Essential Church Pastor makes the case for Prevenient Grace in New Book

Prevenient grace is a topic that seems to be relegated to the field of scholastics with regard to theology. It isn’t taught, preached, or pondered much these days in typical bible studies and church discussions, but that could soon change.

Pastor D.M. Richardson, the shepherd of internet-connected The Essential Church and author of books Short-Sighted Faith: Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS) and the Doctrine of Perseverance, Doctrinal Deception: Responding to Carlton Pearson’s The Gospel of Inclusion, and More Doctrinal Deception: Bishop Carlton Pearson’s Inclusion, Further Examined, is back with a book regarding prevenient grace. Titled Lydia’s Heart: The Case for Prevenient Grace, the book uses well-known biblical doctrines to assert that the grace of God that goes before faith (as taught in Ephesians 2:8-9) is resistible in nature, not irresistible. While prevenient grace isn’t a term one finds in the Scriptures, it can be inferred. For example, the word Trinity isn’t found in Scripture either, but it is inferred based upon Scripture’s mention of “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.” Grace is mentioned, but “prevenient” is an inference (“prevenient” means that it goes before something; grace goes before faith).

Richardson draws from a number of well-known biblical doctrines that Baptists, in particular, would find encouraging, such as the idea of infant grace (that is, every infant is born in a state of grace). Infants have “angels in Heaven,” Jesus says in the Gospels, a statement that doesn’t set aside some infants for salvation and others for damnation (a statement John Calvin held in high regard). A chapter titled “The Good News About Hell” shows that Hell is a choice for humans, who were not created for Hell. Hell exists only for the Devil and his angels, though humans can choose to enter this dreadful place through rebellion against God and sheer unbelief. Hell wasn’t created for a single human person, meaning that Calvin’s Doctrine of Reprobation is not only distasteful but also highly unbiblical. Richardson also tackles the Doctrine of Atonement regarding God’s universal love for the world as a whole, not just some in it.

The main heroine of the book happens to be Lydia, the God-fearer and worshipper whose heart and mind was opened to the revelation of Jesus Christ in the gospel message, preached by the apostle Paul. This is the center of the book, and Richardson saves the best for last — with the title chapter as the last chapter (chapter 7).

Richardson says that she has written such a book because of Calvinism claims that prevenient grace doesn’t exist but is an Arminian concoction to bolster the Arminian view of human depravity. “There aren’t different views of human depravity in Calvinism and Arminianism,” Richardson says. “All depravity is the same. Calvinists and Arminians led by James Arminius, the founder of Arminianism, both believe that man can do nothing meritorious of himself and is incapable to do any good apart from the aid of divine grace. The notion of prevenient grace within Arminianism is an acknowledgment, not a denial, that man needs God’s grace to respond in faith. It’s grace-enabled responsibility at its finest.”

Pastor D.M. Richardson, apart from being Founder and Pastor of The Essential Church, is also an undergraduate of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, having received baccalaureate degrees in History (Modern Europe) and Music (Performance) in 2006. Since then, Richardson has gone on to graduate with a Master of Divinity degree in Christian Apologetics from Southeastern Seminary in 2011. She entered the seminary’s postgraduate, Master of Theology (ThM) program for four years after receiving her MDiv, studying under the Seminary’s Dean of the Faculty and Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach author, Dr. Kenneth Keathley.

You can pick up your copy of Lydia’s Heart over at Amazon.com. Both Kindle (digital) and Paperback versions are currently selling at the low price of $15 through January 15, 2018. You can preview the book at the link below.

Richardson has more work in store for 2019: among it, a groundwork theology and an introduction to theological systems in salvation (soteriology).

https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B07JYV9F43&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_FdMlCbBFV0BC6

Decrees and the Divine Will: The Activity of God in Salvation, Pt. 2: Molinism's Flawed Critique of Classical Arminianism

“As we will see, one feature that distinguishes Molinism from Arminianism is the way it understands God’s foreknowledge. Arminianism solves the problem of reprobation by presenting God’s decision concerning individuals as SOMETHING ENTIRELY PASSIVE. God decrees to elect the church as a corporate body, and those individuals who choose Christ are then viewed as the elect, while those who reject Him are reprobate. In this respect Arminianism views God’s decree as the mere ratification of human choices. But the Bible presents God’s electing decision as something much more active and decisive. Unlike Arminianism, Molinism describes God as using his foreknowledge in a sovereign, unconditional manner” (“Salvation and Sovereignty,” 142).

I stated in my last post that there were problems with this response from Dr. Ken Keathley’s work “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” This post will consume itself with tackling the above quote.

According to the quote, Arminianism views God as “passive” concerning the decrees. But what about the antecedent/consequent wills approach Dr. Keathley mentions in his chapter on “Does God Desire the Salvation of All” (see part one of the title)? In the last post, I quoted Dr. Keathley as stating that “the antecedent/consequent wills approach,” which both Molinists and Classic Arminians hold to, “understands God to be THE SOVEREIGN INITIATOR AND GRACIOUS COMPLETER OF REDEMPTION. If man is to choose between heaven and hell, IT IS BECAUSE THE LORD OF CREATION HAS PLACED IT BEFORE HIM” (“Salvation and Sovereignty,” 60).If God has placed salvation and damnation before humanity and given each individual the options of heaven and hell, how could God be passive in salvation? After all, did He not decide to give salvation to all and set the terms and conditions? Robert E. Picirilli writes:

“Surely God’s sovereignty means that He acts freely, under no conditions than that He be true to Himself. Neither a priori (from our logic) nor a posteriori (from Scriptural evidence) is there any reason to believe that God could not sovereignly establish any condition He chose (or no condition at all, did He so choose) for salvation. As Arminius put this, ‘The freedom of the goodness of God is declared...when He communicates it only on the condition, which He has been pleased to impose’” (Robert E. Picirilli, “Grace, Faith, Free Will---Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism.” Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002, page 57).

God had the freedom to set no terms at all, if that is what He desired to do. However, He did set terms, and Christ declares this to Nicodemus (John 3:16-18).

Let’s use an example. Say you were hiring employees for your company that just got up and running off the ground. In order to hire employees (or have potential employees), you must alert the public that you are in business and intend to hire workers. The first thing you do, then, is place an ad in the newspaper and on the internet about job openings. In the newspaper ads and internet statements, you give a sketch of the type of person you would be interested in hiring. One such characteristic of an ideal worker might be experience. This might cut out some of your work base, but at the same time, you might like the idea of bringing workers into the company that can provide ideas and direction for the company that you may lack at the moment. Or, you may simply just want to hire experienced workers because you don’t wanna bother with training “newbies.” As another characteristic, you might look for someone who has good computer skills, can type a lot of words in a small amount of time. You may need to do a lot of typing and printing at your job, and you need someone who will not take all day to type up one article. You might want someone with a certain type of college degree, whether it be simply a batchelor of arts, batchelor of science, master of arts, master of science, doctorate of arts, doctorate of science, or a doctorate of philosophy degree. Requiring a certain educational experience might be ideal for you because someone with such educational knowledge may provide skill that others will not possess. If you are just starting a company, you may want more for your money. If you hire someone with lots of knowledge, you will get more for your dollar.

And then comes the day when you must conduct interviews. Once you have some resumes sent in, you must go through those resumes meticulously and decide whether or not you have more interest in someone as a result of their resume. Some resumes may not appeal to you and you may simply dismiss certain resume senders. But there may be other resume senders that really intrigue you, so you decide to call them and set up an interview where you can meet with them and talk even further of your job expectations.

This example may not be an ideal one for the issue of salvation, but the emphasis of such an example is to make the case that as the employer of a company, you have a right to conduct affairs the way you want to. You have a right to put out ads and announcements with specific characteristics for the kind of employee you’d like to have. You have a right to interview certain individuals, reject others outright, have further meetings with intriguing individuals, etc. And, after all interviews have been conducted, you have the right to hire only those individuals you please and reject those you just don’t think will be good for your company. All of this power comes with the fact that you own the company.

If we apply this to the issue of salvation, then, if God is sovereign (has all power), can He not do with that power what He desires to? The answer to this from Calvinists, Molinists, and Arminians is a resounding “Yes.” The next question becomes, “If God can do what He wants, then can He not allow salvation to be granted on the basis of faith?” Here is where Calvinists and Molinists get off the train. Calvinists will argue that God being sovereign entails God picking and choosing certain individuals for salvation. Molinists will say the same (“Sovereign Election,” from “Salvation and Sovereignty”), which is why Dr. Keathley notes that Arminians label God as “passive” in their view of salvation. The problem with this, however, is that God has not revealed that He picks and chooses individuals for salvation in His Holy Word. Rather, this notion of God’s work in salvation is derived from certain philosophical notions of the sovereignty of God that the text does not affirm.

Dr. Keathley himself rejects the idea of God granting salvation to individuals on the basis of faith when he writes that Arminianism presents “God’s decision concerning individuals as something entirely passive” (141). My question to Molinists would be: “If God must pick and choose who will be saved, why does He need to set conditions for faith?” If God decides by His mere whim who will be saved and who will not, then why set faith as a condition? It’s the same as an employer who sets requirements for a job: if the employer will pick certain individuals because he likes them, why require things like educational experience, work experience, computer skills, etc.? For God to set conditions when He will choose individuals apart from the conditions is to go against His own word, to deny Himself. How can God require conditions and then go against those conditions in salvation? Dr. Keathley argues that faith is the condition for salvation (119-121, 196), but then turns around and argues that election is “unconditional” and that God actually determines who will be saved by “whether I...have the opportunity to respond to the gospel, or am placed in a setting where I would be graciously enabled to believe,” which he also notes as “sovereign decisisons made by Him” (“Salvation and Sovereignty,” 155).

Molinists leave the reader with the impression that there are two conditions (God’s selection and faith) that are divorced from each other. I would say that divine selection and faith are not divorced, but united. To use a verse that I hold dear, “Without faith it is impossible to please God; for he that comes to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6, NKJV).

There are other problems, but I will address them in the next posts.

"The Whole World" in 1 John 2:2

We’ve been studying the Doctrine of Singular Redemption here at the Center for Theological Studies for the last few days. I’ve covered John 3:16-18, 2 Corinthians 5 as well as 2 Peter 3:9.

I’m back to continue the current theological agenda. Today’s text will involve a controversial one: 1 John 2:2. The verse reads as follows:

“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2, English Standard Version).

Some weeks ago, I was reading a work called “‘That You May Know’: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John” by Christopher D. Bass,” and Bass tackled this verse in his work (since the book itself was all about 1 John). When Bass arrives at the verse in his work (on page 81), he presents the two views of what is meant by “the whole world”:

“Some contend that this passage speaks of God’s redemption with a universal scope in its potential. In this interpretation the ‘whole world’ should be understood as ‘all inclusive,’ thus Jesus is the propitiation for all men without exception...others argue that when John speaks of the ‘whole world,’ he is referring to all the elect of both Jews and Gentiles. In other words, in 2:2b, John is making the point that Jesus’ death did not apply to Jewish believers only (i.e., ‘ours’) but also to the elect Gentiles (i.e., ‘the whole world’)” (“That You May Know: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2008, page 82).

How does Bass interpret “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2?

“The ‘whole world’ would include all believers everywhere throughout the world. Therefore, Jesus was not only the propitiation for the sins of one little group of believers in Asia Minor but for the children of God all over the world” (Bass, “‘That You May Know,’ page 84).

For Christopher Bass, “the whole world” refers to believers only, Christians throughout the world.

This would work if it didn’t conflict with textual evidence within the Epistle of 1 John itself. Robert E. Picirilli gathers information within the letter surrounding “the whole world” to determine its meaning. Here is what Picirilli gathered:

2:2 (our text)--> its first appearance

2:15-17 (6 times)-->The Christian is not to be loving the world or the things in the world. The world, and its lust, IS PASSING AWAY.

3:1-->THE WORLD DOES NOT KNOW US, BECAUSE IT DID NOT KNOW HIM.

3:13--> Do not be annoyed if THE WORLD IS HATING YOU.

3:17--> Whoever has the means of life of the world and does not share with one in need is not demonstrating the love of God.

4:1-5 (6 times)-->Greater is the one in you than THE ONE IN THE WORLD. THEY, BEING OF THE WORLD, SPEAK OF THE WORLD AND THE WORLD HEARS THEM.

4:9--> God sent His Son into the world in order than[sic] we might live through Him

4:14-->The Father sent the Son to be SAVIOR OF THE WORLD.

4:17-->As He is, so are we IN THE WORLD.

5:4, 5 (3 times)-->THE BELIEVER OVERCOMES THE WORLD.

5:19-->We are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIES IN THE EVIL ONE.

(Picirilli’s verses and textual evidence can be found in his work, “Grace, Faith, and Free Will; Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism.” Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002, page 125).

If only one of the verses referenced above grabs you, it should be 1 John 5:19--- “We know that we are from God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIES IN THE POWER OF THE EVIL ONE” (ESV).

What this tells us is that the whole world, controlled by “the evil one,” that is “Satan,” is the same world that Jesus is the propitiation for in 1 John 2:2! If this is the case, then Bass’s interpretation contradicts Scripture’s teaching on the meaning of the phrase. If the whole world refers to only the elect throughout the world, then this means that, to plug Bass’s meaning in 1 John 5:19, “the elect in the world lie in the power of the evil one.” This is a sad thought, indeed. After all, doesn’t this possibility of the elect being under Satan’s control contradict Jesus’ prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane (“I...ask...that you keep them from the evil one”, John 17:15)?

Picirilli noted it in his analysis above...but there is later evidence within 1 John 2 that tells us that the world is opposed to the recipients of John’s epistle:

15(Z) Do not love the world or the things in the world.(AA) If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world—(AB) the desires of the flesh and(AC) the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17And(AD) the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:15-17, English Standard Version)

First, John tells the believers “do not love the world or the things in the world.” I don’t think he is telling the elect in the receiving congregation to not love the other elect brothers and sisters in the world---so we can rule out this portion as referring to “the elect throughout the world.” Next, he states that, “if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” To love the world is to hate the Father. I don’t think the elect are against the Father---so this would refer to the unbelieving mass as well. In verse 16, John tells us what the world offers: lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes, and pride in possessions. Never in Scripture are believers told to lust after the flesh; in fact, Paul tells believers that “those in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). Notice as well that “the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.” Life everlasting is found in the one who seeks to please the Lord, not drift along with the world. But not only will the material possessions of the world be destroyed and burnt up---so will “those of the world,” “the worldly,” the ungodly.

I’ve examined clues within the text of 1 John 2 itself as well as the meaning of “the world” throughout the First Epistle of John. As has been shown, there is simply no justifiable reason for Bass’s interpretation of “the whole world” as “believers throughout the world.” Such an interpretation stems from historical interpretive tradition...and a particular theological slant.

"Unconditional": The Ambiguous Word

I’ve discussed the word “unconditional” at the blog a lot within this past week. Taking the Contemporary Theology class on Molinism this past week put me face-to-face with the phrase “unconditional election.” As you all know, Dr. Ken Keathley advocates this view of election in his book, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach” (see pages 153-154 of the book).

In today’s post, I will not be quoting from Dr. Keathley, but instead, from John Piper, one of the foremost “consistent” Calvinists today. This is a portion of what Piper had to say regarding Romans 9:

“Verse 8 says it again: "It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." In other words, not all the physical descendants of Abraham are the beneficiaries of the covenant promises. Who then is? And here Paul goes right to the bottom of the explanation. He says, The beneficiaries of the promise are the children of promise. But, we ask, who are these? What are the conditions they must meet to be the "children of promise"?
Paul’s answer to this in verse 11, with the illustrations of Jacob and Esau, confronts us with the ultimate sovereignty of God in choosing who the beneficiaries of the promise will be. In referring to Jacob (who became the heir) and Esau (who did not) Paul says: "for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad [there’s the unconditionality, and here’s the reason for it], so that God's purpose according to election would stand [there’s the explanation deeper than human conditions - God’s sovereign purpose], not because of works but because of Him who calls [notice: he did not contrast works with faith, but with "Him who calls" - not even faith is in view here as a condition], Rebecca was told, "The older will serve the younger." (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2002/110_The_Absolute_Sovereignty_of_God_What_Is_Romans_Nine_About/)

Romans 9 is one of the most controversial chapters in not just all of the book of Romans, but all of Scripture itself. Verses 10-12 are gonna be the focus of this post:

And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that GOD’S PURPOSE OF ELECTION MIGHT CONTINUE, NOT BECAUSE OF WORKS BUT BECAUSE OF HIS CALL---she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger’” (Romans 9:10-12, English Standard Version).

Notice above that Piper states (regarding the twins who “had done nothing good or bad”) that “there’s the unconditionality.” What he means by this is that it wasn’t because of anything that they had done. But then, we see these “deeds” more specifically classified in the following words: “In order that God’s purpose of election might continue, NOT BECAUSE OF WORKS BUT BECAUSE OF HIS CALL...” (v.11) In this, we see that election is according to the call of God, not works. And this is why God foretold that Esau would serve Jacob: because God declared Jacob to be the one to inherit the promises, not Esau. God did this freely, of His own choosing. There was nothing that made Him choose Jacob over Esau: He did it of His own volition and good pleasure.

James White gives a definition of “unconditionality” in his debate with Dave Hunt:

“Unconditional election is simply the recognition of the biblical teaching that GOD IS FREE IN THE MATTER OF SALVATION. He chooses to exercise mercy and grace toward undeserving creatures solely on the basis of ‘the good pleasure of His will’ (Ephesians 1:5). There is nothing in the creature that merits, earns, or attracts His favor. His election is unconditional in that IT IS BASED SOLELY ON HIS PURPOSE AND HIS PLEASURE AND NOT IN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE CREATURE” (James White, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, pages 91-92).

Classical Arminians would agree with Piper and White’s statements above: we believe that God is free in the matter of salvation. He is free to do whatever seems good to Him. Like White, we also affirm that “there is nothing in the creature that merits, earns, or attracts His favor.” None of His creation is deserving of His goodness and kindness in Christ. It is not based on anything in humans that “makes” them worthy of salvation.

However, here’s where things get more nuanced. Let’s continue with Piper’s analysis regarding Romans 9:10-12. In Romans 9:11, with the words “not because of works but because of his call,” Piper writes:

“[notice: he did not contrast works with faith, but with "Him who calls" - not even faith is in view here as a condition]”

Now we see what Piper means by “unconditionality”---neither works NOR FAITH is what is meant here. While I agree that we are not saved by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), I do not agree that election comes WITHOUT FAITH! Piper is betrayed by his own interpretation when one arrives at the end of Romans 9:

“What shall we say then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT IS BY FAITH; but that Israel...did not succeed in reaching that law [of righteousness]. Why? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PURSUE IT BY FAITH, BUT AS IF IT WERE BASED ON WORKS” (Rom. 9:30-32, ESV).

The issue with the Jews is not that they have not been unconditionally elected, but rather, that they have failed to do things God’s way--- they have not adhered to “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27).

One thing I’ve learned about the importance of sound exegesis is to always match up an interpretation of one passage with the immediate context (preceding and following chapters), books of the Bible, Testaments (Old and New), and all of Scripture itself. If we follow this rule with regards to Piper’s interpretation of Romans 9, we see that his interpretation is incorrect. I showed you above that vv. 30-32 of the same chapter (Rom. 9) testify to faith as the condition of salvation, which explains why the Gentiles have obtained it and the Jews have not. In chapter 10, Paul makes it clear that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES” (Rom. 10:4). Romans 10:9 is the “law of faith” of Romans 3:27. Romans 10:13 references Joel 2:32; 10:16 references Isaiah 53:1, which is an Old Testament evidence of the condition of faith. In Romans 11, Paul warns the Gentiles about their boasting and tells them, “they were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast THROUGH FAITH” (Rom. 11:20, ESV). The issue for Paul, at least, was the condition of faith.

I could go on about Romans 9-11, and I could discuss the roll call of faith in Hebrews 11 (which shows that faith was required in the Old Testament even as far back as Abel, Genesis 4); however, I will digress.

What I wanted to show in this post is that “unconditional” election is against the biblical message. Why is it that the immediate context of Romans 9 (chapters 10 and 11) concerns the condition of faith, IF Piper’s interpretation of Romans 9 is correct? Piper and other fellow Calvinists have their reasons for arguing unconditional election: One of them concerns “the graciousness of grace.” But that’s a good post that I will save for another time...

Unconditional/Conditional Election: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

I’ve spent time here at CTS discussing the issue of contradictions and applying the Law of Non-Contradiction to two seemingly opposing concepts or things. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two opposing things cannot be held in the same respect at the same time. For instance, a person cannot be both “short and tall” at the same time, since “short” is the opposite of “tall,” and “tall” is the opposite of “short.” A person has to be either short or tall...

But the Law of Non-Contradiction not only keeps us from “talking out of both sides of our mouths”; it also allows us to see the possibility of reconciliation between two opposing things. Take my example from above: while a person cannot be both “short and tall,” a person CAN be “shorter than her aunt, taller than her grandmother” at the same time. In this case, however, “short” and “tall” have been qualified, labeled “in relation” to something or someone. Without qualifiers, “short and tall” is a blatant contradiction.

Now, let’s look at Ephesians 1:4-5:

“just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestinated us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:4-5, NKJV).

Notice that we are given the phrase “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world...” The word here for “chose” means “to select”. Therefore, the Ephesians were “selected in Christ.”

What does it mean to be “selected in Christ”? The answer to this question depends upon which side of the debate the person stands on. If you talk to a Calvinist, he or she will tell you that a person is “selected in Christ” by God’s own choosing. God selects men and women He desires to be saved and elects them from the very beginning. The Arminian, however, will tell you that Christ elects certain ones from the beginning, but that this election is on the basis of foreseen faith. Election, therefore, is conditional upon faith in Christ.

So, which is right? Election can’t be both unconditional and conditional, right? Well, it can’t be both “unqualified” at the same time. Remember the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law states that two opposing things cannot exist in the same respect at the same time. Therefore, if unconditional and conditional elections are to co-exist, then, like “short and tall” from above, they must be qualified (defined “in relation to” something).

Let’s look back at Ephesians 1:4-5 to see if we can define both unconditional and conditional election.

In verse 5, we see that He (God) “predestinated us...according to the good pleasure of His will.” Taking this into account, we can say that God predestinates believers to be adopted to Himself because of His own desire. He saves us because HE WANTS TO! There is nothing outside of Himself that can force His Hand, nothing that can “obligate” God to save anyone in humanity. He does it because it seems right to Him to do so. That is what makes our election “unconditional.” There is nothing that we can do to ever merit salvation. I wanted to state that here at my blog in case someone ever argues that Arminians do not believe in unconditional election. As a Classical Arminian, I affirm God’s unconditional election. God’s election is unconditional, then, with regards to Himself. He chooses to save us because He wants to.

But I also believe that God’s conditional election exists as well. As I said above, the two elections must be qualified if they are to co-exist peacefully. What evidence, then, is there for conditional election? Let’s look back at our passage:

“having predestinated us to adoption as sons BY JESUS CHRIST to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:5, NKJV).

In addition, there are a few references to God’s will: “having predestinated us...according to the good pleasure of HIS WILL” (v.5), according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself” (v.9), and “according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of HIS WILL” (v.11).

Calvinists often look at Ephesians 1 and focus on “the good pleasure of His will,” while overlooking “by Jesus Christ,” (v.5), or “in Him,” meaning “in Christ” (v.4). The idea of “by Jesus Christ” and “in Him” points to a conditional election----that is, that election is based on faith in Christ.

This can clearly be seen in other passages of Scripture. Let’s look at Romans 5:

“For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one (man), much more THOSE WHO RECEIVE ABUNDANCE OF GRACE AND OF THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as through one man’s offense JUDGMENT CAME TO ALL MEN, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act THE FREE GIFT CAME TO ALL MEN, RESULTING IN JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE” (Romans 5:17-18, NKJV).

So “those who receive” the grace of God and the gift of eternal life by faith in Christ (Rom. 6:23), are the ones who are justified in Christ.

I want to make one point regarding the above excerpt of Romans 5. Notice that “judgment came to all men” and “the free gift came to all men.” What this tells us is that every human soul born into this world is condemned in Adam; but every human soul also has an opportunity to become justified in Christ. It would take a whole lot of “twisting” to take these verses that say “all men” and make them say something like “all classes of men.”

So when Paul says that “He chose us in Him...according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:4-5), he is saying that, while He decided to save humanity of His own choosing, humanity will not be saved apart from faith in Christ. This fits best with Paul’s words later in Ephesians 1----“In Him you also TRUSTED, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, HAVING BELIEVED, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13).

Finally, we cannot ignore conditional election because it seems to be as much of an emphasis in this chapter as the good pleasure of God’s will:“in Christ Jesus” (1:1b), “in Christ” (1:3), “in Him” (1:4), “by Jesus Christ” (1:5), “in the Beloved [that is, Christ]” (1:6), “in Him” (1:7), “the mystery of His will...that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things IN CHRIST, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—IN HIM” (vv.9, 10); “in Him” (v.11), “in Christ” (v.12), “in Him” (v.13), “in whom also, having believed” (v.13), and “your faith IN THE LORD JESUS” (v.15).

There is another thought that sticks out in Ephesians chapter 1—and that is “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (1:6, 12, 14). His grace truly abounds much, and we see this clearly in the person of Jesus Christ, who broke down the wall of division between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14).

In this post, I’ve discussed unconditional and conditional election. As I’ve shown via Ephesians 1, God’s unconditional election of undeserving sinners is at play (“according to the good pleasure of His will”) as well as the conditional election by faith in Christ (“In Him”). While election is unconditional from the perspective of Christ, it is conditional from the perspective of humanity because it is by faith that a person comes to be justified by Christ. Neither should be tossed out; for both are needed to maintain the Scriptural balance of divine sovereignty (unconditional election in God) and human responsibility (conditional election by faith in Christ).

According to Robert E. Picirilli,

"How does conditional election relate to the sovereignty of God? The answer seems obvious: if the sovereign God UNCONDITIONALLY ESTABLISHED FAITH AS THE CONDITION FOR SALVATION (and therefore for election), then His sovereignty is not violated when He requires the condition...surely God's sovereignty means that He acts freely, UNDER NO CONDITIONS than that He be true to Himself. Neither a priori (from our logic) nor a posteriori (from Scriptural evidence) is there any reason to believe GOD could not SOVEREIGNLY ESTABLISH ANY CONDITION HE CHOSE (or no condition at all, did He so choose) FOR SALVATION. As Arminius put this, 'The freedom of the goodness of God is declared...when He communicates it only on the condition, which He has been pleased to impose'" (Robert E. Picirilli, quoting Arminius' Works, Book III, page 274; from "Grace, Faith, and Free Will-- Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism." Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002, page 57).

The Dilemma of Two Theologies

For the last four months, I have engaged in serious theological study regarding the two major theological systems—Calvinism and Arminianism. Over the last four months, I have also talked to certain friends and acquaintances of mine around campus regarding which of the two systems they believe is most biblically correct. The response I’ve received, to say the least, has not been very eventful. Most people respond with the expression, “Well, I’m somewhere in the middle” or “I’m somewhere in-between,” or “I’m a little of both.”

These statements are shocking to me for two reasons: first, because I work and live on a seminary campus where it seems that theology is what I, the professors, and students study every day! Secondly, and most important for this post, is that this is shocking because there is NO SUCH THING as a “middle of the road position” BETWEEN Calvinism and Arminianism. In the words of Roger Olson,

“It is not unusual in evangelical circles to hear sincere and well-intentioned Christians declare themselves ‘CALMINIANS,’ a combination of Calvinist and Arminian. I have encountered this claim numerous times when presenting Calvinism and Arminianism to classes in colleges, seminaries or churches. Often students ask, ‘Why can’t there be a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism?’ TO which someone replies, ‘There is—it’s called CALMINIANISM!’ A sincere desire to bridge the gulf that has caused so much conflict underlies this misconception. By no means should the desire for unity be belittled; it is ADMIRABLE even though its fulfillment is, in this case, IMPOSSIBLE…if unity is the overriding concern, their stark particularities can be artificially softened. When they are defined in ways that diverge from their classical definitions, combining them is simple. Thus their so-called unity is determined by how we define and describe them. However, when Arminianism and Calvinism are understood in their HISTORICAL, CLASSICAL SENSES, NO SUCH COMBINATION IS POSSIBLE; they will always remain alternatives, especially in soteriological matters” (Roger E. Olson, “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, pages 61-62).

Olson clearly asserts that Arminianism and Calvinism as originally defined CANNOT be combined to produce a unified system. This stands in stark contrast to today’s theology, where students (and professors alike, not to mention the everyday churchgoer) attempts to create a combination of these two theological systems.
So, to show the insanity of “Calminianism,” this post will address both five-point theological systems and we will see if we can combine ANY TWO views on any of the points and create a unified whole. On your mark, get set, go…

Point Number One—Total Depravity. Interestingly enough, both Calvinists and Arminians agree. Man has been marred by the fall, and every place within and without man has been “darkened” because of the corruption of sin. As a result, unless God’s grace goes before him, man cannot do anything spiritually good or anything that will reap a reward in the kingdom of God. Apart from God’s grace, man can do nothing (John 15).

Point Number Two—Unconditional and Conditional Election. Calvinists believe that the elect are UNCONDITIONALLY elected to salvation (Christ chose them before the world was created because He wanted to), while Arminians argue that election is conditional upon faith in Christ. If you combine these two together, we have a situation where “only the elect” are allowed to have faith in Christ. But if their election is UNCONDITIONAL, then why do they even need faith in the first place?

Point Number Three-- Limited and Unlimited Atonement. Calvinists espouse “limited atonement,” which says that Christ only died for some of humanity (called “the elect”), while Arminians say that Christ died for all (“unlimited atonement” because everyone can be saved). If we combine these two together, we now get “a limited unlimited atonement”—where Christ died for some while dying for all! Does that make ANY sense to you? It sure doesn’t to me. If you think this point is weird in the “Calminian” system, it gets worse…

Point Number Four—Irresistible and Resistible Grace. Calvinists say that God’s grace is irresistible, which means that the elect cannot fight against it. Although they rebel for a time, eventually God’s grace “overwhelms” them (to use terms similar to that of the great Charles Haddon Spurgeon) and they come to Christ. Since God has “unconditionally” elected a certain amount of humanity, He will do everything He must do to make sure that the elect’s salvation comes about (including “dragging” someone to faith by His grace). Arminians, on the other hand, believe that grace can be resisted. Arminius did too, and he based his view on Acts 7:51. Personal experience testifies to those who “resist” God’s grace, even though they see the Lord working. And all Calvinists, at one point, RESISTED the grace of God (they are an irony to themselves!). If we put these two thoughts together, we now have an “irresistible resistible grace”—God’s grace is irresistible but can be resisted? So now, even though God’s grace is “irresistible,” He ALLOWS people to resist? What kind of a system is THAT? God’s grace cannot be both at the same time.

Last but not least, POINT NUMBER FIVE—Perseverance of the Saints. Calvinists argue for UNCONDITIONAL perseverance, meaning that, since God chose you to be saved (for whatever reason He did), He will persevere you to the end, cause you to endure this life until the end. In the words of Edwin Palmer, perseverance is not the perseverance of the believer, it is “the perseverance of God”:

“It is possible to use another term to describe this fact, namely, THE PERSEVERANCE OF GOD. For really the perseverance of the saints DEPENDS ON THE PERSEVERANCE OF GOD. It is because Christ perseveres in His love toward His church that the church perseveres in its love toward Him” (Edwin Palmer, “The Five Points of Calvinism.” Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1972, page 68).

Arminians, on the other hand, argue for CONDITIONAL perseverance—this says that perseverance is not guaranteed, but is based on the lifestyle of the individual. In other words, God is not responsible for the believer’s perseverance; THE BELIEVER IS! According to the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews,

“Therefore since we also have such a large cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us lay aside every weight and the sin that SO EASILY ENSNARES US, and RUN WITH ENDURANCE the race that lies before us, keeping our eyes on Jesus, the source and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that lay before Him endured a cross and despised the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of God’s throne” (Hebrews 12:1-2, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

So, if we put these two together, we end up with both God and the believer persevering at the same time. The problem with such an analysis, though, is that God has ALREADY PERSEVERED, when He “endured the cross” that was set before Him (Hebrews 12:2). Hebrews teaches us that Christ, having endured already, calls for us to endure, making Him our example (Hebrews 12:2).

Now I’ll admit—the above scheme of a “Calminian” system is pretty insane; and most people don’t embrace both views of both systems in everything. Usually, most “Calminians” at heart embrace a little Calvinist doctrine, a little Arminian doctrine. But I think the problem with most believers is that they’ve rarely investigated such theologies to come to terms with what they believe. Chances are, someone told them something to the effect of “Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God and Arminians believe in free will” and they ran with that piece of information and have resigned themselves to “Well, I believe in both, so I guess that puts me SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.” However, that too, is a misconception. Such an assessment is due to misguided information; Arminians hold to the sovereignty of God as well (contrary to what Calvinists may believe)…

Matthew 6:24 tells us that “No one can be a slave of TWO masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. YOU CANNOT BE SLAVES OF GOD AND MONEY.” Even though the issue being discussed involves our beliefs ABOUT God, and not so much about serving God (or money), one thing rings true: we cannot advocate TWO theologies: either we will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one theology and despise the other. We cannot have it both ways.

Before all believers lay the dilemma of two theologies. As far as which to choose, I’ll let you decide…

No Place To Go: The Appeal To "Mystery"

In case my readers here at the Center for Theological Studies don’t realize this yet, I have to admit: I read quite a lot. And as a result of my reading, I’ll often be working on a series here at CTS on one book, while reading another. And sometimes, while reading the new book, a post title or thought will jump out at me; usually, it’s one of those things where, if I don’t write it right away, it won’t get done…

So, this is one of those famous moments. For the last two days, I’ve been traveling through the book “Grace, Faith, Free Will; Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism” by Robert E. Picirilli. Let me tell you from the outset: what impressed me most about this book initially is that Robert E. Picirilli has been writing on Arminian theology for 45 years. That’s right: FORTY-FIVE YEARS! As you can imagine, he has quite a lot to say about the Reformation Arminian belief (also known as the Reformed Arminian position). I’ve been working on Stephen Ashby’s work on the Reformed Arminian view. For those who haven’t read my Ashby posts, click on the section “Doctrine of Perseverance/Eternal Security” on the far right of the main page. More will be added in the coming days.

Picirilli writes about the choices of men:

“Two types of such ‘free’ actions exist:
1. For sinful acts, the decree is PERMISSIVE; man is left alone to bring sin to pass;
2. For good acts, the decree is EFFICACIOUS; God works immediately on man’s will to incline it.
For both types, THE ‘HOW’ IS A MYSTERY TO US: both how the permissive decree can render certain without causing, and how God’s positive influence on the human will can work effectively and yet the man remain truly free” (Robert E. Picirilli, “Grace, Faith, Free Will, Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism.” Nashville: Randall House, 2002, page 25).

It is in the above quote from Picirilli regarding the Calvinist view that we see the inconsistency in the Calvinist argument.

When a person commits sin, such as adultery (like David), that person is “permitted” to sin—“man is LEFT ALONE to bring sin to pass.” Here, the Calvinist attempts to leave God out of the sin—attempting to save God’s character. But what happens when a person does something good? “for good acts, the decree is EFFICACIOUS—God works IMMEDIATELY ON MAN’S WILL to incline it.”

So God acts on the will when someone does something good, but leaves man alone to make his own decision when the choice made will be evil. In other words, God allows man to make ONLY BAD DECISIONS, while God makes all the good ones in man!

What this appears to do is “defend God” at all costs; but it costs the Calvinist to make this claim; for now, God allows the human to make choices that He doesn’t support. In other words, GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY IS COMPROMISED: for some choices are IN HIS CONTROL to cause while others are not.

And then, the worst claim to make is when the Calvinist says, “the ‘how’ is a mystery to us…” God stands behind some choices and ALLOWS us to make others; and, according to the Calvinist, how it all works out has not been given to us to understand or find out.

I’ve told a story here at the site about a friend of mine whose father has committed to five-point Calvinism. While she and he were discussing Calvinism and Arminianism, he told her that he believes that God predestines the elect to go to Heaven, while the others CHOOSE to go to Hell. In his mind, it all makes sense; but the problem with his view is that, some are “predestined,” controlled by God, while the others “control” themselves. It seem as if this “single predestination” idea makes God out to be weak and impotent—the sinners are allowed to go their own way, which is OUTSIDE of God’s predestinating power. Of course, double predestination is worse than single; but single predestination just weakens God’s sovereignty and power—it doesn’t do much else.

What fascinates me most, though, is that Calvinists make the claims regarding evil above that they do, without thinking through such claims. There are only three ways to tackle divine sovereignty and human responsibility—one, God is the author of good, as well as sin and evil (which most refuse to believe; it’s against everything they know to be true about the nature of God to accept that God causes sin and evil); two, God causes man to do good while man causes himself to do evil (which, as I said above, gives man power to cause his own evil acts, outside of God’s control); three, God gives man choice, to perform both good and evil (which most Calvinists will not allow man to have the power of self-determination to will his own actions).

If the Calvinist claims that God is the author of sin and evil, he violates James 1, which tells us that God does not tempt anyone (humans tempt themselves when they lust after something); if the Calvinist believes that God causes the good in man while man causes the evil in himself, then man still has some power to act over his own choices—which undoes the idea of God “causing” man to do anything. If the Calvinist chooses option number 3, which involves man having will power over his decisions, then God cannot CAUSE anything.

It seems that Calvinists have nowhere to go. They have spent time claiming that God is not the author and evil, but they have to account for the presence of evil in the world somehow (and they can’t blame it on God, so who will be responsible for it?). On the other hand, they can’t give man will power over his decisions, but they do believe man is responsible for evil. As a result, where can they run? Absolutely nowhere! Instead, they have to appeal to mystery: “the ‘how’ is a mystery to us…”

I wanna say here, though, that the appeal to mystery is what I like to call “theological laziness.” If it is true that man will stand before the Lord and be judged for his actions (2 Corinthians 5:10-11a), then it makes no sense to say that we don’t know how man causes his evil actions but God causes man’s good actions. After all, man will be judged for ALL his actions: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may be repaid for what he has done in the body, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD” (2 Cor. 5:10, Holman Christian Standard Bible). This means that man will stand responsible for ALL his actions in the end—even the good ones.

Last but not least, the idea that Picirilli claims is espoused by Calvinists has been presented in current literature on the subject as the “Moderate Calvinist” position. Bruce Ware advocates this position in his self-edited work, “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views.” I’ve quoted from this work quite a bit this summer. Look under the “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God” label here at the site.
In any case, Bruce Ware believes that man has freedom—but he only has freedom to do evil acts, called the “freedom of inclination.” But there’s a problem with such a position: man cannot have “freedom” if he cannot choose between two or more actions. After all, this is the reasoning behind why someone who shoots another person in self-defense is not made to serve a prison sentence for doing so. The person who shoots is defending his or her own life, and he or she is forced to do so by someone who is threatening their own. Freedom only comes when there are no external or outside forces acting on you, coercing you to choose one option or another.

Calvinists have nowhere to go; for their appeal to mystery is the only option left for those who refuse to acknowledge the will power of man.