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

False Professions and The Danger of Prooftexting: "I Never Knew You" And The Parable of the Five Wise and Five Foolish Virgins

To my readers, let me first say that I'm thankful the Lord has let our paths cross once more. I've been busy in the work of the Lord, as I'm sure you have, and am back to indulge the Word of the Lord with you. 

I noticed this morning that I had a copy of R.C. Sproul's booklet titled "Can I Lose My Salvation?," a booklet that tackles some interesting passages that I've studied at length regarding the doctrines of salvation and apostasy (yes, if you read 1 Timothy 4, the Doctrine of Apostasy, Falling Away, or The Great Divorce (to use a familiar title from C.S. Lewis's book that bears the same name). 

I've only been able to read the beginning so far, but what I've read already troubles me because it proceeds down a path that so many believers tread down. And I think the interpretation made is short-sighted and does not do justice to the whole counsel of God. 

R.C. Sproul mentions passages such as Hebrews 6, 1 Corinthians 10:14, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, and 1 Corinthians 9:27, but eventually goes on to argue that these warnings, as serious as they may be, are not suggesting that genuine believers can fall; rather, these are designed to wake up false believers who have professed Christ but do not possess Him: 

"While some will return after a serious fall, some will not, because they never actually had faith. They made a false profession of faith; they did not possess what they professed" (R.C. Sproul, Can I Lose My Salvation? (Crucial Questions) Book No. 22. Reformation Trust Publishing, August 2015, page 15).

In the end, though, Sproul appeals to 1 John 2:19 and Matthew 7:21-23 to state his belief that the issue is false professions of faith and not genuine ones that go awry due to what Hebrews says is an issue of hardening one's heart against the deceitfulness of sin (see Hebrews 3:13). 

Let's examine Matthew 7. Jesus has just taught about false prophets and that their fruit, whether or not their sayings come true, will tell you the true nature of the prophet (whether he or she is genuine and has the Spirit of God or is a devil and lacks the Spirit of God). "So then, you will know them by their fruits," Jesus says in Matthew 7:20, NASB). 

In verse 21, Jesus begins with the statement that "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter" (v. 21). In verse 22, those who are rejected come and tell the Lord of the things they've done: prophesied, cast out demons, and performed miracles, all actions that appear to make these persons saved. And yet, Jesus tells them "I never knew you" in verse 23, which says that they were never saved to begin with. 

Yes, Sproul and I agree here: these individuals, though doing some amazing miracles in the name of Jesus, were never saved. Try to wrap your head around the fact that these persons performed miracles by the Spirit of God but were never saved. Some things in Scripture are mysteries, but I fear that a system called Calvinism and its adherents claim the word "mystery" for many teachings that are biblically faithful but challenge their own interpretations of Scripture. 

But Sproul claims that genuine believers cannot fall away from Christ because of Matthew 7. The only problem with this is that one must consult the words of Jesus as a whole, in every place possible, to arrive at a conclusion either way. True, he can't tackle every verse in his book, but he's too quick to dismiss truths in passages like Hebrews 6 by saying, in essence, that Matthew 7:21-23 cancels out the concept of genuine believers falling away and apostatizing from the faith. 

In actuality, though, Sproul would be wrong, terribly, terribly wrong. Matthew 7:21-23 does exist, and its truth is genuine: there are some who will "fake salvation" and are never of the Lord's people though they may assemble in church and go through the rituals of saved persons (they may even deceive genuine believers). However, where I disagree with Sproul is that Matthew 7 cannot be used to refer to all believers who fall away because, if it does, then it contradicts other passages of Scripture such as the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13.  

In Matthew 25, there are five wise and five foolish virgins. Five virgins have oil in flasks to accompany their lamps but five are foolish and bring their lamps (with oil in them) but do not bring along an additional flask to refill their lamps. Both the wise and foolish virgins sleep, waiting for the Bridegroom. At midnight, the cry goes out to go meet the bridegroom for the marriage feast, but only five are ready. 

The five foolish virgins, those whose oil has depleted from their lamps, ask the wise virgins for some of their oil. This is where we see the wisdom of the Wise Virgins: they tell the Foolish to "go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves" (Matt. 25:9). While the Foolish are buying oil, the Wise have gone to the chamber to meet the bridegroom and the door is shut. The Foolish come in late, but the Bridegroom refuses to open up to them. 

Yes, this shorthanded version of the parable is not meant to dishonor it but to conserve space and time for the point of emphasis. What is the emphasis? That this Parable tells us, to first be brief and then descriptive, that there are those who have the expectation of heaven but will not reach final salvation because they live their lives in Christ unprepared. Simply put, one can be a believer and end up on the outside of glory looking in.

Let's examine what I mean. First, let's remember that these are virgins and that the parable pertains to "the kingdom of heaven" (25:1). Virgins are pure, spotless, and undefiled, so it can't be said that these persons are unbelievers. They are wearing white, a symbol of purity, that they've been "washed" and cleansed from their former sins, and are part of the Lord's people (John 13:8; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Revelation 7:14).

Next, the five foolish virgins, who were cleansed, saved, and had an expectation of heaven (that comes to all who confess and believe) missed the marriage feast because they were unprepared. The oil was running out of their lamps and they did not have additional oil with which to refill their lamps (v.8). When these five foolish virgins, who had their lamps and had expected to meet Christ, came to the door after it had been shut, they cried for the Lord to open to them but He did not. He says "I do not know you" (Matt. 25:12), not "I never knew you," as the Lord had said to some in Matthew 7:23. The Lord's words that "I do not know you" is present tense; unlike the word "never," it does not assume that the Lord never knew the foolish virgins.

I hope you're starting to see the problem with Sproul's interpretation: it overlooks the fact that some individuals were never saved and are never joined to Christ, but others can be joined to Christ and fall away from faith because of sin. Sproul can explain Jesus' words in Matthew 7, but how can one explain away the virgins, the spotless bride of Christ, that miss heaven in Matthew 25? 

John 15: Are there branches that were never joined to the Vine?

Perhaps Sproul would say that these individuals were never joined to Christ in the first place because, if they were, they would have been prepared. Well, this is problematic because, if we take Sproul at his word, Jesus made claims that were merely hypothetical and not true. First, Matthew 25 is problematic for Matthew 7's "I never knew you" being applied to all who Jesus will turn away in the end. Sure, it applies to some, but R.C. Sproul's desire to use Matthew 7's response as a blanket claim for all unbelievers in the end is a hermeneutical stretch. 

Let's examine John 15. We can understand that Jesus stresses the importance of bearing fruit in the Christian life: "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (v.5); "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples" (v.8). These two verses tell us that the Christian life is about bearing fruit, that we glorify the Father when we bear fruit. 

And yet, John 15 poses problems for Sproul's claim that those who do not bear fruit were never saved. Here's what Jesus says that disagrees with Sproul's claim: 

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away" (John 15:2a). 

"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned" (John 15:6). 

These verses are problematic for Sproul's claim that there are only true believers and fake believers; rather, there are not two but three types of individuals: 1) those who believe and bear fruit, 2) those who believe but do not bear fruit, and 3) those who never believed and thus, never bore any fruit. Remember, those who are in Jesus but do not bear fruit are branches severed from the vine that dry up and are tossed in the fire. What the Lord is saying here is that these temporary believers will experience eternal punishment and torment in Hell. However, their end does not negate their faith at the first or prove that their confession was inauthentic. 

The question before us is as follows: did Jesus state a mere hypothetical when He spoke of "every branch in Me that does not bear fruit"? If Sproul is right, then no such branches exist in Christ that don't bear fruit. And yet, Scripture says that these branches "He takes away" (John 15:2), meaning that Christ severs them from the Vine (Himself, as He states in verse 1). These branches, the ones that don't bear fruit, are "thrown away...and dry up" (v.6). 

But, Sproul has said that there are no such branches in Christ. It appears as though, to protect his belief in the Doctrine of Eternal Security, he has had to part ways with alternative verses in the New Testament and only "prooftext" with two passages that lean heavily in his favor. Proper hermeneutics, however, requires us to make the most of not only the passages that agree with us, but those that don't - and Sproul's approach of the subject in these few pages I've read doesn't make much of anything out of the severe verses. Sproul simply says that "these verses pertain to those who were never saved." 

If Jesus's words are to be believed, then there are those "in Me," in Jesus, that will not bear fruit. There are branches in Jesus that are connected to Him by faith that will bear fruit, but there are branches that will not bear fruit. Those who do not bear fruit in the Christian life are severed from the Vine (which seems to imply that these branches are disowned by the Vine, Jesus, and the farmer, the Father) and no longer can bear fruit. If the branch, the believer, were never saved to begin with, there would be no expectation of the branch bearing fruit. To believe the position we've discussed here, that all who fall away from the faith have false professions, means that we must believe the exact opposite of Jesus' teaching.

As I've iterated before, sure, there are those who are never saved, who masquerade as genuine Christians. But not everyone is masquerading as nothing more than a fake believer in disguise. Why would Jesus mandate branches to bear fruit if they're not in Him and lack the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies believers so that they produce the fruit of the Spirit?

Take care, and be blessed, until next time.

The Calvinist Clergy: The Priesthood of "Some" Believers

“What is the source and status of faith?...is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle A RETURN TO ROME (BECAUSE IN EFFECT IT TURNED FAITH INTO A MERITORIOUS WORK) AND A BETRAYAL OF THE REFORMATION (BECAUSE IT DENIED THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SAVING SINNERS, WHICH WAS THE DEEPEST RELIGIOUS AND THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OF THE REFORMERS’ THOUGHT)” [J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, “Historical and Theological Introduction,” in Martin Luther, “The Bondage of the Will,” trans. J. I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Cambridge: James Clarke/Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1957), pp. 57-58. Quoted by R.C. Sproul, “Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will” (fifth printing). Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007, page 24, caps mine).

Happy Reformation Day! I wanted to write this special post so as to commemorate a unique day in the lives of believers. It was on this day, October 31, 1517, that Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of Wittenberg Church. Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses was just the beginning of what would be a seemingly-endless journey from Luther as a proud son of the Catholic Church to a major departure from the Catholic Church and his fame as the father of the Protestant Reformation. We are forever in Luther’s debt; were it not for Luther’s stand against the tradition, we would not be Protestants today...nor would we have liberty of conscience (which involves freedom of worship). Most importantly, we praise God for Martin Luther’s life, and what he stood for. We all can learn from his example: it’s easy to conform to the norm, but it’s difficult to stand against it. Let us all be willing to take a stand in a world where conformity is the standard.

However, this post is about one of the principles the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) stood for during the Reformation--- that is, the concept of “priesthood of all believers.” This principle states that all believers have direct access to God, that mediators between God and men are no longer needed since Christ is the mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:4). And it is this principle that I desire to focus on in this post.

The notion of “the priesthood of all believers” applied specifically to the area of the Scriptures---that is, that the masses (commoners) could read the Scriptures and understand them. The problem in Luther’s day was that “power” was the key word of the Catholic Church. In Luther’s day, the priests were over the laity, and only the priests were allowed to read Scripture. The laity were not allowed to read the Scriptures (the language of the Scriptures was written in Latin, a language only the clergy would understand). When Luther started his journey in the Reformation, he translated the Scriptures into German (which was the common language of the masses). It was his conviction that God intended every man, woman, boy, and girl to understand the Scriptures. The common folk would no longer need to go to the priests to understand the meaning of the Scriptures, because they would be enabled to read and understand for themselves.

It is out of this idea that the common masses should be able to read and understand the Scriptures that my theology of interpretation comes. What is my theology of interpretation, one may ask? My theology of interpretation starts with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. His Incarnation was for two purposes: (1) to atone for the sins of all mankind, and (2) to reveal God the Father to His creation. It is out of this revelatory purpose that I believe the Scriptures are meant to be revelatory (since they are “The Word” and Christ is “The Word,” John 1:1). Because God desires to reveal Himself to us (both in Christ and the Scriptures), the Holy Bible should clearly tell us who God is and what He demands of us. God is a God of intelligence, so He reveals Himself in an intelligent manner, in a way that we can understand. Don’t forget---we were created to think in this manner(don’t forget Jesus’ parables in the Gospels!).

If this be the case, then why is it that Calvinism has gained so much ground in evangelicalism? If this is the case, why is it that it is “more intelligent” to circumvent the normal readings of Scripture to come to Calvinist interpretations, rather than just take the straightforward reading of Scripture?

For example, take John 3:16. How hard is it to understand that when John writes, “For God so loved the world,” that “the world” refers to “every person in the world”? How more obvious could Jesus’ words be in John 3:17 when He writes that “God did not send His Son into the world TO CONDEMN THE WORLD” (John 3:17, NKJV)?  The Father sent His Son in order to save the world, “that the world through Him might be saved.” God’s desire was to save every single individual---and He demonstrated that desire in Christ. I ask, how hard is this straightforward reading of the text to understand? How is it that Calvinists can take something so plain and twist “the world” to mean “the elect in the world”? How then, can Calvinists hold to “unconditional election and unconditional reprobation” on the basis of John 3:16-17 alone?

Next, what about Romans 10:9? How hard is it to understand Paul’s words that on the conditions of confession and belief, one is saved? Is that not the plain reading of the text? If so, why then, does Calvinism espouse that one is regenerated (saved) “before” confession and belief? How can Calvinists also claim that faith is a work, when the Scriptures clearly argue against faith and works in Romans 4:1-5? How can one go against Jesus’ words that we are required to believe in Him (John 6:29)?

Even when it gets to the issue of perseverance, what about the warnings against believers? What about the words of Hebrews 6:4-6? Why do Calvinists (and four-point Arminians) reinterpret these words to refer to those who are “fake believers,” when the text clearly states that the Hebrews should be teachers of the doctrines of the faith (Heb. 5:12), and are called “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling” (Heb. 3:1), as well as “sons” (Heb. 12:5-10)? Why are they warned about “falling short of the grace of God” (Heb. 12:15) if there are fake believers in the congregation? And why threaten believers with the words of judgment in Heb. 10:26-31, call the believers “His people” (Heb. 10:30), if such people are not believers? Why does the Apostle Peter warn the believers not to “fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked,” if such persons are not believers (2 Peter 3:17)? And what does the word “apostasy” mean if it does not refer to one who “goes (stasis) away from (apo)” God? How can we define apostasy if someone does not “go away from” God, but instead, was “never saved to begin with”?

The point of this post was to emphasize that, if we can really read and understand Scripture without the need of a priest, then why do we need a “Calvinist priesthood” standing over us, defining for us what common-sense reading is (reinterpreting the plain readings for us)? Why is it that the ordinary person cannot read the Scriptures and affirm Calvinism? Why is it that many individuals are “raised Arminians” but later “become Calvinists”? I suspect that Calvinism requires “training,” but Arminianism simply requires reading.

The quote above by R.C. Sproul accuses Arminians of returning to Rome. Calvinists, however, are the guilty ones---for if we listen to them, Rome will come to us. In Luther’s day, the priests dictated the Scriptures; in the future, it will be Calvinists. And what about the common people? Well, they’ll be at the mercy of what Calvinism teaches. And, once again, the truth of the Scriptures will be hidden from the laity. If we’re honest with ourselves, Arminianism is what the Protestant Reformation was all about; and it is really Calvinism that will return us to Rome.

Undermining Eternal Security: The Calvinist Conception of Losing Salvation

Today’s post may shock my readership. I covered Arminius’s theology regarding losing faith and losing salvation recently; however, today’s post is one that you may never see anywhere else on any other blog---except mine and a few others who dare to “set the record straight” on issues pertaining to theology.
Arminians are accused (at least in the modern-day evangelical world) of holding to heterodox doctrine regarding salvation. I’ve argued here at CTS that key to Arminius’s theology was faith; a man stands by his faith, and can fall away from the faith if he does not continue in the grace of God (Rom. 11:20-22).

But what may shock you is that Calvin had a theory of his own regarding losing salvation. Calvin’s view of losing salvation involves the reprobate. Regarding the characteristics of those described in 6:4-5 (“enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, the good word of God, and the powers of the coming age”), Calvin writes in his Hebrews commentary:

“But we must notice in passing the names by which he signalizes the knowledge of the Gospel. He calls it illumination; it hence follows that men are blind, until Christ, the light of the world, enlightens them. He calls it a tasting of the heavenly gift; intimating that the things which Christ confers on us are above nature and the world, and that they are yet tasted by faith. He calls it the participation of the Spirit; for he it is who distributes to every one, as he wills, all the light and knowledge which he can have; for without him no one can say that Jesus is the Lord,(1 Corinthians 12:3); he opens for us the eyes of our minds, and reveals to us the secret things of God. He calls it a tasting of the good word of God; by which he means, that the will of God is therein revealed, not in any sort of way, but in such a way as sweetly to delight us; in short, by this title is pointed out the difference between the Law and the Gospel; for that has nothing but severity and condemnation, but this is a sweet testimony of God's love and fatherly kindness towards us. And lastly, he calls it a tasting of the powers of the world to come; by which he intimates, that we are admitted by faith as it were into the kingdom of heaven, so that we see in spirit that blessed immortality which is hid from our senses” (Calvin’s Commentaries: Hebrews, page 75).

So those who are “enlightened” are those whom Christ has “shined upon” (2 Cor.4:6), since Christ is the light of the world (John 8:12); those who have “tasted” of the heavenly gift” are those who receive the heavenly blessings “by faith,” Calvin claims; those who are “partakers of the Holy Spirit” are those who possess the Spirit (who enlightens the mind); those who “tasted the good word of God” refers to those who study the Scriptures); those who have “tasted of the powers of the coming age” refers to those who “are admitted by faith...into the kingdom of heaven...” In short, all the given descriptions describe Christians.

But then, Calvin takes a sharp turn for the worst:

“But here arises a new question, how can it be that he who has once made such a progress should afterwards fall away? For God, it may be said, calls none effectually but the elect, and Paul testifies that they are really his sons who are led by his Spirit, (Romans 8:14); and he teaches us, that it is a sure pledge of adoption when Christ makes us partakers of his Spirit. The elect are also beyond the danger of finally falling away; for the Father who gave them to be preserved by Christ his Son is greater than all, and Christ promises to watch over them all so that none may perish. TO ALL THIS I ANSWER, THAT GOD INDEED FAVORS NONE BUT THE ELECT ALONE WITH THE SPIRIT OF REGENERATION, AND THAT BY THIS THEY ARE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE REPROBATE; FOR THEY ARE RENEWED AFTER HIS IMAGE AND RECEIVE THE EARNEST OF THE SPIRIT IN HOPE OF THE FUTURE INHERITANCE, AND BY THE SAME SPIRIT THE GOSPEL IS SEALED IN THEIR HEARTS. BUT I CANNOT ADMIT THAT ALL THIS IS ANY REASON WHY HE SHOULD NOT GRANT THE REPROBATE ALSO SOME TASTE OF HIS GRACE, WHY HE SHOULD NOT IRRADIATE THEIR MINDS WITH SOME SPARKS OF HIS LIGHT, WHY HE SHOULD NOT GIVE THEM SOME PERCEPTION OF HIS GOODNESS, AND IN SOME SORT ENGRAVE HIS WORD ON THEIR HEARTS. OTHERWISE, WHERE WOULD BE THE TEMPORAL FAITH MENTIONED BY MARK 4:17? There is therefore some knowledge even in the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes away, either because it did not strike roots sufficiently deep, or because it withers, being choked up” (“Calvin’s Commentaries: Hebrews,” page 76).

In this second paragraph regarding Hebrews 6 (paragraph above), Calvin attempts to reconcile Hebrews 6:4-6 with Romans 8:14. On the basis of Romans 8:14 as a prooftext, Calvin states that “the elect are also beyond the danger of finally falling away,” and then appeals to John 17:12 [see my posts on Calvinism where I argue that John 17:12 pertains to physical preservation, which is fulfilled by Jesus in John 18:7-9. Do a search at the top of the main page for “Herbert Lockeyer"].
So who are those of Hebrews 6 if they are not the elect? “I cannot admit that all this is any reason why He should not grant the reprobate also some taste of His grace...otherwise, where would be the TEMPORAL FAITH mentioned in Mark 4:17?”

Notice that, in the above words, Calvin said that “He,” God, is the one who grants the temporary faith (as He believes Mark 4:17 reveals). But what Calvin does here is assign God the role of granting only temporary faith to some. He writes the following in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion”:

“...it is not strange, that by the apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ Himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them...still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize His grace; BUT THAT CONVICTION HE DISTINGUISHES FROM THE PECULIAR TESTIMONY WHICH HE GIVES TO HIS ELECT IN THIS RESPECT, that the reprobate never attain to the full result of to fruition. WHEN HE SHOWS HIMSELF PROPITIOUS TO THEM, IT IS NOT AS IF HE HAD TRULY RESCUED THEM FROM DEATH, AND TAKEN THEM UNDER HIS PROTECTION. HE ONLY GIVES THEM A MANIFESTATION OF HIS PRESENT MERCY...THUS WE DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION, THAT IF GOD TRULY DISPLAYS HIS GRACE, IT MUST ENDURE FOREVER. THERE IS NOTHING INCONSISTENT IN THIS WITH THE FACT OF HIS ENLIGHTENING SOME WITH A PRESENT SENSE OF GRACE, WHICH AFTERWARD PROVES EVANESCENT” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.2.11).

Here we see that Calvin argues a temporary faith, “a manifestation of His present mercy.” Because of this, “we dispose of the objection that if God truly displays His grace, it must endure forever.” In Calvin’s mind, grace was only eternal for the elect; it was temporal or temporary for the reprobate (non-elect).

In Calvin’s theology, God is the one who enlightens the reprobate, and then removes it. This is seen most clearly in Calvin’s distinction of general and special calls:

“Besides this [universal call] there is a special call which, FOR THE MOST PART, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to THOSE WHOM HE ENLIGHTENS FOR A TIME, AND WHOM AFTERWARD, IN JUST PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR INGRATITUDE, HE ABANDONS AND SMITES WITH GREATER BLINDNESS” (John Calvin, “Institutes,” 3.24.8).

Here is where Calvin fumbles most. First, he argues that the special call (which is for the elect) is given to believers only “for the most part.” Is he saying that God gives it to those who are not believers? Calvin does not elaborate.
Next, God abandons those who display “ingratitude.” How can they be responsible for resisting grace if God is the one who enlightens them for a time, only gives them “a manifestation of His present mercy”? If God only gives them a “temporal faith,” then how is it their fault if their faith does not endure to the end? Since faith is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9), how then, can man be responsible if God is the one giving and taking faith?

This last statement of Calvin is one that involves “losing salvation.” Eventually, God “abandons” that person and throws him further into reprobation. This is the modern concept that most people have in mind when the Arminian talks about “losing salvation.” However, this is not the doctrine of Arminius, but Calvin himself; and the only problem with Calvin’s view is that God is not the one who abandons the believer (Heb. 13:5; Deut. 31:6; Josh. 1:5); instead, the believer who falls away is the one who neglects God (Hebrews 2:3). In addition, Hebrews 6:7-8 (following verses 4 and 5) discusses the land that drinks the rain and can bear either fruit or thorns. In the words of Peter O’Brien, “The responsibility falls on the land and thus WITH THE PERSONS, NOT WITH GOD” (“The Pillar New Testament Commentary: Hebrews.” Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010, page 228). The persons themselves are to blame for their falling away, not God. So if the issue is faith (which Calvin seems to think it is---“temporal faith”), then the blame for falling away is not that God takes it from the believer, but that the believer gives up his or her faith (2 Peter 2:20-21; 1 Tim. 4:1; Hebrews 2:3; Romans 11:20-22).

Calvin attempts to maintain eternal security; however, by doing so, he is forced to deal with those who believe for a time and fall away...and he ends up assigning a temporary faith to them which makes one wonder whether or not he or she is even elect. If a person can have faith given to them for a time, and then the Spirit can “abandon” them and reprobate them, how then, can any of the assumed “elect” persons actually know with one-hundred percent certainty that they are elect? I think here is where we see the strength of Classical Arminianism: it offers assurance for the one who continues to believe, while holding to biblical teaching that believers can fall away (Mark 4:17, Luke 8:13).

The Other Side, Part V-B: Calvin's Commentary on 2 Peter 2

I started this series, titled “The Other Side,” about two weeks or so ago, having been spurred on to do this by a sermon on “Losing Salvation” that I heard one Sunday morning past. The preacher, “Dr. John” (as I will call him), got up and shoved prooftext after prooftext before the congregation that he believed confirmed his view of unconditional eternal security. I’ve spent the last week or two trying to show that John’s view of unconditional security in Christ has problems, especially when his “proof” verses are compared with other verses in the Bible, like Hebrews 6:4-6, for example, which indicate that someone who is “a companion of the Holy Spirit” can “fall away.” The fact that the words “fall away” are used indicates that something serious is at stake here, like the soil that “falls away” in Luke 8:13 due to temptation. These verses cannot be overlooked in the name of “I-wanna-stick-with-what-I’ve-always-believed.” Rather, these verses have to have explanations OTHER than what they “appear” to reveal---namely, that believers can lose faith and fall away from salvation (or, as Hebrews 2 says it, they can “neglect so great a salvation”).

Today I’m back to provide Calvin’s words regarding the text of 2 Peter 2. I’ve printed the text before, but I’ll place it here again so we can all get an idea of what Calvin will discuss in his commentary:

“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1, NKJV).

Regarding 2 Peter 2:1, Calvin writes:

“Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness and innocency. They, then, WHO THROW OFF THE BRIDLE, and GIVE THEMSELVES UP TO ALL KINDS OF LICENTIOUSNESS, are not unjustly said to DENY CHRIST BY WHOM THEY HAVE BEEN REDEEMED” (John Calvin, “Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. XXII: Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, James, II Peter, Jude.” Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999, page 393).

What does it mean to “throw off the bridle”? If a “bridle” is a “restraint” or “curb” on something (as Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary states; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bridle) then in the case of the Christian, the Christian life is a “restraint” or “curb” on licentiousness. There are things that a believer can do, and things that a believer cannot do. The believer must pursue holiness, without which no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). If a person throws off the “bridle” of holiness, then that person gives up their life in Christ, “denies Christ BY WHOM THEY HAVE BEEN REDEEMED,” and returns to the world. In other words, they take their redemption Christ purchased for them with His blood and they trample on it (Heb. 10:29). Keep in mind that this is CALVIN’S commentary---NOT Arminius’s, Molina’s, or anyone else’s. These words quoted above are the words of John Calvin himself. So if Calvinists say that such people “were never saved to begin with,” they surely have never read Calvin’s commentaries!!

2 Peter 2:2 reads as follows:

“And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.”

Calvin writes:

“It is, indeed, no slight offence to the weak...that a large number of men are led astray, SO THAT FEW CONTINUE IN TRUE OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST...for hardly one in ten of those who have once made a profession of Christ, retains the purity of faith to the end...lest this should make our faith to falter, Peter comes to our help, and in due time foretells that this very thing would be, that is, that false teachers WOULD DRAW MANY TO PERDITION” (393ff).

Notice that Calvin writes the words “few continue in true obedience to Christ.” These words tell us that many “start” in true obedience...but do not “continue.” It seems as if Calvin knew what Luke 8:13 stated about the soil that “believed for a time” and then fell away due to temptation. Secondly, the false teachers come and “draw many to perdition,” which means that many who have “once made a profession” will go on to “perdition” (which is another word for “destruction,” “hell,” or “everlasting damnation”). And yet, we know that Revelation 22 tells us that only “unbelievers” will go on to perdition. Yet, Calvin’s own words mimic the words of Hebrews 10:39---“But we are not of THOSE WHO DRAW BACK TO PERDITION, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul” (NKJV). There will be those who “draw back to perdition,” and Calvin notes this in his own words.

Now, let’s look at verses 20 and 21 of the same chapter. The reason I skip to these verses is so that we can see the clear references to apostasy as well as weigh Calvin’s words regarding these verses of Scripture.

“For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are AGAIN ENTANGLED IN THEM AND OVERCOME, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than HAVING KNOWN IT, TO TURN FROM THE HOLY COMMANDMENT DELIVERED TO THEM” (2 Peter 2:20-21, NKJV).

Regarding verse 20, Calvin writes:

“He again shews how pernicious was THE SECT WHICH LED MEN CONSECRATED TO GOD back again to their old filth and the corruptions of the world. And he exhibits the heinousness of the evil by a comparison; for IT WAS NO COMMON SIN TO DEPART FROM THE HOLY DOCTRINE OF GOD” (410).

Notice that those who go back to “the corruptions of the world” are “men consecrated to God.” This language implies that these weak Christians might be weak, but are still genuine Christians nonetheless. Calvin then talks about the rank of the sin of apostasy: it is such a horrible sin that he calls it “no common sin” and says that these “depart from the holy doctrine of God.” The apostates depart from the Word altogether, the teaching of God, His Scriptures. This is departing from “the way of righteousness” to which Peter refers above. Calvin states that “by the knowledge of Christ’ he [Peter] no doubt understands the gospel.” So in Calvin’s mind, those who depart from the way of righteousness depart from the gospel. And apart from the gospel, there is no salvation. Therefore, I ask you, the readership, was Calvin here implying that such persons of 2 Peter 2:20-22 walked away from the gospel, and, therefore, neglected such a great salvation (Hebrews 2) and forfeited their inheritance in Christ (Heb. 12, example of Esau)?

Maybe this will help. Here are Calvin’s thoughts regarding verse 21:

“By saying that ‘having forsaken the commandment delivered unto them,’ they returned to their own pollutions...he declares that they who MAKE THEMSELVES SLAVES AGAIN to the pollutions of the world FALL AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL.”

First, he says that the persons of 2 Peter 2 “make themselves slaves AGAIN” to the world; this means that, in Calvin’s mind, these people had once given up their slavery to sin and the world and had come to be “servants of righteousness,” to use Paul’s label in Romans 6. However, these people had now turned again and enslaved themselves back in sin once more. Secondly, such persons “fall away from the gospel,” which means that these people fell away from salvation.

These are some of Calvin’s comments regarding 2 Peter 2. What we’ve seen in Calvin’s argument is that Calvin has been inconsistent. When he interprets these passages by merely reading them, he sounds Arminian because he argues that these people “fall away from the gospel.” However, when he starts to write in his “Institutes” on eternal election and the divine decree of God, he imports his own theological system and hermeneutic onto the material (which skews his thoughts regarding the apostasy passages). The question is, “Why did Calvin write one way in his commentaries regarding these verses, and another way regarding his views of election, irresistible grace, and perseverance?” And this is a question Calvinists themselves have to answer if they seek to understand the man whose theology they follow as well as his theology itself.

Eternal Security: The Hermeneutical Dilemma

Every teaching or doctrine in the church comes down to one issue: hermeneutics (biblical interpretation). And with the issue of eternal security, the same issue (hermeneutics) is just as vitally important as the other numerous issues the church discusses. In today’s post, I’d like to start examining the problems with the doctrine of eternal security, specifically from a hermeneutical standpoint.

I’ve been thinking upon the sermon I heard from the preacher “John” two weeks ago (I posted on that sermon here at CTS), and how it is that John could place a bunch of prooftexts before the congregation while denying that the Bible has anything to say about “losing salvation” or “losing faith.” And what shocks me most is that believers are to approach the text of the Word of God with fairness and honesty, “understanding” (or “standing under”) the Word and letting it preach, instruct, guide, and rebuke us as those who will inherit its promises. But the problem I’m finding is that many people don’t desire to even discuss or entertain the idea of apostasy and falling away. No believer desires to think that the Bible affirms the possibility of falling away; and yet, there are quite a few troublesome passages that clearly state the possibility. Let’s look at one of them:

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame” (Heb. 6:4-6, NKJV).

Now these are verses that Calvinistic theologians (and Calvinist theologians alike, not to mention ordinary believers) interpret to refer to those who were “never saved to begin with,” people who only “pretended” to be saved, but were never genuinely converted. And Calvinists, therefore, are the ones who argue for eternal security: to them, it seems that if a person is truly saved, he or she will persevere to the end and be saved.

However, eternal securitists have never read Calvin’s “Institutes” if they presuppose this idea. Calvin, in his work, links the “falling away” of Hebrews 6 with “the unforgivable sin” mentioned by Jesus in the Gospels:

“First, the apostle OF NECESSITY must agree with the Master, who declares, that ‘all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men,’ ‘neither in this world, NEITHER IN THE WORLD TO COME’ (Matt. 12:31, Luke 12:10). We must hold that this was the only exception which the apostle recognized, UNLESS WE WOULD SET HIM IN OPPOSITION TO THE GRACE OF GOD. Hence it follows, that to no sin is pardon denied save to one, which proceeding from desperate fury cannot be ascribed to infirmity, and plainly shows that the man guilty of it is possessed by the devil” (3.3.21).

Henry A. Virkler notes in his work Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation that

“ ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’ was a favorite phrase of Calvin, which alluded to the importance Calvin placed on studying the context, grammar, words, and PARALLEL PASSAGES rather than importing one’s own meaning onto the text. In a famous sentence he stated that ‘it is the first business of an interpreter to let the author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say’” (Henry A. Virkler, “Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation," Fifth Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, page 67).

Calvin, therefore, believed that two passages of Scripture could not contradict each other (which is why he says in the quote regarding Hebrews 6 that we should not “set him [apostle Paul] in opposition to the grace of God.” Calvin believed that the Apostle Paul’s words in Hebrews 6 would match the words of Christ in the Gospels (and not go against them). Therefore, to discuss the impossibility of repentance in Hebrews 6 is to discuss blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, found in Matthew 12 and Luke 12.

In terms of Calvin’s interpretation, he is dead-on with making this connection; for Hebrews gives us further insight into those who “blaspheme against the Holy Spirit”:

“Anyone who has REJECTED Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has TRAMPLED THE SON OF GOD UNDERFOOT, counted the blood of the covenant BY WHICH HE WAS SANCTIFIED a common thing, and INSULTED THE SPIRIT OF GRACE?” (Heb. 10: 28-29, NKJV)

The person who “blasphemes against the Holy Spirit” is the same person who “insults the Spirit of Grace,” or “grieves the Spirit, whereby he is sealed” (Ephesians 4:30). Following Hebrews 10:28-29, verse 30 quotes from Deuteronomy 32:26 and states, “The Lord will judge HIS PEOPLE.” If the Lord’s people are the ones mentioned here, then Hebrews 10, as well as Hebrews 6, are not referring to those who “appear” to be saved...but, rather, to those who are saved...

I mentioned in a post on Hebrews 6 I put out a few days ago that Calvin writes that those who fall away (Heb. 6) are “voluntary apostates” (“Institutes,” 3.3.21) who “alienated themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit” (“Institutes,” 3.3.23). If this is the case, then even within Calvin’s own words we have clues that security in Christ can be breached. If this is true, then all eternal securitists need to reexamine what it means to have security in Christ.

The Other Side, Part V-A: Calvin's Commentary on Hebrews 6:4-6

I am back at this point to discuss Hebrews 6:4-6 and give Calvin’s commentary on the passage. Someone might ask, “Why even bother with going through these passages?” My answer to this would be, that passages like Hebrews 6:4-6, the passages of 2 Peter and Hebrews, as well as others in the New Testament (and the Old Testament) matter when it comes to the issue of apostasy. Calvin certainly had to face these passages, as does every Calvinist theologian. Fortunately, unlike most Calvinist theologians today, John Calvin was able to see many of these passages with some clarity and acknowledge the content within. That is my desire for all of us, no matter what theological system we hold to--- that we all would be able to see Scripture and acknowledge its truth.

Hebrews 6:4-6 reads thus:

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame” (Heb. 6:4-6, NKJV).

Calvin writes a response for the reprobate:

“The apostle, also intending to exclude apostates from the hope of salvation, states, as the reason, that it is impossible to renew them to repentance (Heb. 6:6); that is, God by renewing THOSE WHOM HE WILLS NOT TO PERISH, GIVES THEM A SIGN OF PATERNAL FAVOR, and in a manner attracts them to himself, by the beams of a calm and reconciled countenance; on the other hand, BY HARDENING THE REPROBATE, WHOSE IMPIETY IS NOT TO BE FORGIVEN, HE THUNDERS AGAINST THEM” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” 3.3.21).

Notice that God “hardens the reprobate, whose impiety is not to be forgiven...” Calvin clearly had a doctrine of reprobation and believed that there are those that God “wills not to perish” and those that He does. So those God desires to bring back to the faith, those God desires to be elect, He receives again...but the reprobate are rejected and God doesn’t attempt to receive them again.

Calvin, however, has more to say:

“This kind of vengeance the apostle denounces against VOLUNTARY APOSTATES (Heb. 10:29), who, in falling away from the faith of the Gospel, mock God, insultingly reject his favor, profane and trample under foot the blood of Christ, no, as far as in them lies, crucify him afresh. Still, he does not, as some austere persons preposterously insist, leave no hope of pardon to voluntary sins, but shows that apostasy being altogether without excuse, it is not strange that God is inexorably rigorous in punishing sacrilegious contempt thus shown to himself” (3.3.21).

Notice that this group of “voluntary apostates” seem to be from within the ranks of the Christian faith itself: “falling away from the faith of the Gospel...insultingly reject his favor...sacrilegious contempt...”

Of the small phrases above, one stands out the most...and that is that the apostates fall away “from the FAITH of the Gospel.” Evidently, Calvin had read Luke 8, where the rocky soil “believed for a time” and then fell away due to temptation.

In his quote above, Calvin also makes the point that apostasy is not like the other list of “voluntary sins” that the Lord forgives. Apostasy is “altogether without excuse,” meaning that there is no reason sufficient to explain why a person would walk away from Christ and abandon their hope in Him for the world. Because of this “sacrilegious contempt shown to himself,” God does not receive that person again. By “sacrilegious contempt,” Calvin means that the apostate has shown utter hatred and disrespect for his or her master, the Lord Jesus Christ, and has, as Hebrews 6 said, “trampled underfoot the blood of the Son of God.” The apostate has taken the Lord’s precious blood, worth so much, and “treated it as a common thing,” as something to spit upon without a second thought.

In section 23 of the same book, Calvin explains the type of person the writer of Hebrews had in mind when he wrote Hebrews 6:4-6---

“The apostle...is directing his discourse against those who imagined that they could return to the Christian religion though they had once revolted from it. To divest them of this false and pernicious opinion, he says, as is most true, that those who had once KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY CAST OFF FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST, had no means of returning to it. It is not, however, so cast off by those who merely, by the dissoluteness of their lives, transgress the word of the Lord, but by those who avowedly reject his whole doctrine...when he speaks of those falling away...we must understand him as referring to those who, WITH DELIBERATE IMPIETY, HAVE QUENCHED THE LIGHT OF THE SPIRIT, TASTED OF THE HEAVENLY WORD AND SPURNED IT, ALIENATED THEMSELVES FROM THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE SPIRIT, AND TRAMPLED UNDER FOOT THE WORD OF GOD AND THE POWERS OF A WORLD TO COME. THE BETTER TO SHOW THAT THIS WAS THE SPECIES OF IMPIETY INTENDED, he afterward expressly adds the term ‘willfully’” (“Institutes,” 3.3.23).

Calvin makes it clear that the persons of Hebrews 6:4-6 are those who “knowingly and willingly cast off fellowship.” Such persons are not ignorant of what they are doing. Rather, as Romans 1 says, they are “haters of God” and “knowing the righteous judgment of God...those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:30, 32).

And then, Calvin becomes more detailed about the apostates: they “have quenched the light of the Spirit.” This is in direct violation of 1 Thessalonians 5:19. Next, they “tasted of the heavenly word and spurned it.” What does it mean to “taste of the heavenly word”? We can get a glimpse of this from 1 Peter 2:2-3---“as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, IF INDEED YOU HAVE TASTED THAT THE LORD IS GRACIOUS” (NKJV). Peter told the scattered Jews in the Dispersion (Diaspora) that they should desire to grow in the Lord, since their prior experience of God in the faith revealed to them the goodness of the Lord. They had memories with the Lord in the faith that should move them to keep going forward in Christ. The voluntary apostates of Heb. 6:4-6, however, have tasted the word of God (called “good”), and have rejected it, like the baby who rejects eating carrots.
Next, such apostates have “alienated themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit.” This is one of the most interesting statements made by Calvin regarding the type of person that fulfills Hebrews 6:4-6. What does it mean to say that the apostates have “alienated themselves”?

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary provides the following definition:

1 : to make unfriendly, hostile, or indifferent especially where attachment formerly existed

See the words “especially where attachment formerly existed”? such words demonstrate a connection between two people or things, or a combination thereof. But in order for a person to become hostile or unfriendly TO someone or something, that person must have had an attachment to that person or thing that they are now (currently) disconnecting themselves from.

When Calvin says, then, that the voluntary apostates have “alienated themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit,” he is saying that, whereas there was a time when the apostates “walked in the Spirit,” that time is past; whereas the apostates were once sensitive to the Spirit and His leading, they no longer listen to Him at all.
Instead, they grieve the Spirit (Eph. 4:30) and spend more time fulfilling the lusts of the flesh (which is the exact opposite of what they should be doing).

Let me ask a question at this point: How can a person “alienate themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit” if “they were never saved to begin with”? I ask this question because so many Calvinists and ordinary believers give this answer as the reason why individuals walk away from Christ. However, if the person is never saved, then 1) the Spirit doesn’t reside in them, and 2)they cannot be sanctified because they first need to be saved. In this case, the apostates would just be unbelievers. Apostates, however, according to the Bible, are a different group of unbelievers than just those who continue in their unbelief. Apostates are those who abandon the faith (1 Tim. 4:1), not those who never came to it.

Many respond to Hebrews 6:4-6 with sadness of heart, thinking the worst of God for not allowing apostates to return to the faith. Calvin responds to this feeling:

“To some it seems harsh, and at variance with the divine mercy, utterly to deny forgiveness to any who retake themselves to it. This is easily disposed of. It is not said that pardon will be refused if they turn to the Lord, but IT IS ALTOGETHER DENIED THAT THEY CAN TURN TO REPENTANCE, inasmuch as for their ingratitude THEY ARE STRUCK BY THE JUST JUDGMENT OF GOD WITH ETERNAL BLINDNESS” (“Institutes,” 3.3.24).

The issue then, is not about them turning to the Lord---it’s about them NOT WANTING TO TURN TO THE LORD! Because they have been ungrateful and shown contempt to the grace of God, “they are struck by the just judgment of God with eternal blindness.” God gives them over to their desires, just like those of Romans 1:

“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened...they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...therefore GOD GAVE THEM UP in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves...for this reason GOD GAVE THEM UP to dishonorable passions...and since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, GOD GAVE THEM UP to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done...” (Rom. 1:21, 23, 23, 26,28 ESV)

Three times in the text it says that “God gave them up” (1:24, 26, 28) to their own evil desires, because they chose not to worship and serve Him. Since humanity made it clear that they did not care to worship God despite knowing the truth, God decided to assent to their decision and let them be as debased and depraved as they desired to be. What a sad state of affairs to think about!

For whatever reason, eternal securitists today seem to think that God will not give a professed believer over to their sin should they persist in it...but if God did it in Romans 1, why does the modern-day child of God become an exception if he will not receive the Lord’s chastening (Hebrews 12:7-10)?

"Moderate" or "Modified" Calvinism? John Calvin and the Doctrine of Temporary Faith

“I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though NONE ARE ENLIGHTENED UNTO FAITH, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are foreordained to salvation, yet EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT THE REPROBATE ARE SOMETIMES AFFECTED IN A WAY SO SIMILAR TO THE ELECT, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the apostle A TASTE OF HEAVENLY GIFTS, and BY CHRIST HIMSELF A TEMPORARY FAITH, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no strong testimony to assure them of their adoption. I answer, that though THERE IS A GREAT RESEMBLANCE AND AFFINITY BETWEEN THE ELECT OF GOD AND THOSE WHO ARE IMPRESSED FOR A TIME WITH A FADING FAITH, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, ‘Abba,’ “Father.” Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only forever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT AN INFERIOR OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT FROM TAKING ITS COURSE IN THE REPROBATE...nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. HE ONLY GIVES THEM A MANIFESTATION OF HIS PRESENT MERCY. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure forever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterward proves evanescent” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion, “ Book 3, Chap. 2, Sec. 11. Pg. 362).

I learned as a child that I should aim for honesty in all things. And that is no different with the Center for Theological Studies. I pray that I have been honest in my presentations of theologies with which I disagree, as much as I am honest with my own theology.

As a result, I believe in bringing out the truth, even if it is cold, hard, and ugly. So today, my readers will get to see a side of Calvinism that few people, if any, are aware of. Today, we will be exploring Calvin’s “Doctrine of Temporary Faith.”

Regarding this doctrine, Keith Stanglin writes:

“The doctrine of temporary faith explains the fact that some people who seem to possess saving faith and presently demonstrate the signs of being a faithful person, occasionally end up demonstrating that they were really reprobate all along” (“Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603-1609” by Keith D. Stanglin, PhD. Leiden & Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2007, page 183.)

In other words, some are given faith for a while...but this was never intended to be forever (hence, “temporary faith”).

Going back to Calvin’s quote, let’s first note his statement regarding experience:

“...for though NONE ARE ENLIGHTENED UNTO FAITH, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are foreordained to salvation, yet EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT THE REPROBATE ARE SOMETIMES AFFECTED IN A WAY SO SIMILAR TO THE ELECT...”

So the reprobate actually feel an assurance of faith for a time! Now, even the reprobate can have some sort of assurance of faith. But of course, the assurance the reprobate has is not the same as the assurance of the elect. Calvin makes it clear here that our experiences can deceive us into thinking that some are elect---when in reality, they are more reprobate than we can imagine. In fact, the experiences can be so similar at times that humans cannot tell the difference between the elect and the reprobate.

Let’s go further:

“Hence it is not strange, that by the apostle A TASTE OF HEAVENLY GIFTS, and BY CHRIST HIMSELF A TEMPORARY FAITH, is ascribed to them.”

Here is the doctrine of temporary faith in its fullness. The reprobate receive two things: first, “a taste of the heavenly gifts”; and, secondly, “a temporary faith BY CHRIST HIMSELF.” Notice that Christ is the one who gives the temporary faith.

And this is what is quite troubling to me: the idea that Calvin does not blame the person for their lapse in spiritual things, but Christ. Christ gives it to them, according to Calvin, “for a limited time only.” Christ gives faith to them, knowing that He never elected them to salvation, but let’s them enjoy the “crumbs” of salvation for a time. And, need I remind you that in Calvin’s doctrine, CHRIST is the one responsible!!! This does not sound like today's Calvinism, where Calvinists claim that man is responsible. If they desire to be consistent, like Calvin, they too must say "Christ gave them temporary faith"...and I don't think they can morally commit to that idea.

Not only does Christ give them a “temporary” faith (a defective faith), but He also gives them “a taste of heavenly gifts.” Calvin’s reference here shows us that, unlike most Calvinists today, he believed in incorporating Hebrews 6:4-6 into his theology. The question is, what happens to those who “fall away”? Do they fall away because Christ only gives them a “temporary faith”? Or do they fall away because they choose to walk away from Christ? Calvin chose the former; but I choose the latter.

Finally, the last shocking comment of Calvin in the above quote is thus:

“But in this THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT AN INFERIOR OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT FROM TAKING ITS COURSE IN THE REPROBATE...nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. HE ONLY GIVES THEM A MANIFESTATION OF HIS PRESENT MERCY.”

The last sentence of Calvin’s quote here is the most striking: “He [God] only gives them a manifestation of His PRESENT MERCY.” To John Calvin, God showed mercy to these reprobate---but it was never meant to be “eternal.” It was always meant to be “an inferior operation of the Spirit”...and yet, I could never blaspheme the Spirit and accuse Him of doing “an inferior operation” within the hearts of individuals...

What does all of this have to do with “moderate” Calvinism, as the title of the post suggests? Well, I’ve said what I’ve said regarding the doctrine of temporary faith because most Calvinists today would not agree with Calvin’s take on Hebrews 6; instead, they would just say, “Well, those persons were never saved to begin with,” and leave it at that. The only problem with the modern Calvinist response is that, if a person intends to identify themselves with John Calvin’s theology, then that person must assent to all that Calvin said about the elect and the reprobate---which INCLUDES the doctrine of temporary faith. So, when a modern Calvinist says, “That person was never saved to begin with,” they are disagreeing with Calvin’s theology; what they should say is, “Well, God only gave them a temporary faith,” if they desire to be theologically consistent.

Most Calvinists today label themselves as “moderate” Calvinists; but, in reality, they are really “MODIFIED” Calvinists---for, while holding to many tenets of Calvin’s own theology, they differ from him in some areas (one of them being the doctrine of temporary faith, as shown above). And what “modified” Calvinism shows us is that Calvinism, as John Calvin designed it, has major moral and theological problems. What today’s infralapsarians, Amyraldians, Molinists (and even hyper-Calvinists) have shown us is that Calvinism needs some major revisions. But, for those who choose to remain in the tradition...well, they’ll just have to continue to agree and disagree with John Calvin, all at the same time.

"Calvin's View of Reprobation, and His Erroneous Fundamental Assumption"

The following is an essay by Robert Shank on Calvin’s “Institutes.” For those who desire to see the original article, it is under “Appendix D” in Robert Shank’s work on perseverance, called “Life In The Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance.” (Bloomington, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1989, pages 345-357). The article is titled "Calvin's View of Reprobation, and His Erroneous Fundamental Assumption." Read the article below:

Calvin considered reprobation a positive decree. “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” (3:21:5). “We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless but at the same time, incomprehensible, judgment” (3:21:7). “Now if, in excuse of themselves and the ungodly, either the Pelagians, or Manichees, or Anabaptists, or Epicureans (for it with these four sects we have to discuss this matter), should object the necessity by which they are constrained, in consequences of the divine predestination, they do nothing that is relevant to the cause” (3:23:8). In the same paragraph, however, he writes, “Moreover, though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves.”

Thus, according to Calvin, by eternal decree before creation, God ‘determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man.” Some He “preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation,” without regard to anything in man, either of the elect or of the reprobate—“they do nothing that is relevant to the cause.” And yet, somehow, “the cause and matter of [the perdition of the reprobation] is in themselves.”

It cannot be questioned that men, as guilty sinners, are deserving of perdition. But according to Calvin’s view of reprobation, the guilt of the reprobate is a consequence rather than a cause. For if by eternal decree God unconditionally “preordained” specific men to eternal damnation without respect to anything in them, but simply because “it was his pleasure to doom them to destruction,” it cannot be true that “the cause and matter” of their perdition is to be found within the reprobate themselves, as Calvin asserts, because God’s decree was antecedent to any act of man. According to Calvin’s definition of election and reprobation, the guilt of the reprobate is, itself, the direct consequence of God’s positive decree of reprobation. God created the reprobate for no other purpose than guilt and everlasting damnation, and the real “cause and matter” of their perdition is to be found in God’s decree, rather than “in themselves,” as Calvin asserts.
Calvin becomes involved in the same sort of contradiction in his consideration of the fall of angels. He writes: “Paul gives the name of ‘elect’ to the angels who maintained their integrity. If their steadfastness was owing to the good pleasure of God, the revolt of the others proves that they were abandoned. Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God” (3:23:4). Obviously, this makes the revolt of the angels the direct consequence of an act of God. According to Calvin, the whole company of angels were going along in a business-as-usual sort of way when—bang! God suddenly sprang the trap under some of them by withdrawing His sustaining grace and “abandoning” them to perdition. This was simply “owing to the good pleasure of God,” and “no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.”

But elsewhere in his Institutes, Calvin declares that “…at their first creation they were the angels of God, but by revolting they both ruined themselves and became the instruments of perdition to others…Everything damnable in [Lucifer] he brought upon himself by his revolt and fall. Of this Scripture reminds us, lest, by believing that he was so created at first, we should ascribe to God what is most foreign to his nature. For this reason Christ declares (John viii.44) that Satan, when he lies, ‘speaketh of his own,’ and states the reason, ‘because he abode not in the truth.’ By saying that he abode not in the truth, he certainly intimates that he once was in the truth, and by calling him the father of lies, he puts it out of his power to charge God with the depravity of which he was himself the cause” (1:14:16).
Thus, on one page, there is “no other cause” for the fall of angels except “the good pleasure of God” in suddenly withdrawing His sustaining grace from some and “abandoning” them to perdition, while continuing to secure the “steadfastness” of others who “maintained their integrity.” On other page, however, there is no other cause than that which we may find in the angels themselves, who, without provocation or necessity or excuse, wickedly revolted against God and His divine will.

It is difficult to read at length from Calvin without concluding that he was a master at eating his cake and having it too. The left hand giveth, and the right hand taketh away. Calvin’s difficulty stemmed from the fact that he labored under an erroneous fundamental assumption. His cardinal error was his failure to acknowledge that the will of God has more than a single aspect, which led to his consequent denial that God desires to have all men to be saved. It is apparent from his writings that Calvin reasoned thus: If God truly wished all men to be saved, then all men would be saved. But most men are not saved. Therefore, we must conclude that God does not wish all men to be saved. Calvin’s logic is unassailable; but it is based on the erroneous assumption that the will of God has but a single aspect.
Calvin deplored the fact that his opponents “…recur to the distinction between will and permission, the object being to prove that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that he permits, but just because he wills?” (3:23:8). Certainly anything within His permission is within God’s will. But this does not establish the fact that His will has but a single aspect. All that occurs in the universe is within the permissive will of God. Neither men nor angels nor devils can go beyond the limits of God’s permissive will. But it is by no means true that all that occurs is in accord with the perfect will of God.

One may argue that, since the world is filled with greed, lust, violence, debauchery, hatred, and impenitence, God evidently wishes it to be so and is well pleased. But the Scriptures declare otherwise. Although God allows these things to exist in the world, He has revealed His displeasure and wrath with respect to all such things and has commanded all men to repent. Thus it is evident that there are two aspects of the will of God with respect to sin: His permissive will allows it; but His perfect will forbids it and will bring all sin into judgment.
There are two aspects of the will of God for men with respect to salvation. Numerous Scriptures reveal God’s perfect will to “have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4); but the fact that not all men are saved reflects God’s permissive will. If a man is saved, it is in accordance with God’s perfect will that all men should be saved; if a man is lost, it is in accordance with God’s permissive will that men, being free moral agents rather than mere puppets, may refuse to obey Him. The latitude between God’s perfect will and His permissive will is the area within which men function with freedom as responsible moral intelligences, accountable before God in solemn judgment. God is at work in humanity “bringing many sons unto glory” (Heb. 2:10) through the redemptive process rooted in His grace and wrought in Christ. But as moral intelligences created in His image, men must of their own free will concur in God’s redemptive process if they are to share His everlasting glory as His sons. The fact that men are responsible, as free moral agents, is a corollary of the fact that the will of God has two aspects, rather than one.

The fact that the will of God has two aspects, rather than one, is fully apparent in numerous passages of Scripture. Consider the following: “If any man wills to do His will, he shall know…” (John 7:17).” Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father…” (Matt. 7:21). “But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the counsel [boule, purpose] of God for them, being not baptized of John” (Luke 7:30). According to the Scriptures, men may choose to do God’s will, or not to do His will. Since everything that happens is necessarily within the bounds of God’s will, yet (according to the Scriptures) much that happens is contrary to the will of God, it is evident that the will of God has two aspects, rather than one.
Calvin does assert that God has “a double will” (3:24:17). But he means only that God has one will for the elect and another for the reprobate, both of which are simply corresponding manifestations of the one immutable will of God. (But if His will has but a single aspect, God is necessarily insincere; for He is ostensibly angry toward impenitent sinners with whom He secretly must be pleased, since they are but fulfilling His immutable will for them.) Calvin’s assumption that the will of God has but a single aspect involved him in a fundamental error which warped both his theology and his interpretation of the Scriptures.
Much of Calvin’s exposition of the Scriptures is excellent, including his interpretations of the warnings against apostatizing and the exhortations to persevere. He insists that believers must persevere in faith if they are to remain in grace. He frankly acknowledges that the Scriptures declare that some do actually fall from grace (reprobate Christians whose faith and experience of grace, by divine decree, are intended to be only temporary). He rightly asserts that the elect will persevere in faith and continue in grace to ultimate final salvation. But he views the perseverance of specific individual men as the consequence of election, rather than as a condition. Therefore, he is under the necessity of denying that God desires to have all men to be saved. For if God desires to have all men to be saved, then perseverance must necessarily be a condition, rather than a consequence, of election. Hence, his interpretations of the explicit declarations of Scripture that God wills to have all men to be saved, and that Christ died for all men, are ingenious and artificial. The reason is apparent: had he accepted the obvious meaning and import of such simple categorical declarations of Holy Scripture, his definition of election and the whole logic of his theology would have disintegrated. Calvin therefore rejected the face value of numerous passages of Scripture, in the interest of his theology, which he was able to substantiate by appealing to selected proof passages and by assigning ingenious interpretations to some of the most explicit declarations in the Holy Scriptures.

An example of Calvin’s interpretations of passages incompatible with his theology is found in his comments on 1 Tim. 2:4-6. He writes that “[Paul] demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgement of his truth.” (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, p.54). Having made such a concession (in full accord with the obvious meaning of Paul’s words), Calvin immediately begins his retraction by asserting, “This belongs to that kind of argument in which the cause is proved from the effect.” In other words, since many are not saved, it cannot be true that God really wishes all men to be saved. Conceding that “if ‘the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone that believeth’ (Rom. i. 16), it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life,” Calvin yet insists that only “they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation”—who are, of course, only such as have the good fortune of having been included in God’s “secret election.” We must not believe, therefore, that God really desires that all men should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. Paul’s simple statement must be “interpreted” to bring it into conformity with Calvin’s theology. According to Calvin, God “invites all to the acknowledgement of His truth”; but He makes sure that only the right ones answer His universal invitation. He has taken all necessary steps to ensure that none of the wrong ones shall obey His righteous command to all men everywhere to repent or answer His gracious invitation to “whosoever will.”

In defense of his theology, Calvin asserts that “all” does not mean all, but rather only some men of each of all classes. He declares that in affirming that God wills to have all men to be saved, “…the Apostle simply means that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is to include in this number princes and foreign nations.” (Calvin’s Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, p. 54f.) In other words, when Paul declared that God “wills to have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” he really meant only that God wills to have some men of each of all nations and classes, including a few kings, to be saved and to come to the knowledge of His truth.
Again, Calvin writes, “The universal term all must always be referred to classes of men, and not to persons…” (Calvin’s commentary, p. 57). Such an assumption is necessary for the defense of Calvin’s theology. And it does seem a modest concession for Calvin to ask, in view of the fact that the whole of his elaborate theology is at stake. But we wonder why Paul depended so much on “interpreters” instead of simply saying that God desires to have some men of each of all different classes to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for some men of each of all classes.

Elsewhere Calvin writes, “By this [Paul] assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation was not shut against any order of men; that, on the contrary, he had manifested his mercy in such a way that he would have none debarred from it” (3:24:16). But of course Calvin does not really mean that God actually “had manifested his mercy in such a way that he would have none debarred from it.” Such a statement contradicts his theology. For according to Calvin, most men were created for the specific purpose of being forever barred from the mercy of God. Calvin therefore means only that God has barred the reprobate from His mercy, not on the basis of “class” or “order of men,” but rather as specific individuals whom He created for perdition and for whom His mercy was never intended. Against any who might be reluctant to accept his “interpretation” of such a simple categorical statement of Scripture and his necessary definition of the word all as only some men of all classes. Calvin fumes, “For if they persist in urging the words, ‘God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all’ (Rom. Xi. 32), I will, on the contrary, urge what is elsewhere written, ‘Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased’ (Ps. cxv. 3)” (3:24:16). To Calvin, of course, belongs the exclusive right to define “whatsoever he hath pleased” to do.

“Hence we see the childish folly,” writes Calvin, “Of those who represent this passage [1 Tim. 2:4-6] to be opposed to predestination [i.e., to Calvin’s particular hypothesis of election and reprobation]. ‘If God,’ they say, ‘wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestinated by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition [i.e., unconditionally]. They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, pg. 54).

Thus, all in the same breath, Calvin declares that “God has at heart the salvation of all…yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man”—some of whom He created for salvation, and others for perdition. Again, as so often with Calvin, the left hand giveth, and the right hand taketh away. “God has at the heart the salvation of all [and] invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth.” But He also has at heart the everlasting perdition of men whom He created for no other purpose or destiny—men to whom, from before creation, He utterly denied all prospect of arriving at the acknowledgment of His truth and salvation. “God has at heart the salvation of all”—and the damnation of most! Without regard to anything in men, God is pleased to consign to everlasting perdition many whose salvation He “has at heart.” Why? Perhaps to confirm the logic of Calvin’s theology.

Calvin resorts to similar exegetical artifice in his interpretation of passages which affirm that Christ died for all mankind. For example, according to his interpretation of 1 John 2:2, John did not mean that Jesus is actually the propitiation “for the sins of the whole world.” Instead, he meant only that He is the propitiation for the sins of the elect wherever they may happen to be throughout the whole world, and in whatever generation they may happen to live on earth. “…the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, p. 173).

It must have come as an amazing revelation to John’s readers to learn that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the elect quite as much in one part of the world as in another, and as much in one generation as in another. What nonsense! But of course John’s simple statement must be properly “interpreted.” The logic of Calvin’s theology demands a limited atonement. (In his introduction to Eerdmans’ edition of the Institutes, John Murray writes, “[Calvin’s] exegesis, in a word, is theologically oriented.” That is only too true, in a sense which Murray did not mean. The profound pity is that Calvin’s theology was not exegetically oriented.)
While many Calvinists concede that such a doctrine is manifestly unscriptural, a limited atonement remains an essential tenet of Calvin’s theology. The “Five Pillars of Calvinism” are five in number, not four. But Calvinists who advocate a limited atonement have no moral right to assure any man that Christ died for him, personally. For according to their theology, their statement may, or may not, be true; and in most instances is not.

Calvinists who reject the erroneous doctrine of limited atonement, while more Scriptural, are correspondingly less logical. Quite inconsistent are moderate Calvinists who reject a limited atonement while advocating an unconditional election. Why should Jesus bear the sins of men who have no prospect of forgiveness and whose inevitable destiny, by decree of God, is eternal perdition? Why should God sacrifice His Son for men whom He does not desire to save and whom He does not love? Or, how is it true that God loves men whom he deliberately creates for no other end and purpose than everlasting estrangement from Himself? It is a strange “love” which creates men for naught but wrath. Or, if one insist that reprobation is “not a positive decree,” as some “Calvinists” (a thing impossible to establish, if election be unconditional), how is it true that God loves men whom He simply “passes by” while saving others no more deserving of His mercy? A God who “passes by” the mass of helpless sinners in casual unconcern is not unlike the priest and the Levite in our Saviour’s parable. If it be protested that sinners have offended God and are undeserving of His mercy, let us ask whether our Saviour taught us to love our enemies and to forgive those who have offended us. Let us also ask whether, according to our Saviour’s teaching, to love and forgive and to seek reconciliation would make us like God, or unlike Him (Matt. 5:43-48). The only claim that robbers’ victim had on the good Samaritan was the character of the Samaritan himself—the spirit of love and brotherhood which he had toward his fellow men. The only claim guilty sinners have on the mercy of God is the gracious character of God Himself. That claim was enough to send Jesus to Golgotha and to a shameful death as the propitiation “for the sins of the whole world.” The guilt of men who persist in disobedience is compounded many-fold by the fact that Jesus “gave himself a ransom for all” and God desires that none perish, but that all come to repentance and to the knowledge of His truth and saving grace.

Chafer, who rejects the doctrine of limited atonement, tacitly admits the inconsistency of contending for both unlimited redemption and unconditional election: “To the unlimited redemptionist, the seeming inequity of a judgment falling upon [the reprobate] after Christ has borne that judgment is but one more mystery which the finite mind cannot understand” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. III, p. 188). But the “mystery” and the inconsistency are not present for men who recognize that the will of God has more than a single aspect, and that the Scriptures present both an unlimited atonement and a conditional election (with respect to particular individuals). We can be consistent (and Scriptural) only as we recognize that the love which provided an infinite atonement “for the sins of the whole world” finds expression in God’s sincere desire that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance and salvation. Conditional election is the inevitable corollary of unlimited redemption. “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them… [therefore] as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (II Cor. 5:19, 20).

It is true, as Calvinists delight to contend, that there is a hard core of logic at the center of Calvin’s theology. But it is a logic which proceeds on the erroneous assumption that the will of God has but a single aspect, and which is totally invalid. It is therefore inevitable that, despite its core of logic, there should be much in Calvin’s theology which is horribly illogical—a fact which Calvinists concede, but which they excuse on the plea that the frightful paradoxes are “mysteries” which our finite minds cannot comprehend. It is odd that men who glory in the “logic” of Calvin’s theology are so ready to accept all that is grossly illogical in it. Even more distressing is the fact that they are quite ready to accept the many ingenious and artificial interpretations of simple, explicit statements of Holy Scripture which the defense of Calvin’s theology requires.
Calvin’s profound intolerance toward all who questioned any of his opinions was not merely the evidence of a vanity easily offended; it was a reflection of his sincere estimate of his Institutes of the Christian Religion: “I dare not bear too strong a testimony in its favour and declare how profitable the reading of it will be, lest I should seem to prize my own work too highly. However, I may promise this much, that it will be a kind of key opening up to all the children of God a right and ready access to the understanding of the sacred volume. . . . And since we are bound to acknowledge that all truth and sound doctrine proceed from God, I will venture boldly to declare what I think of this work, acknowledging it to be God’s work rather than mine” (Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 22f).
We would not question Calvin’s sincerity in assuming his Institutes to be a comprehensive expression of holy truth quite free from error, and the indispensable key to understanding the Scriptures. But we deny the wisdom of sharing his assumption. It is cause for regret that, in the past four centuries, many have seemed to regard Calvin’s Institutes, not merely as the expression of a system of theology, but actually as a sort of infallible norm by which to judge all exegesis and doctrine. Such an assumption militates against the possibility of any really objective study of the Holy Scriptures and the formulation of a truly Biblical theology. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

But we do well to honor Calvin for his earnest purpose to be ever “prompt and sincere in the work of the Lord,” and for his zeal and labors to lead men into the light of holy truth, as best he saw it. Jealous for the glory of God and indignant against the presumptions of “unholy men in holy office” who trafficked in the souls of men, arrogating to themselves the provinces of God, Calvin labored diligently to expound the Scriptures, and especially to defend the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, according to his conception and definition.