"God Is No Respecter of Persons"

"The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour [i. e., noon] to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat. But, while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: 'Rise, Peter, kill and eat.' But Peter said, 'By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.' And the voice came to him again a second time, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.' This happened three times, and [then] the thing was taken up at once to Heaven... So Peter opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him." 

-Acts 10:9-16, 34-35 

An argument I often get from anti-Calvinists against the doctrine of election is based on verse 34 above: "God shows no partiality." Or, in the words of the KJV, "God is no respecter of persons." The anti-Calvinist accuses the Calvinist of making out God to discriminate between individuals. 

I agree with the anti-Calvinist that election discriminates between individuals. I deny, however, that such discrimination violates the words of Peter in this passage.

Consider, for example, what Paul says in Romans 9:10-16: "When Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls - she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved but Esau I hated.' What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." 

Paul's exact point here is that God discriminates, but not on the basis of human characteristics. Rather, the discrimination is a sovereign act of God's electing grace. As this applies to Peter's vision it precludes the discrimination that Peter expected, that of a national supremacy of Israel, and lays the men of all nations on equal grounds in terms of ethnicity. This was such a difficult concept that Peter later reneged on this commitment (Galatians 2:12). 

Apostle Peter on the Perseverance of the Saints: Trinitarian and Gracious

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in Heaven for you, who, by God's power, are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (I Peter 1:3-5). 

What a blessed passage, promising to us that God the Father has reserved for us a salvation in Christ that can never be lost. Among the Reformed, this is called "perseverance of the saints" (not identical to "once saved always saved," the Arminian version). 

First, let us consider to whom Peter is speaking. Lazy Christians often ignore the audience in determining the meaning of a passage, but it is essential here. We see it in verses 1-2: "To those who are elect... according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling with His blood." So, Peter is not speaking to men in general, but specifically to believers. And notice how he marks believers, as the elect! 

Peter is making  a logical argument. He assures God's people of our eternal security, not from anything found in ourselves, but as a logical conclusion from his prior assumption of gracious election, bringing all three Persons of the Trinity into the activation and sustaining of the salvation of the church. He starts with election, to effectual calling, to perseverance. 

Apostle Paul on Irresistible Grace

One of the distinguishing doctrines of the Reformed Faith, the "I" in the so-called Five Points of Calvinism is irresistible grace, the biblical assertion that an elect person does not have the ability to refuse to be saved. We see this doctrine in, for example, the answer of Paul to a hypothetical opponent of God's sovereign grace: "You will say to me, then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?'" (Romans 9:19). 

And that opponent is correct. No mere creature can resist the will of God. Yet this doctrine was formulated in response to the assertion of the Arminians that is actually possible for men to resist God's will. Astounding in the light of Paul's statement! How can this be? 

Ever since the temptation and fall of our first parents, the hearts of men have naturally set out to establish the illusion of autonomy. That is, it is now natural to men to believe ourselves to be sovereign, the captains of our own fates, the creators of our own destinies. After all, that was the promise of Satan to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:5, that eating of the forbidden tree would make them like God, the interpreters of reality and masters of good and evil. 

I have never understood why Arminians are not more cautious of advocating the explicit doctrine of Satan. Except of course, to know that it is God's purpose that they do so. 

How does God respond to the declaration of the sovereignty of men? "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?'" (Romans 9:20-21).

Leprosy, Famine, and the Doctrine of Common grace

"In truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over the land, and Elijah was sent to them of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian" (Luke 4:25-27).

Among Reformed folks, the majority hold to the doctrine of common grace: "God's kindness to all people during their time on earth, regardless pf their present status with him. While it is true that believers will experience both common grace and saving grace, those who are apart from Christ will only experience common grace in this life." 

Of course, to the Arminian, all grace is common grace, since, he supposes, God enables all men to believe unto salvation. And that parallel must be noted. The Reformed people who hold to this doctrine are advocating a step halfway to the presuppositions that underlie the error of Arminianism. 

Not, however, the text above. These are the words of Jesus, referring to two events found in the Old Testament. The first was the three and half years that Elijah spent as a refugee in the territory of the Sidonians, while God judged Israel with drought and famine (I Kings 17-18). The second was Elisha's giving a Syrian general the means of curing his leprosy (II Kings 5). 

In both cases, Jesus makes the point that there were many people who shared common sufferings, but the grace was shared only with a particular victim in each case. That is, the grace shown was particular, not common. And that is one of the problems with the doctrine of common grace. Not only is it not biblical, but it can't be seen in the historical cases where it should have been applicable. 

Honorable and Dishonorable Use According to the Mind of the Potter

"That the creatures have at times deviated from their first rules and settlement is no derogation from the doctrine of God's sovereignty, but rather an illustration of it, as showing that the creatures are still in His hand, as clay in the potter's. Hence we find their innate propensities to be sometimes suspended; at other times, overacted; and at times again quite contrary to the law of nature. And this [is] not casually nor by the force of created powers, nor yet for any private or self-concern, but to serve some special and superior end which their Lord had to be done" --Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

He doesn't quote it, but Coles alludes to a reference from Paul: "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:19-21). 

If a potter splits his lump of clay, and uses one part to make a decanter for the finest wine, and the other part for a chamber pot, is that not his power to do? Can the chamber pot pipe up that it, too, wishes to hold fine wine? Of course not! Paul uses such an obvious example to make plain that the objection to God's sovereignty is equally irrational. 

While Coles widens Paul's text to apply to all created creatures, I want to focus, as Paul did, on God's sovereignty over mankind. It is all one to Paul, whether we are speaking of the lesser animals or to man; sentience is not grounds for autonomy. The sentient creation is still under the legitimate rule of his Creator. 

In theology, this is the contrasting doctrines of election, God's choice unto salvation and glorification, and reprobation, God's choice unto wickedness and judgment. Paul applies this dichotomy to an example which the Jewish Christians would have known well, the Pharaoh in Moses's account of the exodus from Egypt: "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth'" (Romans 9:17, citing Exodus 9:16). 

Paul's point in both his potter analogy and in the account of Pharaoh is to show that election and reprobation are not punishments or rewards for men, i. e., not something to be claimed by an autonomous creature. Rather, they are determined by His primary purpose, which is to glorify Himself. Granted, that is a concept that the unbeliever and many professing believers find abominable. Which is exactly the point of Paul's choice of words: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (Romans 9:20).

The implied answer is that, "You are no one." 

The Unpopular Biblical Doctrine of Reprobation

"The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." 

-Proverbs 16:4 

I think that the least-popular doctrine of Calvinism is that of reprobation, the biblical teaching that God has not only elected some to salvation, but has also chosen the rest for damnation. In biblical language, it is said that God has made the reprobate from the same lump of clay, but as "vessels for dishonorable use" (Romans 9:21; see same phrase in II Timothy 2:20). Both Peter (I Peter 2:8) and Jude, the brother of Jesus (Jude 1:4), tell us that false teachers were anciently purposed for condemnation. 

Yet, though Scripture is explicit on the matter, Christians hate it, deny it, and turn a blind eye to such verses. Even Reformed Christians soften the teaching by saying that it is merely God's passive passing by those whom He has not decided to elect unto salvation. In other words, God, they say, did not decree that the reprobate would die in unbelief; rather, He simply decided not to ordain their salvation. Yet Scripture tells us, "He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18). Paul certainly showed no hesitancy in declaring that unbelief is as much the decree of God as is belief. 

So, why are Christians of today hesitant, where our forefathers showed no hesitation to speak plainly? 

I think that it is because of the infiltration of the worldview of autonomy into the Christian mentality that has created this backpedaling. American evangelicals have adopted the American cultural view of autonomy, of personal sovereignty, against which the sovereignty of God is a distasteful atavism. Yes, the Puritans held to God's absolute kingship over the creature, but we have outgrown that. 

We have? 

Not really. Rather, that absolute personal autonomy falls back to a time far earlier than that of Paul, Peter, or Jude. It hearkens back to the words of Satan in Genesis 3:5, when he deceitfully tempted Adam and Eve with the myth of independence of the creature from the Creator. 

There Is No Grace for the Wicked in This Life: Contra "Common Grace"

"For My name's sake, I defer My anger; for the sake of My praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For My sake, for My own sake, I do it, for how should My name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another" -Isaiah 48:9-11

There is a common doctrine among Protestants, even among Reformed protestants, that I reject, that of "common grace." According to its supporters, God loves all and gives grace to all, both elect and reprobate, which enables both to do meritorious good. The primary biblical support for this doctrine is Matthew 5:45, even though that verse doesn't even mention "grace." It says that God is good to all. And of course He is good to all, because God cannot be but good. 

However, Isaiah, in the passage above, tells us that the reprobate continue to be under the judgment of God. The respite they experience now is not a grace to them, but is rather God's restraint of His judgment for the sake of His own glory. The prophet says nothing about God's enabling the wicked to stand off His judgment because of any supposed good in them or love toward them. 

God is no schizophrenic, both loving and hating (see Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 11:5) the reprobate simultaneously. He is not trying to save with one hand those whom He has reprobated with the other. That would be to deny both the rationality and simplicity of God. His mind is single, to set aside the reprobate for His hatred and judgment for eternity. At the same time, His true love and grace to the elect includes His restraint of the wickedness of the reprobate, not for the sake of the reprobate, but for the sake of their elect neighbors.

Is Evangelism Consistent with Calvinism?

 

The Sovereignty of God Leaves No Autonomy for Men

 Sometimes it is funny to talk to people not well-versed in sound biblical theology. When I ask them, "Do you believe in the sovereignty of God?," they always answer, "Of course!" Then, however, the footnotes start coming out, like the small print in a credit card commercial. "But He gives us free will, to choose to sin or not, to believe or not, to do good works or not." So, in reality, those people consider themselves to be sovereign, not God. That causes me to wonder if they have skipped over the large portions of Scripture that say otherwise. 

For example, in II Samuel 24:1, we read these words: "The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them." The account in I Chronicles adds an additional detail: "Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David" (I Chronicles 21:1). So, we have two different writers in their respective books telling us that God had determined to punish Israel but inciting David to sin. God is sovereign over the sins of men. Furthermore, the two books tell us that God uses means to bring about that sin. II Samuel just tells us that David himself is the means. I Chronicles gives us the additional information that He used Satan to incite David. Thus we know that God is sovereign over not just the sins of men, but over the temptations of Satan, as well. 

The story continues: "So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel from the morning until the appointed time. And there died of the people from Dan to Beersheba 70,000 men. And when the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented from the calamity and said to the angel who was working destruction among the people, 'It is enough; now stay your hand.' And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Then David spoke to the Lord when he saw the angel who was striking the people, and said, 'Behold, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done?'..." (II Samuel 24:15-17). The parallel in I Chronicles 21:14-15 says, "So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel, and 70,000 men of Israel fell. And God sent the angel to Jerusalem to destroy it." The important thing to see here is that God had sovereignly incited the sin, yet still punished Israel for it. Also, it was David's sin (as he acknowledges in II Samuel 24:17), but God punishes the entire nation. That is simply because David was the covenant head of the nation; therefore, his sin was imputed to all of those who were covenantally represented by him. We are also again told of God's use of means, this time an angel (probably a parallel to the curse on Egypt in (Exodus 12:23, "destroyer"). 

The issue is very simple: fallen man wants to keep some of the autonomy promised to him by Satan in the fall of Adam (Genesis 3:5). Even the professing Christian struggles to relinquish his false sense of self-ownership. yet, God claims absolute sovereignty, over man, over sin, over Satan, and even over salvation. We must come to see that God's worldview is God-centered, no matter how much we want Him to be us-centered.

Reprobation and the Well-Meant Gospel Offer

 There is a doctrine which has been commonly-held, but not universally-held, among Reformed Christians for hundreds of years. It is usually called the Well-Meant Gospel Offer. According to the doctrine, God offers the Gospel to all men, with the well-meant intention that all receive it, not just the elect. For example, the Dutch Reformed theologian Wilhelmus a Brakel (1635-1711) wrote, "Faith consists in the translation of a soul from self into Christ. Faith consists in receiving Him who offers Himself and who calls and invites every sinner to Himself, the promise being added that those who will come will not be cast out. It finally consists in a reliance of the soul upon Him as the almighty, true, and faithful Savior." 

The doctrine is rejected by the minority, such as the Protestant Reformed Churches. I happen to agree with the minority in this case. 

The problem is the doctrine of reprobation. According to this biblical doctrine (see, for example, Romans 9:21), predestination has two sides, the election of some to salvation and the active rejection of others to damnation. This doctrine is professed by all Reformed believers, including those who hold to the well-meant gospel offer. However, those two doctrines are incompatible. How can we rationally claim that the same God has marked certain sinners for rejection unto everlasting damnation, while at the same time He is supposedly offering those same sinners the opportunity to be saved, with the desire that they be so? Would we suppose that God suffers from multiple-personality disorder? I hope not!

Now, I certainly grant that the Gospel portrays a crucified and resurrected Redeemer who is available to all who will come to Him in sincere faith. However, only the elect will respond to that portrayal, because they alone are redeemed by the Son and called by the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is no conflict between God's decree and His supposed desire. 

Now, a distinction is necessary between the offer as something God supposedly does, and the evangelistic efforts of Christians. When we share the Gospel with unbelievers, we sincerely desire every one of them to be converted. Is there a conflict there? Not at all, because it is not given to men to know or meddle in the secrets of God's decrees. He gives no man the ability to know who is or is not elect. Nor does it lie within the authority of mere men to decide to exclude any sinner, howsoever wicked he may be, from access to the redeeming blood of Jesus. That lies in the purview of God alone.

Hebrews on the Atonement

A question over which I often quarrel with both cultists and fellow Christians is, For whom did Jesus die? And it is an important question. If, as the Arminian says, Jesus died for everyone, even for those in Hell, then there is something more than His blood necessary for salvation. The blood of Jesus is insufficient. If, on the other hand, Jesus died effectually for a certain number, then He is sufficient, i. e., He has provided everything necessary for my salvation, and I have a secure basis for my assurance of salvation.

I want to consider here a verse not usually mentioned in atonement debates, Hebrews 2:16: "Surely it is not angels that He helps, but He helps the offspring of Abraham." The author of the epistle presents us here with two classes of sentient beings, angels and those humans who are the seed of Abraham. This is not meant to imply that there are no other classes of sentient beings, namely men who are not the seed of Abraham. Rather, it merely means that those other classes are not under consideration here.

OK, so we have the writer's assertion that angels were not the objects of the atonement of the cross. We can understand that. In contrast, the objects of the atonement are those men who are the seed, or offspring, of Abraham. Standing alone, that phrase is not very meaningful to the modern man. However, we have not been left unable to determine its meaning: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7). So then, it is men of true faith whom Scripture called the offspring of Abraham. Why? Because of the example of justification by faith alone that he provided.

So, returning to Hebrews, we can substitute the definition for the phrase in the original verse: "Surely it is not angels that He helps, but He helps those justified by faith like Abraham." And that sentence cannot be taken to mean what the Arminian means by atonement. It is a specific group for whom Jesus shed His blood effectually, even as He promised (John 6:39). Not a drop is lost in failure.

Because of Particular Atonement, No Charge Can be Laid Against the Elect

"Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us."
- Romans 8:33-34

The Christian should find great comfort in these verses. There is no one who can maintain a charge against God's elect. Why? Because he has been justified, and Christ Jesus intercedes for him before the throne of the Father. However, it is bad news for the reprobate, because there is no theanthropic Mediator in heaven for him.

These two verses provide a simple description of the doctrine of particular atonement. The believer has a mediator, while the unbeliever does not. The believer can take encouragement from the mediation of Jesus, but the unbeliever cannot.

"This purpose proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect, has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished, and will henceforward still continue to be accomplished, notwithstanding all the ineffectual opposition of the gates of hell, so that the elect in due time may be gathered together into one, and that there never may be wanting a church composed of believers, the foundation of which is laid in the blood of Christ, which may steadfastly love, and faithfully serve Him as their Savior, who as a bridegroom for His bride, laid down His life for them upon the cross, and which may celebrate His praises here and through all eternity" (Canons of Dordt, Head  II, Article 9).

If God Has Determined All Things, Then Is He Responsible for Sin?

Let us be unequivocal: Scripture says that God has determined all things, from the beginning of the universe to eternity future. He Himself says, "I declare the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose'" (Isaiah 46:10). We also read this: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand" (Proverbs 19:21). Short of being deliberately obtuse, we cannot miss the meaning here. God has determined all things according to His own plan, not according to ours. 

OK, so He has determined all things. Does He change course midway, whether because He has thought of a better way or because men have not approved of His plans? "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for He is not a man, that He should have regret" (I Samuel 15:29; see also Numbers 23:19). To claim that God would change His mind is to make Him like us, to bring Him down to man's level. And Scripture says that any such attempt is based on a false view of God. 

Then comes the question, what of the wicked acts of men? God could not have predetermined them, because that would make God responsible for sin, right? Well, no, not right. First, let us say that Scripture affirms that God has predetermined even the wicked acts of men: "Truly in this city [i. e., Jerusalem] there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:27-28). So, in a prayer to God, Peter and John, while addressing God, confess that He had planned all of the events around the suffering and death of Jesus, even in planning the evil actions of Herod and Pilate. But what was the goal in those actions? The atonement of God's people. In other words, our salvation is dependent on God's predestining the evil actions of particular men! 


Look also at Paul's words in Romans 3:7: "If through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?" Using the words of a hypothetical unbeliever, Paul has that unbeliever confess that his lies, his sins, glorify God. "However," the unbeliever pleads, "then I shouldn't be punished for them." The first part is true. His wickedness glorifies God, both through His justice to the unrepentant unbeliever and by His mercy to the repentant elect sinner. However, that wasn't the purpose when the sinner committed his wicked acts, just as Herod and Pilate planned nothing good by their murder of Jesus. That is why God is still just in bringing them under judgment. His bringing about good from their evil is to His praise, not theirs.

And it is also why God cannot be said to be the author of sin.

What Happens to Children When They Die?

This is a hard topic on which to write. I anticipate some negative reaction. However, it is a question I have been asked repeatedly by anti-Calvinists.

First, let us look at the confessional standard: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" (Westminster Confession of Faith X:3). The divines described what happens to elect infants who die. Of course, since they are elect, that would be God's plan for them. What about non-elect infants? On that the divines were silent. Charles Hodge and his son, A. A. Hodge, took that to mean that all infants who die are elect. I think that is presumptuous, taking an argument from silence where it does not lead.

For the Christian, there is extensive biblical justification to believe that his dead child is in Heaven. First, God claims the children of believers for Himself in Ezekiel 16:20-21: "You took your sons and daughters, whom you had borne to Me, and these you sacrificed to them [i. e., idols] to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter that you slaughtered My children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?" When the Israelites had become so given over to idolatry that they even practiced human sacrifice, God's anger was directed at the theft of what belonged to Him by covenant.

And second, what does God promise to these children who are His? "Your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 54:13). Also in Acts 2:39: "The promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." So, in both Testaments, we have a promise from God to be covenantally faithful to the children of believers. Is this a promise that every child of believers will be saved? No, it isn't, as we know both from personal experience and from the biblical examples of Esau and Ishmael.

However, we also have a biblical example of the comfort that covenantal promise is to the believer. When David's first son with Bathsheba died (II Samuel 12:15-23), David took comfort in his assurance that his son would be waiting for him is Heaven: "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (verse 23).

I think that the most-important verse on this issue is I Corinthians 7:14: "The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." Paul tells us that the children of at least one Christian parent are holy. He doesn't say saved. Rather, he speaks of the covenantal connection between the believing parent and the child, such that the child is federally holy on the basis of the parent's faith.

However, we should notice his exact words. Paul speaks negatively. He doesn't just say, "The child with a believing parent is holy." Instead, he adds, that the child would otherwise be "unclean." And this is logical because we know there is no neutral moral state. But what are the consequences to the unbelieving parents regarding their own children?

"Nothing unclean will ever enter it [i. e., the New Jerusalem, v. 10], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life" (Revelation 21:27). Here is where the unbeliever must consider his standing with God, because it affects not just himself but also his children. If he decides that the pleasures of this life outweigh the eternal consequences, can he also say that they outweigh the eternal consequences for his child? Of course, this doesn't mean that every child of an unbeliever will himself be an unbeliever. We know from experience that the Holy Spirit often breaks into the families of unbelievers to bring one to Himself. I myself was such a convert. But the generality can be predicted, just as above with the children of believers.

This is my personal interpretation. Though I consider it a rational conclusion from the relevant Scriptures, I am aware that it goes beyond the confession. Therefore, other Calvinists should not be blamed for my personal opinion. I am especially conscious that I am going against some theological giants when I disagree with the Hodges. All I can say is that the Scriptures compel me.

The Limited Atonement of Arminianism

Arminians often accuse Calvinists of denying the atonement to some people by our biblical claim that it was particular. That is, we Calvinists follow the words of Jesus that He would die for those whom  the Father had given Him, His friends, His sheep (John 6:37-39, etc.), or, in the words of Paul, for His Church (Ephesians 5:25). Yes, we believe that the Groom had the right and responsibility to love His Bride, not strange women (Proverbs 5:15).

However, in denying that biblical truth, the Arminian replaces it with an assertion that the atonement was universal, but only partial. That is, Jesus didn't necessarily die to save anyone. Rather, He died merely to make salvation possible.

So, for what purpose did Jesus die: "She will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Or, "He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (I Peter 2:24-25, cp. Isaiah 52:13-53:12). There are two things evident in these verses. First, that the blood of Jesus was intended to cleanse its objects from sins. And notice the pronouns that Peter uses, "our," "you," and "your." Those are particular pronouns, referring his comment to the audience of his epistle. Who was that? "To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again" (I Peter 1:1-3). Peter was speaking to Christians, not to non-Christians. And second, notice that there is no conditionality in these verses. There is no hemming and hawing about what men must do to make the atonement effectual. In fact, the Apostle even says that it is God who causes us to be born again.

However, the Arminian reads those same verses and blanks out the parts that refute him

So, I will ask these questions of the Arminian. Jesus tells us of men who will "die in their sins" (John 8:21). Then He mentions those whose "sin remains" (John 9:41). If Jesus died for the sins of all men, then why do these men still have sin when they die? Then the Arminian is forced to answer, "because they don't respond in faith." Ah, there it is: the Arminian limited atonement! Jesus died somewhat for all men, but that atonement is insufficient, until the man adds his assent.

So, when the Arminian thinks that he is morally superior because the Calvinist says that Jesus fully and effectually redeemed particular people, he is really suppressing his tacit claim that the atonement of his version of Jesus is so limited that it cannot save anyone without a little help from sinful men.

I deny that the Arminian doctrine is moral at all, much less more so that is the doctrine of Calvinism.

Logic, Fairness, and the Anti-Calvinist

When I run into someone who wants to rail against the doctrine of election - something which happens frequently - he usually takes one of two approaches, one of which is to argue that  it is unfair to discriminate, and the other is to invent a caricature that it means that God refuses salvation to someone who wants it. The caricature is refuted simply by its supposition of an impossibility (John 6:44).

In response to the first, I don't believe that anyone holds such a blatantly humanistic attitude. After all, I don't know of any serious Christian who holds that "fairness" is a biblical value. Besides which, the Scriptures contain an explicit answer to that very argument: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy...  So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and he hardens whomever He wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:14-16, 18-21). Paul tells us that God acts according to His sovereign will. In response, he describes a hypothetical opponent who complains that God is unfair in then judging the sinner to whom God chooses not to extend mercy. Without even giving that argument credence, Paul answers that God, as Creator, has the right to treat His creatures as satisfies Him, not us.

 

I think the real problem is that the opponent of Calvinism doesn't really believe that men deserve judgment to Hell. He will say it under other circumstances, that the unbeliever will go to Hell if he fails to repent. But, at the same time, he secretly believes that the unbeliever deserves to be given repentance, whether he wants it or not.

The answer is not found just in Scripture, but also in reason.

"Out of this race of guilty and polluted sinners, thus justly condemned, God graciously and eternally elected some to life and happiness and glory, while He left the rest in their state of wretchedness and ruin, and determined to inflict upon them the punishment which they justly deserved. The reason why He elected some and passed by others, when all were equally undeserving, is to be referred wholly to Himself - to the counsel of His own will or to His mere good pleasure" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation," emphasis mine).

Thornwell gives the right answer here. It is true that election is not fair. But fairness would send all of the wicked, that is, every member of the human race, to Hell as his deserved judgment. That is really what the anti-Clavinist seeks with his argument. Not that he would admit it, of course. But logically, the conclusion is unavoidable.

Jesus and His Friends, a View of Particular Atonement

In John 15:13-14, that Apostle reports to us these words of Jesus: "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you." The Lord tells us that the highest love is to die for one's friends, a description of what yet lay ahead of Him when He spoke those words. Was He contradicting what we are told elsewhere in Scripture? For example, in Romans 5:8, the Apostle Paul tells us, "God shows His love for us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." No, there is no contradiction. Paul tells us what we were before the application of Christ's atonement, while Jesus describes what we became after that application. We were enemies, but His blood turned us into friends. 

But the part I want to discuss is what Jesus says, that He would soon die on the cross, not for men in general, but for those who would thereby be turned into His friends. That is, those who remain His enemies do so because He did not die for them. 

To my mind, this is one of the biggest differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism teaches - because Jesus taught - that the blood of Jesus is effectual. As He Himself also says, every man whom the Father gave Him to be redeemed would unfailingly be converted (John 6:39). In contrast, Arminianism claims that Jesus died equally for all men in general, so that salvation would be possible for everyone, but certain for no one. If that were so, then it would have been hypothetically possible for not a single person ever to have been saved. And even worse, it also means that the Arminian believes that Jesus died just as much for every person in Hell as He did for every person in Heaven. 

To my mind, that is a grotesque view of the atonement.

And I think these words of Jesus indicate that He never imagined such a thing either, but looked forward to all of the friends that He was gaining for each moment that He suffered on the cross, just as the Father promised Him in prehistory: "Out of the anguish of His soul He shall see and be satisfied; by His knowledge shall the righteous one, My servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and He shall bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11).

Calvinism and the Gift of Faith

One of the fundamental differences between Arminianism and Calvinism is their view of faith. In Arminianism, Jesus died equally for every man in the world, making the offer of salvation, receipt of which is conditioned on a response of faith. In Calvinism, in contrast, Jesus died for a particular mass of men, exclusive of others, and His death provided for every grace required by those men, including the faith to receive that salvation.

So, to the one, faith is a condition on man's part, while, for the other, faith is a means purchased in the atonement, and given by God.

There are several places in Scripture in which faith is descried as given by God, such as Romans 12:3: "By the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." And in Ephesians 2:8: "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." And negatively in II Thessalonians 3:2: "Not all have faith." It is given to some, and not to others.

But the one that I especially want to consider here is Philippians 1:29: "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake." Faith is granted, not something created by men. That is why Jesus could say, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). Contrary to the claims of the Arminian, no man grants his faith to Jesus. Rather, faith is granted to everyone for whom Jesus died.

Esau and Jacob: The Holy Discrimination of God

 I have mentioned before that anti-Calvinists have certain verses which they consider "trump verses" against Calvinism. No matter how many verses a Calvinist cites in support of the doctrines of grace, his opponent will plunk out one of these trump verses and congratulate himself for, supposedly, ending all debate. Of course, the number one verse is John 3:16, which I have addresses here and here.

In this post, I want to address the phrase, "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). Supposedly, this verse says that God does not discriminate between any two people. And in isolation, it might be taken that way, as is the wont of isolated prooftexts. However, doing so ignores the actions that God says that He has taken, making distinctions between people, both as individuals and as groups.

The obvious example, of course, is Romans 9:6-13 (referring back to Malachi 1:2-3): "Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: 'About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.' And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls— she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" This is clearly a discrimination between two people, the twin brothers Esau and Jacob (see, in passing, Genesis, chapters 18-33). God claims the right to choose between Esau and Jacob, even before they were born, before they had done anything good and evil. On what basis? "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion " (Romans 9:15; see also verse 16). That is sovereign election, and God feels no compunction to explain beyond that.

When the anti-Calvinist cites Acts 10:34, he should also look at Acts 15:8-9: "God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and He made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith." Peter is expressing the surprise of the disciples upon learning that God has extended salvation even to the Gentiles, on the same basis as the Jews, i. e., by faith alone. The disciples were astonished at this, because the Jews had always though of God and the Messiah-to-come as their special reserve, not for the unclean Gentiles.

And this explains how God does and does not discriminate between men. He shows no concern for the characteristics which men value, such as wealth or physical beauty. His standard is His own will alone, the ultimate in justice. He tells us this explicitly in His choosing of David to replace the line of Saul on the throne of Israel: "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart" (I Samuel 16:7).

Thus we see that God is certainly discriminatory, and the plunking down of Act 10:34 to claim otherwise is to ignore the message of Scripture for debate points.

For Whom Does Jesus Pray? Particular Atonement in the Words of Jesus

"When Jesus had spoken these words, He lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said, 'Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son that the Son may glorify You, since You have given Him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on earth, having accomplished the work that You gave Me to do. And now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed" (John 17:1-5).

I deal often with people who claim that Jesus loves every person in the world equally, and that He has done everything He can to save everyone, but He leaves it to our free will to reject Him. Those claims are humanistic nonsense and refuted by the words of Jesus Himself. 

We have here Jesus, speaking to His Father. About what? "The work that you gave Me to do." What was that work? "To give eternal life." To whom? "All whom You have given Me" (compare His words in John 6:37-39). So we see His own view of the work He came to do and for whom He was to do it. 

But He continues. 

"I have manifested Your name to the people whom You gave Me out of the world. Yours they were, and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they know that everything that You have given Me is from You. For I have given them the words that You gave Me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. All Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, which You have given Me, that they may be one, even as We are one. While I was with them, I kept them in Your name, which You have given Me. I have guarded them" (John 17:6-12a). He continues to refer to those whom the Father had given Him. Here he adds that that group of people already belonged to the Father, who then gave them to the Son to be redeemed. When did this occur? We know from other Scriptures, especially Ephesians 1:4, that this was before the foundation of the world. that is, in prehistory. And these same men He keeps secure, as the Father also does (compare John 10:28-29).

So, we have the words of Jesus Himself that He was not concerned about every person in the world. Rather, He was concerned about a particular group of people, those who had belonged to the Father, and whom the Father had given to Him to be redeemed. That group is not of the world, for whom Jesus did not pray. Therefore, we see the words of Jesus, rejecting the common assertions of the modern evangelical. He never loved all men in the world. He did not die for every man in the world. Furthermore, He explicitly states that His death would be effectual : "They have believed" (see also John 6:37). Therefore, not only has He done everything that He can, as the evangelical asserts, but He has done everything necessary for the salvation of those for whom it was intended.

Are His words limited to the Apostles, who were with Him at that time? "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word" (verse 20). No, He prays for all Christians down through history, even to the time of His return.

My point here is to rescue the Gospel from the syrupy, man-centered drivel into which it has been perverted by modern American evangelicalism. It is a glorious thing, lifting up the mercy and love of Jesus, while casting down the pride and self-righteousness of men!