message no doubt markedly different from the message of Judaism she had been accustomed to hearing, she readily received it. Does Luke attribute this reception of the truth to her “free will” decision or to the wise and judicious use of prevenient grace? No, he attributes it to God’s saving activity in her heart. This is what he wrote, “Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.”
In Paul’s instructions to Timothy about how to conduct himself as a shepherd over God’s flock, he told him how to deal with those who set themselves in opposition to God’s truth. The hope he held out to him was not that God might give such people prevenient grace in hopes that they might exercise their “free will” wisely and turn themselves to the truth. Instead, he wrote,

And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:24-26).

Although these are only two passages of the many I could have cited, they are characteristic of the language one finds throughout the remainder of the Bible.



Called According to His Purpose

You may be wondering what determines who is called, and thus enabled to believe the gospel, and who is left in sin and unbelief. The New Testament Scriptures do not leave us to wonder about the answer to this important question. The Apostle Paul makes the answer very clear in Romans 8:28. He describes those who love God as “those who are called.” Then he tells us these are called according to God’s purpose. As the context of this verse makes plain, the purpose about which he writes is God’s predestined decree in which he set his love on his people from all eternity and determined that those thus chosen would be conformed to the image of his incarnate Son.
Additionally, he wrote to Timothy, urging him to share with him in the sufferings brought on by the gospel. This Timothy was to do, according to God’s power. Paul refers to this God as the one

who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, 10but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, (2 Timothy 1:9-10).

The purpose about which Paul wrote is God’s elective purpose in which he graciously chose some sinners out of the mass of fallen humanity all of whom deserved his everlasting wrath and curse. There are numerous texts that boldly state or clearly imply that such a choice occurred. Consider the following references: John 10:16; 25-30; 17: 15:16; 17:2, 6-11; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28-33; 9:10-24; 11:5-6; 1 Corinthians 1: 18-31; Ephesians 1:4-5; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2, and Revelation 17:8.
Though this is by no means an exhaustive list of the verses we could have cited, at least you can see this teaching is not obscure and unimportant.
Among those who acknowledge that such a choice occurred [most seem content simply to ignore Scriptures pertinent to this subject], there are two views of its basis. Some contend this choice was based on God’s foresight of the believer’s decision to receive Christ. Historically, Arminians have believed included in this basis is his foresight not only of faith, but also of final perseverance in faith and holiness. Others believe God’s choice was the result of his wise and sovereign good pleasure without reference to anything he foresaw in the objects of his love.

Foreseen Faith?

Some have suggested God’s choice of those who would be saved was determined by his foresight of their free will decision in favor of the gospel. This cannot be the case for a number of reasons. Not the least of these is a total absence of biblical basis for such a belief. There are two verses in the New Testament Scriptures that talk about God’s foreknowledge in relationship to God’s saving purpose. In neither of these verses is there the slightest suggestion that God foresaw the sinner’s faith and based his decision to save such sinners on what he foresaw. In fact, in Romans 8:29, it is God’s people who are foreknown, not some decision they would make in the future. Paul does not write, “For what he did foresee,” but “For whom he did foreknow.” One refers to a mere factual knowledge of what someone would do, the other refers to an intimate knowledge of the person himself. This is clearly the way the word translated “know” is used in the Scriptures. Jesus could not say to some who will come before him in judgment, “Depart from me. . .I never knew you,” if the word meant merely to know about how someone would act. The meaning is that Jesus had never set his saving love on them. People often assume foreknowledge is merely God’s omniscience of things future. It is true God knows all things past, present, future, and possible, but this is clearly not what the Apostle intends by his use of this term. If it were, his statement in Romans 8:29 would lead us to an erroneous conclusion. Since the text says nothing about whether what God “foreknew” was good or evil, faith or unbelief, we would have to conclude this foreknowledge was all-inclusive. His omniscience extends to all his creatures and all their actions. God knew everything about everyone and all we would ever do, think, feel, or choose. If this view were correct, “Whom he foreknew,” would have to refer to everyone without exception. Yet, the text states,

For whom God foreknew, he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the firstborn of many brethren. Moreover, whom he predestinated, them he also called, and those he called, them he also justified and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30).

Now, if we should insist the Apostle used the word “foreknew” to refer merely to God’s omniscience of the future, since the Apostle does not specify what God foresaw, would we not have to reason this “foreknowledge” extended to everyone? Since God’s perfect omniscience of things future extends to everyone, every event and every action, would we not be forced to the conclusion that everyone without any exception is included in God’s purpose to conform believers to Christ’s incarnate image? This, in turn, would lead us to the conclusion that everyone would be called, justified and glorified. This clearly cannot be Paul’s meaning here. Instead, he means God set his everlasting love on everyone he planned to conform to the image of his incarnate Son.
Often, people seem unhappy with the idea that God has planned everything that occurs. To them, it seems, it would have been better had God simply set everything in motion and then let it function on its own, without any rhyme or reason. Of course, such an idea is absurd. The Bible tells us God works all things according to the counsel of his will”(Ephesians 1:11).
Permit me to ask you a question. What would you have to say about a man who began to construct a house without first forming some sort of plan, at least in his mind, according to which he intended to build? Would you not call such a man a fool? It would make no sense whatsoever to begin such a project without first conceptualizing what the finished product would be like. Why, then, would anyone think God would begin to create and govern an entire universe without first framing a plan according to which he intended to create and govern?
Of course, one difference between human plans and the divine plan is human plans are subject to alteration; God’s plan is not. As finite beings, we lack the foresight and, at times, the resources to frame a plan that we can execute perfectly. Sometimes, in our arrogance, we speak of the foreseeable future as if such a thing existed for us; it does not. When we make our plans, we need to include contingencies. We can never tell what might occur to completely spoil or at least, substantially alter our plans. We may find we lack the resources necessary to execute them. Any number of problems might arise that will prevent their realization. This is never true of God’s plan. He who knows the end from the beginning is never surprised by an unexpected impediment to the realization of his plan. Additionally, he never lacks the resources to finish the task he has undertaken. For these reasons, the writer of the Hebrews Epistle could write about “the immutability of his counsel” Hebrews 6:17). God did not plan to do what he foresaw would occur, he foresaw what he had planned to do. It was his plan that determined what would occur, not his perfect foresight of what would occur. There is no question God foresaw every believer’s faith long before we existed, but that foreseen faith did not form the basis of God’s choice. Faith cannot be both the basis of God’s choice and the result of God’s choice. The faith God foresaw only existed because he produced it in the believer’s heart by his effectual call and by the Spirit’s work of regeneration. That call, as we have seen, is in accord with God’s eternal purpose. The call results from the purpose or plan; faith results from the call. Faith (foreseen) cannot have been the basis of the plan. Consider this matter in terms of cause and effect:


Cause Effect/Cause Effect
God’s Electing Effectual Call Faith
Purpose

The effectual call does not cause God’s purpose; it is caused by it. Faith does not cause the effectual call; it is produced by it. Faith would not exist apart from the effectual call. The effectual call would not be issued apart from God’s electing purpose. Therefore, faith would not exist apart from God’s eternal, electing, purpose. If faith would not exist apart from God’s electing purpose, faith cannot be the basis of that purpose (choice).
Remember what the psalmist tells us God actually sees when he looks down from heaven on the fallen children of Adam. Left to themselves apart from God’s enabling grace, there are none who understand and seek God out. He wrote,

The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one (Psalms 14:2-3).

Had God’s choice been conditioned on what he saw in the hearts of sinners acting on their own, he would have chosen none of us.

God’s Wise and Gracious Decision

Those who reject the idea that God’s choice of some for salvation was based on his foresight of their decision believe his choice was unconditioned by anything he foresaw. This does not mean God’s choice was arbitrary and without basis; it simply means he has not revealed his reasons to us, his creatures.

God’s Sovereign Good Pleasure

The only reason God has revealed for his electing decree is his sovereign good pleasure. Matthew’s Gospel records what Jesus said about this subject.

At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good [so it was well-pleasing] in Your sight. “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him (Matthew 11:25-27).

The Apostle Paul assigned the same reason to God’s electing decree in his Epistle to the Ephesians. He wrote,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6).

God’s Gracious Choice

When the Southern Baptist doctrinal statement, ”The Baptist Faith and Message,” speaks of “God’s purpose of Grace,” it states, “Election is God’s gracious purpose. . . . [italics mine].” When the statement speaks of “God’s gracious purpose,” it does not mean God was just being really nice and kind when he framed this decree. It means he framed this decree not only apart from what sinners deserve but contrary to what sinners deserve. In grace, God gives what we do not deserve, his saving favor, in place of what we do deserve, his eternal wrath and curse. In grace, God chose those who in every way deserved to be rejected. One of the old writers said it this way, “There was everything in us to turn God’s stomach, but nothing to turn his heart.”

In Romans 11: 5-6, the Apostle Paul wrote,

5Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

The question we need to ask about these verses is this; to what does the phrase “and if [it is] by grace” refer? Some have used these verses to show that justification before God is by grace alone, apart from any mixture of human effort. Though this is altogether true, it is not what the apostle was teaching in these verses. This phrase in verse six looks back to the phrase “election of grace” in verse five. The apostle could just as well have written in verse six, “and if election is by grace, then it is no longer of works; . . .” Does this not plainly show us that God did not base his choice to save certain favored sinners on any good actions or attitudes he foresaw in us? His choice was based solely on his sovereign good pleasure.
In Romans, 9:10-24, the apostle discusses the issue of God’s righteousness or unrighteousness in choosing some sinners and passing over others (see v. 14). Why did God withhold mercy from some sinners who deserve to perish in their sins and choose to grant mercy to others who equally deserve to perish in their sins? If God’s decision to show mercy to certain favored sinners while passing over others had been based on faith or some other virtue he foresaw in those sinners., such an issue would have no substance at all. No reasonable person would consider God unrighteous [or unfair] if he chose to save certain sinners because he foresaw they were going choose to obey the gospel. In such a case, it would not truly be God decision that determined whether he would show mercy but their decision. Now, do you suppose the Apostle Paul had the ability to communicate this idea to his readers? I think I have done a relatively good job of communicating the idea to you; if I could do so, certainly the apostle, writing under divine inspiration, could have communicated such a concept. Have you ever wondered why Paul did not answer this proposed objection about whether God was righteous in his decision, by simply referring his readers to the idea of foreseen faith? We can only reasonably assume he did not do so because foreseen faith was not the basis of God’s choice. His choice was based solely on his gracious and sovereign good pleasure.
The apostle answers the question of God’s righteousness in verse sixteen of this chapter. He writes, “So then, it [God’s decision to show mercy] is not of him who wills, or of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” In other words, it is not the sinner’s choice that determines God’s decision [not of him who wills] ; it is not the sinner’s exertion that determines God’s decision [not of him who runs]; God’s decision to show mercy on certain sinners is based on nothing outside himself. The matter is resolved solely in the sovereign will of God.

Conclusion

Those who hold the “prevenient grace/free will” doctrine would have us believe the Bible tells us nothing about what makes the gospel work. It is clear prevenient grace does not, of itself, bring anyone to saving faith. According to this doctrine, apart from the sinner’s cooperation, prevenient grace would always prove ineffectual. Ultimately then, it is the sinner who must make the gospel work though he has no ability to do so. Prevenient grace leaves the sinner unregenerate. Since his nature remains sinful, his thoughts, feelings, and choices will always be sinful.
It is an inescapable conclusion for those who hold this view that sinners can take at least some credit for being in Christ. Those sinners who believe, for some reason unexplained by this view, chose rightly while others, less prudent in their use of prevenient grace, chose to remain in their sins. Apparently, those who chose rightly possessed some innate, inherent virtue or prudence for which they can feel some sense of pride. However vehemently Mr. Lenski and those of his persuasion may insist “those who are saved are saved wholly by [prevenient] grace,” such grace, of itself, does not save any if it does not save all to whom it is applied.
Only God’s effectual call can secure the sinner’s voluntary compliance with the demands of the gospel. Though God’s call does not coerce sinners to believe the gospel against their wills, it does effectively secure their glad obedience to its lofty terms. It is not our duty to reconcile, in our finite minds, every truth God has revealed in the Scriptures. Our duty is simply to believe everything God had revealed in his Word. The following is a list of biblical statements from which the serious student of the Bible cannot escape.

1. God freely and sincerely invites whoever wishes to embrace Jesus Christ in saving faith (Isa. 45:22; 55:1; Matt. 11: 28-30; Rev. 22:17).

2. No sinner has the innate ability to seek Christ as he is offered in the gospel (John 6:44; Rom 3:11; 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14).

3. God’s common grace, including the universal proclamation of the gospel and the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, though sufficient to leave sinners without excuse if they remain in their sins, is never, in itself, effective in bringing sinners to saving faith (Acts 7:51; Rom. 1:20; 1 Cor. 1: 18, 21-23).

4. All those effectually drawn by the Father’s inner call, will invariably respond to the gospel call in saving faith and godly repentance (John 6:37; 44-45; Romans 8: 30; 1 Cor. 1:21-24).

God grants this inner, effectual call to those he chose for himself before time began. This choice was not based on some positive decision or innate virtue he foresaw in his people; we were dead in trespasses and sins and children of wrath like the rest of Adam’s fallen sons. Instead, this wise and holy decree of God, bubbling up from his infinite mercy, love and grace, is owing to his sovereign good pleasure and is to the praise of the glory of his grace alone (Eph. 1:5).

Practical Applications

It is likely someone will ask what difference it makes what we believe about these doctrines. As long as people make decisions to believe the gospel, isn’t that good enough? Does it really matter what brought them to saving faith? Since I believe it matters a great deal , I want to close this study by mentioning a few of the practical effects of believing these truths.
Regarding the practical effects of these doctrines, the Westminster Confession of Faith states,

The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

Worship

It is likely the first effect of believing these doctrines will be a new found sense of awe in God’s presence. It is difficult to feel anything other than pity for the “god” who is proclaimed in the average pulpit. Though this god has done his best to save sinners, they continue to check him at every turn and thwart his purposes by the sovereignty of their free wills. How frustrated he must be with their refusal to let him be God. In contrast to this, “Our God is in the heavens, He has done whatsoever He has pleased “ (Psa 115:3).
For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
And His kingdom is from generation to generation.
All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing;
He does according to His will in the army of heaven
And among the inhabitants of the earth.
No one can restrain His hand
Or say to Him, “What have You done” (Dan. 4:34-35)?

This God alone is worthy of our praise and worship. We must reject all other concepts of him that we have imbibed from the poisoned fountain of modern-day “theology.” We must bow in humble submission before his holy throne and acknowledge that he is God alone.

Humility

Nothing so deflates the prideful sinner as to realize all his hopes for mercy depend on the sovereign dispensation of God’s mercy. As long as he believes he holds the key to heaven in his hind pocket, the sinner will remain complacent in his intractable unbelief. But, tell him he is in a burning building from which he can provide or find no exit on his own, and the matter will be altogether different. Tell him the issue is not whether he will accept Christ, but whether Christ will accept him, and the entire complexion of the problem is altered. God does not receive sinners because he must. He will not be unjust if he rejects us. He receives us because he will; he can only receive us justly because, in Christ’s sacrifice, his has satisfied his own righteous demands for those who will repent and believe.
Additionally, these truths will have a profoundly humbling effect on believers when we realize it is only God’s grace that distinguishes us from the vilest sinner who ever lived. William Cowper expressed this sentiment well when he wrote,

The dying thief rejoiced to see
That fountain in his day,
And there may I, though vile as he,
Wash all my sins away.

Understanding these truths, we can never take any of the glory of our deliverance from sin for ourselves, since we know apart from grace we, too, would have rejected the gospel.. We must take all the blame for our sinfulness; we must give all the glory for salvation to God. Consider this truth as Horatius Bonar so beautifully expressed it in the following hymn:

All that I was, my sin, my guilt,
My death, was all my own;

All that I am I owe to Thee,
My gracious God, alone.

The darkness of my former state,
The bondage, all was mine;
The light of life in which I walk,
The liberty, it Thine.

Thy grace first made me feel my sin,
It taught me to believe;
Then in believing, peace I found,
And now I live, I live.

All that I am e’en here on earth,
And all that I hope to be,
When Jesus comes, and glory dawns,
I owe it, Lord, to Thee.

Evangelism

Arminians pervert history when they suggest a belief in the sovereignty of God in the sinner’s salvation will stifle evangelistic zeal. Try to tell that to David Brainard, George Whitefield, C.H. Spurgeon, Andrew Fuller, William Carey, Adonarim Judson, Luther Rice, et. al. Far from stifling evangelistic zeal, the truth of God’s sovereignty in the sinner’s salvation will impel us to greater fervency in proclaiming God’s good news. We do not need to wonder if our efforts will be successful, since we understand that every time we are faithful to make the gospel known, God will use that message to accomplish his sovereign purpose.

Additionally, since we understand it is not for us to make converts, we will be content to stick to God’s message and to his work, done in his Scripturally prescribed way. A belief in free will, will drive us to gimmicks; a belief in free grace will drive us to God.

Prayer

Since God, not the sinner, is in control of salvation, prayer for the lost makes sense. If the matter were outside his control, praying for the conversion of sinners would be a futile activity. Our time would be better spent begging sinners to make a decision. The God who has ordained the end of all things has also ordained the means through which all thing are to be accomplished. Prayer is one such means. We should be praying diligently for our churches and for the pagan world around us that God would revive his church and convert the lost through our proclamation of his good news.

Abundant Consolation

Knowing God has our full and final deliverance in his hands is a consolation that cannot be rivaled. If we had begun the work, the work would be ours to finish, but since he began the work, we can rest assured he will finish what he began (See–Phil.1:6). Augustus Toplady wrote,

The work which his goodness began,
The arm of his strength will complete;
His promise is Yea and Amen,
And never was forfeited yet.
Things future, nor things that are now,
Nor all things below or above,
Can make him his purpose forego,
Or sever my soul from his love.

THE CANONS OF DORDT
THE CORRUPTION OF MAN, HIS CONVERSION TO GOD,
AND THE MANNER THEREOF

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 1.
Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright, all his affections pure, and the whole man was holy. But, revolting from God by the instigation of the devil and by his own free will, he forfeited these excellent gifts; and an in the place thereof became involved in blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of judgment; became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 2.
Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt stock produced a corrupt offspring. Hence all the posterity of Adam, Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original parent, not by limitation, as the Pelagians of old asserted, but by the propagation of a vicious nature, in consequence of the just judgment of God.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 3.
Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 4.
There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, or natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior. But so far is this light of nature from begin sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is , man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 5.
In the same light are we to consider the law of the decalogue, delivered by God to His peculiar people, the Jews, by the hands of Moses. For though it reveals the greatness of sin, and more and more convinces man thereof, yet, as it neither points out a remedy nor imparts strength to extricate him from his misery, but, being weak through the flesh, leaves the transgressor under the curse, man cannot by this law obtain saving grace.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 6.
What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law could do, that God performs by the operation of the Holy Spirit through the word or ministry of reconciliation; which is the glad tidings concerning the Messiah, by means whereof it has pleased God to save such as believe, as well under the Old as under the New Testament.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 7.
This mystery of His will God reveals to but a small number under the Old Testament; under the New Testament (the distinction between various peoples having been removed) He reveals it to many. The cause of this dispensation is not to be ascribed to the superior worth of one nation above another, nor to their better use of the light of nature, but results wholly from the sovereign good pleasure and unmerited love of God. Hence they to whom so great and so gracious a blessing is communicated, above their desert, or rather notwithstanding their demerits, are bound to acknowledge it with humble and grateful hearts, and with the apostle to adore, but in no wise curiously to pry into, the severity and justice of God's judgments displayed in others to whom this grace is not given.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 8.
As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come unto Him. He also seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 9.
It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves; some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the Word of life; other, though they receive it, suffer it not to make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their joy, arising only from a temporary faith, soon vanishes, and they fall away; while others choke the seed of the Word by perplexing cares and the pleasures of this world, and produce no fruit. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt 13).



THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 10.
But that others who are called by the gospel obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will, whereby one distinguishes himself above others equally furnished with grace sufficient for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains); but it must be wholly ascribed to God, who, as He has chosen His own from eternity in Christ, so He calls them effectually in time, confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of His own Son; that they may show forth the praises of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light, and may glory not in themselves but in the Lord, according to the testimony of the apostles in various places.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 11.
But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly under and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He pervades the inmost recesses of man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 12.
And this is that regeneration so highly extolled in Scripture, that renewal, new creation, resurrection from the dead, making alive, which God works in us without out aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the Author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active. Wherefore also man himself is rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 13.
The manner of this operation cannot be fully comprehended by believers in this life. Nevertheless, they are satisfied to know and experience that by this grace of God they are enabled to believe with the heart and to love their Savior.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 14.
Faith is therefore to be considered as the gift of God, not on account of its being offered by God to man, to be accepted or rejected at his pleasure, but because it is in reality conferred upon him, breathed and infused into him; nor even because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will consent to the terms of salvation and actually believe in Christ, but because He who works in man both to will and to work, and indeed all things in all, produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 15.
God is under no obligation to confer this grace upon any; for how can He be indebted to one who had no previous gifts to bestow as a foundation for such recompense? Nay, how can He be indebted to one who has nothing of his own but sin and falsehood? He, therefore, who becomes the subject of this grace owes eternal gratitude to God, and gives Him thanks forever. Whoever is not made partaker thereof is either altogether regardless of these spiritual gifts and satisfied with his own condition, or is in no apprehension of danger, and vainly boasts the possession of that which he has not. Further, with respect to those who outwardly profess their faith and amend their lives, we are bound, after the example of the apostle, to judge and speak of them in the most favorable manner; for the secret recesses of the heart are unknown to us. And as to others who have not yet been called, it is our duty to pray for them to God, who calls the things that are not as if they were. But we are in no wise to conduct ourselves towards them with haughtiness, as if we had made ourselves to differ.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 16.
But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole race of mankind deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and it properties, or do violence thereto; but is spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it, that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign; in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist. Wherefore, unless the admirable Author of every good work so deal with us, man can have no hope of being able to rise from his fall by his own free will, by which, in a state of innocence, he plunged himself into ruin.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 17.
As the almighty operation of God whereby He brings forth and supports this our natural life does not exclude but require the use of means by which God, of His infinite mercy and goodness, has chosen to exert His influence, so also the aforementioned supernatural operation of God by which we are regenerated in no wise excludes or subverts the use of the gospel, which the most wise God has ordained to be the seed of regeneration and food of the soul. Wherefore, as the apostles and the teachers who succeeded them piously instructed the people concerning this grace of God, to His glory and to the abasement of all pride, and in the meantime, however, neglected not to keep them, by the holy admonitions of the gospel, under the influence of the Word, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline; so even now it should be far from those who give or receive instruction in the Church to presume to tempt God by separating what He of His good pleasure has most intimately joined together. For grace is conferred by means of admonitions; and the more readily we perform our duty, the more clearly this favor of God, working in us, usually manifest itself, and the more directly His work is advanced; to whom alone all the glory, both for the means and for their saving fruit and efficacy, is forever due. Amen.

Bibliography

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Chapter II, #7.

Flavel, John, The Works of John Flavel, Vol IV,London: The Banner of Truth Trust). Reprint ed. 1968.
Lenski, R.C.H, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel.Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961).

McKechnie, Jean Ed. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language--Unabridged.(New York: The Publisher’s Guild, Inc., 1960.

Murray, John, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1961.

Schaff, Phillip, The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 3, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.

“The Westminster Confession of Faith” Chapter 3, Of God’s Eternal Decree, paragraph VIII.











My Lord, I Did Not Choose You

My Lord, I did not choose You,
For that could never be;
My heart would still refuse You,
Had you not chosen me.
You took the sin that stained me,
You cleansed and made me new;
Of old You have ordained me,
That I should live to You.

Unless, Your grace had called me
And taught my op’ning mind,
The world would have enthralled me,
To heav’nly glories blind.
My heart knows none above You;
For Your rich grace thirst.
I know that if I love You,
You must have loved me first.

Josiah Conder











Everlasting Love

‘Twas with an everlasting love
That God his own elect embraced;
Before he made the worlds above,
Or earth on her huge columns placed.

Long ere the sun’s refulgent ray
Primeval shades of darkness drove,
They on his sacred bosom lay,
Loved with an everlasting love.

Then in the glass of his decrees,
Christ and his bride appeared as one;
Her sin, by imputation his,
Whilst she in spotless splendor shone.

O love, how high thy glories swell!
How great, immutable and free!
Ten thousand sins, as black as hell,
Are swallowed up, O love, in thee!

[Loved, when a wretch, defiled with sin,
At war with heaven, in league with hell,
A slave to every lust obscene;
Who living, lived but to rebel,]

Believer, here thy comfort stands,--
From first to last salvation’s free,
And everlasting love demands
An everlasting song from thee.
Kent.




Hiding Place

Hail, sovereign love, that first began
The scheme to rescue fallen man!
Hail, matchless, free, eternal grace,
That gave my soul a hiding-place. .

[Against the God who rules the sky
I fought with hand uplifted high;
Despised the mention of his grace,
Too proud to seek a hiding place. .

But thus the eternal counsel ran:
“Almighty love, arrest that man!”
I felt the arrows of distress,
And found I had no hiding place.

Indignant Justice stood in view;
To Sinai’s fiery mount I flew;
But Justice cried, with frowning face,
“This mountain is no hiding place.

Ere long a heavenly voice I heard,
And Mercy’s angel-form appeared;
She led me on with placid pace,
To Jesus, as my Hiding-place.]

Should storms of seven-fold thunder roll,
And shake the globe from pole to pole,
No flaming bolt could daunt my face,
For Jesus is my Hiding-place.

On him almighty vengeance fell,
That must have sunk a world to hell;
He bore it for a chosen race,
And thus became their Hiding- place

A few more rolling suns ,at most,
Shall land me on fair Canaan’s coast
Where I shall sing the song of grace,
And see my glorious Hiding-place
Brewer