CHOSEN

B Y

GOD

RC SPROUL

© 1 9 8 6 b y R . C . S p r o u l

A H rights r e s e r v e d

S c r i p t u r e q u o t a t i o n s a r e t a k e n f r o m T h e N e w K i n g J a m e s V e r s i o n . C o p y r i g h t © 1 9 7 9 , 1 9 8 0 , 1 9 8 2 ,

T h o m a s N e l s o n Inc., P u b l i s h e r s .

L i b r a r y o f C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g C a r d N u m b e r 86-50651

I S B N 0-8423-0282-4 ( H C )

I S B N 9-8423-1335-4 ( S C )

I S B N 0-8423-7212-1 ( M a s s )

P r i n t e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a

05

C O N T E N T S

1 T h e Struggle

7

Predestination and the

2 Sovereignty of God

19

3 Predestination and Free Will

49

4 Adam's Fall and Mine

77

Spiritual Death and Spiritual Life:

5 Rebirth and Faith

101

6 Foreknowledge and Predestination 127

Double, Double, Toil and Trouble:

7 Is Predestination Double?

139

8 Can We Know That We Are Saved? 161

9 Questions and Objections

Concerning Predestination

189

C H A P T E R O N E

THE

S T R U G G L E

BASEBALL. Hot dogs. Apple pie. Chevrolet.

These are all things American. To complete

the mix we must add the great American

motto: "We will not discuss religion or poli-

tics.*

Mottoes are made to be broken. Perhaps no American

rule is broken more frequently than the one about not

discussing religion or politics. We embark on such discus-

sions repeatedly. And when the topic turns to religion it

often gravitates to the issue of predestination. Sadly, that

often means the end of discussion and the beginning of

argument, yielding more heat than light.

Arguing about predestination is virtually irresistible.

(Pardon the pun.) T h e topic is so juicy. It provides an

opportunity to spar about all things philosophical. W h e n

the issue flares up we suddenly become super-patriotic,

guarding the tree of human liberty with more zeal and

tenacity than Patrick Henry ever dreamed of. T h e specter

of an all-powerful God making choices for us, and perhaps

even against us, makes us scream, "Give me free will or

give me death!"

T h e very word predestination has an ominous ring to

it. It is linked to the despairing notion of fatalism and

somehow suggests that within its pale we are reduced to

meaningless puppets. T h e word conjures up visions of a

diabolical deity who plays capricious games with our lives.

We seem to be subjected to the whims of horrible decrees

9

R - C - S P R O U L

that were fixed in concrete long before we were born.

Better that our lives were fixed by the stars, for then at

least we could find clues to our destiny in the daily horo-

scopes.

Add to the horror of the word predestination the pub-

lic image of its most famous teacher, John Calvin, and we

shudder all the more. We see Calvin portrayed as a stern

and grim-faced tyrant, a sixteenth-century Ichabod Crane

w h o found fiendish delight in the burning of recalcitrant

heretics. It is enough to cause us to retreat from the

discussion altogether and reaffirm our commitment never

to discuss religion and politics.

W i t h a topic people find so unpleasant, it is a wonder

that we ever discuss it at all. W h y do we speak of it?

Because we enjoy unpleasantness? N o t at all. We discuss it

because we cannot avoid it. It is a doctrine plainly set

forth in the Bible. We talk about predestination because

the Bible talks about predestination. If we desire to build

our theology on the Bible, we run head on into this

concept. We soon discover that John Calvin did not in-

vent it.

Virtually all Christian churches have some formal doc-

trine of predestination. To be sure, the doctrine of predes-

tination found in the Roman Catholic Church is different

from that in the Presbyterian Church. T h e Lutherans

have a different view of the matter from the Episcopalians.

T h e fact that such variant views of predestination

abound only underscores the fact that if we are biblical in

our thinking we must have some doctrine of predestina-

tion. We cannot ignore such well-known passages as:

10

T H E S T R U G G L E

Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the

•world, that we should be holy and without blame before

Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons

by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good

pleasure of His will. . . (Ephesians 1:4, 5).

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being

predestined according to the purpose of Him who works

all things according to the counsel of His will. . .

(Ephesians 1:11).

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be

conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be

the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29).

If we are to be biblical, then, the issue is not whether

we should have a doctrine of predestination or not, but

what kind we should embrace. If the Bible is the Word of

God, not mere human speculation, and if God himself

declares that there is such a thing as predestination, then it

follows irresistibly that we must embrace some doctrine of

predestination.

If we are to follow this line of thinking, then, of course,

we must go one step further. It is not enough to have just

any view of predestination. It is our duty to seek the

correct view of predestination, lest we be guilty of distort-

ing or ignoring the Word of God. Here is where the real

struggle begins, the struggle to sort out accurately all that

the Bible teaches about mis matter.

My struggle with predestination began early in my

Christian life. I knew a professor of philosophy in college

who was a convinced Calvinist. He set forth the so-called

"Reformed" view of predestination. I did not like it. I did

11

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

not like it at all. I fought against it tooth and nail all the

way through college.

I graduated from college unpersuaded of the Reformed

or Calvinistic view of predestination only to go to a semi-

nary that included on its staff the king of the Calvinists,

John H. Gerstner. Gerstner is to predestination what Ein-

stein is to physics or what Arnold Palmer is to golf. I

would rather have challenged Einstein on relativity or

entered into match play with Palmer than to take on

Gerstner: B u t . . . fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

I challenged Gerstner in the classroom time after time,

making a total pest of myself. I resisted for well over a

year. My final surrender came in stages. Painful stages. It

started when I began work as a student pastor in a church.

I wrote a note to myself that I kept on my desk in a place

where I could always see it.

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BELIEVE, TO

PREACH, AND TO TEACH WHAT THE BIBLE

SAYS IS TRUE, NOT WHAT YOU WANT THE

BIBLE TO SAY IS TRUE

T h e note haunted me. My final crisis came in my

senior year. I had a three-credit course in the study of

Jonathan Edwards. We spent the semester studying Ed-

wards's most famous book, The Freedom of the Will,

under Gerstner's tutelage. At the same time I had a Greek

exegesis course in the Book of Romans. I was the only

student in that course, one on one with the N e w Testa-

ment professor. There was nowhere I could hide.

T h e combination was too much for me. Gerstner, Ed-

wards, the N e w Testament professor, and above all the

12

T H E S T R U G G L E

Apostle Paul, were too formidable a team for me to with-

stand. T h e ninth chapter of Romans was the clincher. I

simply could find no way to avoid the Apostle's teaching

in that chapter. Reluctantly, I sighed and surrendered, but

with my head, not my heart. "OK, I believe this stuff, but

I don't have to like it!"

I soon discovered that God has created us so that the

heart is supposed to follow the head. I could not, with

impunity, love something with my head that I hated in

my heart. Once I began to see the cogency of the doctrine

and its broader implications, my eyes were opened to the

graciousness of grace and to the grand comfort of God's

sovereignty. I began to like the doctrine little by little,

until it burst upon my soul that the doctrine revealed the

depth and the riches of the mercy of God.

I no longer feared the demons of fatalism or the ugly

thought that I was being reduced to a puppet. N o w I

rejoiced in a gracious Savior who alone was immortal,

invisible, the only wise God.

T h e y say there is nothing more obnoxious than a con-

verted drunk. T r y a converted Arminian. Converted Ar-

minians tend to become flaming Calvinists, zealots for the

cause of predestination. You are reading the work of such

a convert.

My struggle has taught me a few things along the way

I have learned, for example, that not all Christians are as

zealous about predestination as I am. There are better men

than I who do not share my conclusions. I have learned

that many misunderstand predestination. I have also

learned the pain of being wrong.

13

It must look like I am trying to stack the deck. Those

thinkers who are most widely regarded as the titans of

classical Christian scholarship fall heavily on the Reformed

side. I am persuaded, however, that this is a fact of history

that dare not be ignored. To be sure, it is possible that

Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards could

all be wrong on this matter. These men certainly disagree

with each other on other points of doctrine. T h e y are

neither individually nor collectively infallible.

We cannot determine truth by counting noses. T h e

great thinkers of the past can be wrong. But it is impor-

tant for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestina-

tion was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in

Calvin's view of predestination that was not earlier pro-

pounded by Luther and Augustine before him. Later,

Lutheranism did not follow Luther on this matter but

Melanchthon, w h o altered his views after Luther's death.

It is also noteworthy that in his famous treatise on theol-

ogy, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin

wrote sparingly on the subject. Luther wrote more about

predestination than did Calvin.

T h e history lesson aside, we must take seriously the

fact that such learned men agreed on this difficult subject.

Again, that they agreed does not prove the case for pre-

destination. T h e y could have been wrong. But it gets our

attention. We cannot dismiss the Reformed view as a

peculiarly Presbyterian notion. I know that during my

great struggle with predestination I was deeply troubled

by the unified voices of the titans of classical Christian

scholarship on this point. Again, they are not infallible,

15

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

but they deserve our respect and an honest hearing.

Among contemporary Christian leaders we find a more

balanced list of agreement and disagreement. (Keep in

mind that we are speaking here in general terms and that

there are significant points of difference among those on

each side.)

"Reformed" view

Opposing views

Francis Schaeffer

C. S. Lewis

Cornelius Van Til

Norman Geisler

Roger Nicole

John Warwick

Montgomery

James Boice

Clark Pinnock

Philip Hughes

Billy Graham

I don't know where Bill Bright, Chuck Swindoll, Pat

Robertson, and a lot of other leaders stand on this point.

Jimmy Swaggart has made it clear that he considers the

Reformed view a demonic heresy. His attacks on the doc-

trine have been less than sober. They do not reflect the

care and earnestness of the men listed above in the "oppos-

ing" column. They are all great leaders whose views are

worthy of our close attention.

My hope is that we will all continue to struggle. We

must never assume that we have arrived. Yet there is no

virtue in sheer skepticism. We look with a jaundiced eye

at those who are always learning but never coming to a

knowledge of the truth. God is delighted with men and

16

T H E S T R U G G L E

women of conviction. Of course he is concerned that our

convictions be according to truth. Struggle with me then

m we embark upon the difficult but, I hope, profitable

journey examining the doctrine of predestination.

17

16

C H A P T E R T W O

PREDESTINATION

A N D THE

SOVEREIGNTY

OF GOD

S WE struggle through the doctrine of pre-

destination, we must start with a clear un-

derstanding of what the word means. Here

we encounter difficulties immediately. Our

A definition is often colored by our doctrine.

We might hope that if we turn to a neutral source for our

definition—a source like Webster's dictionary—we will

escape such prejudice. No such luck. (Or should I say, no

such providence.) Look at these entries in Webster's New

Collegiate Dictionary.

predestinate: destined, fated, or determined beforehand;

to foreordain to an earthly or eternal lot or destiny by

divine decree.

predestination: the doctrine that God in consequence of

his foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those

who are destined for salvation.

predestine: to destine, decree, determine, appoint, or

settle beforehand.

I am not sure how much we can learn from these

dictionary definitions other than that Noah Webster must

have been a Lutheran. What we can glean, however, is

that predestination has something to do with the relation-

ship of our ultimate destination and that something is done

about that destination by somebody before we arrive

there. The pre of predestination refers to time. Webster

speaks of "beforehand." Destiny refers to the place we are

going, as we see in the normal use of the word destina-

tion.

21

R

C

-

S

P

R

O

U

L

W h e n I call my travel agent to book a flight, the

question is soon raised: "What is your destination?" Some-

times the question is put more simply: "Where are you

going?" Our destination is the place where we are going.

In theology it refers to one of two places; either we are

going to heaven or we are going to hell. In either case, we

cannot cancel the trip. God gives us but t w o final options.

One or the other is our final destination. Even Roman

Catholicism, which has another place beyond the grave,

purgatory, views that as an intermediate stop along the

way. Their travelers ride the local while Protestants prefer

the express route.

W h a t predestination means, in its most elementary

form, is that our final destination, heaven or hell, is de-

cided by God not only before we get there, but before we

are even born. It teaches that our ultimate destiny is in the

hands of God. Another way of saying it is this: From all

eternity, before we ever live, God decided to save some

members of the human race and to let the rest of the

human race perish. God made a choice—he chose some

individuals to be saved unto everlasting blessedness in

heaven and others he chose to pass over, to allow them to

follow the consequences of their sins into eternal torment

in hell.

This is a hard saying, no matter how we approach it.

We wonder, "Do our individual lives have any bearing on

God's decision? Even though God makes his choice before

we are born, he still knows everything about our lives

before we live them. Does he take that prior knowledge of

us into account when he makes his decision?" H o w we

22

S O V E R E I G N T Y O F G O D

answer that last question will determine whether our

; view of predestination is Reformed or not. Remember, we

stated earlier that virtually all churches have some doc-

trine of predestination. Most churches agree that God's

decision is made before we are born. T h e issue then rests

upon the question, "On what basis does God make that

decision?"

Before we set out to answer that, we must clarify one

other point. Frequently, people think about predestination

with respect to everyday questions about traffic accidents

and the like. They wonder whether God decreed that the

Yankees win the World Series or whether the tree fell on

their car by divine edict. Even insurance contracts have

clauses that refer to "acts of G o d "

Questions such as these are normally treated in theol-

ogy under the broader heading of Providence. Our study

focuses on predestination in the narrow sense, restricting it

to the ultimate question of predestined salvation or damna-

tion, what we call election and reprobation. T h e other questions are both interesting and important, but they fall

beyond the scope of this book.

T H E SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

In most discussions about predestination, there is great

concern about protecting the dignity and freedom of man.

But we must also observe the crucial importance of the

sovereignty of God. Though God is not a creature, he is

personal, with supreme dignity and supreme freedom. We

are aware of the ticklish problems surrounding the rela-

23

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

tionship between God's sovereignty and human freedom.

We must also be aware of the close relationship between

God's sovereignty and God's freedom. T h e freedom of a

sovereign is always greater than the freedom of his sub-

jects.

When we speak of divine sovereignty we are speaking

about God's authority and about God's power. As sover-

eign, God is the supreme authority of heaven and earth.

All other authority is lesser authority. Any other author-

ity that exists in the universe is derived from and depen-

dent upon God's authority. All other forms of authority

exist either by God's command or by God's permission.

The word authority contains within itself the word

author. God is the author of all things over which he has

authority. He created the universe. He owns the universe.

His ownership gives him certain rights. He may do with

his universe what is pleasing to his holy will.

Likewise, all power in the universe flows from the

power of G o d All power in this universe is subordinate to

him. Even Satan is powerless without God's sovereign

permission to act.

Christianity is not dualism. We do not believe in two

ultimate equal powers locked in an eternal struggle for

supremacy. If Satan were equal to God, we would have no

confidence, no hope of good triumphing over evil. We

would be destined to an eternal standoff between two

equal and opposing forces.

Satan is a creature. He is evil to be sure, but even his

evil is subject to the sovereignty of God, as is our own

24

S

O

V

E

R

E

I

G

N

T

Y O F G O D

eyil. God's authority is ultimate; his power is omnipotent.

He is sovereign.

One of my dudes as a seminary professor is to teach the

theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The

Westminster Confession has been the central creedal doc-

ument for historic Presbyterianism. It sets forth the classi-

cal doctrines of the Presbyterian Church.

Once, while teaching this course, I announced to my

evening class that the following week we would study the

section of the confession dealing with predestination. Since

the evening class was open to the public, my students

rushed to invite their friends for the juicy discussion. The

next week the classroom was packed with students and

guests.

I began the class by reading the opening lines from

Chapter III of the Westminster Confession:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy

counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably

ordain whatsoever comes to pass.

I stopped reading at that point. I asked, "Is there anyone

in this room who does not believe the words that I just

read?" A multitude of hands went up. I then asked, "Are

there any convinced atheists in the room?" No hands were

raised. I then said something outrageous: "Everyone who

raised his hand to the first question should also have raised

his hand to the second question."

A chorus of groans and protests met my statement.

How could I accuse someone of atheism for not believing

25

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

that God foreordains whatever comes to pass? Those who

protested these words were not denying the existence of

God. They were not protesting against Christianity. They

were protesting against Calvinism.

I tried to explain to the class that the idea that God

foreordains whatever comes to pass is not an idea unique

to Calvinism. It isn't even unique to Christianity. It is

simply a tenet of theism—a necessary tenet of theism.

That God in some sense foreordains whatever comes to

pass is a necessary result of his sovereignty In itself it does

not plead for Calvinism. It only declares that God is

absolutely sovereign over his creation. God can foreordain

things in different ways. But everything that happens

must at least happen by his permission. If he permits

something, then he must decide to allow it. If He decides

to allow something, then in a sense he is foreordaining it.

Who, among Christians, would argue that God could not

stop something in this world from happening? If God so

desires, he has the power to stop the whole world.

lb say that God foreordains all that comes to pass is

simply to say that God is sovereign over his entire cre-

ation. If something could come to pass apart from his

sovereign permission, then that which came to pass would

frustrate his sovereignty. If God refused to permit some-

thing to happen and it happened anyway, then whatever

caused it to happen would have more authority and pow-

er than God himself. If there is any part of creation

outside of God's sovereignty then God is simply not sov-

ereign. If God is not sovereign, then God is not God.

If there is one single molecule in this universe running

26

S O V E R E I G N T Y O F G O D

around loose, totally free of God's sovereignty then we

have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever

be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay

waste all the grand and glorious plans that God has made

and promised to us. If a grain of sand in the kidney of

Oliver Cromwell changed the course of English history so

our. maverick molecule could change the course of all

redemption history. Maybe that one molecule will be the

thing that prevents Christ from returning.

We've heard the story: For want of a nail the shoe was

lost; for want of the shoe the horse was lost; for want of

the horse the rider was lost; for want of the rider the battle

was lost; for want of the battle the war was lost. I remem-

ber my distress when I heard that Bill Vukovich, the

greatest car driver of his era, was killed in a crash in the

Indianapolis 500. T h e cause was later isolated in the failure

of a cotter pin that cost ten cents.

Bill Vukovich had amazing control of race cars. He was

a magnificent driver; However, he was not sovereign. A

part worth only a dime cost him his life. God doesn't have

to worry about ten-cent cotter pins wrecking his plans.

There are no maverick molecules running around loose.

God is sovereign. God is God.

My students began to see that divine sovereignty is not

an issue peculiar to Calvinism, or even to Christianity

Without sovereignty God cannot be God. If we reject

divine sovereignty then we must embrace atheism. This is

the problem we all face. We must hold tightly to God's

sovereignty. Yet we must do it in such a way so as not to

violate human freedom.

27

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

At this point I should do for you what I did for my

students in the evening class—finish the statement from

the Westminster Confession. T h e whole statement reads

as follows:

God, from all eternity, did by the most wise and holy

counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably

ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby

neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered

to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or

contingency of second causes taken away, but rather

established.

Note that, while it affirms God's sovereignty over all

things, the Confession also asserts that God does not do

evil or violate human freedom. Human freedom and evil

are under God's sovereignty.

GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY AND

T H E PROBLEM OF EVIL

Surely the most difficult question of all is how evil can

coexist with a God who is both altogether holy and alto-

gether sovereign. I am afraid that most Christians do not

realize the profound severity of this problem. Skeptics

have called this issue the "Achilles' Heel of Christianity."

I Vividiy remember the first time I felt the pain of this

thorny problem. I was a freshman in college and had been

a Christian for only a few weeks. I was playing Ping-Pong

in the lounge of the men's dormitory when, in the middle

of a volley the thought struck me, If God is totally righ-

teous, how could he have created a universe where evil is

28

S

O

V

E

R

E

I

G

N

T

Y O F G O D

present? If all things come from God, doesn't evil come

from him as well?

Then, as now, I realized that evil was a problem for the

sovereignty of God. Did evil come into the world against

God's sovereign will? If so, then he is not absolutely sover-

eign. If not, then we must conclude that in some sense

even evil is foreordained by God.

For years I sought the answer to this problem, scouring

the works of theologians and philosophers. I found some

clever attempts at resolving the problem but, as yet, have

never found a deeply satisfying answer.

The most common solution we hear for this dilemma is

a simple reference to man's free will. We hear such state-

ments as, "Evil came into the world by man's free will.

Man is the author of sin, not God."

Surely that statement squares with the biblical account

of the origin of sin. We know that man was created with a

free will and that man freely chose to sin. It was not God

who committed sin, it was man. The problem still per-

sists, however From where did man ever gain the slightest

inclination to sin? If he was created with a desire for sin,

then a shadow is cast on the integrity of the Creator. If he

was created with no desire for sin, then we must ask

where that desire came from.

The mystery of sin is tied to our understanding of free

will, man's state in creation, and God's sovereignty. The

question of free will is so vital to our understanding of

predestination that we will devote an entire chapter to the

subject. Until then we will restrict our study to the ques-

tion of man's first sin.

29

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

H o w could Adam and Eve fall? T h e y were created

good. We might suggest that their problem was the crafti-

ness of Satan. Satan beguiled them. He tricked them into]

eating the forbidden fruit. We might suppose that the |

serpent was so slick that he utterly and completely fooled

our original parents.

Such an explanation suffers from several problems. If

Adam and Eve did not realize what they were doing, if

they were utterly fooled, then the sin would have been all

Satan's. But the Bible makes it clear that in spite of his

craftiness the serpent spoke directly in challenge to the

commandment of God. Adam and Eve had heard God

issue his prohibition and warning. T h e y heard Satan con-

tradict God. T h e decision was squarely before them.

T h e y could not appeal to Satan's trickery to excuse them.

Even if Satan not only fooled but forced Adam and Eve

to sin, we are still not free of our dilemma. If they could

have rightfully said, T h e devil made us do it," we would

still face the problem of the devil's sin. Where did the devil

come from? H o w did he manage to fall from goodness?

Whether we are speaking of the Fall of man or the fall of

Satan we still are dealing with the problem of good crea-

tures becoming evil

Again we hear the "easy" explanation that evil came

through the creature's free will. Free will is a good thing.

T h a t God gave us free will does not cast blame on him. In

creation man was given an ability to sin and an ability not

to sin. He chose to sin. T h e question is, "Why?"

Herein lies the problem. Before a person can commit an

act of sin he must first have a desire to perform that a c t

30

S

O

V

E

R

E

I

G

N

T

Y O F G O D

T h e Bible tells us that evil actions flow from evil desires.

B u t the presence of an evil desire is already sin. We sin

because we are sinners. We were born with a sin nature.

We are fallen creatures. But Adam and Eve were not

created fallen. T h e y had no sin nature. T h e y were good

creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. W h y ? I

don't know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.

In spite of this excruciating problem we still must af-

firm that God is not the author of sin. T h e Bible does not

reveal the answers to all our questions. It does reveal the

nature and character of God. One thing is absolutely

unthinkable, that God could be the author or doer of sin.

But this chapter is about God's sovereignty. We are still

left with the question that, given the fact of human sin,

how does it relate to God's sovereignty? If it is true that in

some sense God foreordains everything that comes to pass,

then it follows with no doubt that God must have fore-

ordained the entrance of sin into the world. T h a t is not to

say that God forced it to happen or that he imposed evil

upon his creation. All that means is that God must have

decided to allow it to happen. If he did not allow it to

happen, then it could not have happened, or else he is not

sovereign.

We know that God is sovereign because we know that

God is God. Therefore we must conclude that God fore-

ordained sin. W h a t else can we conclude? We must con-

clude that God's decision to allow sin to enter the world

was a good decision. This is not to say that our sin is really

a good thing, but merely that God's allowing us to do sin,

which is evil, is a good thing. God's allowing evil is good,

31

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

but the evil he allows is still evil. God's involvement in

all this is perfectly righteous. Our involvement in it is

wicked. The fact that God decided to allow us to sin does

not absolve us from our responsibility for sin.

A frequent objection we hear is that if God knew in

advance that we were going to sin, why did he create us

in the first place? One philosopher stated the problem this

way: "If God knew we would sin but could not stop it,

then he is neither omnipotent nor sovereign. If he could

stop it but chose not to, then he is neither loving nor

benevolent." By this approach God is made to look bad no

matter how we answer the question.

We must assume that God knew in advance that man

would fall. We also must assume that he could have inter-

vened to stop it. Or he could have chosen not to create us

at all. We grant all those hypothetical possibilities. Bottom

line, we know that he knew we would fall and that he

went ahead and created us anyway W h y does that mean

he is unloving? He also knew in advance that he was

going to implement a plan of redemption for his fallen

creation that would include a perfect manifestation of his

justice and a perfect expression of his love and mercy. It

was certainly loving of God to predestine the salvation of

his people, those the Bible calls his "elect" or chosen ones.

It is the non-elect that are the problem. If some people

are not elected unto salvation then it would seem that

God is not all that loving toward them. For them it seems

that it would have been more loving of God not to have

allowed them to be bom.

That may indeed be the case. But we must ask the

32

S O V E R E I G N T Y O F G O D

really tough question: Is there any reason that a righteous

God ought to be loving toward a creature who hates him

and rebels constantly against his divine authority and holi-

ness? T h e objection raised by the philosopher implies that

God owes his love to sinful creatures. That is, the un-

spoken assumption is that God is obligated to be gracious

to sinners. W h a t the philosopher overlooks is that if grace

is obligated it is no longer grace. T h e very essence of

grace is that it is undeserved. God always reserves the

right to have mercy upon whom he will have mercy. God

may owe people justice, but never mercy

It is important to point out once again that these prob-

lems arise for all Christians who believe in a sovereign

God. These questions are not unique to a particular view

of predestination.

People argue that God is loving enough to provide a

way of salvation for all sinners. Since Calvinism restricts

salvation only to the elect, it seems to require a less loving

God. On the surface at least, it seems that a non-Calvinist

view provides an opportunity for vast numbers of people

to be saved who would not be saved in the Calvinist view.

Again, this question touches on matters that must be

more fully developed in later chapters. For now let me say

simply that, if the final decision for the salvation of fallen

sinners were left in the hands of fallen sinners, we would

despair of all hope that anyone would be saved.

W h e n we consider the relationship of a sovereign God

to a fallen world we are faced with basically four options:

2. God could decide to provide no opportunity for

anyone to be saved

33

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

2. God could provide an opportunity for all to be saved.

3. God could intervene directly and insure the salvation

of all people.

4. God could intervene directly and insure the salvation

of some people.

All Christians immediately rule out the first option.

Most Christians rule out the third. We face the problem

that God saves some and not all. Calvinism answers with

the fourth option. The Calvinist view of predestination

teaches that God actively intervenes in the lives of the

elect to make absolutely sure that they are saved. Of

course the rest are invited to Christ and given an "oppor-

tunity'' to be saved if they want to. But Calvinism assumes

that without the intervention of God no one will ever

want Christ. Left to themselves, no one will ever choose

Christ.

This is precisely the point of dispute. Non-Reformed

views of predestination assume that every fallen person is

left with the capacity to choose Christ. Man is not viewed

as being so fallen that it requires the direct intervention

of God to the degree that Calvinism asserts. The non-

Reformed views all leave it in man's power to cast the

deciding ballot for man's ultimate destiny. In these views

the best option is the second. God provides opportunities

for all to be saved. But certainly the opportunities are not

equal, since vast multitudes of people die without ever

hearing the gospel.

The non-Reformed person objects to the fourth option

because it limits salvation to a select group which God

34

S O V E R E I G N T Y O F G O D

chooses. T h e Reformed person objects to the second op-

tion because he sees the universal opportunity for salva-

tion as not providing enough to save anybody. T h e

Calvinist sees God doing far more for the fallen human

race through option four than through option two. T h e

non-Calvinist sees just the reverse. He thinks that giving a

universal opportunity, though it falls short of insuring the

salvation of anyone, is more benevolent than insuring the

salvation of some and not others.

T h e nasty problem for the Calvinist is seen in the

relationship of options three and four. If God can and does

choose to insure the salvation of some, w h y then does he

not insure the salvation of all?

Before I try to answer that question, let me first point

out that this is not just a Calvinist problem. Every Chris-

tian must feel the weight of this problem. We first face the

question, "Does God have the power to insure the salva-

tion of everyone?" Certainly it is within God's power to

change the heart of every impenitent sinner and bring that

sinner to himself. If he lacks such power, then he is not

sovereign. If he has that power, w h y doesn't he use it for

everyone?

T h e non-Reformed thinker usually responds by saying

that for God to impose his power on unwilling people is

to violate man's freedom. To violate man's freedom is sin.

Since God cannot sin, he cannot unilaterally impose his

saving grace on unwilling sinners, lb force the sinner to

be willing when the sinner is not willing is to violate the

sinner. T h e idea is that by offering the grace of the gospel

35

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

God does everything he can to help the sinner get saved.

He has the raw power to coerce men but the use of such

power would be foreign to God's righteousness.

That does not bring much comfort to the sinner in hell.

The sinner in hell must be asking, "God, if you really

loved me, w h y didn't you coerce me to believe? I would

rather have had my free will violated than to be here in

this eternal place of torment." Still, the pleas of the

damned would not determine God's righteousness if in

fact it would be wrong of God to impose himself on the

will of men. The question the Calvinist asks is, "What is

wrong with God creating faith in the heart of the sinner?"

God is not required to seek the sinner's permission for

doing with the sinner what he pleases. The sinner didn't

ask to be born in the country of his birth, to his parents,

or even to be born at all. Nor did the sinner ask to be born

with a fallen nature. All these things were determined by

God's sovereign decision. If God does all this that affects

the sinner's eternal destiny, what could possibly be wrong

for him to go one more step to insure his salvation? What

did Jeremiah mean when he cried, "O Lord, You have

overwhelmed me and I am overwhelmed" (Jer. 20:7)?

Jeremiah certainly did not invite God to overwhelm him.

The question remains. W h y does God only save some?

If we grant that God can save men by violating their

wills, why then does he not violate everybody's will and

bring them all to salvation? (I am using the word violate

here not because I really think there is any wrongful

violation but because the non-Calvinist insists on the

term.)

36

S O V E R E I G N T Y O F G O D

T h e only answer I can give to this question is that I

don't know. I have no idea w h y God saves some but not

all. I don't doubt for a moment that God has the power to

save all but I know that he does not choose to save all I

don't know why.

One thing I do know. If it pleases God to save some and

not all there is nothing wrong with that. God is not

under obligation to save anybody If he chooses to save

some, that in no way obligates him to save the rest. Again

the Bible insists that it is God's divine prerogative to have

mercy upon whom he will have mercy.

T h e hue and cry the Calvinist usually hears at this

point is "That's not fair!" But what is meant by fairness

here? If by fair we mean equal then of course the protest

is accurate. God does not treat all men equally Nothing

could be dearer from the Bible than that. God appeared to

Moses in a way that he did not appear to Hammurabi.

God gave blessings to Israel that he did not give to Persia.

Christ appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus in a way

he did not manifest himself to Pilate. God simply has not

treated every human being in history in exactly the same

manner That much is obvious.

Probably what is meant by "fair" in the protest is "just."

It does not seem just for God to choose some to receive his

mercy while others do not receive the benefit of it To

deal with this problem we must do some dose but very

important thinking. Let us assume that all men are guilty

of sin in the sight of G o d From that mass of guilty

humanity God sovereignly decides to give mercy to some

of them. What do the rest get? T h e y get justice. T h e

37

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

saved get mercy and the unsaved get justice. Nobody gets

injustice.

Mercy is not justice. But neither is it injustice. Look at

the following graphic:

JUSTICE NON-JUSTICE

There is justice and there is non-justice. Non-justice

includes everything outside of the category of justice. In

the category of non-justice we find t w o sub-concepts,

injustice and mercy. Mercy is a good form of non-justice

while injustice is a bad form of non-justice. In the plan of

salvation God does nothing bad. He never commits an

injustice. Some people get justice, which is what they

deserve, while other people get mercy. Again, the fact that

one gets mercy does not demand that the others get it as

well. God reserves the right of executive clemency

As a human being I might prefer that God give his

mercy to everyone equally, but I may not demand it. If

God is not pleased to dispense his saving mercy to all men,

then I must submit to his holy and righteous decision.

God is never, never, never obligated to be merciful to

sinners. T h a t is the point we must stress if we are to grasp

the full measure of God's grace.

T h e real question is w h y God is inclined to be merciful

to anyone. His mercy is not required, yet he freely gives it

38

S O V E R E I G N T Y O F G O D

to his elect. He gave it to Jacob in a way he did not give it

to Esau. He gave it to Peter in a way he did not give it to

Judas. We must learn to praise God both in his mercy and

in his justice. W h e n he executes his justice he is doing

nothing wrong. He is executing his justice according to

his righteousness.

GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN FREEDOM

Every Christian gladly affirms that God is sovereign.

God's sovereignty is a comfort to us. It assures us that he

is able to do what he promises to do. But the bare fact of

God's sovereignty raises one more big question. H o w is

God's sovereignty related to human freedom7

W h e n we stand before the question of divine sover-

eignty and human freedom, the "fight or flight" dilemma

may confront us. We might try to fight our way into a

logical solution of it or take a turn and run as fast as we

can from it

Many of us choose to flee from it. T h e flight takes

different routes. T h e most common is simply to say that

divine sovereignty and human freedom are contradictions

that we must have the courage to embrace. We seek

analogies that soothe our troubled minds.

As a college student I heard two analogies that gave me

temporary relief, like a theological package of Rolaids:

Analogy #1—"God's sovereignty and human freedom

are like parallel lines that meet in eternity"

Analogy #2—"God's sovereignty and human freedom

are like ropes in a well On the surface they seem to be

39

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

separate, but in the darkness of the bottom of the well

they come together."

T h e first time I heard these analogies I was relieved.

T h e y sounded simple yet profound. T h e idea of t w o

parallel lines that meet in eternity satisfied me. It gave me

something clever to say in the event that a hard-boiled

skeptic asked me about divine sovereignty and human

freedom.

My relief was temporary. I soon required a stronger

dose of Rolaids. T h e nagging question refused to go away.

How, I wondered, can parallel lines ever meet? In eternity

or anywhere else? If the lines meet, then they are not

ultimately partial- If they are ultimately parallel, then

they will never meet. T h e more I thought about the

analogy the more I realized that it did not solve the prob-

lem. To say that parallel lines meet in eternity is a non-

sense statement; it is a blatant contradiction.

I don't like contradictions. I find little comfort in them.

I never cease to be amazed at the ease with which Chris-

tians seem to be comfortable with them. I hear statements

like, "God is bigger than logic!" or "Faith is higher than

reason!" to defend the use of contradictions in theology.

I certainly agree that God is bigger than logic and that

faith is higher than reason. I agree with all my heart and

with all my head. W h a t I want to avoid is a God w h o is

smaller than logic and a faith that is lower than reason. A

God who is smaller than logic would be and should be

destroyed by logic A faith that is lower than reason is

irrational and absurd.

I suppose it is the tension between divine sovereignty

40

S

O

V

E

R

E

I

G

N

T

Y O F G O D

and human freedom, more than any other issue, that has

driven many Christians to claim contradictions as a legiti-

mate element of faith. T h e idea is that logic cannot recon-

cile divine sovereignty and human freedom. T h e t w o defy

logical harmony. Since the Bible teaches both poles of the

contradiction we must be willing to affirm them both, in

spite of the fact that they are contradictory.

God forbid! For Christians to embrace both poles of a

blatant contradiction is to commit intellectual suicide p a d

to slander the Holy Spirit. T h e Holy Spirit is not the

author of confusion. God does not speak with a forked

tongue.

If human freedom and divine sovereignty are real con-

tradictions, then one of them, at least, has to go. If

sovereignty excludes freedom and freedom excludes sover-

eignty, then either God is not sovereign or man is not

free.

Happily, there is an alternative. We can keep both sov-

ereignty and freedom if we can show that they are not

contradictory.

At a human level we readily see that people can enjoy a

real measure of freedom in a land ruled by a sovereign

monarch. It is not freedom that is canceled out by sover-

eignty; it is autonomy that cannot coexist with sover-

eignty.

W h a t is autonomy? T h e word comes from the prefix

auto and the root nomos. Auto means "self." An auto-mobile is something that moves itself. "Automatic" de-

scribes something that is self-acting.

T h e root nomos is the Greek word for law." T h e

41

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

word autonomy means, then, "self-law." To be autono-

mous means to be a law unto oneself. An autonomous

creature would be answerable to no one. He would have

no governor, least of all a sovereign governor. It is logically

impossible to have a sovereign God existing at the same

time as an autonomous creature. T h e t w o concepts are

utterly incompatible. To think of their coexistence would

be like imagining the meeting of an immovable object and

an irresistible force. W h a t would happen? If the object

moved, then it could no longer be considered immovable.

If it failed to move, then the irresistible force would no

longer be irresistible.

So it is with sovereignty and autonomy. If God is

sovereign, man cannot possibly be autonomous. If man is

autonomous, God cannot possibly be sovereign. These

would be contradictions.

One does not have to be autonomous to be free. Auton-

omy implies absolute freedom. We are free, but there are

limits to our freedom. T h e ultimate limit is the sover-

eignty of God.

I once read a statement by a Christian w h o said, "God's

sovereignty can never restrict human freedom." Imagine a

Christian thinker making such a statement. This is sheer

humanism. Does the law of God place restrictions on

human freedom? Is God not permitted to impose limits on

what I may choose? N o t only may God impose moral

limits upon my freedom, but he has every right at any

moment to strike me dead if it is necessary to restrain me

from exercising my evil choices. If God has no right of

coercion, then he has no right of governing his creation.

42

S

O

V

E

R

E

I

G

N

T

Y O F G O D

It is better that we reverse the statement: "Human

freedom can never restrict the sovereignty of God." T h a t

is what sovereignty is all about. If God's sovereignty is

restricted by man's freedom, then God is not sovereign;

man is sovereign.

God is free. I am free. God is more free than I am. If

any freedom runs up against God's freedom, I lose. His

freedom restricts mine; my freedom does not restrict his.

There is an analogy in the human family. I have free will.

My children have free wills. W h e n our wills clash I have

the authority to overrule their wills. Their wills are to be

subordinate to my will; my will is not subordinate to

theirs. Of course at the human level of the analogy we are

not speaking in absolute terms.

Divine sovereignty and human freedom are often

thought to be contradictions because on the surface they

sound contradictory. There are some important distinc-

tions that must be made and consistently applied to this

question if we are to avoid hopeless confusion.

Let us consider three words in our vocabulary that are

Lao closely related that they are often confused:

1. contradiction

2. paradox

3. mystery

1. Contradiction. T h e logical law of contradiction says

that a thing cannot be what it is and not be what it is at

the same time and in the same relationship. A man can be

a father and a son at the same time, but he cannot be a

man and not be a man at the same time. A man can be

43

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

both a father and a son at the same time but not in the

same relationship. No man can be his o w n father. Even

when we speak of Jesus as the God/man we are careful to

say that, though he is God and man at the same time, he is

not G o d and man in the same relationship. He has a divine

nature and a human nature. T h e y are not to be confused.

Contradictions can never coexist, not even in the mind of

God. If both poles of a genuine contradiction could be

true in the mind of God, then nothing God ever revealed

to us could possibly have any meaning. If good and evil,

justice and injustice, righteousness and unrighteousness,

Christ and Antichrist could all mean the same thing to

God's mind, then truth of any kind would be utterly

impossible.

2 Paradox. A paradox is an apparent contradiction that

upon closer scrutiny can be resolved. I have heard teachers

declare that the Christian notion of the Trinity is a contra-

diction. It simply is not. It violates no law of logic. It

passes the objective test of the law of contradiction. G o d is

one in essence and three in person. There is nothing contradictory about that. If we said that God was one in

essence and three in essence then we would have a bona

fide contradiction that no one could resolve. T h e n Chris-

tianity would be hopelessly irrational and absurd. T h e

Trinity is a paradox, but not a contradiction.

Fogging things up even further is another term, antin-

omy. Its primary meaning is a synonym for contradiction

b u t its secondary meaning is a synonym for paradox.

Upon examination, we see that it has the same root as

autonomy, nomos, which means law." Here the prefix is

44

anti, which means "against" or "instead of." T h u s the literal meaning of the term antinomy is "against law."

W h a t law do you suppose is in view here? T h e law of

contradiction. T h e original meaning of the term was "that

which violates the law of contradiction." Hence, originally

and in normal philosophical discussion, the word antin-

omy is an exact equivalent of the word contradiction.

Confusion creeps in when people use the term antin-

omy not to refer to a genuine contradiction but to a

paradox or apparent contradiction. We remember that a

paradox is a statement that seems like a contradiction but

actually isn't. In Great Britain, especially, the word antin-

omy is often used as a synonym for paradox.

I labor these fine distinctions for t w o reasons. T h e first

is that if we are to avoid confusion we must have a clear

idea in our minds of the crucial difference between a real

contradiction and a seeming contradiction. It is the differ-

ence between rationality and irrationality, between truth

and absurdity.

T h e second reason that it is necessary to state these

definitions clearly is that one of the greatest defenders of

the doctrine of predestination in our world today uses the

term antinomy I am thinking of the outstanding theolo-

gian, Dr. J. I. Packer. Packer has helped countless thou-

sands of people come to a deeper understanding of the

character of God, especially with regard to God's sover-

eignty

I have never discussed this matter of Dr. Packer's use of

the term antinomy with him. I assume he is using it in the

B r i t i s h sense of paradox. I cannot imagine that he means

45

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

to speak of actual contradictions in the Word of God. In

fact, in his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God,

he labors the point that there are no ultimate contradic-

tions in the truth of God. Dr. Packer has not only been

tireless in his defense of Christian theology, but has been

equally tireless in his brilliant defense of the inerrancy of

the Bible. If the Bible contained antinomies in the sense of

real contradictions, that would be the end of inerrancy.

Some people actually do hold that there are real contra-

dictions in divine truth. T h e y think inerrancy is compati-

ble with them. Inerrancy would then mean that the Bible

inerrantly reveals the contradictions in God's truth. Of

course a moments thought would make clear that if God's

truth is contradictory truth it is no truth at all. Indeed the

very word truth would be emptied of meaning. If contra-

dictions can be true we would have no possible way of

discerning the difference between truth and a lie. This is

w h y I am convinced that Dr. Packer uses antinomy to

mean paradox and not contradiction.

3. Mystery T h e term mystery refers to that which is true but which we do not understand. T h e Trinity, for

example, is a mystery. I cannot penetrate the mystery of

the Trinity or of the incarnation of Christ with my feeble

mind. Such truths are too high for me. I know that Jesus

was one person with two natures but I don't understand

how that can be. T h e same kind of thing is found in the

natural realm. W h o understands the nature of gravity, or.

even of motion? W h o has penetrated the ultimate mys-

tery of life? W h a t philosopher has plumbed the depths of

4 6

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

T h e big issue remains. T h e grand debate that stirs the

cauldron of controversy centers on the question, "What

does predestination do to our free will?"

We will examine that issue in the next chapter.

S U M M A R Y O F C H A P T E R 2

1. Definition of predestination,

"Predestination means that our final destination, heaven or

hell, is decided by God before we are even born."

2. God's sovereignty.

God is supreme authority of heaven and earth.

3. God is supreme power

All other authority and power are under God.

4. If God is not sovereign, he is not God

5. God exercises his sovereignty in such a way that it does

no evil and violates no human freedom.

6. Man's first act of sin is a mystery. That God allowed men

to sin does not reflect badly upon God.

7. All Christians face the difficult question of why God,

who theoretically could save everybody chooses to save

some, but not all.

8. God does not owe salvation to anyone.

9. God's mercy is voluntary. He is not obligated to be

merciful. He reserves the right to have mercy upon

whom he will have mercy.

JUSTICE NON-JUSTICE

10. God's sovereignty and man's freedom are not

contradictory.

48

C H A P T E R T H R E E

PREDESTINATION

A N D

FREE WILL

R E D E S T I N A T I O N seems to cast a shadow

on the very heart of human freedom. If God

has decided our destinies from all eternity, that

P strongly suggests that our free choices are but

charades, empty exercises in predetermined

playacting. It is as though God wrote the script for us in

concrete and we are merely carrying out his scenario.

To get a handle on the puzzling relationship between

predestination and free will, we must first define free will.

That definition itself is a matter of great debate. Probably

the most common definition says free will is the ability to

make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or

disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a

posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias.

On the surface this is very appealing. There are no

elements of coercion, either internal or external, to be

found in it. Below the surface, however, lurk two serious

problems. On the one hand, if we make our choices strict-

ly from a neutral posture, with no prior inclination, then

we make choices for no reason. If we have no reason for

our choices, if our choices are utterly spontaneous, then

our choices have no moral significance. If a choice just

happens—it just pops out, with no rhyme or reason for

it—then it cannot be judged good or bad. When God

evaluates our choices, he is concerned about our motives.

Consider the case of Joseph and his brothers. When

Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, God's provi-

dence was at work. Years later, when Joseph was reunited

51

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

with his brothers in Egypt, he declared to them, "You

meant evil against me; but God meant it for good" (Gen.

50:20). Here the motive was the decisive factor determin-

ing whether the act was good or evil. God's involvement

in Joseph's dilemma was good; the brothers' involvement

was evil. There was a reason w h y Joseph's brothers sold

him into slavery T h e y had an evil motivation. Their

decision was neither spontaneous nor neutral. T h e y were

jealous of their brother. Their choice to sell him was

prompted by their evil desires.

T h e second problem this popular view faces is not so

much moral as it is rational. If there is no prior inclination,

desire, or bent, no prior motivation or reason for a choice,

how can a choice even be made? If the will is totally

neutral, w h y would it choose the right or the left? It is

something like the problem encountered by Alice in

Wonderland when she came to a fork in the road. She did

not know which way to turn. She saw the grinning

Cheshire cat in the tree. She asked the cat, "Which way

should I turn?" T h e cat replied, "Where are you going?"

Alice answered, "I don't know." "Then," replied the

Cheshire cat, "it doesn't matter."

Consider Alice's dilemma. Actually she had four op-

tions from which to choose. She could have taken the left

fork or the right fork. She also could have chosen to

return the way she had come. Or she could have stood

fixed at the spot of indecision until she died there. For her

to take a step in any direction, she would need some

motivation or inclination to do so. Without any motiv-

52

F R E E W I L L

tion, any prior inclination, her only real option would be

to stand there and perish.

Another famous illustration of the same problem is

found in the story of the neutral-willed mule. T h e mule

had no prior desires, or equal desires in two directions. His

owner put a basket of oats to his left and a basket of wheat

on his right. If the mule had no desire whatsoever for

either oats or wheat he would choose neither and starve. If

be had an exactly equal disposition toward oats as he had

toward wheat he would still starve. His equal disposition

would leave him paralyzed. There would be no motive.

Without motive there would be no choice. Without

choice there would be no food. Without food soon there

would be no mule.

We must reject the neutral-will theory not only be-

cause it is irrational but because, as we shall see, it is

radically unbiblical.

Christian thinkers have given us two very important

definitions of free will. We will consider first the definition

offered by Jonathan Edwards in his classic work, On the

Freedom of the Will.

Edwards defined the will as "the mind choosing." Be-

fore we ever can make moral choices we must first have

some idea of what it is we are choosing. Our selection is

then based upon what the mind approves or rejects. Our

understanding of values has a crucial role to play in our

decision-making. My inclinations and motives as well as

my actual choices are shaped by my mind. Again, if the

mind is not involved, then the choice is made for no

53

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

reason and with no reason. It is then an arbitrary and

morally meaningless act. Instinct and choice are two dif-

ferent things.

A second definition of free will is "the ability to choose

what we want." This rests on the important foundation of

human desire. To have free will is to be able to choose

according to our desires. Here desire plays the vital role of

providing a motivation or a reason for making a choice.

N o w for the tricky part. According to Edwards a

human being is not only free to choose what he desires

but he must choose what he desires to be able to choose at

all. What I call Edwards's Law of Choice is this: T h e will

always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the

moment." This means that every choice is free and every

choice is determined.

I said it was tricky. This sounds like a blatant contradic-

tion to say that every choice is free and yet every choice is

determined. But "determined" here does not mean that

some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to

one's internal motivation or desire. In shorthand the law is

this: Our choices are determined by our desires. They

remain our choices because they are motivated by our

own desires. This is what we call self-determination,

which is the essence of freedom.

Think for a minute about your own choices. H o w and

why are they made? At this very instant yon are reading

the pages of this book. Why? Did you pick up this book

because you have an interest in the subject of predestina-

tion, a desire to learn more about this complex subject?

Perhaps. Maybe this book has been given to you to read as

54

F R E E W I L L

an assignment. Perhaps you are thinking, "I have no desire

to read this whatsoever. I have to read it, and I am grimly

wading through it to fulfill somebody else's desire that I

read it. All things being equal I would never choose to

read this book."

But all things are not equal, are they? If you are reading

this out of some kind of duty or to fulfill a requirement,

you still had to make a decision about fulfilling the re-

quirement or not fulfilling the requirement. You obviously

decided that it was better or more desirable for you to read

this than to leave it unread. Of that much I am sure, or

you would not be reading it right now.

Every decision you make is made for a reason. The

next time you go into a public place and choose a seat (in a

theater, a classroom, a church building), ask yourself why

you are sitting where you are sitting. Perhaps it is the only

seat available and you prefer to sit rather than to stand.

Perhaps you discover that there is an almost unconscious

pattern emerging in your seating decisions. Maybe you

discover that whenever possible you sit toward the front

of the room or toward the rear. Why? Maybe it has

something to do with your eyesight. Perhaps you are shy

or gregarious. You may think that you sit where you sit

for no reason, but the seat that you choose will always be

chosen by the strongest inclination you have at the mo-

ment of decision. That inclination may merely be that the

seat closest to you is free and that you don't like to walk

long distances to find a place to sit down.

Decision-making is a complex matter because the op-

tions we encounter are often varied and many. Add to that

55

R C S P R O U L

that we are creatures with many and varied desires. We

have different, often even conflicting, motivations.

Consider the matter of ice cream cones. Oh, do I have

trouble with ice cream cones and ice cream sundaes. I love

ice cream. If it is possible to be addicted to ice cream then

I must be classified as an ice cream addict. I am at least

fifteen pounds overweight, and I am sure that at least

twenty of the pounds that make up my body are there

because of ice cream. Ice cream proves the adage to me,

"A second on the lips; a lifetime on the hips." And, "Those

who indulge bulge." Because of ice cream I have to buy

my shirts with a bump in them.

Now, all things being equal, I would like to have a slim,

trim body. I don't like squeezing into my suits and having

little old ladies pat me on the tummy. Tummy-patting

seems to be an irresistible temptation for some folks. I

know what I have to do to get rid of those excess pounds.

I have to stop eating ice cream. So I go on a diet. I go on

the diet because I want to go on the diet. I want to lose

weight. I desire to look better. Everything is fine until

someone invites me to Swenson's. Swenson's makes the

greatest "Super Sundaes" in the world. I know I shouldn't

go to Swenson's. But I like to go to Swenson's. When the

moment of decision comes I am faced with conflicting

desires. I have a desire to be thin and I have a desire for a

Super Sundae. Whichever desire is greater at the time of

decision is the desire I will choose. It's that simple.

N o w consider my wife. As we prepare to celebrate our

silver wedding anniversary I am aware that she is exactly

56

F R E E W I L L

the same weight as she was the day we were married. H e r

wedding gown still fits her perfectly. She has no great

problem with ice cream. Most earing establishments only

carry vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. A n y of those

make my mouth water, but they offer no enticement to

my wife. Aha! But there is Baskin Robbins. T h e y have

pralines and cream ice cream. W h e n we go to the mall

and pass a Baskin Robbins my wife goes through a strange

transformation. H e r pace decelerates, her hands get clam-

my, and I can almost detect the beginning of salivation.

(That's salivation, not salvation.) N o w she experiences the

conflict of desires that assaults me daily.

We always choose according to our strongest inclina-

tion at the moment. Even external acts of coercion cannot

totally take away- our freedom. Coercion involves acting

with some kind of force, imposing choices upon people

that, if left to themselves, they would not choose. I cer-

tainly have no desire to pay the kind of income taxes that

the government makes me pay. I can refuse to pay them,

but the consequences are less desirable than paying them.

By threatening me with jail the government is able to

impose its will upon me to pay taxes.

Or consider the case of armed robbery. A gunman steps

op to me and says, "Your money or your life." He has just

restricted my options to two. All things being equal I

have no desire to donate my money to him. There are far

more worthy charities than he. But suddenly my desires

have changed as a result of his act of external coercion. He

is using force to provoke certain desires within me. N o w I

57

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

must choose between my desire to live and my desire to

give him my money I might as well give him the money

because if he kills me he will take my money anyway.

Some people might choose to refuse, saying, 1 would

rather die than choose to hand this gunman my money.

He'll have to take it from my dead body."

In either case, a choice is made. And it is made accord-

ing to the strongest inclination at the moment. Think, if

you can, of any choice you have ever made that was not

according to the strongest inclination you had at the mo-

ment of decision. What about sin? Every Christian has

some desire in his heart to obey Christ. We love Christ

and we want to please him. Yet every Christian sins. The]

hard truth is that at the moment of our sin we desire the]

sin more strongly than we desire to obey Christ. If we

always desired to obey Christ more than we desired to sin,

we would never sin.

Does not the Apostle Paul teach otherwise? Does he

not recount for us a situation in which he acts against his

desires? He says in Romans, T h e good that I would, I do

not, and that which I would not, that I do" (Rom. 7:19,

KJV). Here it sounds as if, under the inspiration of God

the Holy Spirit, Paul is teaching clearly that there are

times in which he acts against his strongest inclination.

It is extremely unlikely that the apostle is here giving us

a revelation about the technical operation of the will.

Rather, he is stating plainly what every one of us has

experienced. We all have a desire to flee from sin. The "all

things being equal" syndrome is in view here. All things

58

F R E E W I L L

being equal, I would like to be perfect. I would like to be

rid of sin, just as I would like to be rid of my excess

weight. But my desires do not remain constant. They

fluctuate. When my stomach is full it is easy to go on a

diet. When my stomach is empty my desire level changes.

Temptations arise with the changing of my desires and

appetites. Then I do things that, all things being equal, I

would not want to do.

Paul sets before us the very real conflict of human

desires, desires that yield evil choices. The Christian lives

within a battlefield of conflicting desires. Christian growth

involves the strengthening of desires to please Christ ac-

companied by the weakening of desires to sin. Paul called

|it the warfare between the flesh and the Spirit.

To say that we always choose according to our stron-

gest inclination at the moment is to say that we always

choose what we want. At every point of choice we are

free and self-determined. To be self-determined is not the

name thing as determinism. Determinism means that we

are forced or coerced to do things by external forces.

External forces can, as we have seen, severely limit our

options, but they cannot destroy choice altogether. They

cannot impose delight in things we hate. When that hap-

pens, when hatred turns to delight, it is a matter of persua-

sion, not coercion. I cannot be forced to do what I take

delight in doing already.

The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves

choice without desire. That is like having an effect with-

out a cause. It is something from nothing, which is irra-

59

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

tional. T h e Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our

desires. A wicked desire produces wicked choices and

wicked actions. A godly desire produces godly deeds. Je-

sus spoke in terms of corrupt trees producing corrupt

fruit. A fig tree does not yield apples and an apple tree

produces no figs. So righteous desires produce righteous]

choices and evil desires produce evil choices.

MORAL AND NATURAL ABILITY

Jonathan Edwards made another distinction that is helpful

in understanding the biblical concept of free will He

distinguished between natural ability and moral ability.

Natural ability has to do with the powers we receive as I

natural human beings. As a human being I have the natu-

ral ability to think, to walk, to talk, to see, to hear, and]

above all, to make choices. There are certain natural abili-

ties that I lack. Other creatures may possess the ability to

fly unaided by machines. I do not have that natural ability

I may desire to soar through the air like Superman, but I

do not have this ability. T h e reason I cannot fly is not due

to a moral deficiency in my character, but because my

Creator has not given me the natural equipment necessary

to fly I have no wings.

T h e will is a natural ability given to us by God. We

have all the natural faculties necessary to make choices.

We have a mind and we have a will We have the natural

ability to choose what we desire. What, then, is our

problem. According to the Bible the location of our prob-

60

F R E E W I L L

lem is clear. It is with the nature of our desires. This is the

focal point of our fallenness. Scripture declares that the

heart of fallen man continually harbors desires that are

[only wicked (Gen. 6 : 5 ) .

The Bible has much to say about the heart of man. In

Scripture the heart refers not so much to an organ that

pumps blood throughout the body as it does to the core of

the soul, the deepest seat of human affections. Jesus saw a

dose connection between the location of man's treasures

and the desires of his heart. Find a man's treasure map and

you have the highway of his heart.

Edwards declared that man's problem with sin lies with

his moral ability, or lack thereof. Before a person can make

a choice which is pleasing to God, he must first have a

desire to please God. Before we can find God, we must

first desire to seek him. Before we can choose the good,

we must first have a desire for the good. Before we can

choose Christ, we must first have a desire for Christ. The

sum and substance of the whole debate on predestination

Bests squarely at this point: Does fallen man, in and of

[himself, have a natural desire for Christ?

Edwards answers this question with an emphatic "No!"

He insists that, in the Fall, man lost his original desire for

God. When he lost that desire, something happened to his

freedom. He lost the moral ability to choose Christ. In

order to choose Christ, the sinner must first have a desire

to choose Christ. Either he has that desire already within

him or he must receive that desire from God. Edwards

and all who embrace the Reformed view of predestination

61

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

agree that if God does not plant that desire in the human

heart nobody, left to themselves, will ever freely choose

Christ. They will always and everywhere reject the gos-

pel, precisely because they do not desire the gospel. They

will always and everywhere reject Christ because they do

not desire Christ. They will freely reject Christ in the

sense that they will act according to their desires.

At this point I am not trying to prove the truth of

Edwards's view. To do that requires a close look at the

biblical view of man's moral ability or inability. We shall

do that later. We must also answer the question, If man

lacks the moral ability to choose Christ, how can God

ever hold him responsible to choose Christ? If man is born

in a state of moral inability, with no desire for Christ, is it

not then God's fault that men do not choose Christ?"

Again I beg the reader for patience, with the promise that

I will take up these very important questions soon.

ST. AUGUSTINE'S VIEW OF LIBERTY

Just as Edwards made a crucial distinction between natu-

ral ability and moral ability, so Augustine before him made

a similar distinction. Augustine got at the problem by

saying that fallen man has a free will but lacks liberty. On the surface it seems like a strange distinction. H o w could

anyone have a free will and still not have liberty?

Augustine was getting at the same thing that Edwards

was. Fallen man has not lost his ability to make choices.

T h e sinner still is able to choose what he wants; he can

62

F R E E W I L L

still act according to his desires. Yet, because his desires are

corrupt he does not have the royal liberty of those set free

unto righteousness. Fallen man is in a serious state of

moral bondage. That state of bondage is called original

sin.

Original sin is a very difficult subject that virtually

every Christian denomination has had to face. The fall of

man is so clearly taught in Scripture that we cannot con-

struct a view of man without taking it into consideration.

There are few, if any, Christians who argue that man is not

fallen. Without acknowledging that we are fallen, we

cannot acknowledge that we are sinners. If we do not

acknowledge that we are sinners, we can hardly flee to

Christ as our Savior. Admitting our fallenness is a prereq-

uisite for coming to Christ.

It is possible to admit that we are fallen without em-

bracing some doctrine of original sin, but only with severe

difficulties in the process. It is no accident that almost

very Christian body has formulated some doctrine of

original sin.

At this point multitudes of Christians disagree. We

agree that we must have a doctrine of original sin, but

mere remains great disagreement as to the concept of

original sin and its extent.

Let us begin by stating what original sin is not. Original

sin is not the first sin. Original sin does not refer specifi-

cally to the sin of Adam and Eve. Original sin refers to the

result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Original sin is the

punishment God gives for the first sin. It goes something

63

S P R O U L

like this: Adam and Eve sinned. That is the first sin. As a

result of their sin humanity was plunged into moral ruin. I

Human nature underwent a moral fall. Things changed

for us after the first sin was committed. T h e human race

became corrupt. This subsequent corruption is what

church calls original sin.

Original sin is not a specific act of sin. It is a condition

of sin. Original sin refers to a sin nature out of which

particular sinful acts flow. Again, we commit sins because

it is our nature to sin. It was not man's original nature to

sin but, after the Fall, his moral nature changed. Now,

because of original sin, we have a fallen and corrupt na-

ture.

Fallen man, as the Bible declares, is born in sin. He is

"under" sin. By nature we are children of wrath. We are

not born in a state of innocence.

John Gerstner was once invited to preach at a local

Presbyterian church. He was greeted at the door by the

elders of the church, who explained that the order of

worship for the day called for the administration of thai

sacrament of infant baptism. Dr. Gerstner agreed to per-

form the service. Then one of the elders explained a spe-

cial tradition of the church. He asked Dr. Gerstner to

present a white rose to each infant's parents before the

baptism. Dr. Gerstner inquired about the meaning of the

white rose. T h e elder replied, "We present the white rose

as a symbol of the infant's innocence before God."

"I see," replied Dr. Gerstner. "And what does the water

symbolize?"

Imagine the consternation of the elder when he tried to

64

F R E E W I L L

explain the symbolic purpose of washing away the sin of

innocent babies. T h e confusion of this congregation is not

unique. W h e n we acknowledge that infants are not guilty

of committing specific acts of sin it is easy to jump to the

conclusion that they are therefore innocent. This is a

theological broad jump into a pile of swords. Though the

infant is innocent of specific acts of sin he is still guilty of

original sin.

To understand the Reformed view of predestination it

is absolutely necessary to understand the Reformed view

of original sin. T h e two matters stand or fall (no pun

intended) together.

T h e Reformed view follows the thinking of Augustine.

Augustine spells out the state of Adam before the Fall and

the state of mankind after the Fall. Before the Fall Adam

was endowed with t w o possibilities: He had the ability to

an and the ability not to sin. After the Fall Adam had the

ability to sin and the inability to not sin. T h e idea of the

"inability to not" is a bit confusing to us because in Eng-

lish it's a double negative. Augustine's Latin formula was

non posse non peccare. Stated another way it means that

after the Fall man was morally incapable of living without

[sin. T h e ability to live without sin was lost in the Fall.

This moral inability is the essence of what we call original

sin.

W h e n we are born again, our bondage to sin is relieved.

After we are made alive in Christ, we once again have the

ability to sin and the ability to not sin. In heaven we will

have the inability to sin.

Let's look at this with a chart:

65

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

Pre-Fall

Post-Fall

Reborn

Glorified

Man

Man

Man

Man

able to sin

able to sin

able to sin

able to

able to

able to

not sin

not sin

not sin

unable to

not sin

unable

to sin

T h e chart shows that man before the Fall, after the Fall

and after being reborn is able to sin. Before the Fall he is

able to not sin. This ability, the ability to not sin, is lost in

the Fall. It is restored when a person is born again and

continues in heaven. In creation man did not suffer from

moral inability. Moral inability is a result of the Fall. To

state it another way, before the Fall man was able to

refrain from sinning; after the Fall man is no longer able to

refrain from sinning. That is what we call original sin.

This moral inability or moral bondage is overcome by

spiritual rebirth. Rebirth liberates us from original sin.

Before rebirth we still have a free will but we do not have

this liberation from the power of sin, what Augustine

called "liberty."

T h e person w h o is reborn can still sin. T h e ability to

sin is not removed until we are glorified in heaven. We

have the ability to sin but we are no longer under the

bondage of original sin. We have been set free. This of

6 6

F R E E W I L L

course does not mean that now we l i v e perfect lives. We

still sin. But we can never say that we sin because that is

all our fallen natures have the power to do.

JESUS' VIEW OF MORAL ABILITY

We have made a brief sketch of the views of Jonathan

Edwards and St. Augustine on the matter of moral inabil-

ty I think they are helpful and I am also persuaded that

they are correct. Yet in spite of their authority as great

theologians, neither of them can command from us our

absolute submission to their teaching. They are both falli-

ble. For the Christian, the teaching of Jesus is another

matter. For us, and for anybody else as well if indeed Jesus

is the Son of God, the teaching of Jesus must bind our

consciences. His teaching on the question of man's moral

ability is definitive.

One of the most important teachings of Jesus on this

matter is found in the Gospel of John. Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father" (John 6:65).

Let us look closely at this verse. The first element of

this teaching is a universal negative. The words "No one"

are all-inclusive. They allow for no exception apart from

the exceptions Jesus adds. The next word is crucial. It is

the word can. This has to do with ability, not permission.

I Who has not been corrected by a schoolteacher for

confusing the words can and may? I used to have a teacher who never missed an opportunity to drill this point

p o m e . If I raised my hand and said, "Can I sharpen my

67

R

C S P R O U 1

pencil?" the response was always the same. She would

smile and say, "I am sure that you can. You also mam

sharpen your pencil." The word can refers to ability; the

word may refers to permission.

In this passage Jesus is not saying, "No one is allowed to

come to m e . . . . " He is saying, "No one is able to come to m e . . . "

The next word in the passage is also vital. "Unless"

refers to what we call a necessary condition. A necessary

condition refers to something that must happen before

something else can happen.

The meaning of Jesus' words is clear. No human being

can possibly come to Christ unless something happens

that makes it possible for him to come. That necessary

condition Jesus declares is that "it has been granted to him

by the Father." Jesus is saying here that the ability to

come to him is a gift from God. Man does not have the

ability in and of himself to come to Christ. God must do

something first.

The passage teaches at least this much: It is not within

fallen man's natural ability to come to Christ on his own,

without some kind of divine assistance. To this extent at

least, Edwards and Augustine are in solid agreement with

the teaching of our Lord. The question that remains is

this: Does God give the ability to come to Jesus to all

men? The Reformed view of predestination says no. Some

other views of predestination say yes. But one thing is

certain; man cannot do it on his own steam without some

kind of help from God.

What kind of help is required? H o w far must God go

68

F R E E W I L L

to overcome our natural inability to come to Christ? A

clue is found elsewhere in this same chapter. In fact, there

are two other statements by Jesus that have direct bearing

on this question.

Earlier in chapter 6 of John's Gospel Jesus makes a

similar statement. He says, "No one can come to Me

unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44).

The key word here is draw. What does it mean for the

Father to draw people to Christ? I have often heard this

text explained to mean that the Father must woo or entice

men to Christ. Unless this wooing takes place, no man

will come to Christ. However, man has the ability to resist

this wooing and to refuse the enticement. The wooing,

though it is necessary, is not compelling. In philosophical

language that would mean that the drawing of God is a

necessary condition but not a sufficient condition to bring

men to Christ. In simpler language it means that we

cannot come to Christ without the wooing, but the woo-

i n g does not guarantee that we will, in fact, come to

I am persuaded that the above explanation, which is so

widespread, is incorrect. It does violence to the text of

Scripture, particularly to the biblical meaning of the word

draw The Greek word used here is elko. Kittel's Theolog-

ical Dictionary of the New Testament defines it to mean

to compel by irresistible superiority. Linguistically and

lexicographically, the word means "to compel."

To compel is a much more forceful concept than to

woo. To see this more clearly, let us look for a moment at

two other passages in the N e w Testament where the same

69

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

Greek word is used. In James 2:6 we read: "But you have

dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and

drag you into the courts?" Guess which word in this

passage is the same Greek word that elsewhere is translat-

ed by the English word draw. It is the word drag. Let us now substitute the word woo in the text. It would then

read: "Do not the rich oppress you and woo you into the

courts?"

The same word occurs in Acts 16:19. "But when her

masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized

Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to

the authorities." Again, try substituting the word woo for

the word drag. Paul and Silas were not seized and then

wooed into the marketplace.

I once was asked to debate the doctrine of predestina-

tion in a public forum at an Arminian seminary. My

opponent was the head of the N e w Testament department

of the seminary. At a crucial point in the debate we fixed

our attention on the passage about the Father's drawing

people. My opponent was the one who brought up the

passage as a proof text to support his claim that God never

forces anyone or compels them to come to Christ. He

Insisted that the divine influence on fallen man was re-

stricted to drawing, which he interpreted to mean w o o -

ing.

At that point in the debate I quickly referred him to

Kittel and to the other passages in the N e w Testament

that translate the word drag. I was sure I had him. I was

sure that he had walked into an insoluble difficulty for his

own position. But he surprised me. He caught me com-

70

F R E E W I L L

pletely off guard. I will never forget that agonizing mo-

ment when he cited a reference from an obscure Greek

poet in which the same Greek word was used to describe

the action of drawing water from a well. He looked at me

and said, "Well, Professor Sproul, does one drag water

from a well?" Instantly the audience burst into laughter at

this startling revelation of the alternate meaning of the

Greek word. I stood there looking rather silly When the

laughter died down I replied, "No sir. I have to admit that

we do not drag water from a well. But, how do we get

water from a well? Do we woo it? Do we stand at the top

of the well and cry, "Here, water, water, water'?" It is as

necessary for God to come into our hearts to turn us to

Christ as it is for us to put the bucket in the water and

pull it out if we want anything to drink. The water

simply will not come on its own, responding to a mere

external invitation.

As crucial as these passages from John's Gospel are,

they do not surpass in importance another teaching of

Jesus in the same Gospel with respect to man's moral

inability. I am thinking of the famous discussion that Jesus

had with Nicodemus in John 3. Jesus said to Nicodemus,

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he

cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Two verses

later Jesus repeats the teaching: "Most assuredly, I say to

you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot

enter the kingdom of God."

Once again we encounter the pivotal word unless. Jesus

is stating an emphatic necessary precondition for any hu-

| man being's ability to see and to enter the kingdom of

7 1

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

God. That emphatic preconditon is spiritual rebirth. The

Reformed view of predestination teaches that before a

person can choose Christ his heart must be changed. He

must be born again. Non-reformed views have fallen

people first choosing Christ and then being born again.

Here we find unregenerate people seeing and entering the

kingdom of God. The moment a person receives Christ he

is in the kingdom. One does not first believe, then become

reborn, and then be ushered into the kingdom. How can a

man choose a kingdom he cannot see? How can a man

enter the kingdom without being first reborn? Jesus was

pointing out Nicodemus's need to be born of the Spirit. He

was still in the flesh. The flesh yields only flesh. The flesh,

Jesus said, profits nothing. As Luther argued, "That does

not mean a little something." Non-Reformed views have

people responding to Christ who are not reborn. They are

still in the flesh. For non-Reformed views the flesh not

only profits something, it profits the most important thing

a person could ever gain—entrance into the kingdom by

believing on Christ. If a person who is still in the flesh,

who is not yet reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit,

can incline or dispose himself to Christ, what good is

rebirth? This is the fatal flaw of non-Reformed views.

They fail to take seriously man's moral inability, the moral

impotency of the flesh.

A cardinal point of Reformed theology is the maxim:

"Regeneration precedes faith." Our nature is so corrupt,

the power of sin is so great, that unless God does a

supernatural work in our souls we will never choose

72

F R E E W I L L

Christ. We do not believe in order to be born again; we

are born again in order that we may believe.

It is ironic that in the same chapter, indeed in the same

context, in which our Lord teaches the utter necessity of

rebirth to even see the kingdom, let alone choose it, non-

Reformed views find one of their main proof texts to

argue that fallen man retains a small island of ability to

choose Christ. It is John 3:16: T o r God so loved the

world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever

believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting

life."

What does this famous verse teach about fallen man's

ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing.

The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the

text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their

power to accept or reject Christ. A careful look at the text

reveals, however, that it teaches nothing of the kind.

What the text teaches is that everyone who believes in

Christ will be saved. Whoever does A (believes) will

receive B (everlasting life). The text says nothing, abso-

lutely nothing, about who will ever believe. It says noth-

ing about fallen man's natural moral ability. Reformed

people and non-Reformed people both heartily agree that

all who believe will be saved. They heartily disagree about

who has the ability to believe.

Some may reply "All right. The text does not explicitly

teach that fallen men have the ability to choose Christ

without being reborn first, but it certainly implies that." I am not willing to grant that the text even implies such a

73

RC S P R O U L

thing. However, even if it did it would make no difference

in the debate. W h y not? Our rule of interpreting Scrip-

ture is that implications drawn from the Scripture must

always be subordinate to the explicit teaching of Scripture.

We must never, never, never reverse this to subordinate

the explicit teaching of Scripture to possible implications

drawn from Scripture. This rule is shared by both Re-

formed and non-Reformed thinkers.

If John 3:16 implied a universal natural human ability of

fallen men to choose Christ, then that implication would

be wiped out by Jesus' explicit teaching to the contrary

We have already shown that Jesus explicitly and unam-

biguously taught that no man has the ability to come to

him without God doing something to give him that abili-

ty, namely drawing him.

Fallen man is flesh. In the flesh he can do nothing to

please God. Paul declares, T h e fleshly mind is enmity

against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor

indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot

please God" (Rom. 8:7, 8).

We ask, then, "Who are those who are 'in the flesh?"

Paul goes on to declare: "But you are not in the flesh but

in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you"

(Rom. 8:9). The crucial word here is if. What distin-

guishes those who are in the flesh from those who are not

is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. No one who is not

reborn is indwelt by God the Holy Spirit. People who are

in the flesh have not been reborn. Unless they are first

reborn, born of the Holy Spirit, they cannot be subject to

the law of God. They cannot please God.

74

75

God commands us to believe in Christ. He is pleased by

those who choose Christ. If unregenerate people could

choose Christ, then they could be subject to at least one of

God's commands and they could at least do something

that is pleasing to God. If that is so, then the apostle has

erred here in insisting that those who are in the flesh can

neither be subject to God nor please him.

We conclude that fallen man is still free to choose what

he desires, but because his desires are only wicked he lacks

the moral ability to come to Christ. As long as he remains

in the flesh, unregenerate, he will never choose Christ. He

cannot choose Christ precisely because he cannot act

against his own will. He has no desire for Christ. He

cannot choose what he does not desire. His fall is great. It

is so great that only the effectual grace of God working in

his heart can bring him to faith.

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3

1. Free will is defined as "the ability to make choices

according to our desires."

2. The concept of a "neutral free will," a will without prior

disposition or inclination, is a false view of free will. It is

both irrational and unbiblical.

3.True free will involves a kind of self-determination, which

a differs from coercion from an external force.

4. We struggle with choices, in part because we live with

conflicting and changing desires.

5. Fallen man has the natural ability to make choices but

lacks the moral ability to make godly choices.

6. Fallen man, as St. Augustine said, has "free will" but lacks

"liberty."

75

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

7. Original sin is not the first sin but the sinful condition

that is the result of Adam's and Eve's sin.

8. Fallen man is "unable to not sin."

9. Jesus taught that man is powerless to come to him

without divine aid.

10. Before a person will ever choose Jesus, he must first be

born again.

76

C H A P T E R F O U R

ADAM'S

FALL

A N D

MINE

ANOTHER difficult question that shrouds

the doctrine of predestination is the ques-

tion of how our sinful nature can be inher-

ited from Adam. If we are born with a

fallen nature, if we are born in sin, if we are

born in a state of moral inability, how can God hold us

responsible for our sins?

We remember that original sin does not refer to the first

sin but to the result of that first sin. The Scriptures speak

repeatedly of sin and death entering the world through

"one man's transgression." As a result of Adam's sin, all

men are now sinners. The Fall was great. It had radical

repercussions for the entire human race.

There have been many attempts to explain the relation-

ship of Adam's fall to the rest of mankind. Some of the

theories presented are quite complex and imaginative.

Three theories, however, have emerged from the list as the

most widely accepted. The first of these I will call the

Myth Theory of the Fall.

THE MYTH THEORY OF THE FALL

The myth theory of the Fall as the name suggests, holds

that there was no factual, historical fall. Adam and Eve are

not considered historical persons. They are mythological

symbols drawn to explain or represent the problem of

mans corruption. The story of the Fall in the Bible is a

kind of parable; it teaches a moral lesson.

79

RC S P R O U L

According to this theory the first few chapters of Gen-

esis are mythological. There never was an Adam; there

never was an Eve. The very structure of the story sug-

gests parable or myth because it includes such elements as

a talking serpent and such obviously symbolic objects as

the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The moral truth communicated by the myth is that

people fall into sin. Sin is a universal problem. Everyone

commits sin; no one is perfect. The myth points to

higher reality: Everyone is his own Adam. Every person

has his own private fall. Sin is a universal human condition

precisely because every person succumbs to his own pri-

vate temptation.

The attractive elements of this theory are important, In

the first place, this view absolves God entirely of any

responsibility for holding future generations of people re-

sponsible for what one couple did. Here, no one can blame

their parents or their Creator for their own sin. In this

scheme, my fallenness is a direct result of my own fall, not

of someone else's.

A second advantage of this view is that it escapes all

need to defend the historical character of the beginning

chapters of the Bible. This view suffers no anxiety from

certain theories of evolution or from scientific dispute

about the nature of creation. The factual truth of a myth

never needs to be defended.

The disadvantages of this view, however, are more seri-

ous. Its most crucial failing is that it actually offers nothing

by way of explanation for the universality of sin. If each

one of us is bom without a sinful nature, how do we

80

A D A M ' S F A L L A N D M I N E

account for the universality of sin? If four billion people

were born with no inclination to sin, with no corruption

to their nature, we would reasonably expect that at least

some of them would refrain from falling. If our natural

moral state is one of innocent neutrality, we would statisti-

cally expect that half of the human race would remain

perfect. I grant that to account for one innocent person's

fall presents an enormous intellectual problem. But when

we compound that difficulty by the billions of people who

have fallen, the problem becomes, several billion times

more difficult. We also grant that if one person created in

the image of God could fall, then it is indeed possible that

millions can likewise fall. It is the statistical probability here

that is so astonishing. When we think of one person

falling, that is one thing. But if everybody does it, without

exception, then we begin to wonder why. We begin to

wonder if man's natural state is all that neutral.

The standard reply of the advocates of the myth view

a that people are not universally born in an idyllic envi-

ronment like Eden. Society is corrupt. We are born into a

corrupt environment. We are like Rousseau's "innocent

savage" who is corrupted by the negative influences of

civilization.

This explanation begs the question. H o w did society or

civilization get corrupt in the first place? If everyone is

bom innocent, without a trace of personal corruption, we

would expect to find societies that are no more than half

corrupt. If birds of a feather flock together, we might find,

societies where all the corrupt people band together and

other societies where no evil is present. Society cannot be

81

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

a corrupting influence until it first becomes corrupt itself

To explain the fall of an entire society or civilization, on

must face the difficulties we have already pointed out.

In another one of Jonathan Edwards's famous work

bis treatise on original sin, he makes the important obser-

vation that because the sin of man is universal, even if the

Bible said nothing about an original Fall of the human

race, reason would demand such an explanation. Nothing

screams more loudly about the fact that we are born in a

state of corruption than the fact that we all sin.

Another thorny question that arises concerns the rela-

tionship of sin and death. The Bible makes it clear that

death is not "natural" to man. That is, death is repeatedly

said to have come into the world as a result of sin. If that is

so, how do we account for the death of infants? If all men

are born innocent, with no innate corruption, God would

be unjust to allow as yet unfallen babies to die.

The mythological view of the Fall must also face the

fact that it does radical violence to the teaching of Scrip-

ture. The view does more than merely interpret the open

ing chapters of the Bible as non-factual. In so doing the

view sets itself in clear opposition to the N e w Testament's

view of the Fall. It would take intellectual gymnastics of

the most severe sort to argue that the Apostle Paul did not

teach a historical Fall The parallels that he draws between

the first Adam and the second Adam are too strong to

allow this, unless we argue that in Paul's mind Jesus was

also a mythological character.

We grant that the Genesis account of the Fall has some

unusual literary elements in it. The presence of a tree that

82

A D A M - ' S F A L L A N D M I N E

does not follow the pattern of normal trees follows certain

images of poetry. It is proper to interpret poetry as poetry

and not as historical narrative. On the other hand, there

are strong elements of historical narrative literature in

Genesis 3. The setting of Eden is located in chapter 2 in

the midst of four riverheads, including Pishon, Gihon,

Hiddekel (or Tigris), and Euphrates.

We know that parables can be set in real historical

settings. For example, the parable of the Good Samaritan

is set in the geographical context of the road to Jericho.

Therefore the mere presence of real historical rivers does

not absolutely demand that we identify this section of

Genesis as historical narrative.

There is another element of the text, however, that is

more compelling. The account of Adam and Eve contains

a significant genealogy. The Romans, with their penchant

for mythology, may have no difficulty tracing their lineage

to Romulus and Remus, but the Jews were surely more

scrupulous about such matters. The Jews had a strong

commitment to real history. In light of the vast difference

between the Jewish view of history and the Greek view

of history it is unthinkable that Jewish people would

include mythological characters in their own genealogies.

In Jewish writing, the presence of genealogy indicates

[historical narrative. Note that the N e w Testament histori-

an, Luke, includes Adam in the genealogy of Jesus.

It is much easier to account for a real tree serving as a

focal point of a moral test and thereby being called a tree

of the knowledge of good and evil than it is to accommo-

date genealogy to a parable or a myth. This of course

83

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

could be done if other factors demanded it. But no such

factors exist. There is no sound reason w h y we should not

interpret Generis 3 as historical narrative and multiple

reasons w h y we should not treat it as parable or myth. To

treat it as history is to treat it as the Jews did, including

Paul and Jesus. To treat it otherwise is usually motivated

by some contemporary agenda that has nothing to do

T H E REALIST VIEW OF T H E FALL

Remember the famous television series from the 1950s

called "You Are There"? It took viewers, through thai

magic of television, to famous historical scenes. But in fact

no electronic device has yet been invented to transport us

back in time, H. G. Wells notwithstanding. We live in the

present. Our only access to the past is through books,

artifacts of archaeology and the memories of ourselves and]

of others.

I remember teaching a course on the Bible that in-

volved a brief study of Roman soldiers. I mentioned the

Roman standard that carried the initals SPQR. I asked if

anyone knew what those letters stood for. A dear friend

who was in his seventies piped up, "Senatus Populus Que

Romanus, T h e senate and the people of Rome.' " I smiled

at my friend and said, "You are the only person in this

room old enough to remember!"

None of us is old enough to carry memory images of

the fall of Adam. Or are we? T h e realist view of the Fall

84

A D A M ' S F A L L A N D M I N E

contends that we are all old enough to remember the Fall.

We should be able to remember it because we were really

there.

Realism is not an exercise in a Bridey-Murphy kind of

reincarnation. Rather, realism is a serious attempt to an-

swer the problem of the Fall. The key concept is this: We

cannot morally be held accountable for a sin committed

by someone else. To be accountable we must have been

actively involved somehow in the sin itself. Somehow we

must have been present at the Fall . Really present. Hence

the name Realism.

The realist view of the Fall demands some kind of

concept of the preexistence of the human soul. That is,

before we were born, our souls must have already existed.

They were present with Adam at the Fall. They fell

along with Adam. Adam's sin was not merely an act for

us; it was an act with us. We were there.

This theory seems speculative, perhaps even bizarre. Its

advocates, however, appeal to two pivotal biblical texts as

warrant for this view. The first is found in Ezekiel 18:2-4:

What do you mean when you use this proverb

concerning the land of Israel, saying:

"The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the

children's teeth are set on edge?"

As I live, says the Lord God, you shall no longer use

this proverb in Israel

Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father as

well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins

shall die.

85

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

Later in this chapter, Ezekiel writes:

Yet you say, "Why should the son not bear the guilt of

the father?" Because the son has done what is lawful

and right, and has kept all My statutes and done them,

he shall surely live.

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the

guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the

son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon

himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon

himself (Ezekiel 18:19, 20).

Here the realist finds a definitive text for his case. God

clearly declares that the son is not held guilty for the sins

of his father. This would seem to pose serious difficulties

for the whole idea of people falling "in Adam."

The second pivotal text for realism is found in the N e w

Testament Book of Hebrews:

Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through

Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his

father when Melchizedek met him (Hebrews 7:9, 10).

This text is part of a lengthy treatment by the author of

Hebrews concerning the role of Christ as our Great High

Priest. The N e w Testament declares that Jesus is both our

king and our priest. It labors the fact that Jesus was from

the line of Judah, to whom the royal kingdom was prom-

ised. Jesus was a son of David, who also was of the line of

Judah.

The priesthood of the Old Testament was not given to

Judah, but to the sons of Levi. The Levites were the

priestly line. We normally speak, therefore, of the Leviti-

86

A D A M ' S F A L L A N D M I N E

cal priesthood or the Aaronic priesthood. Aaron was a

Levite. If this is so, how could Jesus be a priest if he was

not from the line of Levi?

This problem vexed some ancient Jews. The author of

Hebrews argues that there was another priesthood men-

tioned in the Old Testament, the priesthood of the myste-

rious figure named Melchizedek. Jesus is said to be a priest

of the order of Melchizedek.

This lengthy portion of Hebrews is not satisfied, how-

ever, merely to prove that there was another priesthood in

the Old Testament besides the Levitical priesthood. The

major point of the argument here is that the priesthood of

Melchizedek was superior to the priesthood of Levi

The author of Hebrews rehearses a bit of Old Testa-

ment history to prove his point. He calls attention to the

fact that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, not Mel-

chizedek to Abraham. Melchizedek also blessed Abraham;

Abraham did not bless Melchizedek. The point is this: In

the relationship between Abraham and Melchizedek it

was Melchizedek who served as the priest, not Abraham.

The key thought to the Jew is cited in verse 7: "Now

beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better;"

The author of Hebrews continues to weave the thread

of his argument. He argues that, in effect, the father is

superior to the son. That means that Abraham is ahead of

Isaac in the patriarchal pecking order. In turn, Isaac is

ahead of Jacob, and Jacob ahead of his sons, including his

son Levi. If we carry this out, it means that Abraham is

greater than his great-grandson Levi.

N o w if Abraham is greater than Levi and Abraham

87

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

subordinated himself to Melchizedek, then it means that

the priest Melchizedek is greater than Levi and the entire

line of Levi The conclusion is clear. The priesthood of

Melchizedek is a higher order of priesthood than the Levi-

tical priesthood. This gives supreme dignity to the high

priestly office of Christ.

It was not the chief concern of the author of Hebrews

to explain the mystery of the fall of Adam with all this.

Yet he says something along the way that the realists jump

on to prove their theory He writes that "Levi paid tithes

through Abraham." Levi did this while he was "still in the

loins of his father."

The realists see this reference to Levi doing something

before he was even born as biblical proof for the concept

of the preexistence of the human soul. If Levi could pay

tithes while he was still in the loins of his father, that must

mean that Levi in some sense already existed.

This treatment of this passage of Hebrews begs the

question. The text does not explicitly teach that Levi

really existed or preexisted in the loins of his father. The

text itself calls it a "manner of speaking." The text does

not demand that we leap to the conclusion that Levi

"really" preexisted. The realists come to this text armed

with a theory they did not find from the text and then

read the theory into the text.

The argument from the text of Ezekiel also misses the

point. Ezekiel was not giving a discourse on the fall of

Adam. The Fall is not in view here. Rather, Ezekiel is

addressing the commonplace excuse that men use for their

sins. They try to blame someone else for their own mis-

88

A D A M ' S F A L L A N D M I N E

deeds. That human activity has gone on since the Fall, but

that is about all this passage has to do with the Fall. In the

Fall Eve blamed the serpent, and Adam blamed both God

and Eve for his own sin. He said, "The woman whom

You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate"

(Gen. 3:12).

Ever since, men have tried to pass the buck of their

own guilt. Still, the realists argue, a principle is set forth in

Ezekiel 18 that has bearing on the matter. The principle is

that men are not held accountable for other people's sins.

To be sure, that general principle is set forth in Ezekiel.

It is a grand principle of God's justice. Yet we dare not

make it an absolute principle. If we do, then the text of

Ezekiel would prove too much. It would prove away the

atonement of Christ. If it is never possible for one person

to be punished for the sins of another, then we have no

Savior. Jesus was punished for our sins. That is the very

essence of the gospel. Not only was Jesus punished for our

sins, but his righteousness is the meritorious basis for our

justification. We are justified by an alien righteousness, a

righteousness that is not our own. If we press Ezekiel's

statement to the absolute limit when we read, T h e righ-

teousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the

wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself," then we

| are left as sinners who must justify themselves. That puts

us all in deep weeds.

To be sure, the Bible speaks of God's "visiting" the

iniquities of persons on the third and fourth generations.

This refers to the "fall-out" or consequences of sin. A child may suffer from the consequences of his father's sin, but

89

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

God does not hold him responsible for his father's sin.

The principle of Ezekiel allows for two exceptions: the

Cross, and the Fall. Somehow we don't mind the excep-

tion of the Cross. It is the Fall that rankles us. We don't

mind having our guilt transferred to Jesus or having his

righteousness transferred to us; it is having the guilt of

Adam transferred to us that makes us howl. We argue

that if the guilt of Adam had never been transmitted to us

then the work of Jesus would never have been necessary

THE FEDERAL OR

REPRESENTATIVE VIEW OF THE FALL

For the most part, the federal view of the Fall has been the

most popular among advocates of the Reformed view of

predestination. This view teaches that Adam acted as a

representative of the entire human race. With the test that

God set before Adam and Eve, he was testing the whole

of mankind. Adam's name means "man" or "mankind"

Adam was the first human being created. He stands at the

head of the human race. He was placed in the garden to

act not only for himself but for all of his future descen-

dents. Just as a federal government has a chief spokesman

who is the head of the nation, so Adam was the federal

head of mankind.

The chief idea of federalism is that, when Adam sinned

he sinned for all of us. His fall was our fall. When God

punished Adam by taking away his original righteousness,

we were all likewise punished. The curse of the Fall

90

A D A M ' S F A L L A N D M I N E

affects us all. Not only was Adam destined to make his

living by the sweat of his brow, but that is true for us as

well. Not only was Eve consigned to have pain in child-

birth, but that has been true for women of all human

generations. The offending serpent in the garden was not

the only member of his species who was cursed to crawl

on his belly.

When they were created, Adam and Eve were given

dominion over the entire creation. As a result of their sin

the whole world suffered. Paul tells us:

For the creation was subjected to futility, not wittingly,

but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because

the creation itself also will be delivered from the

bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the

children of God. For we know that the whole creation

groans and labors with birth pangs together until now

Romans 8:20-22).

The whole creation groans as it awaits the full redemp-

tion of man. When man sinned, the repercussions of the

sin were felt throughout the whole range of man's domain.

Because of Adam's sin, not only do we suffer, but lions,

elephants, butterflies, and puppy dogs also suffer. They did

not ask for such suffering. They were hurt by the fall of

their master.

That we suffer as a result of Adam's sin is explicitly

taught in the N e w Testament. In Romans 5, for example,

Paul makes the following observations:

"Through one man sin entered the world, and death

through sin" (v. 12).

91

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

"By the one man's offense many died" (v. 15).

"Through one man's offense judgment came to all men,

resulting in condemnation" (v. 18).

"By one man's disobedience many were made sinners*

(v. 19).

There is no way to avoid the obvious teaching of Scrip-

ture that Adam's sin had dreadful consequences for his

descendents. It is precisely because of the abundance of

such biblical statements that virtually every Christian

body has composed some doctrine of original sin linked to

the fall of Adam.

We are still left with a big question. If God did in fact

judge the entire human race in Adam, how is that fair? It

seems manifestly unjust of God to allow not only all

subsequent human beings but all of creation to suffer,

because of Adam.

It is the question of God's fairness that federalism seeks

to answer. Federalism assumes that we were in fact repre-

sented by Adam and that such representation was both

fair and accurate. It holds that Adam perfectly represented

us.

Within our own legal system we have situations that,

not perfectly but approximately, parallel this concept of

representation. We know that if I hire a man to kill

someone and that hired gunman carries out the contract, I

can justly be tried for first-degree murder in spite of the

fact that I did not actually pull the trigger. I am judged to

be guilty for a crime someone else committed because the

other person acted in my place.

The obvious protest that arises at this point is, "But we

92

A D A M ' S F A L L A N D M I N E

did not hire Adam to sin in our behalf." That is true. This

example merely illustrates that there are some cases in

which it is just to punish one person for the crime of

another.

The federal view of the Fall still exudes a faint odor of

tyranny. Our cry is, "No damnation without representa-

tion!" Just as people in a nation clamor for representatives

to insure freedom from despotic tyranny so we demand

representation before God that is fair and just. The federal

view states that we are judged guilty for Adams sin be-

cause he was our fair and just representative.

Wait a minute. Adam may have represented us, but we

did not choose him. What if the fathers of the American

republic had demanded representation from King George

and the king replied, "Of course you may have representa-

tives. You will be represented by my brother!" Such an

answer would have spilled even more tea in Boston Har-

bor.

We want the right to select our own representatives.

We want to be able to cast our own vote, not have

somebody else cast that vote for us. The word vote comes

from the Latin votum which meant "wish" or "choice."

When we cast our vote, we are expressing our wishes,

setting forth our wills.

Suppose we would have had the total freedom to vote

for our representative in Eden. Would that have satisfied

us? And why do we want the right to vote for our

representative? W h y do we object if the king or any other

sovereign wants to appoint our representatives for us? The

answer is obvious. We want to be sure that our will is

93

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

being carried out. If the king appoints my representative,

then I will have little confidence that my wishes will be

accomplished. I would fear that the appointed representa-

t i v e would be more eager to carry out the wishes of the

king than my wishes. I would not feel fairly represented.

But even if we have the right to choose our own

representatives, we have no guarantee that our wishes will

be carried out. W h o among us has not been enticed by

politicians who promise one thing during an election cam-

paign and do another thing after they are elected? Again,

the reason we want to select our own representative is so

that we can be sure we are accurately represented.

At no t i m e in all of human history have we been more

accurately represented than in the Garden of Eden. To be

sure, we did not choose our representative there. Our

representative was chosen for us. The one who chose our

representative, however, was not King George. It was

almighty God.

When God chooses our representative, he does so per-

fectly. His choice is an infallible choice. When I choose

my own representatives, I do so fallibly. Sometimes I select

the wrong person and am then inaccurately represented.

Adam represented me infallibly, not because he was infalli-

ble, but because God is infallible. Given God's infallibility,

I can never argue that Adam was a poor choice to repre-

sent me.

The assumption many of us make when we struggle

with the Fall is that, had we been there, we would have

made a different choice. We would not have made a deci-

sion that would plunge the world into ruin. Such an

94

A D A M ' S F A L L A N D M I N E

assumption is just not possible given the character of God.

God doesn't make mistakes. His choice of my representa-

tive is greater than my choice of my own.

Even if we grant that indeed we were perfectly repre-

sented by Adam, we still must ask if it is fair to be

represented at all with such high stakes. I can only answer

that it pleased the Lord to do this. We know that the

world fell through Adam. We know that in some sense

Adam represented us. We know that we did not choose

him to be our representative. We know that God's selec-

tion of Adam was an infallible selection. But was the

whole process just?

I can only answer this question ultimately by asking

another question—one the Apostle Paul asked. "Is there

unrighteousness in God?" The apostolic answer to this

rhetorical question is as plain as it is emphatic. "God

forbid!"

If we know anything at all about the character of God,

then we know that he is not a tyrant and that he is never

unjust. His structure of the terms of mankind's probation

satisfied God's own righteousness. That should be enough

to satisfy us.

Yet we still quarrel. We still contend with the Al-

mighty. We still assume that somehow God did us wrong

and that we suffer as innocent victims of God's judgment.

Such sentiments only confirm the radical degree of our

fallenness. When we think like this, we are thinking like

Adam's children. Such blasphemous thoughts only under-

line in red how accurately we were represented by Adam.

I am persuaded that the federal view of the Fall is

95

R C S P R O U L

substantially correct. It alone of the three we have exam-

ined does justice to the biblical teaching of the fall of many

It satisfies me that God is not an arbitrary tyrant. I know

that I am a fallen creature. That is, I know that I am a

creature and I know that I am fallen. I also know that it is

not God's "fault" that I am a sinner. What God has done

for me is to redeem me from my sin. He has not redeemed

me from his sin.

Though the federal representational view of the Fall is

held by most Calvinists, we must remember that the

question of our relationship to Adam's fall is not a problem

unique to Calvinism. All Christians must struggle with it.

It is also vital to see predestination in light of the Fall.

All Christians agree that God's decree of predestination

was made before the Fall. Some argue that God first

predestinated some people to salvation and others to dam-

nation and then decreed the Fall to make sure that some

folks would perish. Sometimes this dreadful view is even

attributed to Calvinism. Such an idea was repugnant to

Calvin and is equally repugnant to all orthodox Calvinists.

The notion is sometimes called "hyper-Calvinism." But

even that is an insult. This view has nothing to do with

Calvinism. Rather than hyper-Calvinism, it is anti-

Calvinism.

Calvinism, along with other views of predestination,

teaches that God's decree was made both before the Fall,

and in light of the Fall. W h y is this important? Because

the Calvinistic view of predestination always accents the

gracious character of God's redemption. When God pre-

destines people to salvation he is predestinating people to

96

A D A M ' S F A L L A N D M I N E

be saved whom he knows really need to be saved. T h e y

need to be saved because they are sinners in Adam, not

because he forced them to be sinners. Calvinism sees

Adam sinning by his own free will, not by divine coer-

cion.

To be sure, God knew before the Fall that there would

most certainly be a Fall and he took action to redeem

some. He ordained the Fall in the sense that he chose to

allow it, but not in the sense that he chose to coerce it. His

predestinating grace is gracious precisely because he

chooses to save people whom he knows in advance will be

spiritually dead.

One final illustration may be helpful here. We bristle at

the idea that God calls us to be righteous when we are

hampered by original sin. We say, "But God, we can't be

righteous. We are fallen creatures. H o w can you hold us

accountable when you know very well we were born

with original sin?"

T h e illustration is as follows. Suppose God said to a

man, 1 want you to trim these bushes by three o'clock

this afternoon. But be careful. There is a large open pit at

the edge of the garden. If you fall into that pit, you will

not be able to get yourself out. So whatever you do, stay

away from that pit."

Suppose that as soon as God leaves the garden the man

runs over and jumps into the pit. At three o'clock God

returns and finds the bushes untrimmed. He calls for the

gardener and hears a faint cry from the edge of the garden.

He walks to the edge of the pit and sees the gardener

helplessly flailing around on the bottom. He says to the

9 7

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

gardener, "Why haven't you trimmed the bushes I told

you to trim?" The gardener responds in anger, "How do

you expect me to trim these bushes when I am trapped in

this pit? If you hadn't left this empty pit here, I would not

be in this predicament."

Adam jumped into the pit. In Adam we all jumped into

the pit. God did not throw us into the pit. Adam was

clearly warned about the pit. God told him to stay away.

The consequences Adam experienced from being in the

pit were a direct punishment for jumping into it.

So it is with original sin. Original sin is both the conse-

quence of Adam's sin and the punishment for Adam's sin.

We are born sinners because in Adam all fell. Even the

word fall is a bit of a euphemism. It is a rose-colored view

of the matter. The word fall suggests an accident of sorts.

Adam's sin was not an accident. He was not Humpty-

Dumpty. Adam didn't simply slip into sin; he jumped into

it with both feet. We jumped headlong with him. God

didn't push us. He didn't trick us. He gave us adequate

and fair warning. The fault is ours and only ours.

It is not that Adam ate sour grapes and our teeth are set

on edge. The biblical teaching is that in Adam we all ate

the sour grapes. That is w h y our teeth are set on edge.

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 4

1. The pervasive, universal presence of human sin cannot be

explained adequately by a myth.

2. Man's sinfulness cannot be explained by "society."

3. Society is made up of individual persons, who each must

be a sinner before the society as a whole can be corrupt.

98

A D A M ' s F A L L A N D M I N E

4. Realism also fails as an explanation because it involves a

fanciful approach to Scripture.

5. The federal view of the Fall takes seriously the role Adam

played as our representative.

6. Adam perfectly represented us not by virtue of his

perfection but by virtue of God's perfect selection.

7. All Christians must have some view of the Fall.

8. God's saving grace is directed toward those whom he

knows to be fallen creatures.

99

C H A P T E R F I V E

SPIRITUAL DEATH

A N D

SPIRITUAL LIFE:

REBIRTH

A N D

FAITH

R EFORMED theology is famous for a simple

acrostic that was designed to summarize the

so-called "Five Points of Calvinism." It spells

the word TULIP.

T— Total Depravity

U—Unconditional Election

L—Limited Atonement

I—Irresistible Grace

P—Perseverance of the Saints

This acrostic has helped many people remember the

distinctives of Reformed theology. Unfortunately it has

also caused great confusion and much misunderstanding.

The problem with acrostics is that the best terms we have

for ideas don't always start with letters that will spell neat

little words. The acrostic serves well as a memory device,

but that is about all.

My first problem with the acrostic TULIP is with the

first letter. Total depravity is a very misleading term. The

concept of total depravity is often confused with the idea

of utter depravity. In Reformed theology total depravity

refers to the idea that our whole humanity is fallen. That

is, there is no part of me that has not been affected in some

way by the Fall. Sin affects my will, my heart, my mind,

and my body. If Adam had never sinned, I suppose he

would not have had the need to wear bifocals when he

reached middle age. In fact the very term middle age

would have been meaningless to him. Had he not sinned,

Adam would not have died. W h e n one lives forever,

where is middle age?

103

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

Total depravity also stresses the fact that sin reaches to

the core of our being. Sin is not a peripheral thing, a slight

blemish that mars an otherwise perfect specimen. Sin is

radical in the sense that it touches the root (radix) of our

lives.

Total depravity is not utter depravity Utter depravity

would mean that we are all as sinful as we possibly could

be. We know that is not the case. No matter how much

each of us has sinned, we are able to think of worse sins

that we could have committed. Even Adolf Hitler re-

frained from murdering his mother.

Since total depravity is often confused with utter de-

pravity I prefer to speak of the "radical corruption" of

man. T h a t does mess up our acrostic. W h a t in the world

is a rulip? T h e concept of the radical character of sin is

perhaps the most important concept for us to understand

if we are going to make any sense out of the biblical

doctrine of predestination. As I mentioned during our

discussion of man's moral inability, this is the focal point of

the entire debate.

I remember teaching a college class in theology. T h e

class was made up of an interdenominational group of

about twenty-five students. I asked at the beginning of the

study on predestination how many students considered

themselves Calvinists on the matter. Only one student

raised his hand.

We started with a study of man's sinfulness. After I

lectured for several days on the subject of man's corrup-

tion I took another poll. I asked, "How many of you are]

persuaded that what you have just learned is in fact the

104

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

Bible doctrine of human sinfulness?" Every hand went up.

I said, "Are you sure?" T h e y insisted that they were

indeed sure. I gave a further warning. "Be careful now.

This may come back to haunt you later in the course."

No matter. T h e y insisted that they were convinced.

At this point in the class I went to the corner of the

chalkboard and wrote the date. Next to the date I wrote

the figure 25. I put a circle around this and added a note to

the janitor to please refrain from erasing this portion of the

board.

Several weeks later we began a study of predestination.

W h e n I got to the point of mans moral inability there

were howls of protest. T h e n I went to the chalkboard and

reminded them of the earlier poll. It took another two

weeks to convince them that, if they really accepted the

biblical view of human corruption, the debate about pre-

destination for all intents and purposes was already over.

I shall, in brief, attempt to do the same thing here. I

proceed with the same caution.

T H E BIBLICAL VIEW OF HUMAN CORRUPTION

Let us begin our study of the degree of man's fallenness by

looking at Romans 3. Here the Apostle Paul writes:

There is none righteous, no, not one;

There is none who understands;

There is none who seeks after God.

They have all gone out of the way;

They have together become unprofitable;

There is none who does good, no, not one

(Romans 3:10-12).

105

R - C - S P R O U L

Here we find a brief summation of the universality of

human corruption. Sin is so pervasive that it captures

everyone in its net. Paul uses words of emphasis to show

that there are no exceptions to this indictment among

fallen men. There is none righteous; there is none who

does good.

The statement T h e r e is none who does good, no, not

one" flies in the face of our cultural assumptions. We grow

up hearing that nobody is perfect and that to err is human.

We are quite willing to acknowledge that none of us it

perfect. That we are sinners is easy to admit; that none of

us even does good is a bit much. Not one person in a

thousand will admit that sin is this serious.

No one does good? H o w can that be? Every day we see

rank pagans doing some good. We see them performing

heroic acts of sacrifice, works of industry prudence, and

honesty. We see unbelievers scrupulously obeying the

speed limits while cars whiz by them bearing bumper

stickers that read, "Honk if you love Jesus."

Paul must be using hyperbole here. He must be inten-

tionally exaggerating in order to make a point. Surely

there are people who do good. No! The sober judgment of

God is that no one does good, no, not one.

We stumble here because we have a relative under-

standing of what good is. Good is, indeed, a relative term.

Something can only be judged good according to some

sort of standard. We use the term as a comparison among

men. When we say that a man is good, we mean that he is

good compared with other men. But the ultimate standard

for goodness, the standard by which we shall all be judged,

106

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

is the law of God. That law is not God, but it comes from

God and reflects the perfect character of God himself.

Judged against that standard, no one is good.

In biblical categories a good deed is measured in two

parts. The first is in its outward conformity to the law of

God. This means that, if God prohibits stealing, then it is

good not to steal. It is good to tell the truth. It is good to

pay our bills on time. It is good to assist people in need.

Outwardly these virtues are performed every day. When

we see them we quickly conclude that men do in fact do

good things.

It is the second part of the measuring that gets us in

trouble. Before God pronounces a deed "good" he consid-

ers not only the outward or external conformity to his

law, but also the motivation. We look only at outward

appearances; God reads the heart. For a work to be consid-

ered good it must not only conform outwardly to the law

of God, but it must be motivated inwardly by a sincere

love for God.

We remember the Great Commandment to love the

Lord our God with all our hearts, all our strength, and all

our minds . . . and love our neighbors as much as we love

ourselves. Every deed that we do should proceed from a

heart that loves God totally.

From this perspective it is easy to see that no one does

good. Our best works are tainted by our less than pure

motives. No one among us has ever loved God with all of

his heart or with all of his mind. There is a pound of flesh

mixed in with all of our deeds, rendering them less than

perfect.

107

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

Jonathan Edwards spoke of the concept of enlightenment

self-interest. Enlightened self-interest refers to that motiv-

vation we all feel to perform external righteousness and to

restrain some evil impulses within ourselves. There are

certain times and places where crime does not pay. Where

the risk of punishment outweighs the possible reward of our misdeed, we may be inclined to refrain from it. On the other hand, we may win the applause of men by our

virtuous acts. We may gain a pat on the head from our

teacher or the respect of our peers if we do certain good

deeds.

The whole world applauds recording artists when they

band together to produce a special album with the pro-

ceeds to be used to relieve famine in Ethiopia. Applause

rarely hurts the career of a stage performer, despite cynical

statements that ethics and business do hot mix. On the

contrary, most of us have learned that ethics enhance our

reputations in business.

I am not so cynical as to think that the gesture for

Ethiopia by singers was done purely for personal applause

or as a publicity stunt. Surely there were strong motives

of compassion and care for starving people. On the other

hand, I am not so naive as to think that the motives were

totally without self-interest. The compassion may far

outweigh the self-interest, but no matter how minuscule,

there was at least a grain of self-interest mixed in. There

always is, in all of us. If we deny this I suspect that our

very denials are motivated in part by self-interest.

We want to deny this allegation. We sense in our own

hearts at times an overwhelming feeling of performing

108

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

from duty alone. We like to think that we are truly

altruistic. But no one ever flatters us more than we flatter

ourselves. The weight of our motives may at times lean

heavily in the direction of altruism, but it is never per-

fectly there.

God does not grade on a curve. He demands perfection.

None of us performs to that level. We do not do what

God commands. Ever. Therefore the apostle is not indulg-

ing himself with hyperbole. His judgment is accurate.

There is none who does good, no, not one. Jesus himself

reinforced this view in his discussion with the rich young

ruler. "No one is good but One, that is, God" (Luke

18:19).

As troublesome as this indictment is, another element

in the Romans passage may bring even more consterna-

tion to us, especially to evangelical Christians who talk

and think to the contrary. Paul says, T h e r e is none who

seeks after God."

H o w many times have you beard Christians say, or

have you heard the words from your own mouth, "So and

so is not a Christian, but he's searching"? It is a common

statement among Christians. The idea is that there are

people all over the place who are searching for God. Their

problem is that they just haven't been able to find him. He

is playing hide and seek. He is elusive.

In the Garden of Eden when sin came into the world,

who hid? Jesus came into the world to seek and to save

the lost. Jesus wasn't the one who was hiding. God is not

a fugitive. We are the ones on the run. Scripture declares

that the wicked flee when no man pursues. As Luther

109

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

remarked, "The pagan trembles at the rustling of a leaf.

The uniform teaching of Scripture is that fallen men are

fleeing from God. There is none who seeks after God.

W h y is it then, despite such clear biblical teaching to

the contrary, that Christians persist in claiming that they

know people who are searching for God but have not yet

found him? St. Thomas Aquinas shed some light on this.

Aquinas said that we confuse two similar yet different

human actions. We see people searching desperately for

peace of mind, relief from guilt, meaning and purpose to

their lives, and loving acceptance. We know that ulti-

mately these things can only be found in God. Therefore

we conclude that since people are seeking these things

they must be seeking after God.

People do not seek God. They seek after the benefits

that only God can give them. The sin of fallen man is this:

Man seeks the benefits of God while at the same time

fleeing from God himself. We are, by nature, fugitives.

The Bible tells us repeatedly to seek after God. The

Old Testament cries, "Seek the Lord while He may be

found" (Isa. 55:6). Jesus said, "Seek, and you will find;

knock, and it will be opened to you" (Matt. 7:7). The

conclusion we draw from these texts is that since we are

called to seek after God it must mean that we, even in our

fallen state, have the moral capacity to do that seeking.

But who is being addressed in these texts? In the case of

the Old Testament it is the people of Israel who are called

to seek the Lord. In the N e w Testament it is believers

who are called to seek the kingdom.

We have all heard evangelists quote from Revelation: "I

110

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice

and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with

him, and he with Me" (Rev 3:20). Usually the evangelist

applies this text as an appeal to the unconverted, saying,

"Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart. If you open

the door he will come in." In the original saying, however,

Jesus directed his remarks to the church. It was not an

evangelistic appeal.

So what? The point is that seeking is something that

unbelievers do not do on their own steam. The unbeliever

will not seek. The unbeliever will not knock. Seeking is

the business of believers. Edwards said, "The seeking of

the kingdom of God is the chief business of the Christian

life." Seeking is the result of faith, not the cause of it.

When we are converted to Christ, we use language of

discovery to express our conversion. We speak of finding

Christ. We may have a bumper sticker that reads I FOUND IT These statements are indeed true. T h e irony is this: Once we have found Christ it is not the end of our

seeking, but the beginning. Usually, when we find what

we are looking for, it signals the end of our searching. But

when we "find" Christ, it is the beginning of our search.

T h e Christian life begins at conversion; it does not end

where it begins. It grows; it moves from faith to faith,

from grace to grace, from life to life. This movement of

growth is prodded by a continual seeking after God.

There is one more insight in Romans 3 that we need to

look at briefly. Not only does the apostle declare that no

one seeks after God, but he adds the thought, "They have

together become unprofitable." We must remember that

111

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

here Paul is speaking of fallen men, natural men, uncon-

verted men. This is a description of people who are still in

the flesh.

W h a t does Paul mean by unprofitable? Jesus earlier

spoke of unprofitable servants. Profit has to do with posi-

tive values. T h e unconverted person, working in the flesh,

achieves nothing of permanent value. In the flesh he may

gain the whole world but he loses the thing of most value

to himself, his own soul. T h e most valuable possession a

person can ever have is Christ. He is the pearl of great

price. To h a w him is to have the greatest possible profit.

T h e person who is spiritually dead cannot, in his own

flesh, gain the profit of Christ. He is described as one who

has no fear of God before his eyes (Rom. 3:18). Those

who are not righteous, who do no good, who never seek

after God, who are altogether unprofitable, and who have

no fear of God before their eyes, never incline their own

hearts to Christ.

QUICKENING FROM SPIRITUAL DEATH

T h e cure for spiritual death is the creation of spiritual life

in our souls by God the Holy Spirit. A summary of this

work is given to us in Ephesians:

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses

and sins, in which you once walked according to the

course of this world, according to the prince of the

power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons

of disobedience, among whom also we all once

conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling

112

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and -were by

nature children of wrath, just as the others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great

love with which He loved us, even when we were dead

in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by

grace you have been saved), and raised us up together,

and made us sit together in the heavenly places in

Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show

the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness

toward us in Christ Jesus.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and

that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of

works, lest any man should boast For we are Hit

workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,

which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in

them (Ephesians 2:1-10).

Here we find a predestinarian passage par excellence.

Notice that throughout this passage Paul places a heavy

accent on the riches of God's grace. We must never short-

change this grace. The passage celebrates the newness of

life that the Holy Spirit has created in us.

This work of the Spirit is sometimes called quickening.

Rarely heard in ordinary speech, the term is almost exclu-

sively used to describe an event that happens during a

pregnancy. "Quickening" refers to the woman's first feel-

ing of the life of the baby she is carrying in her womb.

What is here called quickening or being made alive is

what is elsewhere called rebirth or regeneration. The term

regeneration, as the word suggests, indicates a "generating again." To generate means to cause to happen or to begin.

We think of the first book of the Bible, the book of

beginnings, which is called Genesis. The prefix re. means

113

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

simply "again." Therefore the word regeneration means to begin something again. It is the new beginning of life that

we are concerned with here, the beginning of spiritual life.

We note that this image of life is contrasted with an

image of death. Fallen man is here described as being "dead

in sin." In order for one who is dead to the things of God

to come alive to God, something must be done to him and

for him. Dead men cannot make themselves come alive.

Dead men cannot create spiritual life within themselves.

Paul makes it crystal clear here that it is God who makes

alive; it is God who quickens us from spiritual death.

Fallen man is dead in sin. He is described here as being

"by nature, a child of wrath." His fallen pattern is to "walk

according to the course of this world." His allegiance is

not to God but to the prince of the power of the air. Paul

states that this is not merely the state of all the worst

sinners but the former state of himself and of his brothers

and sisters in Christ. ("Among whom also we all once

conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the

desires of the f l e s h . . . . " )

Most non-Reformed views of predestination fail to take

seriously the fact that fallen man is spiritually dead. Other

evangelical positions acknowledge that man is fallen and

that his fallenness is a serious matter. They even grant that

sin is a radical problem. They are quick to grant that man

is not merely ill, but mortally ill, sick unto death. But he

has not quite died yet. He still has one tiny breath of

spiritual life left in his body He still has a tiny island of

righteousness left in his heart, a tiny and feeble moral

ability that abides in his fallenness.

114

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

I have heard two illustrations from evangelists who

plead for the repentance and conversion of their hearers.

The first is an analogy of a person suffering from a termi-

nal illness. The sinner is said to be gravely ill, on the very

brink of death. He does not have it within his own power

to cure himself of the disease. He is lying on his deathbed

almost totally paralyzed. He cannot recover unless God

provides the healing medicine. The man is so bad off that

he cannot even stretch forth his arm to receive the medi-

cine. He is almost comatose. God must not only offer the

medicine but God must put it on a spoon and place it by

the dying man's lips. Unless God does all that, the man

will surely perish. But though God does 99 percent of

what is necessary the man is still left with 1 percent. He

must open his mouth to receive the medicine. This is the

necessary exercise of free will that makes the difference

between heaven and hell. The man who opens his mouth

to receive the gracious gift of the medicine will be saved.

The man who keeps his lips tightly clenched will perish.

This analogy almost does justice to the Bible and to

Paul's teaching of the grace of regeneration. But not quite.

The Bible does not speak of mortally ill sinners. Accord-

ing to Paul they are dead. There is not an ounce of

spiritual life left in them. If they are to be made alive, God

must do more than offer them medicine. Dead men will

not open their mouths to receive anything. Their jaws are

locked in death. Rigor mortis has set in. They must be

raised from the dead. They must be new creations, crafted

by Christ and reborn by his Spirit.

A second illustration is equally popular with those com-

115

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

mitted to evangelism. In this view fallen man is seen as a

drowning man who is unable to swim. He has gone under

twice and bobbed to the surface for the last time. If he

goes under again he will die. His only hope is for God to

throw him a life preserver. God throws the lifeline and

tosses it precisely to the edge of the man's outstretched

fingers. All the man has to do to be saved is to grab hold.

If he will only grab hold of the life preserver, God will

tow him in. If he refuses the life preserver, he will cer-

tainly perish.

Again, in this illustration the utter helplessness of sinful

man without God's assistance is emphasized. The drown-

ing man is in a serious condition. He cannot save himself.

However, he is still alive; he can still stretch forth his

fingers. His fingers are the crucial link to salvation. His

eternal destiny depends upon what he does with his fin-

gers.

Paul says the man is dead. He is not merely drowning,

he has already sunk to the bottom of the sea. It is futile to

throw a life preserver to a man who has already drowned.

If I understand Paul, I hear him saying that God dives into

the water and pulls a dead man from the bottom of the sea

and then performs a divine act of mouth-to-mouth resus-

citation. He breathes into the dead man new life.

It is important to remember that regeneration has to do

with new life. It is called the new birth or being born

again. Much confusion exists about this matter The new

birth is closely linked in the Bible to the new life that is

ours in Christ. Just as in natural biology there can be no

116

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

life without birth, so in supernatural terms there can be no

new life without a new birth.

Birth and life are closely connected but they are not

exactly the same thing. Birth is the beginning of the new

life. It is a decisive moment. We understand that in normal

biological terms. Every year we celebrate our birthdays.

We are not like the queen in Alice in Wonderland who

celebrated all of her "unbirthdays." Birth is a one-time

experience. It may be celebrated but not repeated. It is a

decisive moment of transition. A person is either born or

not yet born.

So it is with spiritual rebirth. Rebirth produces new life.

It is the beginning of new life but it is not the total sum of

the new life. It is the crucial point of transition from

spiritual death to spiritual life. A person is never partially

born again. He is either regenerate or he is not regenerate.

The clear biblical teaching of regeneration is that it is

the work of God and the work of God alone. We cannot

cause ourselves to be reborn. The flesh cannot produce the

spirit. Regeneration is an act of creation. God does the

creating.

In theology we have a technical term that may be

helpful, monergism. It comes from two root words. Mono means "one." A monopoly is a business that has the market to itself. A monoplane is a single-winged aircraft. Erg,

you may, remember from grade school, refers to a unit of

work. We get the common word energy from it.

Putting the parts together, we get the meaning "one

working." When we say that regeneration is monergistic,

117

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

we mean that only one party is doing the work. That

party is God the Holy Spirit. He regenerates us; we

cannot do it ourselves or even help him with the task.

It may sound as if we are treating human beings like

puppets. Puppets are made of wood. They can make no

response. They are inert, lifeless. They are moved about

by strings. But we are not talking about puppets. We are

talking about humans who are spiritual corpses. These

humans do not have hearts made of sawdust; they are

made of stone. They are not manipulated by strings. They

are biologically alive. They act. They make decisions, but

never decisions for God.

When God regenerates a human soul, when he makes

us spiritually alive, we make choices. We believe. We have

faith. We cling to Christ. God does not believe for us.

Faith is not monergistic.

Earlier we talked about the plight of fallen man and the

status of his human will We affirmed that though he is

fallen he still has a free will in the sense that he can still

make choices. His problem, which we defined as moral

inability, is that he lacks a desire for Christ. He is indis-

posed and disinclined toward Christ. Unless or until man

is inclined to Christ he will never choose Christ. Unless he

first desires Christ, he will never receive Christ.

In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a

new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire fori

Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our

salvation unless we first desire him. This is why we said

earlier that regeneration precedes faith. Without rebirth

we have no desire for Christ. Without a desire for Christ

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

we will never choose Christ. Therefore we conclude that

before anyone ever will believe, before anyone can be-

lieve, God must first change the disposition of his heart.

When God regenerates us, it is an act of grace. Let us

look again at Ephesians 2: "But God, who is rich in mercy,

because of His great love with which He loved us, even

when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive. . . ."

I have a sign on my desk that was embroidered for me

by a woman in a church I once served. The sign reads

simply, "But." When Paul rehearses fallen man's spiritual

condition, it is enough to drive us to despair. Finally he

gets to the magic word that makes us breathe a sigh of

relief. But. Without it we are doomed to perish. The

"but" captures the essence of the good news.

Paul says, "But God, who is rich in mercy . . . " Notice

that he does not say, "But man, who is rich in goodness."

It is God alone who makes us alive. When does he do it?

Paul does not leave us to guess. He says, ". . . when we

were dead in trespasses." This is the amazing part of grace,

that it is given to us when we are spiritually dead.

Paul concludes that it is a matter of grace and not a

matter of works. His sterling summary is, "For by grace

you have been saved through faith, and that not of your-

selves, it is the gift of God." This passage should seal the

matter forever. The faith by which we are saved is a gift.

When the apostle says it is not of ourselves, he does not

mean that it is not our faith. Again, God does not do the

believing for us. It is our own faith but it does not origi-

nate with us. It is given to us. The gift is not earned or

deserved. It is a gift of sheer grace.

119

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

During the Protestant Reformation there were three

slogans that became famous. They are Latin phrases: sola

fide, sola gratia, and soli deo gloria. The three slogans belong together. They ought never to be divorced from

one another. They mean, "by faith alone," "by grace

alone," and "to God alone the glory."

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE?

Most Christians agree that God's work of regeneration is a

work of grace. The issue that divides us is whether or not

this grace is irresistible. Is it possible for a person to receive;

the grace of regeneration and still not come to faith?

The Calvinist answers with an emphatic "No!" but not

because he believes that God's saving grace is literally

irresistible. Again we run into a problem with -the old

acrostic TULIP We have already changed the tulip to

rulip and now we are going to have to change it some

more. N o w we will call it "rulep."

The term irresistible grace is misleading. Calvinists all

believe that men can and do resist the grace of God. The

question is, "Can the grace of regeneration fail to accom-

plish its purpose?" Remember that spiritually dead people

are still biologically alive. They still have a will that is

disinclined toward God. They will do everything in their

power to resist grace. The history of Israel is the history

of a hardhearted and stiff-necked people who resisted

God's grace repeatedly.

Gods grace is resistible in the sense that we can and do

resist it. It is irresistible in the sense that it achieves its

120

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

purpose. It brings about God's desired effect. T h u s I prefer

the term effectual grace.

We are speaking of the grace of regeneration. We re-

member that in regeneration God creates in us a desire for

himself. But when we have that desire planted in us, we

will continue to function as we always have functioned,

making our choices according to the strongest motivation

at the moment. If God gives us a desire for Christ we will

act according to that desire. We will most certainly choose

the object of that desire; we will choose Christ. W h e n

God makes us spiritually alive we become spiritually alive.

It is not merely the possibility of becoming spiritually

alive that God creates. He creates spiritual life within us.

W h e n he calls something into being, it comes into being.

We speak of the inward call of God. T h e inward call of

God is as powerful and effective as his call to create the

world. God did not invite the world into existence. By

divine mandate he called out, "Let there be light!" A n d

there was light. It could not have been otherwise. T h e

light had to begin to shine.

Could Lazarus have stayed in the tomb when Jesus

called him out? Jesus cried, "Lazarus, come forth!" T h e

man broke out of his grave clothes and came out of the

tomb. W h e n God creates, he exercises a power that only

God has. He alone has the power to bring something out

of nothing and life out of death.

Much confusion exists on this point. I remember the

first lecture I ever heard from John Gerstner. It was on

the subject of predestination. Shortly into bis lecture

Dr. Gerstner was interrupted by a student w h o was wav-

121

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

ing his hand in the air. Gerstner stopped and acknowl-

edged the student. The student asked, "Dr. Gerstner, is it

safe to assume that you are a Calvinist?" Gerstner an-

swered, "Yes," and resumed his lecture. A few moments

later a gleam of recognition appeared in Gerstner's eyes

and he stopped speaking in mid-sentence and asked the

student, "What is your definition of a Calvinist?"

The student replied, "A Calvinist is someone who be-

lieves that God forces some people to choose Christ and

prevents other people from choosing Christ." Gerstner

was horrified. He said, "If that is what a Calvinist is, the

you can be sure that I am not a Calvinist."

The student's misconception of irresistible grace is

widespread. I once heard the president of a Presbyterian

seminary declare, "I am not a Calvinist because I do not

believe that God brings some people, kicking and scream-

ing against their wills, into the kingdom, while he ex-

cludes others from his kingdom who desperately want to

be there."

I was astonished when I heard these words. I did not

think it possible that the president of a Presbyterian semi-

nary could have such a gross misconception of his own

church's theology. He was reciting a caricature which was

as far away from Calvinism as one could get.

Calvinism does not teach and never has taught that

God brings people kicking and screaming into the king-

dom or has ever excluded anyone who wanted to be there.

Remember that the cardinal point of the Reformed doc-

trine of predestination rests on the biblical teaching of

man's spiritual death. Natural man does not want Christ.

122

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

He will only want Christ if God plants a desire for Christ

in his heart. Once that desire is planted, those who come

to Christ do not come kicking and screaming against their

wills. T h e y come because they want to come. T h e y now

desire Jesus. T h e y rush to the Savior. T h e whole point of

irresistible grace is that rebirth quickens someone to spiri-

tual life in such a way that Jesus is now seen in his

irresistible sweetness. Jesus is irresistible to those who

have been made alive to the things of God. Every soul

whose heart beats with the life of God within it longs for

the living Christ. All w h o m the Father gives to Christ

come to Christ (John 6:37).

| T h e term "effectual grace" may help to avoid some

confusion. Effectual grace is grace that effects what God

desires.

H o w does this view differ from other non-Reformed

views of regeneration? T h e most popular alternate view

rests upon the concept of prevenient grace.

PREVENIENT GRACE

As the name suggests, prevenient grace is grace that

"comes before" something. It is normally defined as a

work that God does for everybody. He gives all people

enough grace to respond to Jesus. T h a t is, it is enough

grace to make it possible for people to choose Christ.

Those w h o cooperate with and assent to this grace are

"elect." Those w h o refuse to cooperate with this grace are lost.

T h e strength of this view is that it recognizes that fallen

123

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

man's spiritual condition is severe e n o u g h that it requires

God's grace t o save h i m . T h e w e a k n e s s o f the position

m a y be seen in t w o w a y s . If this prevenient grace is

m e r e l y external t o m a n , t h e n i t fails i n t h e same manner

that t h e medicine and t h e life preserver analogies fail.

W h a t g o o d is prevenient grace if offered o u t w a r d l y to

spiritually dead creatures?

On the other hand, if prevenient grace refers to s o m e -

t h i n g that G o d does w i t h i n t h e heart o f fallen m a n , t h e n w e m u s t ask w h y i t i s n o t a l w a y s effectual. W h y i s i t that s o m e fallen creatures choose to cooperate w i t h prevenient

grace and others c h o o s e n o t to? Doesn't e v e r y o n e get the

same amount?

T h i n k of it this way, in personal terms. If y o u are a

Christian y o u are surely aware of other people w h o are

not Christians. W h y i s i t t h a t y o u h a v e c h o s e n Christ and t h e y have not? W h y did y o u say y e s t o prevenient grace

w h i l e t h e y said no? W a s i t because y o u w e r e m o r e righ-

teous than t h e y w e r e ? I f so, t h e n indeed y o u h a v e s o m e -

t h i n g in w h i c h to boast. W a s that greater righteousness

s o m e t h i n g y o u achieved o n y o u r o w n o r w a s i t t h e gift o f G o d ? I f i t w a s s o m e t h i n g y o u achieved, t h e n a t t h e bott o m line y o u r salvation depends o n y o u r o w n righteous-

ness. If the righteousness w a s a gift, t h e n w h y didn't G o d

g i v e t h e same gift t o e v e r y b o d y ?

Perhaps i t wasn't because y o u w e r e m o r e righteous.

Perhaps i t w a s because y o u are m o r e intelligent. W h y are

y o u m o r e intelligent? Because y o u s t u d y m o r e ( w h i c h

really means ypu are m o r e righteous)? Or are y o u more

1 2 4

R E B I R T H A N D F A I T H

intelligent because God gave you a gift of intelligence he

withheld from others?

To be sure, most Christians who hold to the prevenient

grace view would shrink from such answers. T h e y see the

implied arrogance in them. Rather they are more likely to

say, "No, I chose Christ because I recognized my desperate

need for hurt."

That certainly sounds more humble. But I must press

the question. W h y did you recognize your desperate need

for Christ while your neighbor didn't? Was it because you

were more righteous than your neighbor, or more intelli-

gent?

T h e $64 question for advocates of prevenient grace is

w h y some people cooperate with it and others don't. H o w

we answer that will reveal how gracious we believe our

salvation really is.

T h e $64,000 question is, "Does the Bible teach such a

doctrine of prevenient grace? If so, where?"

We conclude that our salvation is of the Lord. He is the

One who regenerates us. Those whom he regenerates

come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever

come to Christ. W i t h regeneration no one will ever reject

him. God's saving grace effects what he intends to effect

by it.

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 5

1. Our salvation flows from a divine initiative. It is God the

Holy Spirit who sets the captives free. It is he who

125

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

breathes into us spiritual life and resurrects us from

spiritual death.

2. Our condition before we are quickened is one of spiritual

death. It is more severe than mere mortal illness. There is

not an ounce of spiritual life in us until God makes us

alive.

3. Without rebirth no one will come to Christ. All who are

reborn do come to Christ. Those who are dead to the

things of God stay dead to the things of God unless God

makes them alive. Those whom God makes alive, come

alive. Salvation is of the Lord.

126

C H A P T E R S I X

FOREKNOWLEDGE

AND

PREDESTINATION

126

HE VAST majority of Christians who reject

the Reformed view of predestination adopt

what is sometimes called the prescient or

foreknowledge (pre-science, prior knowl-

T edge) view of predestination. Briefly stated,

this view teaches that from all eternity God knew how

we would live. He knew in advance whether we would

receive Christ or reject Christ. He knew our free choices

before we ever made them. God's choice of our eternal

destiny then was made on the basis of what he knew we

would choose. He chooses us because he knows in ad-

vance that we will choose him. The elect, then, are those

who God knows will choose Christ freely.

In this understanding both the eternal decree of God

and the free choice of man are left intact. In this view

there is nothing arbitrary about God's decisions. There is

no talk here of being reduced to puppets or of having our

free wills violated. God is clearly absolved of any hint of

wrongdoing. The basis for our ultimate judgment rests

ultimately upon our decision for or against Christ.

There is much to commend this view of predestination.

It is quite satisfying and has the benefits mentioned above.

In addition it seems to have at least one strong biblical

warrant. If we turn our attention again to Paul's letter to

the Romans we read:

For -whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be

conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be

the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom

129

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

He predestined, these He also called; whom He called,

these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He

also glorified (Romans 8:29, 30).

This well-known passage in Romans has been called

the "Golden Chain of Salvation." We notice a kind of

order here that begins with God's foreknowledge and is

carried through to the glorification of the believer. It is

crucial to the foreknowledge view that in this text God's

foreknowledge comes before God's predestination.

I have great appreciation for the foreknowledge view of

predestination. I once held it before I surrendered to the

Reformed view. But I abandoned this view for several

reasons. Not least is that I have become convinced that the

foreknowledge view is not so much an explanation of the

biblical doctrine of predestination as it is a denial of the

biblical doctrine. It fails to include the whole counsel of

God on the matter.

Perhaps the greatest weakness of the foreknowledge

view is the text cited as its greatest strength. On closer

analysis, the passage in Romans cited above becomes a

serious problem for the foreknowledge view. On the one

hand those who appeal to it to support the foreknowledge

view find too little. That is, the passage teaches less than

the advocates of foreknowledge would like it to teach and

yet teaches more than they want it to teach.

H o w can this be? First, the conclusion that God's pre-

destination is determined by God's foreknowledge is not

taught by the passage. Paul does not come out and say that

God chooses people on the basis of his prior knowledge of

their choices. That idea is neither stated nor implied by

F

O

R

E

K

N

O

W

L

E

D

G

E

the text. All the text declares is that God predestines those

whom he foreknows. No one in this debate disputes that

God has foreknowledge. Even God could not choose

people he didn't know anything about. Before he could

choose Jacob he had to have some idea in his mind of

Jacob. But the text does not teach that God chose Jacob

on the basis of Jacob's choice.

In fairness it must be said that at least the order of

foreknowledge-predestinadon that we find in Romans 8 is

compatible with the foreknowledge view. It is the rest of

the passage that creates difficulty.

Note the order of events in the passage. Foreknowl-

edge—predestination—calling—justification—glorification.

The crucial problem here has to do with the relation-

ship of calling and justification. What does Paul mean here

by "calling"? The N e w Testament speaks of divine calling

in more than one way. In theology we distinguish be-

tween God's external call and God's internal call.

We find God's external call in the preaching of the

gospel. When the gospel is preached, everyone who hears

it is called or summoned to Christ. But not everyone

responds positively Not everyone who hears the outward

call of the gospel becomes a believer. Sometimes the gospel

call falls upon deaf ears.

N o w we know that only those who respond to the

outward call of the gospel in faith are justified. Justifica-

tion is by faith. But again, not everyone whose ears hear

the outward preaching of the gospel responds in faith.

Therefore we must conclude that not all who are called

outwardly are justified.

131

R C S P R O U L

But Paul says in Romans that those whom God calls, he

justifies. Now, we grant that the Bible does not explicitly

say that all those he calls he justifies. We are supplying the

word all. Perhaps we are as guilty of reading something

into the text that is not there as those who advocate the

foreknowledge view.

When we supply the word all here, we are responding

to an implication of the text. We are making an inference.

Is it a legitimate inference to make? I think it is.

If Paul does not mean that all who are called are justi-

fied, the only alternative would be that some who are

called are justified. If we supply the word some instead of

the word all here, then we must supply it throughout the

Golden Chain. Then it would read like this:

Some of those he foreknew, he also predestined. Some of

those he predestined, he also called. Some of those he

called, these he also justified. Some of those he justified,

he also glorified.

This reading of the text leaves us with a theological

monstrosity, a nightmare. It would mean that only some

of the predestined ever hear the gospel and that only some

of the justified are ultimately saved. These notions are

utterly in conflict with what the rest of the Bible teaches

on these matters.

Yet the foreknowledge view suffers an even bigger

problem from the supplying of the word some. If Gods

predestination is based on his foreknowledge of how

people will respond to the outward call of the gospel, how

is it that only some of the predestined are even called? It

would demand that God predestines some who are not

1 3 2

F

O

R

E

K

N

O

W

L

E

D

G

E

called. If some of the predestined are predestined without

being called, then God would not be basing his predestina-

tion on a prior knowledge of their response to his call.

They could have no response to a call they never receive!

God cannot have foreknowledge of a person's non-answer

to a non-call.

Whew! If we follow all of that, then we will see the

conclusion screaming at us. Paul cannot be implying the

word some. Rather, the Golden Chain necessarily implies

the word all.

Let's review the bidding. If we supply the word some

to the Golden Chain the result is fatal to the foreknowl-

edge view of predestination because it would have God

predestinating some people who are not called. Since the

view teaches that God's predestination is based upon God's

foreknowledge of people's positive responses to the call of

the gospel, then clearly the view collapses if some are

predestined without a call.

The supplying of the word all is equally fatal to the

foreknowledge view. This difficulty centers on the rela-

tionship of calling to justification. If all who are called are

justified, then the passage could mean one of two things:

(A) All who hear the gospel outwardly are justified; or

(B) All who are called by God inwardly are justified.

If we answer with option A, then the conclusion we

must reach is that everyone who ever hears the gospel is

predestined to be saved. Of course the vast majority of

those who hold the foreknowledge view of predestination

also hold that not everyone who hears the gospel is saved.

Some are universalists. They believe that everyone will be

133

R C S P R O U L

saved, whether they hear the gospel or not. But we must

remember that the chief debate among evangelicals over

predestination is not over the question of universalism.

Both advocates of the Reformed view of predestination

and advocates of the foreknowledge view agree that not

everyone is saved. They agree that in fact there are people

who hear the gospel outwardly (the external call of God)

who do not respond in faith and who therefore are not

justified. Option A is as repugnant to the advocates of the

foreknowledge view as it is to the advocates of the Re-

formed view.

That leaves us with option B: all who are called in-

wardly by God are justified. What is the inward call of

God? The outward call refers to the preaching of the

gospel. Preaching is something that we do as human

beings. The outward call can also be "heard* by reading

the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God, but it comes to

us in documents penned by human beings. In that sense it

is external. No human being has the power to work

inwardly on another human being. I cannot get inside a

person's heart to work an immediate influence there. I can

speak words which are outward. Those words may pene-

trate the heart, but I cannot make that happen by my

own power. Only God can call a person inwardly. Only

God can work immediately within the deepest chambers

of the human heart to influence a positive response of

faith.

So if option B is what the apostle means, then the

implications are clear. If all whom God calls inwardly are

justified and all whom God predestines are called inwardly

134

F

O

R

E

K

N

O

W

L

E

D

G

E

then it follows that God's foreknowledge concerns more

than a mere prior awareness of the free decisions humans

will make. To be sure, God does know from all eternity

who will respond to the gospel and who will not. But

such knowledge is not that of a mere passive observer.

God knows from eternity whom he will inwardly call.

All whom he inwardly calls he will also justify.

I said earlier that the Golden Chain teaches more than

the foreknowledge view wants it to teach It teaches that

God predestines an inward call. All whom God predes-

tines to be called inwardly will be justified. God is here

doing something in the hearts of the elect to insure their

positive response.

If option B is the correct understanding of the Golden

Chain, then it is clear that God gives one kind of call to

some people that he does not give to everyone. Since all

who are called are justified and since not everyone is

justified, then it follows that calling is a rather significant

divine activity that some human beings receive and others

do not.

N o w we are forced back to a serious question not

unlike our original question. W h y is it that some are

predestined to receive this call of God and others are not?

Does the answer lie in man or in the purposes of God? An

advocate of the foreknowledge view would have to an-

swer that the reason God calls only some people inwardly

is that he knows in advance who will respond positively

to the inward call and who will not. Therefore he doesn't

waste the inward call, he only gives it to those whom he

knows will respond favorably to it.

134

135

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

H o w much power is there in God's inward call? Is

there any advantage to receiving it? If it is only given to

those whom God knows will respond to it in their own

power it would seem to be an inward influence without

any real influence. If it does have any influence on the

person who hears the outward call, then God is predesti-

nating an advantage to some that he is withholding from

others. If it has no influence on the human decision, then

it is simply not an influence at all. If it is not an influence

at all, then it is insignificant to salvation and a meaningless

part of the Golden Chain.

It is crucial to remember that the inward call of God is

given to people before they believe, before they respond in faith. If it influences the response in any w a y then God is

predestinating an advantage to the elect. If it does not

influence the human decision, then what does it do? This

dilemma is painful to the foreknowledge view, painful

beyond relief.

T H E REFORMED VIEW OF PREDESTINATION

In contrast with the foreknowledge view of predestina-

don, the Reformed view asserts that the ultimate decision

for salvation rests with God and not with man. It teaches

that from all eternity God has chosen to intervene in the

lives of some people and bring them to saving faith and has

chosen not to do that for other people. From all eternity,

without any prior view of our human behavior, God has

chosen some unto election and others unto reprobation.

T h e ultimate destiny of the individual is decided by God

136

F

O

R

E

K

N

O

W

L

E

D

G

E

before that individual is even born and without depending

ultimately upon the human choice. To be sure, a human

choice is made, a free human choice, but the choice is

made because God first chooses to influence the elect to

make the right choice. The basis for God's choice does not

rest in man but solely in the good pleasure of the divine

will.

In the Reformed view of predestination God's choice

precedes man's choice. We choose him only because he has

first chosen us. Without divine predestination and with-

out the divine inward call the Reformed view holds that

nobody would ever choose Christ.

This is the view of predestination that rankles so many

Christians. This is the view that raises serious questions

about man's free will and about God's fairness. This is the

view that provokes so many angry responses and charges

of fatalism, determinism, and so on.

The Reformed view of predestination understands the

Golden Chain as follows: From all eternity God foreknew

his elect. He had an idea of their identities in his mind

before he ever created them. He not only foreknew them

in the sense of having a prior idea of their personal identi-

ties, but he also foreknew them in the sense of foreloving

them. We must remember that when the Bible speaks of

"knowing" it often distinguishes between a simple mental

awareness of a person and a deep intimate love of the

person.

The Reformed view believes that all whom God has

thus foreknown he has also predestined to be inwardly

called, to be justified, and to be glorified. God sovereignly

137

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

brings to pass the salvation of his elect and only of his

elect.

SUMMARY OF C H A P T E R 6

1. Foreknowledge is not a valid explanation of predestination.

2. It makes redemption ultimately a human work.

3. Predestination is sidestepped and rendered virtually empty

of significance.

4. The Golden Chain shows that our justification depends

upon God's calling.

5. God's calling rests upon a prior predestination.

6. Without predestination there is no justification.

7. It is not our future choices, however, that induce God to

choose us.

8. It is God's sovereign decision on our behalf.

138

C H A P T E R S E V E N

D O U B L E ,

D O U B L E ,

T O I L

A N D

T R O U B L E :

I S

P R E D E S T I N A T I O N

D O U B L E ?

D OUBLE predestination. The very words

sound ominous. It is one thing to contem-

plate God's gracious plan of salvation for

the elect. But what about those who are

not elect? Are they also predestined? Is

there a horrible decree of reprobation? Does God destine

some unfortunate people to hell?

These questions immediately come to the fore as soon

as double predestination is mentioned. Such questions

make some declare the concept of double predestination

out of bounds. Others, while believing in predestination,

declare emphatically that they believe in single predestina-

tion. That is, while believing that some are predestined to

salvation, there is no need to suppose that others are like-

wise predestined to damnation. In short, the idea is that

some are predestined to salvation, but everyone has an

opportunity to be saved. God makes sure that some make

it by providing extra help, but the rest of mankind still has

a chance.

Though there is strong sentiment to speak of single

predestination only and to avoid any discussion of double

predestination, we must still face the questions on the

table. Unless we conclude that every human being is

predestined to salvation, we must face the flip side of

election. If there is such a thing as predestination at all, and

if that predestination does not include all people, then we

must not shrink from the necessary inference that there

are two sides to predestination. It is not enough to talk

about Jacob; we must also consider Esau.

141

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

EQUAL ULTIMACY

There are different views of double predestination. One of

these is so frightening that many shun the term altogether,

lest their view of the doctrine be confused with the scary

one. This is called the equal ultimacy view.

Equal ultimacy is based on a concept of symmetry. It

seeks a complete balance between election and reproba-

tion. The key idea is this: Just as God intervenes in the

lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so God

equally intervenes in the lives of the reprobate to create or

work unbelief in their hearts. The idea of God's actively

working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn

from biblical statements about God hardening people's

hearts.

Equal ultimacy is not the Reformed or Calvinist view

of predestination. Some have called it "hyper-Calvinism." I

prefer to call it "sub-Calvinism" or, better yet, "anti-Cal-

vinism.'' Though Calvinism certainly has a view of double

predestination, the double predestination it embraces is not

one of equal ultimacy.

To understand the Reformed view of the matter we

must pay close attention to the crucial distinction between

positive and negative decrees of God. Positive has to do with God's active intervention in the hearts of the elect.

Negative has to do with God's passing over the non-elect.

The Reformed view teaches that God positively or

actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their

salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves.

He does not create unbelief in their hearts. That unbelief

is already there. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin

142

I S P R E D E S T I N A T I O N D O U B L E ?

by their own choices. In the Calvinist view the decree of

election is positive; the decree of reprobation is negative.

Hyper-Calvinism's view of double predestination may

be called positive-positive predestination. Orthodox Cal-

vinism's view may be called positive-negative predestina-

tion. Let us view it in chart form:

CALVINISM

HYPER-CALVINISM

positive-negative

positive-positive

asymmetrical view

symmetrical view

unequal ultimacy

equal ultimacy

God passes over the

God works unbelief in the

reprobate

hearts of the reprobate

The dreadful error of hyper-Calvinism is that it involves

God in coercing sin. This does radical violence to the

integrity of God's character.

The primary biblical example that might tempt one

toward hyper-Calvinism is the case of Pharaoh. Repeated-

ly we read in the Exodus account that God hardened

Pharaoh's heart. God told Moses ahead of time that he

would do this:

You shall speak all that I command you. And Aaron

your brother shall speak to Pharaoh, that he must send

the children of Israel out of his land. And I -will harden

Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My

wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh will not

heed you, so that I may lay My hand on Egypt and

bring My armies and My people, the children of Israel,

143

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. And the

Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I

stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the

children of Israel from among them (Exodus 7:2-5).

The Bible clearly teaches that God did, in fact, harden

Pharaoh's heart. N o w we know that God did this for his

own glory and as a sign to both Israel and Egypt. We

know that God's purpose in all of this was a redemptive

purpose. But we are still left with a nagging problem. God

hardened Pharaoh's heart and then judged Pharaoh for his

sin. H o w can God hold Pharaoh or anyone else account-

able for sin that flows out of a heart that God himself

hardened?

Our answer to that question will depend on how we

understand God's act of hardening. H o w did he harden

Pharaoh's heart? The Bible does not answer that question

explicitly. As we think about it, we realize that basically

there are only two ways he could have hardened Pha-

raoh's heart: actively or passively

Active hardening would involve God's direct interven-

tion within the inner chambers of Pharaoh's heart. God

would intrude into Pharaoh's heart and create fresh evil in

it. This would certainly insure that Pharaoh would bring

forth the result that God was looking for. It would also

insure that God is the author of sin.

Passive hardening is a totally different story. Passive

hardening involves a divine judgment upon sin that is

already present. All that God needs to do to harden the

heart of a person whose heart is already desperately

wicked is to "give him over to his sin." We find this

144

I S P R E D E S T I N A T I O N D O U B L E ?

concept of divine judgment repeatedly in Scripture.

H o w does this work? To understand it properly we

must first look briefly at another concept, God's common

grace. This refers to that grace of God that all men com-

monly enjoy. The rain that refreshes the earth and waters

our crops falls upon the just and the unjust alike. The

unjust certainly do not deserve such benefits, but they

enjoy them anyway. So it is with sunshine and rainbows.

Our world is a theater of common grace.

One of the most important elements of common grace

we enjoy is the restraint of evil in the world. That re-

straint flows from many sources. Evil is restrained by

policemen, laws, public opinion, balances of power, and so

on. Though the world we live in is filled with wickedness,

it is not as wicked as it possibly could be. God uses the

means mentioned above as well as other means to keep

evil in check. By his grace he controls and bridles the

amount of evil in this world. If evil were left totally

unchecked, then life on this planet would be impossible.

All that God has to do to harden people's hearts is to

remove the restraints. He gives them a longer leash. Rath-

er than restricting their human freedom, he increases it.

He lets them have their own way. In a sense he gives

them enough rope to hang themselves. It is not that God

puts his hand on them to create fresh evil in their hearts;

he merely removes his holy hand of restraint from them

and lets them do their own will.

If we were to determine the most wicked, the most

diabolical men of human history, certain names would

appear on almost everyone's list. We would see the names

145

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

of Hitler, Nero, Stalin, arid others who have been guilty of

mass murder and other atrocities. What do these people

have in common? They were all dictators. They all had

virtually unlimited power and authority within the sphere

of their domains.

W h y do we say that power corrupts and absolute

power corrupts absolutely? (We know that this has no

reference to God but only to the power and corruption of

men.) Power corrupts precisely because it raises a person

above the normal restraints that restrict the rest of us. I

am restrained by conflicts of interest with people who are

as powerful or more powerful than I am. We learn early

in life to restrict our belligerence toward those who are

bigger than we are. We tend to enter into conflicts selec-

tively. Discretion tends to take over from valor when our

opponents are more powerful than we.

Pharaoh was the most powerful man in the world

when Moses went to see him. About the only restraint

there was on Pharaoh's wickedness was the holy arm of

God. All God had to do to harden Pharaoh further was to

remove his arm. The evil inclinations of Pharaoh did the

rest.

In the act of passive hardening, God makes a decision to

remove the restraints; the wicked part of the process is

done by Pharaoh himself. God does no violence to Pha-

raoh's will. As we said, he merely gives Pharaoh more

freedom.

We see the same kind of thing in the case of Judas and

with the wicked men whom God and Satan used to afflict

Job. Judas was not a poor innocent victim of divine ma-

146

I S P R E D E S T I N A T I O N D O U B L E ?

nipulation. He was not a righteous man whom God

forced to betray Christ and then punished for the betrayal.

Judas betrayed Christ because Judas wanted thirty pieces

of silver. As the Scriptures declare, Judas was a son of

perdition from the beginning.

To be sure, God uses the evil inclinations and evil

intentions of fallen men to bring about his own redemp-

tive purposes. Without Judas there is no Cross. Without

the cross there is no redemption. But this is not a case of

God coercing evil. Rather it is a glorious case of God's

redemptive triumph over evil. The evil desires of men's

hearts cannot thwart God's sovereignty. Indeed they are

subject to it.

When we study the pattern of God's punishment of

wicked men we see a kind of poetic justice emerging. In

the final judgment scene of the Book of Revelation we

read the following:

He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is

filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him

be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still

(Revelation 22:11).

In God's ultimate act of judgment he gives sinners over

to their sins. In effect, he abandons them to their own

desires. So it was with Pharaoh. By this act of judgment,

God did not blemish his own righteousness by creating

fresh evil in Pharaoh's heart. He established his own righ-

teousness by punishing the evil that was already there in

Pharaoh.

This is how we must understand double predestination.

God gives mercy to the elect by working faith in their

147

R C S P R O U L

hearts. He gives justice to the reprobate by leaving them

in their own sins. There is no symmetry here. One group

receives mercy The other group receives justice. No one

is a victim of injustice. None can complain that there is

unrighteousness in God.

ROMANS 9

The most significant passage in the N e w Testament that

concerns double predestination is found in Romans 9.

For this is the -word of promise: "At this time I -will

come and Sarah shall have a son." And not only this,

but -when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even

by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born,

nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of

God according to election might stand, not of works

but of him who calls), it was said to her, "The older

shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have

loved, but Esau I have hated."

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness

with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will

have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will

have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who

runs, but of God who shows mercy For the Scripture

says to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose I have

raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and

that My name might be declared in all the earth."

Therefore He has mercy on whom be wills, and whom

he wills He hardens (Romans 9:9-18).

In this passage we have the clearest biblical expression

we can find for the concept of double predestination. It is

I S P R E D E S T I N A T I O N D O U B L E ?

stated without reservation and without ambiguity. "There-

fore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills

He hardens." Some people get mercy others get justice. The

decision for this is in the hand of God.

Paul illustrates the double character of predestination by

his reference to Jacob and Esau. These two men were

twin brothers. They were carried in the same womb at

the same time. One received the blessing of God and one

did not. One received a special portion of the love of God,

the other did not. Esau was "hated" by God.

The divine hatred mentioned here is not an expression

of an insidious attitude of malice. It is what David earlier

called a "holy hatred" (Psalm 139:22). Divine hatred is not

malicious. It involves a withholding of favor. God is "for"

those whom he loves. He turns his face against those

wicked people w h o are not the objects of his special re-

demptive favor Those whom he loves receive his mercy.

Those whom he "hates" receive his justice. Again, no one

is treated unjustly

W h y did God choose Jacob and not Esau? Did God

foresee in Jacob some righteous act that would justify this

special favor? Did God look down the corridors of time

and see Jacob making the right choice and Esau making

the wrong choice?

If this is what the apostle intended to teach, it would

not have been difficult to make the point clear. Here was

Paul's golden opportunity to teach a foreknowledge view

of predestination, had he wanted to. It seems strange in-

deed that he does not take such an opportunity. But this is

no argument from silence. Paul does not remain mute on

149

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

the subject. He labors the opposite point. He emphasizes

the fact that God's decision was made before the birth of

these twins and without a view to their future actions.

Paul's phrase in verse 11 is crucial. T o r the children not

yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the

purpose of God according to election might stand, not of

works but of Him who calls." W h y does the apostle say

this? The accent here is clearly on the work of God. It

emphatically denies that election is a result of the work of

man, foreseen or otherwise. It is the purpose of God

according to his election that is in view here.

If Paul meant that election is based on some foreknown

human decision, why did he not say so? Instead he de-

clares that the decree was made before the children were

bom and before they had done any good or evil. N o w we

grant that a foreknowledge view of predestination realizes

that the divine decree was made prior to birth. But that

view insists that God's decision was based on his knowl-

edge of future choices. W h y doesn't Paul make that point

here? All he says is that the decree was made before birth

and before Jacob and Esau had done any good or evil.

We grant that in this passage Paid does not come right

out and say that God's decision was not based on their

future good or evil But he did not need to say that. The

implication is clear in light of what he does say. He places

the accent where it belongs, on the purpose of God and

not on the work of man. The burden here is on those who

want to add the crucial qualifying notion of foreseen

choices. The Bible doesn't add it here or anywhere.

150

I S P R E D E S T I N A T I O N D O U B L E ?

T h e point is this: If Paul believed that God's predestina-

tion was based on foreseen human choices, this was the

context in which to spell it out.

We must go a step further. Though Paul is silent about

the question of future choices here, he does not remain so.

In verse 16 he makes it clear. "So then it is not of him who

wills, nor of him w h o runs, but of God who shows

mercy." This is the coup de grace to Arminianism and all

other non-Reformed views of predestination. This is the

Word of God that requires all Christians to cease and

desist from views of predestination that make the ultimate

decision for salvation rest in the will of man. T h e apostle

declares: It is not of him w h o wills. T h e non-Reformed

views must say that it is of him who wills. This is in

violent contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. This

one verse is absolutely fatal to Arminianism.

It is our duty to honor God. We must confess with the

apostle that our election is not based on our wills but on

the purposes of the will of God.

Paul raises two rhetorical questions in this passage that

we must consider. T h e first is, "What shall we say then?

Is there unrighteousness in God?" W h y does Paul antici-

pate this question? No one raises that question to an Ar-

minian. If our election is ultimately based on human

decisions, there is no need to raise such an objection.

It is to the biblical doctrine of predestination that this

question is raised. It is to predestination based on God's

sovereign purpose, on his decision without a view to Ja-

cob or Esau's choices, that prompts the outcry, "God is not

151

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

fair!" But the outcry is based on a superficial understand-

ing of the matter. It is the protest of fallen man complain-

ing that God is not gracious enough.

H o w does Paul answer the question? He is not satisfied

by merely saying, "No, there is no unrighteousness in

God." Rather, his answer is as emphatic as he can make it.

He says, "Certainly n o t " or "God forbid!" depending on

the translation you are reading.

T h e second objection Paul anticipates is this: "You will

say to me then, W h y does He still find fault? For w h o

has resisted His will?'" Again we wonder w h y the apostle

anticipates this objection. T h i s is another objection never

raised against Arminianism. Non-Reformed views of pre-

destination don't have to worry about handling questions

like this. God would obviously find fault with people

whom he knew would not choose Christ. If the ultimate

basis for salvation rests in the power of human choice,

then the blame is easily fixed and Paul would not have to

wrestle with this anticipated objection. But he wrestles

with it because the biblical doctrine of predestination de-

mands that he wrestle with it.

H o w does Paul answer this question? Let us examine

his reply:

But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?

Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why

have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have

power over the clay, from the same lump to make one

vessel for honor and the other for dishonor? What if

God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His

power known, endured with much longsuffering the

vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He

152

I S P R E D E S T I N A T I O N D O U B L E ?

might make known the riches of His glory on the

vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for

glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only,

but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9:20-24).

This is a heavy answer to the question. I must confess

that I struggle with it. My struggle, however, is not over

whether the passage teaches double predestination. It

clearly does that. My struggle is with the fact that this

text supplies ammunition for the advocates of equal ulti-

macy It sounds like God is actively making people sinners.

But that is not required by the text. He does make vessels

of wrath and vessels of honor from the same lump of clay.

But if we look closely at the text we will see that the clay

with which the potter works is "fallen" clay One batch of

clay receives mercy in order to become vessels of honor.

That mercy presupposes a clay that is already guilty. Like-

wise God must "endure" the vessels of wrath that are fit

for destruction because they are guilty vessels of wrath.

Again the accent in this passage is on God's sovereign

purpose and not upon mans free and good choices. The

same assumptions are operating here that are operating in

the first question.

T H E ARMINIAN REPLY

Some Arminians will reply to my treatment of this text

with indignation. They agree that the passage teaches a

strong view of divine sovereignty. Their objection will

focus at another point. They will insist that Paul is not

even talking about the predestination of individuals in

153

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

Romans 9. Romans 9 is not about individuals but about

God's electing of nations. Paul is here talking about Israel

as God's chosen people. Jacob merely represents the nation

Israel. His very name was changed to Israel and his sons

became the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel.

That God favored Israel over other nations is not in

dispute. It was out of Israel that Jesus came. It was out of

Israel that we received the Ten Commandments and the

promises of the covenant with Abraham. We know that

salvation is of the Jews.

T h a t much is indeed true of Romans 9. We must

consider, however, that in the electing of a nation God

elected individuals. Nations are made up of individuals.

Jacob was an individual. Esau was an individual. Here we

see clearly that God sovereignly elected individuals as well

as a nation. We must hasten to add that Paul extends this

treatment of election beyond Israel in verse 24 when he

declares: "even us whom He called, not of the Jews only

but also of the Gentiles."

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

Let us return for a moment to our famous acrostic, T U -

LIP We have already quarreled with the T and the I and

changed it to R U L E P Though I prefer the term sover-

eign election to unconditional election, I will not damage the acrostic further. If we changed it to RSLEP it

wouldn't even rhyme with TULIP.

Unconditional election means that our election is de-

cided by God according to his purpose, according to his

1S4

I S P R E D E S T I N A T I O N D O U B L E ?

sovereign will. It is not based upon some foreseen condi-

tion that some of us meet and others fad to meet. It is not

based on our willing or on our running, but upon the

sovereign purpose of God.

The term unconditional election-can be misleading and

grossly abused. I once met a man who never darkened the

door of a church and who showed no evidence of being a

Christian. He made no profession of faith and was engaged

in no Christian activity. He told me that he believed in

unconditional election. He was confident that he was

elect. He did not have to trust Christ, he did not have to

repent, he did not have to be obedient to Christ. He

declared that he was elect and that was enough. No fur-

ther conditions for salvation were necessary for him. He

was, in his opinion, saved, sanctified, satisfied, and Sanfor-

ized.

We must be careful to distinguish between conditions

that are necessary for salvation and conditions that are

necessary for election. We often speak of election and

salvation as if they were synonymous, but they are not

exactly the same thing. Election is unto salvation. Salva-

tion in its fullest sense is the complete work of redemption

that God accomplishes in us.

There are all sorts of conditions that must be met for

someone to be saved. Chief among them is that we must

have faith in Christ. Justification is by faith. Faith is a

necessary requirement. To be sure, the Reformed doctrine

of predestination teaches that all the elect are indeed

brought to faith. God insures that the conditions necessary

for salvation are met.

1 5 5

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

When we say that election is Unconditional we mean

that the original decree of God by which he chooses some

people to be saved is not dependent upon some future

condition in us that God foresees. There is nothing in us

that God could foresee that would induce him to choose

us. The only thing he would foresee in the lives of fallen

creatures left to themselves would be sin. God chooses us

simply according to the good pleasure of his will.

IS GOD ARBITRARY?

That God chooses us not because of what he finds in us,

but according to his own good pleasure, gives rise to the

charge that this makes God arbitrary. It suggests that God

makes his selection in a whimsical or capricious manner. It

seems like our election is the result of a blind and frivolous

lottery. If we are elect, then it is only because we are

lucky. God pulled our names out of a celestial hat.

To be arbitrary is to do something for no reason. Now,

it is clear that there is no reason found in us for God to

choose us. But that is not the same as saying that God has

no reason in himself. God doesn't do anything without a

reason. He is not capricious or whimsical. God is as sober

as he is sovereign.

A lottery is intentionally left up to chance. God does

not operate by chance. He knew whom he would select.

He foreknew and foreloved his elect. It was not a blind

draw because God is not blind. Yet we still must insist

that it was nothing that he foreknew, foresaw, or foreloved

in us that was the decisive reason for his choice.

156

I S P R E D E S T I N A T I O N D O U B L E ?

Calvinists do not generally like to speak of luck, instead

of wishing people "good luck," we prefer to say "Provi-

dential blessings." Yet if we were to speak of our "lucky day," we would mark that day in eternity when God

decided to choose us.

Let us turn our attention to Paul's teaching on this

matter in Ephesians:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

who has blessed us -with every spiritual blessing in the

heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him

before the foundation of the world, that we should be

holy and without blame before Him in love, having

predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to

Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to

the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has

made us accepted in the Beloved (Ephesians 1:3-6).

According to the good pleasure of his will. This is the

apostolic statement that seems to suggest divine arbitrari-

ness. The chief culprit is the word pleasure. In our vo-

cabulary the word pleasure is often charged with the

meaning of wild, reckless abandon. Pleasure is that which

feels good, something that has sensual and emotional over-

tones. We are aware of vices that bring wicked pleasure to

us.

When the Bible speaks of God's pleasure, the term is

not used in such a frivolous manner. Here pleasure means

simply "that which is pleasing." God predestines us ac-

cording to what pleases him. The Bible speaks of God's

good pleasure. God's good pleasure must never be mistak-

en for an evil pleasure. What pleases God is goodness.

157

lost. God sent him into the world not only to make our

salvation possible, but to make it sure. Christ has not died

in vain. His sheep are saved through his sinless life and his

atoning death. There is nothing arbitrary in that.

SUMMARY OF C H A P T E R 7

1. Not all men are predestined to salvation.

2. There are two aspects or sides to the question. There are

those who are elect and those who are not elect.

3. Predestination is "double,"

4. We must be careful not to think in terms of equal ultimacy.

5. God does not create sin in the hearts of sinners.

6. T h e elect receive mercy T h e non-elect receive justice.

7. No one receives injustice at the hands of God.

8. Gods "hardening of hearts" is itself a just punishment for sin that is already present.

9. God's choice of the elect is sovereign,but not arbitrary.

10. All of Gods decisions flow from his holy character.

C H A P T E R E I G H T

CAN

WE

K N O W

THAT

WE

ARE

SAVED?

160

HE MINISTRY of Evangelism Explosion

keys its presentation of the gospel upon two

crucial questions. The first is, "Have you

come to the place in your spiritual life where

T you know for sure that when you die you

will go to heaven?" Experienced workers say the vast

majority of people answer this question in the negative.

Most people are not sure of their future salvation. Many, if

not most, raise serious doubts about whether such assur-

ance is even possible.

When I was in seminary, a poll was taken of my class-

mates. Of that particular group of seminarians approxi-

mately 90 percent said that they were not sure of their

salvation. Many expressed anger at the question, seeing in

it a kind of implied presumptuousness. It seems arrogant

to some people even to talk about assurance of salvation.

To be sure, stating our assurance of salvation may be an

act of arrogance. If our confidence in our salvation rests in

a confidence in ourselves, it is an act of arrogance. If we

are sure we are going to heaven because we think we

deserve to go to heaven, then it is unspeakably arrogant.

With respect to the assurance of salvation there are

basically four kinds of people in the world. (1) There are

people who are not saved who know that they are not

saved. (2) There are people who are saved who do not

know that they are saved. (3) There are people who are

saved who know that they are saved. (4) There are people

who are not saved who "know" that they are saved.

It is the last group that throws a monkey wrench into

163

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

the works. If there are people who are not saved w h o

"know" that they are saved, how can the people who are

saved know that they really are saved?

To answer that question we must first ask another

question. W h y do some people have a false assurance of

their salvation? Actually it is relatively easy. False assur-

ance stems chiefly from false undemanding of what salva-

tion requires or entails.

Suppose, for example, that a person is a universalist. He

believes that everybody is saved. If that premise is correct,

then the rest of his logical deduction is easy. His reasoning

goes like this:

Everybody is saved.

I am a body

Therefore I am saved.

Universalism is far more prevalent than many of us

realize. When my son was five years old I asked him the

two questions from Evangelism Explosion. He answered

the first question in the affirmative. He was sure that

when he died he would go to heaven. I proceeded then to]

the second question. If you were to die tonight and God

said to you, ' W h y should I let you into my heaven?'

What would you answer?" My son did not hesitate. He

answered immediately, "Because I'm dead!"

By the time my son was five years old he already had

received a message loud and clear. The message was that

everyone who dies goes to heaven. His doctrine of justifi-

cation was not justification by faith alone. It was not even

justification by works, or a combination of faith and

works. His doctrine was much simpler; he believed in

164

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

justification by death. He had a false assurance of his

salvation.

If universalism is widespread in our culture, so is the

concept of justification by works. In a statistical survey of

over a thousand people who were asked the same question

I asked my son, over 80 percent of them gave an answer

that involved some sort of "works righteousness." People

said things like, 1 have gone to church for thirty years," "I

have perfect attendance in Sunday school," or "I have

never done any serious harm to anybody."

I learned one thing clearly in my experience in evangel-

ism: The message of justification by faith alone has not

penetrated our culture. Multitudes of people are resting

their hopes for heaven on their own good works. They

are quite willing to admit that they are not perfect, but

they assume that they are good enough. They have done

"their best" and that, they tragically assume, is good

enough for God.

I remember a student protesting to John Gerstner

about a grade he received on a term paper. He punctuated

his complaint by saying, "Dr. Gerstner, I did my best."

Gerstner looked at him and said softly, "Young man, you

have never done your best."

Surely we do not believe that we have done our best. If

we review our performance for the last twenty-four hours

we will know that we have not done our best. It is not

necessary to review our entire lives to see how specious

such a statement is.

Yet even if we granted what we never in fact would

grant, that people do their best, we know that even that is

165

R C S P R O U L

not good enough. God requires perfection to get into his

heaven. We either find that perfection in ourselves or we

find it somewhere else, in someone else. If we think we

can find it in ourselves, we delude ourselves and the truth

is not in us.

We see then that it is quite easy to have a false sense of

security about our salvation. But what if we do have a

proper understanding of what salvation requires, does that

guarantee that we will avoid a false assurance of salvation?

By no means. The devil himself knows what is required

for salvation. He knows who the Savior is. He under-

stands the intellectual part of salvation better than we do.

But he does not put his personal trust in Christ for his

salvation. He hates the Jesus who is the Savior.

We can have a proper understanding of what salvation

is and still delude ourselves about whether or not we meet

the requirements of salvation. We may think that we have

faith when in fact we have no faith. We may think that

we are believing in Christ but the Christ we embrace is

not the biblical Christ. We may think that we love God

but the God we love is an idol.

Do we love a God who is sovereign? Do we love a God

who sends people to hell? Do we love a God who de-

mands absolute obedience? Do we love a Christ who will

say to some on the last day, "Depart from me, I never

knew you"? I am not asking whether we love this God

and this Christ perfectly; I am asking whether we love

this God and this Christ at all.

One of my all-time favorite anecdotes is told by Dr.

James Montgomery Boice. Dr. Boice tells of a mountain

166

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

climber who slipped from his moorings and was about to

plunge thousands of feet to bis death. In panic he grabbed

a scrawny bush that was growing out of a rock on the side

of the mountain. It momentarily broke his fall, but it was

slowly coming out of its place by the roots. The climber

looked to heaven and cried, "Is there anybody up there

who can help me?" A deep bass voice was heard from the

sky "Yes, I will help you. Trust me. Let go of the bush."

The climber looked into the cavern below and cried once

more, Is there anyone else up there who can help me?"

It is possible that the God we believe in is "someone

else." I have often spoken to staff persons associated with

Young Life, the ministry that has an outstanding mission

to teenagers. The strength of Young Life is at the same

time its greatest danger. Young Life has a frighteningly

high rate of youngsters who make professions of faith and

later repudiate that profession.

Young Life has done an outstanding job of relating to

teenagers. They are masters at making the gospel attrac-

tive. The danger is, however, that Young Life is so attrac-

tive, so neat, that young people can be converted to Young

Life and never deal with the biblical Christ That in no

way is intended as a criticism of Young Life. I am not

suggesting that we should therefore seek to make the

gospel unattractive. We do enough of that already. It is

only to point out what we all must be reminded of, that

people can respond to us, or to our group, as a substitute

for Christ, and thereby gain a false assurance of salvation.

From a biblical standpoint we must realize that it is still

not only possible for us to have a genuine assurance of our

167

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

salvation, but that it is our duty to seek such assurance. If

assurance is possible and if it is commanded, it is not

arrogant to seek it. It is arrogant not to seek it.

The Apostle Peter writes:

Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your

calling and election sure, for if you do these things you

will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied

to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:10, 11).

Here we see the mandate to make our election sure. To

do so requires diligence. We have a pastoral concern here.

Peter links assurance with freedom from stumbling. One

of the most important factors that contribute to a Chris-

tians spiritual growth, a consistent spiritual growth, is the '

assurance of salvation. There are many Christians who are

indeed in a state of salvation who lack assurance. To be

lacking in assurance is a grave hindrance to spiritual

growth. The person who is not sure of his state of grace is i

exposed to doubts and terrors in his soul. He lacks an

anchor for his spiritual life. His uncertainty makes him

tentative in his walk with Christ.

Not only is it important that we gain authentic assur-

ance but it is important that we gain it early in our

Christian experience. It is a key element in our growth

toward maturity Pastors need to be aware of that and

assist their flocks in the diligent search for assurance.

I never know for sure whether another person I meet is

elect or not. I cannot see into other people's souls. As

human beings our view of others is restricted to outward

appearances. We cannot see the heart. The only person

168

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

who can know for sure that you are elect is you.

W h o can know for sure that he is not elect? Nobody.

You may be certain that at this moment you are not in a

state of grace. You cannot know for certain that tomorrow

you will not be in a state of grace. There are multitudes of

elect people walking around w h o are as yet unconverted.

Such a person might say "I don't know if I am elect or

not and I am not the least bit concerned about it." There

can hardly be any greater folly. If you do not yet know if

you are elect, I can think of no more urgent question to

answer.

If you are not sure, you would be well advised to make

sure. Don't ever assume that you are not elect. Make your

election a matter of certainty

The Apostle Paul was sure of his election. He fre-

quently used the term we when he spoke of the elect. He

said toward the end of his life:

For I am already being poured out as a drink offering,

and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought

the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the

faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of

righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will

give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to

all who have loved His appearing (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

Earlier in. the same epistle he declared:

For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I

am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and

am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have

committed to Him until that Day (2 Timothy 1:12).

H o w can we, like Paul, have true assurance, assurance

that is not spurious? True assurance is grounded in the

169

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

promises of God for our salvation. Our assurance comes

first of all from our trust in the God who makes these

promises. Secondly, our assurance is enhanced by the in-

ward evidence of our own faith. We know that we could

never have any true affection for Christ if we were not

reborn. We know that we could not be reborn if we were

not elect. A knowledge of sound theology is vital to our

assurance. If we have a correct understanding of election,

that understanding will help us interpret these inward

evidences.

I know inwardly that I do not love Christ totally. But

at the same time I do know that I love him. I rejoice

inwardly at the thought of his triumph. I rejoice inwardly

at the thought of his corning. I will his exaltation. I know

that none of these sentiments that I find in myself could

possibly be there if it were not for grace.

When a man and woman are in love we assume that

they are aware of it. A person is usually able to discern

whether or not he or she is in love with another person.

This comes from an inward assurance.

In addition to the inward evidence of grace there is also

outward evidence. We should be able to see visible fruit of

our conversion. The outward evidence, however, may also

cause our lack of assurance. We can see the abiding sin in

our lives. Such sin does not do much for our assurance.

We see ourselves sinning and we ask ourselves, "How can

I do these things if I really love Christ?"

To have assurance we must make a sober analysis of our

fives. It is not much use to compare ourselves with others.

We will always be able to find others who are more ad-

170

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

vanced in their sanctificarion than we are. We may also be

able to find others who are less advanced. No two people

are ever at exactly the same point in their spiritual growth.

We must ask ourselves if we see any real change in our

behavior, any real outward evidence of grace. This is a

precarious process because we can he to ourselves. It is a

difficult task to perform, but by no means impossible.

We have one more vital method of reaching assurance.

We are told in Scripture about the internal witness of the

Holy Spirit. Paul states that "the Spirit Himself bears

witness with our spirit that we are children of God"

(Rom. 8:16).

The chief means by which the Spirit testifies to us is

through his Word. I never have greater assurance than

when I am meditating on the Word of God. If we neglect

this means of grace, it is difficult to have any lasting or

strong assurance of our salvation.

One Reformed theologian, A. A. Hodge, gives the fol-

lowing list of distinctions between true assurance and false

assurance:

T R U E ASSURANCE

FALSE ASSURANCE

begets unfeigned humility begets spiritual pride

leads to diligence in

leads

lead t

s o slothfu

o

l

slothfu indulgenc

l

e

holiness

leads to honest

avoids accurate evaluation

self-examination

leads to desire for more

is cold toward fellowship

intimate fellowship

with God

with God

171

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

Assurance of salvation can be augmented or diminished.

We can increase our assurance or we can decrease it. We

can even lose it altogether, at least for a season. There are

many things that can cause our assurance to slip away

from us. We can grow negligent in our preserving of it.

T h e diligence to which we are called to make our election

sure is an ongoing diligence. If we become smug in our

assurance and begin to take it for granted, we run the risk

of losing that assurance.

T h e greatest peril to our continued assurance is a fall

into some serious and gross sin. We know the love that

covers a multitude of sins. We know that we do not have

to be perfect to have assurance of salvation. But when we

fall into special sorts of sins, our assurance is shaken bru-

tally. David's sin of adultery caused him to tremble in

terror before God. If we read his prayer of confession in

Psalm 51 we can hear the lament of a man w h o is strug-

gling to regain his assurance. After Peter cursed and de-

nied Christ and Christ's eyes fell upon him, what was the

state of Peter's assurance?

We all experience periods of spiritual coldness in which

we feel as though God has totally removed the light of his

countenance from us. T h e saints have called it the "dark

night of the soul." There are times when we feel as

though God has abandoned us. We think that he no

longer hears our prayers. We do not feel the sweetness of

his presence. At times like these, when our assurance is at

a low ebb, we must incline ourselves toward him with all

of our might. He promises us that, if we will draw near to

him, he in turn will come near to us.

172

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

Finally we may be shaken in our assurance if we are

exposed to great suffering. A serious illness, a painful acci-

dent, a loss of a loved one to death m a y disturb our

assurance. We know that Job cried out, T h o u g h he slay

me, yet will I trust him." That was the cry of a man in

pain. He said that he was sure that his Redeemer lived,

but I am certain that Job bad his moments when doubts

assailed him.

Again it is the Word of God that comforts us in times

of trial. Our tribulations have the ultimate effect not of

destroying our hope but of establishing it. Peter wrote:

Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery

trial -which is to try you, as though some strange thing

happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you

partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is

revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy

(1 Peter 4:12, 13).

When we are attentive to the promises of God, our

suffering may be used to increase our assurance rather

than diminish it. We need not have a crisis of faith. Our

faith may be strengthened through suffering. God prom-

ises that our suffering will not merely result ultimately in

joy but in exceeding joy.

CAN WE LOSE OUR SALVATION?

We have already stated that it is possible to lose our

assurance of salvation. That does not mean, however, that

we lose the salvation itself. We are moving now to the

question of eternal security. Can a justified person lose his

justification?

173

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

We know how the Roman Catholic Church has an-

swered that question. Rome insists that the grace of justifi-

cation can in fact be lost. The sacrament of Penance,

which demands Confession, was established for this very

reason. Rome calls the sacrament of Penance the "second

plank of justification for those who have made shipwreck

of their souls."

According to Rome, saving grace is destroyed in the

soul when a person commits a "mortal" sin. Mortal sin is

so called because it has the power to kill grace. Grace can

die. If it is destroyed by mortal sin, it must be restored

through the sacrament of Penance or the sinner himself

finally perishes.

The Reformed faith does not believe in mortal sin in

the way Rome does. We believe that all sins are mortal in

the sense that they deserve death but that no sin is mortal

in the sense that it destroys the grace of salvation in the

elect. (Later, we will consider the "unpardonable sin"

about which Jesus warned.)

The Reformed view of eternal security is called the

"perseverance of the saints," the P in TULIP. The idea here is, "Once in grace, always in grace." Another way of

stating it is, If you have it, you never lose it; if you lose it,

you never had it."

Our confidence in the perseverance of the saints does

not rest upon our confidence in the saints' ability, in them-

selves, to persevere. Again, I would like to modify the

acrostic TULIP slightly. Same letter, new word. I prefer

to speak of the preservation of the saints.

The reason true Christians do not fall from grace is that

174

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

God graciously keeps them from falling. Perseverance is

what we do. Preservation is what God does. We persevere

because God preserves.

The doctrine of eternal security or perseverance is

based on the promises of God. A few of the key biblical

passages are listed below:

Being confident of this very thing, that He who has be-

gun a good work in you will complete it until the day

of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6).

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they

follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall

never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of

My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is

greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out

of My Father's hand (John 10:21-29).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us

again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus

Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible

and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in

heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God

through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the

last time (1 Peter 1:3-5).

For by one offering He has perfected forever those who

are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:14).

Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God

who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ

who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at

the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for

us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall

tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or na-

kedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: "For Your

175

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as

sheep for the slaughter." Yet in all these things we are

more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I

am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor

principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things

to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created

thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God

which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:33-39).

We see from these passages that the ground for our

confidence in perseverance is the power of God. God

promises to finish what he starts. Our confidence does not

rest in the will of man. This difference between the will of

man and the power of God separates Calvinists from

Arminians. T h e Arminian holds that God elects persons

to eternal life only on the condition of their voluntary

cooperation with grace and perseverance in grace until

death, as foreseen by h i m

T h e Roman Catholic church, for example, has decreed

the following: If anyone says that a man once justified

cannot lose grace and therefore that he who falls and sins

never was truly justified, let him be accursed" (Council of

Trent: 6/23).

Protestant Arminians made a similar statement: "Per-

sons truly regenerate, by neglecting grace and grieving the

Holy Spirit with sin, fall away totally, and at length finally

from grace into eternal reprobation" (see Conference of

Remonstrants 11/7).

A chief argument given by Arminians is that it is

inconsistent with man's free will for God to "force" his

perseverance. Yet the Arminians themselves believe that

176

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

believers will not fall from grace in heaven. In our glori-

fied state God will render us incapable of sinning. Yet the

glorified saints in heaven are still free. If preservation and

free will are consistent conditions in heaven, they cannot

possibly be inconsistent conditions here on earth The

Arminians again try to prove too much with their view of

human freedom. If God can preserve us in heaven with-

out destroying our free will, he can preserve us on earth

without destroying our free will

We are able to persevere only because God works

within us, with our free wills. And because God is at

work in us, we are certain to persevere. The decrees of

God concerning election are immutable. They do not

change, because he does not change. All whom he justifies

he glorifies. None of the elect is ever lost.

Why then does it seem to us that many people do fall

away from grace? We have all known people who made

zealous starts with the Christian faith only to repudiate

their faith later. We have heard of great Christian leaders

who have committed gross sins and scandalized their pro-

fession of faith.

The Reformed faith readily acknowledges that people

make professions of faith and then repudiate them. We

know that Christians "backslide." We know that Chris-

tians are capable of and do in fact commit gross and

heinous sins.

We believe that true Christians can fall seriously and

radically. We do not believe that they can fall totally and

finally We observe the case of King David, who was

guilty not only of adultery but of conspiracy in the death

177

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

of Uriah, Bathsheba's husband. David used his power and

authority to make sure Uriah was killed in battle. In

essence David was guilty of murder in the first degree,

premeditated and with malice aforethought.

David's conscience was so seared, his heart so hardened,

that it required nothing less than direct confrontation with

a prophet of God to bring him to his senses. His subse-

quent repentance was as deep as his sin. David sinned

radically but not totally and finally He was restored.

Consider the record of two famous persons in the N e w

Testament. Both of them were called by Jesus to be disci-

ples. Both of them walked beside Jesus during his earthly

ministry. Both of them betrayed Jesus. Their names are

Peter and Judas.

After Judas betrayed Christ, he went out and commit-

ted suicide. After Peter betrayed Christ, he repented and

was restored, emerging as a pillar of the early church.

What was the difference between these two men? Jesus

predicted that both of them would betray him. When he

finished speaking with Judas, he said to him, "What you

have to do, do quickly."

Jesus spoke differently to Peter. He said to him: "Simon,

Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift

you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith

should not fail; and when you have returned to Me,

strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31, 32).

Notice carefully what Jesus said. He did not say if but

when. Jesus was confident that Peter would return. His

fall would be radical and serious, but not total and final.

It is clear that Jesus' confidence in Peters return was

178

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

not based on Peter's strength. Jesus knew that Satan

would sift Peter like wheat. That is like saying that Peter

was a "piece of cake," "duck soup," for Satan. Jesus' confi-

dence was based upon the power of Jesus' intercession. It

is from the promise of Christ that he would be our Great

High Priest, our Advocate with the Father, our Righteous

Intercessor, that we believe that we will persevere. O u r

confidence is in our Savior and our Priest w h o prays for

us.

T h e Bible records a prayer that Jesus offered for us in

John 17. We ought to read this great high priestly prayer

frequently. Let us examine a portion of it:

. . . keep through Your name those whom You have

given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was

with them in the world, I kept them in Your name.

Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of

them is lost except the son of perdition, that the

Scripture might be fulfilled (vv. 11, 12).

Again we read:

Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may

be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory

which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the

foundation of the world (v. 24).

Our preservation is a trinitarian work. God the Father

keeps and preserves us. God the Son intercedes for us.

God the Holy Spirit indwells and assists us. We are given

the "seal" and the "earnest" of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim.

2:19; Eph. 1:14; Rom. 8:23). These images are all images of

a divine guarantee. T h e seal of the Spirit is an indelible

179

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

mark like the waxed imprint of a monarch's signet ring. It

indicates that we are his possession. The earnest of the

Spirit is not identical to earnest money that is paid in

modern real estate transactions. Such earnest money may

be forfeited. In biblical terms the earnest of the Spirit is a

down payment with a promise to pay the rest. God does

not forfeit his earnest. He does not fail to finish the pay-

ments he began. The first fruits of the Spirit guarantee

that the last fruits will be forthcoming.

An analogy of God's work of preservation may be seen i

in the image of a father holding onto his small child's hand

as they walk together. In the Arminian view the safety of

the child rests in the strength of the child's grip on the

father's hand. If the child lets go he will perish. In the

Calvinist view the safety of the child rests in the strength

of the father's grip on the child. If the child's grip fails, the

father's grip holds firm. The arm of the Lord does not wax

short.

Still we ask why it seems that some people do in fact

fall away totally and finally Here we must echo the words

of the Apostle John: "They went out from us, but they

were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would

have continued with us; but they went out that they

might be made manifest, that none of them were of us"

( 1 John 2:19).

We repeat our aphorism: If we have it we never lose it;

if we lose it we never had it. We recognize that the

church of Jesus Christ is a mixed body. There are tares

that live side by side with the wheat; goats that live side

by side with sheep. The parable of the sower makes it

180

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

plain that people can experience a false conversion. They

may have an appearance of faith, but that faith may not be

genuine.

We know people who have been "converted" many

times. Every t i m e there is a church revival they go to the

altar and get "saved." One minister told of a man in his

congregation who had been "saved" seventeen times. Dur-

ing a revival meeting the evangelist made an altar call for

all who wanted to be filled with the Spirit. The man who

had been converted so often made his way toward the

altar again. A woman from the congregation shouted,

"Don't fill him, Lord. He leaks!"

We all leak to some degree, but no Christian is totally

and finally of God's Spirit. Those who become "uncon-

verted" were never converted in the first place. Judas was

a son of perdition from the beginning. His conversion was

spurious. Jesus did not pray for his restoration. Judas did

not lose the Holy Spirit, because he never had the Holy

Spirit

Of course there is nothing wrong with repeated calls to

commitment to Christ. We may visit the altar many times

or respond to invitations repeatedly and not be exactly

sure which of the responses was truly genuine. Two bene-

fits of repeated responses to evangelistic calk are to

strengthen our assurance of salvation and to deepen our

commitment to Christ

BIBLICAL WARNINGS ABOUT FALLING AWAY

Probably the strongest arguments the Arminians offer

against the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints are

181

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

drawn from the manifold warnings in Scripture against

falling away. Paul, for example, writes: "But I discipline

my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have

preached to others, I myself should become disqualified"

(1 Cor. 9 : 2 7 ) .

Paul elsewhere speaks of men who have been apostate:

"And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus

and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning

the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and

they overthrow the faith of some" (2 Tim. 2 : 1 7 , 1 8 ) .

These passages suggest that it is possible for believers to

be "disqualified" or to have their faith "overthrown." It is important, however, to see how Paul concludes his statement to Timothy. "Nevertheless the solid foundation of

God stands, having this seal: T h e Lord knows those who

are His,' and 'Let everyone who names the name of Christ

depart from iniquity'" (v. 1 9 ) .

Peter also speaks of washed sows wallowing again and

dogs who return to their vomit, comparing them to

people who have turned away after being instructed in the

way of righteousness. These are false converts whose na-

tures have never been changed ( 2 Pet. 2:22).

HEBREWS 6

The text that contains the most solemn warning against

falling away is also the most controversial regarding the

doctrine of perseverance. It is found in Hebrews 6:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlight-

ened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have

182

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

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 open shame (vv. 4-6).

This passage strongly suggests that believers can and do

fall away, totally and finally. H o w are we to understand it?

The full meaning of the passage is difficult for several

reasons. The first is that we do not know for sure what

issue of apostasy was involved in this text, since we are

not certain of either the author or the destination of He-

brews. There were two burning issues in the early church

that easily could have provoked this dire warning.

The first issue was the problem of the so-called lapsi.

The lapsi were those people who during severe persecu-

tion did not keep the faith. Not every church member

went to the lions singing hymns. Some broke down and

recanted their faith. Some even betrayed their comrades

and collaborated with the Romans. When the persecu-

tions died down, some of these former collaborators re-

pented and sought readmission to the church H o w they

were to be received was no small controversy

The other burning issue was that provoked by the

Judaizers. The destructive influence of this group is dealt

with in several parts of the N e w Testament, most notably

in the Book of Galatians. The Judaizers wanted to profess

Christ and at the same time enforce the Old Testament

cultic ceremonies. They insisted, for example, on ceremo-

nial circumcision. I believe that it was the Judaizer heresy

that the author of Hebrews was concerned with.

183

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

A second problem is to identify the nature of people

who are being warned against falling away in Hebrews.

Are they true believers or are they tares growing among

the wheat? We must remember that there are three cate-

gories of people we are concerned with here. There are

(1) believers, (2) unbelievers in the church, and (3) unbe-

lievers outside of the church.

The Book of Hebrews draws several parallels with Old

Testament Israel, especially with those in the camp who

were apostates. W h o are these people in Hebrews? How

are they described' Let us list their attributes:

7. once enlightened

2. tasted the heavenly gift

3. partakers of the Holy Spirit

4. tasted the good Word of God

5. cannot be renewed again to repentance

At first glance this list certainly appears to describe true

believers. However it may also be describing church

members who are not believers, people who have made a

false profession of faith. All of these attributes may be

possessed by non-believers. The tares who come to

church every week hear the Word of God taught and

preached and thus are "enlightened." They participate in

all of the means of grace. They join in the Lord's Supper.

They partake of the Holy Spirit in the sense that they

enjoy the nearness of his special immediate presence and

his benefits. They have even made a kind of repentance, at

least outwardly.

Many Calvinists thereby find a solution to this passage

by relating it to non-believers in the church who repudi-

184

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

ate Christ. I am not entirely satisfied by that interpreta-

tion. I think this passage may well be describing true

Christians. The most important phrase for me is "renew

again to repentance." I know there is a false kind of repen-

tance that the author elsewhere calls the repentance of

Esau. But here he speaks of renewal. The new repentance,

if it is renewed, must be like the old repentance. The

renewed repentance of which he speaks is certainly the

genuine kind. I assume therefore that the old was likewise

genuine.

I think the author here is arguing in what we call an ad

hominem style. An ad hominem argument is carried out by taking your opponent's position and carrying it to its

logical conclusion. The logical conclusion of the Judaizer

heresy is to destroy any hope of salvation.

The logic goes like this. If a person embraced Christ

and trusted in his atonement for sin, what would that

person have if he went back to the covenant of Moses? In

effect he would be repudiating the finished work of

Christ. He would once again be a debtor to the law. If that

were the case, where would he turn for salvation? He has

repudiated the cross; he couldn't turn to that. He would

have no hope of salvation, because he would have no

Savior. His theology does not allow a finished work of

Christ.

The key to Hebrews 6 is found in verse 9. "But, be-

loved, we are confident of better things concerning you,

yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in

this manner"

Here the author himself notes that he is speaking in an

185

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

unusual manner. His conclusion differs from those who

find here a text for falling away. He concludes with a

confidence of better things from the beloved, things that

accompany salvation. Obviously falling away does not

accompany salvation. T h e author does not say that any

believer actually does fall away In fact he says the oppo-

site, that he is confident they will not fall away.

But if no one falls away, w h y even bother to warn

people against it? It seems frivolous to exhort people to

avoid the impossible. Here is where we must understand

the relationship of perseverance to preservation. Persever-

ance is both a grace and a duty We are to strive with all

our might in our spiritual walk. Humanly speaking, it is

possible to fall away Yet as we strive we are to look to

God who is preserving us. It is impossible that he should

fail to keep us. Consider again the analogy of the child

walking with his father. It is possible that the child will let

go. If the father is God, it is not possible that he will let

go. Even given the promise of the Father not to let go, it is

still the duty of the child to hold on tightly Thus the

author of Hebrews warns believers against falling away

Luther called this the "evangelical use of exhortation." It

reminds us of our duty to be diligent in our walk with

God.

Finally with respect to perseverance and preservation,

we must look to the promise of God in the Old Testa-

ment. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God promises to

make a new covenant with his people, a covenant that is

everlasting. He says:

186

C A N W E K N O W W E A R E S A V E D ?

And I will make an everlasting covenant with them,

that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I

will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not

depart from Me (Jeremiah 3240).

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 8

1. We conclude that assurance of our salvation is vital to our

spiritual lives. Without it our growth is retarded and we

are assailed with crippling doubts.

2. God calls us to make our election sure, to find the comfort

and strength that God offers in assurance. In Romans 15

Paul declares that it is God who is the source or

fountainhead of our perseverance and encouragement (v. 5)

and of our hope (v. 13). Finding our assurance is both a

duty and a privilege.

3. No true believer ever loses his salvation. To be sure,

Christians fall at times seriously and radically, but never

fully and finally. We persevere, not because of our strength

but because of God's grace that preserves us.

187

C H A P T E R N I N E

Q U E S T I O N S

A N D

OBJECTIONS

C O N C E R N I N G

P R E D E S T I N A T I O N

T HERE remain several problems and issues

surrounding predestination that we must at

least touch upon.

IS PREDESTINATION FATALISM?

A frequent objection raised against predestination is that it

is a religious form of fatalism. If we examine fatalism in its

literal sense we see that it is as far removed from the

biblical doctrine of predestination as the East is from the

West, Fatalism literally means that the affairs of men are

controlled either by whimsical sub-deities (the Fates) or

more popularly by the impersonal forces of chance.

Predestination is based neither on a mythical view of

goddesses playing with our lives nor upon a view of

destiny controlled by the chance collision of atoms. Pre-

destination is rooted in the character of a personal and

righteous God, a God who is the sovereign Lord of his-

tory. That my destiny would ultimately be in the hands of

an indifferent or hostile force is terrifying. That it is in the

hands of a righteous and loving God is quite another

matter. Atoms have no righteousness in them; they are at

best amoral. God is altogether holy I prefer that my

destiny be with him.

The great superstition of modern times is focused on

the role given to chance in human affairs. Chance is the

new reigning deity of the modern mind. Chance inhabits

the castle of the gods. Chance is given credit for the

191

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

creation of the universe and the emergence of the human

race from the slime.

Chance is a shibboleth. It is a magic word we use to

explain the unknown. It is the favorite power of causality

for those who will attribute power to anything or anyone

but God. This superstitious attitude toward chance is not

new. We read of its attraction very early in biblical history.

We remember the incident in Jewish history when the

sacred Ark of the Covenant was captured by the Philis-

tines. On that day death visited the house of Eli and the

Glory departed from Israel. The Philistines were jubilant

over their victory, but they soon learned to rue the day.

Wherever they took the Ark calamity befell them. The

temple of Dagon was humiliated. The people were devas-

tated by tumors. For seven months the Ark was shuttled

between the great cities of the Philistines with the same

catastrophic results in each city

In desperation the kings of the Philistines rook counsel

together and decided to send the Ark back to the Jews

with a ransom as well to mollify the wrath of God. Their

final words of counsel are noteworthy:

Then take the ark of the LORD and set it on the cart; and

put the articles of gold which you are returning to Him as

a trespass offering in a chest by its side. Then send it away,

and let it go.

And watch: if it goes up the road to its own territory, to

Beth Shemesh, then He has done us this great evil. But if

not, then we shall know that it is not His hand that

struck us; it was by chance that it happened to us(1 Samuel 6:8,9)

Q U E S T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I O N S

We have already noted that chance can do nothing

because it is nothing. Let me elaborate. We use the word

chance to describe mathematical possibilities. For example,

when we flip a coin we say that it has a fifty/fifty chance

to come up heads. If we call heads on the toss and it turns

up tails, we might say that our luck was bad and that we

missed our chance.

How much influence does chance have on the toss of a

coin? What makes the coin turn up heads or tails? Would

the odds change if we knew which side the coin started

on, how much pressure was exerted by the thumb, how

dense the atmosphere was, and how many revolutions the

coin made in the air? With this knowledge, our ability to

predict the outcome would far exceed fifty/fifty

But the hand is faster than the eye. We can't measure all

these factors in the normal tossing of the coin. Since we

can reduce the possible outcome to two, we simplify

matters by talking about chance. The point to remember,

however, is that chance exercises absolutely no influence

on the coin toss. Why not? As we keep saying, chance

can do nothing because it is nothing. It is no thing. Before something can exert power or influence it must first be

something. It must be some kind of entity either physical

or nonphysical. Chance is neither. It is merely a mental

construct. It has no power because it has no being. It is

nothing.

To say that something has happened by chance is to say

that it is a coincidence. This is simply a confession that we

cannot perceive all the forces and causal powers that are at

193

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

work in an event. Just as we cannot see all that is happen-

ing in a coin toss with the naked eye, so the complex

affairs of life are also beyond our exact ability to penetrate.

So we invent the terra chance to explain them. Chance

really explains nothing. It is merely a word we use as

shorthand for our ignorance.

I recently wrote on the subject of cause and effect. A

professor of philosophy wrote to me complaining of my

naive understanding of the law of cause and effect. He

chided me for failing to take into account "uncaused

events." I thanked him for his letter and said that I would

be happy to grapple with his objection if he would write

back and provide just one example of an uncaused event, I

am still waiting. I will wait forever because even God

cannot have an uncaused event. Waiting for an uncaused

event is like waiting for a square circle.

Our destinies are not controlled by chance. I say that

dogmatically with all the bluster I can manage. I know

that my destiny is not controlled by chance because I

know that nothing can be controlled by chance. Chance

can control nothing because it is nothing. What are the;

chances that the universe was created by chance or that

our destinies are controlled by chance? Not a chance.

Fatalism finds its most popular expression in astrology.

Our daily horoscopes are compiled on the basis of the

movements of the stars. People in our society know more

about the twelve signs of the zodiac than they do about

the twelve tribes of Israel. Yet Reuben has more to do

with my future than Aquarius, Judah more than Gemini.

194

DOESN'T T H E BIBLE SAY THAT GOD IS

N O T WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH?

The Apostle Peter clearly states that God is not willing

that any should perish.

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some

count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not

willing that any should perish but that all should come

to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

How can we square this verse with predestination? If it

is not the will of God to elect everyone unto salvation,

how can the Bible then say that God is not willing that

any should perish?

In the first place we must understand that the Bible

speaks of the will of God in more than one way. For

example, the Bible speaks of what we call God's sovereign

efficacious will. The sovereign will of God is that will by

which God brings things to pass with absolute certainty

Nothing can resist the will of God in this sense. By his

sovereign will be created the world. The light could not

have refused to shine.

The second way in which the Bible speaks of the will

of God is with respect to what we call his preceptive will.

God's preceptive will refers to his commands, his laws. It

is God's will that we do the things he mandates. We are

capable of disobeying this will. We do in fact break his

commandments. We cannot do it with impunity. We do it

without his permission or sanction. Yet we do it. We sin,

A third way the Bible speaks of the will of God has

reference to God's disposition, to what is pleasing to him.

195

RC • S P R O U L

God does not take delight in the death of the wicked.

There is a sense in which the punishment of the wicked

does not bring joy to God. He chooses to do it because it

is good to punish evil. He delights in the righteousness of

his judgment but is "sad" that such righteous judgment

must be carried out. It is something like a judge sitting on

a bench and sentencing his own son to prison.

Let us apply these three possible definitions to the pas-

sage in 2 Peter. If we take the blanket statement, "God is

not willing that any should perish," and apply the sover-

eign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No

one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one

should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will

ever perish. This would then be a proof text not for

Arminianism but for universalism. The text would then

prove too much for Arminians.

Suppose we apply the definition of the preceptive will

of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that

God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids

the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then

went ahead and perished, God would have to punish mem

for perishing. His punishment for perishing would be

more perishing. But how does one engage in more perish-

ing than perishing? This definition will not work in this|

passage. It makes no sense.

The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the

perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says

elsewhere about God's disposition toward the lost. This

definition could fit this passage. Peter may simply be say-

196

Q U E S T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I O N S

ing here that God takes no delight in the perishing of

anyone.

Though the third definition is a possible and attractive

one to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible

teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to

be considered. The text says more than simply that God is

not willing that any should perish. The whole clause is

important: "but is longsuffering toward us, not willing

that any should perish but that all should come to repen-

tance."

What is the antecedent of any? It is clearly us. Does us

refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christians,

the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as

a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is

that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish. If

that is his meaning, then the text would demand the first

definition and would be one more strong passage in favor

of predestination.

In two different ways the text may easily be harmo-

nized with predestination. In no way does it support Ar-

minianism. Its only other possible meaning would be

universalism, which would then bring it into conflict with

everything else the Bible says against universalism.

WHAT IS THE UNPARDONABLE SIN?

In our discussions on assurance of salvation and the perse-

verance of the saints, we touched on the question of the

unforgivable sin. The fact that Jesus warns against the

197

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

committing of a sin that is unforgivable is beyond dispute.

The questions we must face then are these: What is the

unforgivable sin? Can Christians commit this sin?

Jesus defined it as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:

Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be

forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will

not be forgiven men.

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man,

it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the

Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this

age or in the age to come (Matthew 12: 31, 32).

In this text Jesus does not provide a detailed explanation

of the nature of this dreadful sin. He declares that there is

such a sin and gives an ominous warning about it. The

rest of the N e w Testament adds little in the way of

further explanation. As a result of this silence, there has

been much speculation about the unforgivable sin.

Two sins have been frequently mentioned as candidates

for the unforgivable sin: adultery and murder. Adultery is

chosen on the grounds that it represents a sin against the

Holy Spirit because the body is the temple of the Holy

Spirit. Adultery was a capital crime in the Old Testament.

The reasoning is that, since it deserved the death penalty

and involved a violation of the temple of the Holy Spirit,

this must be the unpardonable sin.

Murder is chosen for similar reasons. Since man is cre-

ated in the image of God, an attack upon the human

person is considered an attack upon God himself. To slay

the image-bearer is to insult the One whose image is

borne. Likewise murder is a capital sin. We add to this the

198

Q U E S T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I O N S

fact that murder is a sin against the sanctity of life. Since

the Holy Spirit is the ultimate "life force," to kill a human

being is to insult the Holy Spirit.

As attractive as these theories may be to speculators,

they have not gained the consent of most biblical scholars.

A more popular view has to do with the final resistance to

the Holy Spirit's application of Christ's work of redemp-

tion. Final unbelief is then seen as the unpardonable sin. If

a person repeatedly, fully and finally repudiates the gospel,

then there is no hope of future forgiveness.

What all three of these theories lack is a serious consid-

eration of the meaning of blasphemy Blasphemy is some-

thing that we do with our mouths. It deals with what we

say out loud. Certainly it can also be done with the pen,

but blasphemy is a verbal sin.

The Ten Commandments include a prohibition against

blasphemy We are forbidden to make frivolous or irrever-

ent use of the name of God. In God's eyes the verbal abuse

of his holy name is a serious enough matter to make it to

his top ten list of commands. This tells us that blasphemy

is a serious matter in God's sight. It is a heinous sin to

blaspheme any member of the Godhead.

Does this mean that anyone who has ever abused the

name of God has no possible hope of forgiveness, now or

ever? Does it mean that if a person curses once, using the

name of God, that he is doomed forever? I think not

It is crucial to note in this text that Jesus makes a

distinction between sinning against him (the Son of Man),

and sinning against the Holy Spirit, Does this mean that it

is OK to blaspheme the first person of the Trinity and the

199

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

second person of the Trinity, but to insult the third person

is to cross the boundaries of forgiveness? This hardly

makes sense.

W h y then would Jesus make such a distinction be-

tween sinning against himself and against the Holy Spirit?

I think the key to answering this question is the key to

the whole question of the blasphemy against the Holy

Spirit. That key is found in the context in which Jesus

originally gave his severe warning.

In Matthew 12:24 we read: "But when the Pharisees

heard it they said, T h i s fellow does not cast out demons

except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.'" Jesus

responds with a discourse about a house divided against

itself and the foolishness of the idea that Satan would

work to cast out Satan. His warning about the unpardon-

able sin is the conclusion of this discussion. He introduces

his severe warning with the word therefore.

The situation runs something like this: The Pharisees

are being repeatedly critical of Jesus. Their verbal attacks

upon him get more and more vicious. Jesus had been

casting out demons "By the Finger of God," which means

by the Holy Spirit, The Pharisees sink so low as to accuse

Jesus of doing his holy work by the power of Satan. Jesus

warns them. It is as if he were saying: "Be careful. Be

really careful. You are corning perilously close to a sin for

which you cannot be forgiven. It is one thing to attack

me, but watch yourselves. You're treading on holy ground

here."

We still wonder why Jesus made the distinction be-

tween sinning against the Son of Man and sinning against

200

Q U E S T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I O N S

the Spirit. We notice that even from the cross Jesus pled

for the forgiveness of those w h o were murdering him. On

the day of Pentecost Peter spoke of the horrible crime

against Christ committed in the crucifixion, yet still held

out hope for forgiveness to those who had participated in

it. Paul says, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a

mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before

the ages for our glory which none of the riders of this age

knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified

the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 27, 8).

These texts indicate an allowance of sorts for human

ignorance. We must remember that when the Pharisees

accused Jesus of working by the power of Satan they did

not yet have the benefit of the fullness of God's disclosure

of the true identity of Christ. These charges were made

before the resurrection. To be sure, the Pharisees should

have recognized Christ, but they did not. Jesus' words

from the cross are important: "Father, forgive them, for

they know not what they do."

When Jesus gave the warning and distinguished be-

tween blasphemy against the Son of Man and blasphemy

against the Holy Spirit it was at a t i m e when he had not

yet been made fully manifest. We note that this distinc-

tion tends to fall away after the resurrection, Pentecost,

and the ascension. Note what the author of Hebrews

declares:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the

knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a

sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of

judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the

201

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies

without mercy on the testimony of woo 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 be was sanctified a common thing,

and insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29).

In this passage the distinction between sinning against

Christ and against the Spirit falls away Here, to sin against

Christ is to insult the Spirit of grace. The key is in the

willful sin after we have received the knowledge of the

truth.

If we take the first line of this text as an absolute, none

of us has a hope of heaven. We all sin willfully after we

know the truth. A specific sin is in view here, not each

and every sin, I am persuaded that the specific sin in view

here is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

I agree with the N e w Testament scholars who con-

clude that the unforgivable sin is to blaspheme Christ and

the Holy Spirit by saying Jesus is a devil when you know

better. That is, the unforgivable sin cannot be done in

ignorance. If a person knows with certainty that Jesus is

the Son of God and then declares with his mouth that

Jesus is of the devil that person has committed unpardon-

able blasphemy

Who commits such a sin? This is a sin common to

devils and to totally degenerate people. The devil knew

who Jesus was. He could not plead ignorance as an excuse.

One of the fascinating facts of history is the strange

way in which unbelievers speak of Jesus. The vast major-

202

Q U E S T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I O N S

ity of unbelievers speak of Jesus with great respect. They

may attack the church with great hostility but still apeak

of Jesus as a "great man." Only once in my life have I

heard a person say out loud that Jesus was a devil. I was

shocked to see a man stand in the middle of the street

shaking his fist toward heaven and screaming at the top of

his lungs. He cursed God and used every obscenity he

could utter in attacking Jesus. I was equally shocked only

hours later when I saw the same man on a stretcher with

a bullet hole in his chest. It was self-inflicted. He died

before morning.

Even that dreadful sight did not drive me to the conclu-

sion that the man had actually committed the unpardon-

able sin. I had no way of knowing if he was ignorant of

Christ's true identity or not

Saying that Jesus is a devil is not something we see

many people do. It is, however, possible for people to

know the truth of Jesus and sink this low. One does not

need to be born again to have an intellectual knowledge of

the true identity of Jesus. Again, the unregenerate demons

know who he is.

What of Christians? Is it possible for a Christian to

commit the unforgivable sin and thereby lose his salvation?

I think not. The grace of God makes it impossible In

ourselves we are capable of any sin, including blasphemy

against the Holy Spirit But God preserves us from this sin.

He preserves us from full and final fall, guarding our lips

from this horrible crime. We perform other sins and other

kinds of blasphemy but God in his grace restrains us from

committing the ultimate blasphemy

203

R C S P R O U L

DID JESUS DIE FOR EVERYONE?

One of the most controversial points of Reformed theol-

ogy concerns the L in TULIP. L stands for Limited

Atonement. It has been such a problem of doctrine that

there are multitudes of Christians who say they embrace

most of the doctrines of Calvinism but get off the boat

here. They refer to themselves as "four-point" Calvinists.

The point they cannot abide is limited atonement.

I have often thought that to be a four-point Calvinist

one must misunderstand at least one of the five points. It is

hard for me to imagine that anyone could understand the

other four points of Calvinism and deny limited atone-

ment. There always is the possibility however, of the

happy inconsistency by which people hold incompatible

views at the same time.

The doctrine of limited atonement is so complex that to

treat it adequately demands a full volume. I have not even

given it a full chapter in this book because a chapter

cannot do it justice. I have thought about not mentioning

it altogether because the danger exists that to say too little

about it is worse than saying nothing at all But I think

the reader deserves at least a brief summary of the doctrine

and so I will proceed—with the caution that the subject

requires a much deeper treatment than I am able to pro-

vide here.

The issue of limited atonement concerns the question,

"For whom did Christ die? Did he die for everybody or

only for the elect?" We all agree that the value of Jesus'

atonement was great enough to cover the sins of every

human being. We also agree that his atonement is truly

204

Q U E S T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I O N S

offered to all men. Any person who places his trust in the

atoning death of Jesus Christ will most certainly receive

the full benefits of that atonement. We are also confident

that anyone who responds to the universal offer of the

gospel will be saved.

The question is, "For whom was the atonement de-

signed?" Did God send Jesus into the world merely to

make salvation possible for people? Or did God have

something more definite in mind? (Roger Nicole, the emi-

nent Baptist theologian, prefers to call limited atonement

"Definite Atonement," disrupting the acrostic TULIP as

much as I do.)

Some argue that all limited atonement means is that the

benefits of the atonement are limited to believers who

meet the necessary condition of faith. That is, though

Christ's atonement was sufficient to cover the sins of all

men and to satisfy God's justice against all sin, it only

effects salvation for believers. The formula reads: Sufficient

for all; efficient for the elect only.

That point simply serves to distinguish us from univer-

salists who believe that the atonement secured salvation

for everyone. The doctrine of limited atonement goes

further than that. It is concerned with the deeper question

of the Father's and the Son's intention in the cross. It

declares that the mission and death of Christ was restricted

to a limited number—to his people, his sheep. Jesus was

called "Jesus" because he would save his people from their

s i n s (Matt. 1:21). The Good Shepherd lays down his life

for the sheep (John 10:15). Such passages are found liber-

ally in the N e w Testament.

2 0 5

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

The mission of Christ was to save the elect. T h i s is the

will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given

Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last

day" (John 639). Had there not been a fixed number

contemplated by God when he appointed Christ to die,

then the effects of Christ's death would have been uncer-

tain. It would be possible that the mission of Christ would

have been a dismal and complete failure.

Jesus' atonement and his intercession are joint works of

his high priesthood. He explicitly excludes the non-elect

from his great high priestly prayer. "I do not pray for the

world but for those whom you have given Me" (John

17:9). Did Christ die for those for whom he would not

pray?

The essential issue here concerns the nature of the

atonement. Jesus' atonement included both expiation and

propitiation. Ex-piation involves Christ's removing our

sins "away from" (ex) us. Pro-pitiation involves a satisfac-tion of sin "before or in the presence of" (pro) God.

Arminianism has an atonement that is limited in value. It

does not cover the sin of unbelief. If Jesus died for all the

sins of all men, if he expiated all our sins and propitiated all

our sins, then everybody would be saved. A potential

atonement is not a real atonement. Jesus really atoned for

the sins of his sheep.

The biggest problem with definite or limited atonement

is found in the passages that the Scriptures use concerning

Christ's death "for all" or for the "whole world." The

world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire hu-

206

Q U E S T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I O N S

man family. It must refer to the universality of the elect

(people from every tribe and nation) or to the inclusion of

Gentiles in addition to the world of the Jews. It was a Jew

who wrote that Jesus did not die merely for our sins but

for the sins of the whole world. Does the word our refer

to believers or to believing Jews?

We must remember that one of the cardinal points of

the N e w Testament concerned the inclusion of the Gen-

tiles in God's plan of salvation. Salvation was of the Jews

but not restricted to the Jews. Wherever it is said that

Christ died for all, some limitation must be added or the

conclusion would have to be universalism or a mere po-

tential atonement,

Christ's atonement was real. It effected all that God and

Jesus intended by it. The design of God was not and

cannot be frustrated by human unbelief. The sovereign

God sovereignly sent his Son to atone for his people.

Our election is in Christ. We are saved by him, in him,

and for him. The motive for our salvation is not merely the

love God has for us. It is especially grounded in the love the

Father has for the Son. God insists that his Son will see the

travail of his soul and be satisfied. There never has been the

slightest possibility that Christ could have died in vain. If

man is truly dead in sin and in bondage to sin, a mere

potential or conditional atonement not only may have end-

ed in failure but most certainly would have ended in fail-

ure. Arminians have no sound reason to believe that Jesus

did not die in vain. They are left with a Christ who tried to

save everybody but actually saved nobody

207

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

WHAT DOES PREDESTINATION

DO TO T H E TASK OF EVANGELISM?

This question raises grave concerns about the mission of

the Church, It is particularly weighty for evangelical

Christians. If personal salvation is decided in advance by

an immutable divine decree, what is the sense or urgency

of the work of evangelism?

I will never forget the terrifying experience of being

quizzed on this point by Dr. John Gerstner in a seminary

class. There were about twenty of us seated in a semicircle

in the classroom. He posed the question: "All right, gentle-

men, if God has sovereignly decreed election and reproba-

tion from all eternity, why should we be concerned about

evangelism?" I breathed a sigh of relief when Gerstner

started his interrogation on the left end of the semicircle

since I was sitting in the last seat on the right. I took

comfort in the hope that the question would never get

around to me.

The comfort was short-lived. The first student replied

to Gerstner's query, "I don't know, sir. That question has

always plagued me" The second student said, It beats

me." The third just shook his head and dropped his gaze

toward the floor. In rapid succession the students all passed

on the question. The dominoes were falling in my direc-

tion.

"Well, Mr. Sproul, how would you answer?" I wanted

to vanish into thin air or find a hiding place in the floor-

boards, but there was no escape. I stammered and mut-

tered a reply. Dr. Gerstner said, "Speak up!" In tentative

words I said, "Well, Dr. Gerstner, I know this isn't the

208

Q U E S T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I O N S

answer you are looking for, but one small reason we

should still be concerned about evangelism is that, well,

uh, you know, after all Christ does command us to do

evangelism."

Gerstner's eyes started to flame. He said, "Ah, I see, Mr.

Sproul, one small reason is that your Savior, the Lord of

Glory, the King of kings has so commanded it. A small

reason, Mr. Sproul? Is it barely significant to you that the

same sovereign God who sovereignly decrees your elec-

tion also sovereignly commands your involvement in the

task of evangelism?" Oh how I wished I'd never used the

word small. I got Gerstner's point.

Evangelism is our duty God has commanded it. That

should be enough to end the matter. But there is more.

Evangelism is not only a duty, it is also a privilege. God

allows us to participate in the greatest work in human

history, the work of redemption. Hear what Paul says

about it. He adds a chapter 10 to his famous chapter 9 of

Romans:

For "whoever calls upon the name of the LORD shall be

saved." How then shall they call on Him in whom they

have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him

of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear

without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless

they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the

feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring

glad tidings of good things!" (Romans 10:13-15).

We notice the logic of Paul's progression here. He lists a

series of necessary conditions for people to be saved.

Without sending there are no preachers. Without preach-

209

R C S P R O U L

ers there is no preaching. Without preaching there is no

hearing of the gospel. Without the hearing of the gospel

there is no believing of the gospel. Without the believing

of the gospel there is no calling upon God to be saved.

Without the calling upon God to be saved there is no

salvation.

God not only foreordains the end of salvation for the

elect, he also foreordained the means to that end. God has

chosen the foolishness of preaching as the means to accom-

plish redemption. I suppose he could have worked out his

divine purpose without us. He could publish the gospel in

the clouds using his holy finger in skywriting. He could

preach the gospel himself, in his own voice, shouting it;

from heaven. But that is not bis choice.

It is a marvelous privilege to be used by God in the plan

of redemption. Paul appeals to an Old Testament passage

when he speaks of the beauty of the feet of those who

bring good tidings and publish peace.

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him

who brings good news, who proclaims peace, who

brings glad tiding of good things, who proclaims

salvation, who says to Zion, "Your God reigns!" Your

watchmen shall lift up their voices, with their voices

they shall sing together; for they shall see eye to eye

when the LORD brings back Zion.

Break forth into joy, sing together, you waste places of

Jerusalem! For the LORD has comforted His people, He

has redeemed Jerusalem (Isaiah 52:7-9).

In the ancient world, news of battles and other crucial

events was carried by runners. The modern marathon

210

Q U E S T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I O N S

race is named after the Battle of Marathon because of the

endurance of the messenger who carried the news of the

outcome home to his people.

Lookouts were posted to watch for the approaching

messengers. Their eyes were sharp and trained to the

subtle nuances of the strides of the approaching runners.

Those bearing bad news approached with heavy feet.

Those runners bearing good news approached swiftly

with feet sprinting through the dust. Their strides re-

vealed their excitement. For the watchmen the sight of a

runner approaching rapidly in the distance with his feet

skimming over the mountain was a gorgeous vision to

behold.

So the Bible speaks of the beauty of the feet of those

who bring us good news. When my daughter was born

and the doctor came to the waiting room to announce it, I

wanted to hug him. We are favorably inclined to those

who bring us good tidings. I will always have a special

place in my affections for the man who first told me of

Christ. I know that it was God who saved me and not

that man, but I still appreciate the man's role in my salva-

tion.

To lead people to Christ is one of the greatest personal

blessings that we ever enjoy. To be a Calvinist takes no joy

away from that experience. Historically Calvinists have

been strongly active in evangelism and world mission. We

need only point to Edwards and Whitefield and the Great

Awakening to illustrate this point.

We have a meaningful role to play in evangelism. We

preach and we proclaim the gospel. That is our duty and

211

R

C

S

P

R

O

U

L

our privilege. But it is God who brings the increase. He

does not need us to accomplish his purpose, but he is

pleased to use us in the task.

I once met a traveling evangelist who said to me, "Give

me any man alone for fifteen minutes and I will get a

decision for Christ." Sadly, the man really believed his own

words. He was convinced that the power of conversion

rested solely in his powers of persuasion.

I don't doubt that the man was basing his claim on his

past track record. He was so. overbearing that I am sure

there were multitudes who made decisions for Christ

within fifteen minutes of being alone with him. Sure, he

could make good his promise to produce a decision in

fifteen minutes. What he couldn't guarantee was a conver-

sion in fifteen minutes. People would make decisions just

to get away from him.

We must never underestimate the importance of our

role in evangelism. Neither must we overestimate it. We

preach. We bear witness. We provide the outward call.

But God alone has the power to call a person to himself

inwardly. I do not feel cheated by that. On the contrary I

feel comforted. We must do our job, trusting that God

will do his.

CONCLUSION

At the beginning of this book I related a bit of my own

personal pilgrimage concerning the doctrine of predestina-

tion. I mentioned the earnest and long-term struggle it

involved. I mentioned that I was finally brought into

212

Q U E S T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I O N S

submission to the doctrine reluctantly. I was first brought

to a conviction of the truth of the matter before I took

any delight in it.

Let me dose this book by mentioning that soon after I

awoke to the truth of predestination I began to see the

beauty of it and taste its sweetness. I have grown to love

this doctrine. It is most comforting. It underlines the ex-

tent to which God has gone in our behalf. It is a theology

that begins and ends with grace. It begins and ends with

doxology. We praise a God who lifted us from spiritual

deadness and makes us walk in high places: We find a God

who is "for us," giving us the courage to withstand those

who may be against us. It makes our souls rejoice to know

that all things are working together for our good. We

delight in our Savior who truly saves us and preserves us

and intercedes for us. We marvel at his craftsmanship and

in what be has wrought. We skip and kick our heels when

we discover his promise to finish in us what he has started

in us. We ponder mysteries and bow before them, but not

without doxology for the riches of grace he has revealed:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and

knowledge of God! For of Him and through Him

and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever.

Amen (Romans 11:33, 36).

213